Commons:Bots/Requests/UserRightsBot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

UserRightsBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Eatcha (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Handle request for rights, general help archiving notifying and removing from the RFR page.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): low, depends on total requests

Source code: https://github.com/eatcha-wikimedia/commons-rfr-archive-bot/blob/master/main.py (The MIT License)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python3

Eatcha (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

pandakekok 3 times a day. 6,14,22 (:33) UTC. But only after it completes the trial, it will run anytime I wish before it gets approved. Tests runs are important, and I help when I've free time. :) //Eatcha (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably because the bot is saying they granted the autopatrol. It's supposed to be the admins only doing that. pandakekok9 11:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The template is obviously - at least to me - intended for cases where the user requested autopatrol or is active in a relevant area. In the actual cases the users are confronted with facts they likely don't care about and they never requested. This is spam. --Krd 11:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krd Okay, I will check last edit before adding the message. (If edited in last 30 days, then Yes else No ?) -- Eatcha (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about no notify at all because the content related user doesn't need to know anything at all about autopatrol? --Krd 11:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krd Okay will not notify if autopatrol but what about other rights ? -- Eatcha (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What other rights? For the notifications, I think they should in any case be done, if at all, by the user who assigned the rights and who then watches the talk page for a moment for any followup questions. --Krd 16:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd prefer if the bot could be named archivebot, not userrightsbot, because it will bot be a not who manages user rights. (It's not your intention to manage user rights, is it?) --Krd 16:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I am collecting data for all users listed at COM:RFR, and making a dataset for identifying what features are found in an eligible candidate and what features are not. I will not confirm whether I have plans to run an intelligent bot because If I confirm it now, I will face multiple questions and I can't handle that. Humans can't actually check everything about a user, but a bot can and maybe in the future someone could train something like that, it could be me or someone else. // Eatcha (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple requests to archive at once it would be appreciated if you could archive them all at once. Those of us on IRC get a notice every time that page is edited. Lots of edits = lots of messages. The talk page notification is rather irrelevant. They get a notice when their user rights are changed. If they are applying for it they don't need a talk page notice telling them what it does. --Majora (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries have a limit. Removing multiple candidates in single edit = big edit summary. Summaries like " Archiving is too vague ". // Eatcha (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have to put the names in the summary? Summaries should be...well...summaries. "Archiving completed requests to WIKILINK" would be acceptable. --Majora (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's much easier to identify all the sections removed by bot along with the status of the request. Tidy and in order, not everyone makes hundreds of requests at once, the archives proves it. And where bot's can write a detailed summary they should, very helpful in debugging. Eatcha (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With my bots doing archiving, it turned a good idea to write the archive first and then remove the original request, because this approach is more fail-safe against any connection problems or edit conflicts. Double archiving, in worst case, is better than lost sections. What do you think? --Krd 16:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edits, I am doing archiving stuff first and then removing from the main list(COM:RFR). And you are correct about being fail-safe, there are multiple sections and it's not the easiest job to identify where the candidate's nomination is exactly in the page and there's a good chance that there will be that one user who will try their best to trick the bot. The bot will also try self diagnosis, add helper comments if removed by newbies. If not possible to Guess the exact position of helper comments will notify on COM:AN for administrator's to check for vandalism or newbie edits. // Eatcha (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I saw it the other way, but it appears I was mistaken. Thank you. --Krd 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on starting a slow and limited test when the bot is unblocked? --Krd 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here, as long as the bot doesn't message users yet. pandakekok9 03:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krd Agreed, how many test edits required ? less than 30/20/10/5 ?. Bot will be throttled at 2 edits per minute. Is there any requirement to stop if the bot edits slowly, of course I will try to ensure it doesn't break anything. COM:RFR was last archived at 20:29, 25 March 2020‎ by Majora. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think 20 will be sufficient. --Krd 07:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't use all upper case words in the edit summary. Logically the status should be mentioned after the subject, not before. --Krd 08:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't make request at the admin noticeboard with the bot. Bot problems shall be fixed by the operator and not cause additional work to others. --Krd 08:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, will cancel the admin noticeboard part. 23 test edits made. Including cases where newbies remove the helper templates. Will move the status to the end (in lowercase). // 08:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    27 edits made, last 2 with updated (lowercase) statuses . // Eatcha (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the bot wasn't approved for further testing yet? I shouldn't have mass patrolled the bot's edits in RTRC... pandakekok9 02:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will learn from this experience to prevent further problematic errors. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I didn't added a simulation to the script. As a punishment for violation your TOS I will not make any new bot requests for next 2 months. If that's not enough 4 months ? I messed up. I won't run this bot anymore, until approved. You may block the bot till then. // Eatcha (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to punish yourself too much. You recognized the error and took responsibility of it. That's a sign of a good bot operator. :) pandakekok9 03:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The restrictions you have set for yourself are unnecessary - the goal of my comment was as a concerned admin who didn't want to block an unauthorized block again. Thanks for the transparency. If you need to test it further or recognize you have made mistakes, its better just to openly communicate it here (i.e. My bot made an additional 20 edits by mistake). ~riley (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have no objections. pandakekok9 09:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approved per discussion. --Krd 10:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bots/Requests/UserRightsBot&oldid=410268365"