Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 6

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

DeltaQuadBot 6

Operator: DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:47, Tuesday, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Github

Function overview: RevDels non-free orphaned revisions

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot, Replacement request

Edit period(s): Daily, maybe more

Estimated number of pages affected: Unlimited

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a sysop flag (Yes/No): No (needed)

Function details: Files that have been tagged with the Orphaned non-free revisions template for over 7 days populate the category Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old - often the result of DatBot 6. The bot will revision delete the unused non-free files, leaving just the current file showing. Finally the template is removed from the description. Bot need Admin Flag as it uses Revision Delete.

This will be an exact replica of RonBot.

Discussion

Adminbots and WP:AN listings placed for commentary. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: do you anticipate any issues with your other active tasks (for example if you were relying on page protection to prevent an edit that may now be able to be completed, will grants need to be regenerated)? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All three active tasks have specific pages they edit only, they will not interfere with any protections. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: what authentication mechanism will you be using for this task? Will you be able to additionally secure this bot with 2FA? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Task-based individual bot password with 2FA on the main account (as my main account already has had 2FA for ages). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be clear the bot account would be secured with 2FA, but still use bot passwords seperated between admin and regular tasks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered creating a separate adminbot account for this task, so your other tasks won't be running with admin rights? Anomie ⚔ 22:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a possibility, but with Bot Passwords, it makes it easier to restrict what rights are able to be used, and I can even force this task to only use certain admin tools. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For information on bot passwords, see Wikipedia:Using AWB with 2FA. These passwords have 2 advantages over normal login:

It requires knowing the user-generated bot name (distinct from user name, not shown in logs) in addition to the password, which is computer-generated
The user can restrict the rights of the bot password. For example, a bot password under an admin account can allow deleting pages but not creating them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared up above that yes, I'd be using the bot password with 2FA on the bot account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine given this is replacing an existing proven adminbot task. As it is a replacement, should the admin right be removed from RonBot after it is added to DeltaQuadBot? WJBscribe (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: I'd want to hear from User:Ronhjones first. RonBot would otherwise maintain task authorization to restart, and I'm not seeing much problem with these bots operating in parallel. If the entire bot, or just the task is being retired, removing then unnecessary permissions is ideal. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ron (and his bot) have been inactive for over a month. I was contemplating taking over the task as well since he is inactive. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: same type of comment, I'm not seeing any collision problems between multiple bots doing this task - we probably don't need TOO many of them, but have a working pair shouldn't be an issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: is the code written such that, if both bots ran at the same time, there wouldn't be any conflict or significant diuble work? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There would be overlap in work, but I'm not sure about the potential for collisions. Either way if Ron did bring it back, I'd be willing to defer to him. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to do so now since DQ's on it. Just wanted to note that I also saw the need for another bot to take over the task in Ron's absence. Regular edit conflicts should handle the file page edits. The only possible place for conflicts would be doing the RD at the same time. At worst, there could (untested hypotheses based on a human admin being able to do the same thing for regular deletion) be multiple log entries with the second won not actually doing anything. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Estimated number of pages affected: Unlimited - I understand this is an open-ended job, however based on prior bots can you estimate the edits/actions per day/run? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: if approved for trial, are you ready to start? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xaosflux: I would start with a manual run, then a run around the start of the UTC day every day, and see how that goes and adjust as needed. Also would this be a dry trail or a wet trial? A dry one I'd need a day or two to modify the code to output messages only. Otherwise I'm good whenever. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wet, with careful supervision and review. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see anything of concern here - this is replacing an approved adminbot using the same code, by a highly trusted user. Let's see a brief shakedown. Please make sure that each run is carefully supervised as Xaosflux mentions above. Approved for trial (3 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: @SQL and DeltaQuad: - temporary admin access has been added to support the trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, round 1 is running. I forgot to change the edit summaries, so I'll do that when the run is done. I'm also going to be looking to run this every hour so the backlog is kept to a minimum and little resources are used on Toollabs with one larger one holding up other tasks. The first run took 30 minutes. The code could also use a massive cleanup, without affecting any operations. I will get around to that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With round 2, it took just over 7 minutes. Partially because it was redoing work from earlier today. I made a change to the template involved to recategorize things, so the bot would not be reprocessing what it's already flagged for human intervention. No other problems reported so far. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick 3rd run for 17 files, and it took 3.5 minutes. Definitely better timing, but the more the load is reduced the better. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A quick fourth run was completed earlier within about 30 seconds. If the category is normally this empty, then I can see why this was only ran once a day. I also provided clarification on my talkpage on what the bot flags on. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This morning we had a fifth run with 30 files in the category, and it took ~5 minutes to complete. I likely won't be running it again manually before the trail is complete, so Trial complete.. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Approval?

The bot has completed it's trial - and I know that especially with adminbots, we typically give a fair bit of time for comments. The category is getting backlogged again already - and I haven't seen an issue with any of the bots deletions that I've checked thusfar. I know it's extremely unusual (But this is already an extremely unusual situation - a bot running on already approved, and proven code operated by a highly trusted editor), but would it be possible to allow the bot a 'provisional approval' to continue operating while we wait for comments? SQL ^{Query me!} 04:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this is good to go. Any outstanding concerns, Xaosflux? Indeed this same task and code has been battle-tested in the wild under RonBot, so risk seems low and it's a much needed task. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to "second" this, but you beat me to it MusikAnimal. So....I guess that leaves me to "third" it?

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned with the category getting a little backlogged while we wait on the approval. That said, as an admin that frequently works with non-free media, everything looks good to me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As another admin who deals with non free stuff I've looked through the files the bot has tagged for human review and am satisfied that it is working as required, so I'd be in favour of giving the bot the green light. Nthep (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't see a "backlog" being an argument, but I haven't seen any issues here either. @SQL: if you think it's good to go I won't muck around with a "provisional approval" process - if you want it to be monitored for a while, then use 'extended trial' for say a month. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Run the bot, let people comment, and we'll see if there are any issues at the end of June. As a

Bureaucrat note: I have extended the temporary admin status of the bot for the month. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I am moving the bot to a server tomorrow to run on its own. I have been running the bot manually by hand each day and supervising it's results. Without any issues, I'm going to leave it to run unsupervised and not dependent on me. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I am having to minimize my activity, I do not want to forget about this and have it cause issues. Given there has been absolutely zero comments since the trial extension, I would like to request that this be considered Trial complete. and we look at full approval. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd back giving the bot full approval. I've been spot checking its edits as well as looking at the files referred for human checking and I haven't seen any issues. Nthep (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.