Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 4

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

MadmanBot

Operator: Madman bum and angel.

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic.

Programming Language(s): PHP.

Function Summary: Adds {{pp-semi-protected|expiry=<expiry>|small=yes}} to semi-protected pages that do not transclude any other appropriate semi-protection template. If DumbBOT goes offline and so ordered by operator, will assume a "clone" role, removing semi-protection and protection templates from non-protected pages.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous.

Edit rate requested: maxlag = 5.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y.

Function Details: When the module is first started, it will scan backwards in the protection log for pages whose semi-protection has not yet expired. It then queues those pages and will check them for transclusion of an appropriate semi-protection template.

If a semi-protection template does not exist on a page that is semi-protected, the bot will add the most appropriate semi-protection template (e.g., {{pp-semi-template}} on templates, {{pp-semi-usertalk}} on user talk pages, {{pp-semi-protected}} if there is no more appropriate template).

When scanning log events is complete (the module scans back until the point at which it was last terminated or six months, whichever is lesser), the module will then monitor new protection log events for recently semi-protected pages.

Discussion

You say it will add pp-protected - how will this be acheived on fully protected pages? An editprotected request? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You mean protected pages can't be edited?! Since when?! *facepalm* Don't mind me; it's been a long day... I'm tempted to say it won't work with protected pages at all, then. It's much more likely that protected pages would have a template than that semi-protected pages would, and the original BOTREQ only concerned semi-protected pages. The BRFA has been updated to reflect this. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will this bot go back and cleanup after itself when the protections expire? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed DumbBOT would, if no one else noticed, and when it's in "clone" mode, it'll do it for all articles. But it can also log which articles it's tagged, and automatically queue them for untagging. Which would be preferred? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend just cleaning up after itself, it's probably easier and doesn't rely on another bot. I would recommend creating a log of tagging/untaggings anyway - much easier to see what it's doing. Also, I would recommend just adding a protected edit request to the talkpage, if its been fully protected for more than 10 minutes. That's something that can be done easily enough, and draws a bit more attention to it. Also, how will it react to them just being in the category, not using the template? Will it remove that as well? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 more questins :) (Questions are good, it means your bot is interesting!) — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you have a method for identifying pages that were (though incorrectly) tagged with a subst'd tag?
Have you considered using the size=small (or whatever it is now) setting for the template?

I apologise for answering for you, but the answer to 2 is in the request - it says it adds small=yes. Also, I believe for 1, I dont know what they do, but I assume you could scan the category. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has been incorrectly subst:ed, it will be added to the queue, but when attempting to add the tag, the module will detect the subst:ed tag (I have a regex for each template in the pp-semi series.) Here's a question for reviewers: Should the bot replace that tag with a transclusion or just leave it alone? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the tag, having a bot that could easily fix something ignore it is a bad idea. For the tagging, untagging, and clone behaviour,

Approved for trial (20). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. If the clone is a direct code copy of the other bot, I will speedy approve that task. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete – 50 pages tagged [1]. Sorry; I missed the part about 3epm max; I used maxlag=5 as usual. I'm a bad BAGger. >.> — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this request, the bot no longer edits in the User: namespace. — madman bum and angel 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the trial was complete, so with the new settings, let it loose.

Approved for trial (3 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Does this patrol the protection log for pages to tag, or just look through the protected pages list (if there is one)? Lastly, will it replace full protected tags with semi if they are incorrect? Or will it add the semi below? Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've now deliberately narrowed this task's scope. What it does satisfies the initial bot request and is really all it needs to do -- semi-protected pages with protected templates are rare, and subst:ed templates are virtually nonexistent (the bot found none except in users/administrators' sandboxes). I'll have it log them, and if they become prevalent enough, I'll have it do something about them. But in the meantime, it'll simply add {{pp-semi-protected}} to semi-protected pages. — madman bum and angel 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Continue with the extended 3 day trial. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of doing this? This bot serves no useful purpose. All it is doing is flooding watchlists to add a tag that has been eclipsed by Special:Protectedpages and is added only for certain purposes at the discretion of the person protecting the page or other editors. If you think that a little lock should be displayed in the corner of every page, make it happen in the MediaWiki software; don't run a bot that makes useless edits. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have currently blocked the bot due to this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, the bot does not need to be blocked. It does more then this, and hence you blocked it from doing other tasks it is approved to do. ~ Wikihermit 23:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the bot needs an opt-out mechanism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked for now, btw. Cbrown1023 talk 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opt-out mechanism would be done how? By protecting admin? Either way, when I blocked the bot, it was doing none of its other tasks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as setting a page to "off". See User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Control panel for an example. ~ Wikihermit 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot obeys {{bots}} and {{nobots}}, for the record. :\ — madman bum and angel 00:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from the bot's talk page)

Please stop. Adding these templates is unnecessary and simply floods watchlists and adds clutter to the pages. These pages are already listed in Special:Protectedpages and the information about protected pages is already displayed to anyone who attempts to edit them. —Centrx→talk • 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This task was requested by a user at Wikipedia:Bot requests and approved for trial by the Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group. I apologize for the inconvenience and I am certain that your opposition will be taken into consideration when making the final decision as to whether or not to approve this task.

Thank you, — madman bum and angel 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful, categorising makes it a lot easier to find stats etc. Please bring this up on a page such as the talk page of RFPP, or another protection-related page, and ask for comment here. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this task so urgent that it needs to run at 14-16 edits per minute? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the task is done now, so... as noted above, it uses maxlag=5, which is a non-aggressive value, according to the developers, and gives humans priority. — madman bum and angel 03:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems to be a bit controversial, please post notices on the talk pages of RFPP, bringing users here, for comment. You may use the template below, just modified for a different message. If discussion seems in favour, then I will approve. Sorry for the delays! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I will add the notice myself. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by admins/other users from RFPP and related processes

Withdrawn – It's already done with pages semi-protected in the last six months, and it seems that the task is controversial. There's little more to be done here. — madman bum and angel 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.