Bots noticeboard

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Wikipedia (also including other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software). Although this page is frequented mainly by bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

For non-urgent issues or bugs with a bot, a message should be left on the bot operator's talk page. If discussion with the operator does not resolve the issue or the problem is urgent and widespread, the problem can be reported by following the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. This is not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. General questions about the MediaWiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.) should be asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

sboverride userrightEdit

How would I get User:GreenC bot the new sboverride userright? c.f. T36928 recently closed resolved. -- GreenC 20:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, that's a neat user right. User:AAlertBot could use it since it occasionally encounters urls users used that it cannot report and has to trim the report. I spent way too long fixing it when I first encountered this because I assumed bots would surely be exempt from this. I doubt there's any process yet for granting the right though. —  HELLKNOWZ  TALK 21:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd probably need to lobby for the permission to be added to an existing user group such as "bot", or for the creation of a new user group such as "sboverride". Any preference? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably should just get added to bot user group. Izno (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot user group is "trusted" enough to have sboverride added to it imho — this is proposed at T313107TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question is if there is a case when it would be desirable to block a bot's edit due to the blacklist? —  HELLKNOWZ  TALK 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IIRC (and I may not), if I try to fix a typo in a section that contains a blacklisted URL, I can't save the edit, even if I am not editing near the URL. If that workflow still exists, it is frustrating. If bots can add blacklisted URLs but regular editors are then unable to edit the sections that contain those URLs, that would be undesirable IMO. If I am misdescribing or misremembering the workflow, or if I am misunderstanding this conversation, let me know in a nice way and I will strike this comment.Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[...] the link filtering is based on what links existed before the edit vs. what links exist after (exist meaning interpreted as an external link by the software). Do you have any evidence that an edit that did not try to add a link was prevent by this extension? See the code - this part makes it so that if the page already existed, the links that are checked are only those that were added in the current end. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
— m:Requests for comment/Allow sysops to override the spam blacklist

So, it looks like you don't recall correctly. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that; that's twice today that you have set me straight. Maybe I'm thinking of trying to revert vandalism, section blanking, or other undesirable edits and being stopped because I would be restoring a blacklisted link. I can't think of a situation where a bot would put a human editor in such a situation, so we're probably OK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question is if there is a case when it would be desirable to block a bot's edit due to the blacklist? AnomieBOT's rescuing of orphaned references. It would probably be better if the bot didn't reinsert blacklisted links, but continue to complain on its talk page for humans to do a proper removal. Anomie 01:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could probably theoretical construct such a bot. But in general, I think whatever bots are doing, if it's an approved task, overrides those concerns.
I wouldn't let an AWB user overide the blacklist, but an AWB bot should be able to plow through. IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't we just create a dedicated sboverride group instead of speculating about whether there is some bot that might be harmed by having the right? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could theoretically create a bot that has already existed for 14 years? Anomie 17:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up: bots were finally granted the sboverride right today in gerrit:923728 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On March 2, I offered feedback on how to improve the proposed CircularRedirectsBot (talk · contribs) bot in this thread, but it has received no attention from anyone else since then. There are a few other WP:BRFA threads that have not been updated in a long time; for example, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WegweiserBot is marked as "in trial", but has not been updated since January 8. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: For requests that have been open for more than a month, would it be helpful to the BAG and/or the bot ops to add {{BotOnHold}} if we're waiting on the operator, or adding {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} if we're waiting for the BAG? GoingBatty (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps in some cases, especially with a proposal awaiting approval for a second trial. In this case of CircularRedirectsBot, I seek to draw attention to the developer of the proposed bot to comment on and implement a proposed fix for a bug that happened during the last trial, and then a BAG to approve a new trial. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty: It seems that the bot's owner, Magnus Manske (talk · contribs), hasn't been very active lately, with only 4 edits thus far this year. Now what? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Now we hope the bot op responds to your message. GoingBatty (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MalnadachBot -- owner indeffed, what now?Edit

I note that User:MalnadachBot's operator has been indefinitely blocked, as of today, and so too has the bot (apparently for some sort of checkuser business, with them having secretly been an LTA).

MalnadachBot has the highest editcount of any account on Wikipedia, and currently runs a good number of tasks, so what the heck are we going to do about that? Is there a fallback set up for this? jp×g 01:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty good with AWB and regex so I can recreate a couple of the tasks the bot was doing. I just started a new job so it might be a day or two until I can submit something. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 03:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a huge pile of Linter errors waiting to be fixed at User:MalnadachBot/Signature submissions. Some will be easier to fix than others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also willing to take over tasks as necessary. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to its page only two tasks were active, and even most of the past tasks were on the general topic of fixing linting errors. We already have other linter error fixing bots, such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 41, created in part due to past concern over the way MalnadachBot was performing the task. The one other active task was for blanking IP talk pages of IPs not active in 5 years. Anomie 11:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has anyone ever seriously considered having the linter skip pages whose title matches /\/Archive/? User:MalnadachBot has already rendered permanently unusable Wikipedia's functionality to search old discussions by date last modified, since they've all been modified within the past year, all by User:MalnadachBot, so I suppose the damage is already done, and I'm probably just being an old busted grouch who thinks that old webpages should look old and busted, but it seems like an awful lot of work for very little benefit apart from emptying maintenance categories that don't seem necessary in the first place. Folly Mox (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support restrictions on pages that are eligible for lint error fixes. Pages in article space are the only pages that have a critical need for these errors to be fixed. Active (non-archived, non-historical) policy/guideline type pages in WP space are probably a high priority too. Beyond that, the benefit of fixing these lint errors by editing each page is outweighed by the annoyance and damage it causes to watchlists, page histories, automated notification systems, search functionality, and a host of other areas. The problem with filtering pages by /\/Archive/ is that it the filter would still allow a lot of inappropriate pages to be modified, like every XfD that has ever taken place in the history of WP (which are never "archived" in a way that changes their page title). I think that rather than trying to come up with a way to exclude pages that shouldn't be "de-linted" (if that's a term), we should come up with a way to generate the list of pages that should be de-linted. Fixing this problem by editing each page is an inefficient and unsustainable solution. Imagine 10 years from now, when WP has a 200 million pages, and the <span> tag gets deprecated. Are we going to make 200 million edits to address that problem? Or would we come up with a more rational way to solve the problem? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scottywong, I feel this has been discussed ad nauseam. There has not been consensus to restrict the task despite the previous discussions on it. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just expressing my opinion and support for Folly Mox's statement. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I completely disagree. Most of the de-linting is preparing for a potential breakage in the far future. If that breakage ever happens, we'd like to have the number of pages that break as low as possible. The frequently edited pages will be relatively easy to fix, but we shouldn't let everything else break just because people rarely look at it. If something in the future causes many historical versions of talk pages to break (like the changes requiring closing tags like </font> did to my RfA) then fixing the archives to be readable is a good thing to do, and should be done systematically (page by page, not signature by signature, but that's a different discussion). —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]