Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 13

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.

MadmanBot 13[edit]

Operator: Madman (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:21, Tuesday February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic.

Programming language(s): PHP.

Source code available: No.

Function overview: Generates Wikipedia:Inactive administrators reports; delivers messages and e-mails inactive administrators as appropriate.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Inactive administrators

Edit period(s): Twice monthly.

Estimated number of pages affected: 3 + 2 * (# of inactive administrators)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No.

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

Function details: At the beginning of the month, the bot will identify all users who meet the inactive administrator criteria (no edits or log actions for at least twelve months) via a SQL query. A report will be generated in the appropriate section of [[Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/yyyy]]. The bot will then deliver and send the boilerplate talk page message and e-mail to all identified users and update the report to indicate it has done so. (So bureaucrats are assured that the users have been notified appropriately, the bot automatically forwards the copy of the e-mail it receives to wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org with all headers intact.) One week before the beginning of the next month, the bot will deliver and send the "imminent" talk page message and e-mail and update the report to indicate it has done so.

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (1 run). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. After reading all of that stuff, this seems fairly uncontroversial and well supported. I'm going to approve for trial (1 full run, with all the notices, emails, etc...), which (if possible) should happen on the 1rst of the month. I will want confirmation from both the bot op and a bureaucrat that the bot is working as intended before giving full approval. All emails should explicitly mention that the emails/notices were sent by a bot, and the place to report bugs/suggestions/malfunctions should be equally explicit. That's on top of any other support and contact information that bureaucrats wish to include, if any. I leave the content of on-wiki notices to the discretion of the bot-op/bureaucrats.

The bot could then run on the 1rst and 15th of every month. The exact dates are rather irrelevant, but it would be nice for people to have fixed dates for runs so they can predict them. Obviously the frequency of runs should be tweaked according to 'crat wishes if they ever change their mind (i.e. think once a month is enough, or that once per week is better). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I planned on the first of the month and a week before the end of the month because that seems to be what the bureaucrats currently do (per Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#Criteria, the second notification is when desysopping is "imminent"). But of course that can be tweaked anytime according to their wishes. I'll be ready to trial this on the 1st; I'll work on appropriate changes to the notifications' language at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Cheers! — madman 19:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look fine to me. MBisanz ^talk 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates: The report ran successfully, though it ran under my non-bot account first, so I reverted and ran it again. All last edit values are correct, but for some reason some last log values are not. I went through all administrators' logs and confirmed they still met the inactive administrator criteria. Notification then ran successfully; all talk page messages were delivered and all e-mails were sent. The bot reported it hadn't sent any e-mails when it updated the report because it was looking for the incorrect result value for success; I updated the report manually with e-mails I'd gotten a copy of, either from MediaWiki or from the forwarding script; I can confirm the seven remaining users definitely do not have e-mail set, as I was watching the results from the API. The forwarding script should have been forwarding the MediaWiki messages to both me and wikien-bureaucrats; however, I only got a copy of one or the other. I suspect either Sendmail on the Toolserver being wonky or my .forward file being incorrect (I suspect the latter; I meant for it to deliver to both my normal e-mail address and the script but I suspect if was delivered to my normal e-mail address before the script was called it didn't bother with the script.) I'm hoping wikien-bureaucrats got all 28 forwards but if not, I can forward the 17 that they would have not received. This definitely will be fixed by the next round of notifications, and having confirmed that I believe next month this can be run fully automatically. Cheers, — madman 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the logs and my script did forward the e-mail all 28 times (x2) and got a successful result each time. So I might poke a Toolserver root and see what's going on (alternatively my not getting all of them could be Google Mail's fault). — madman 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, we got all 28 emails... :-/ Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, that's... good? I'm open to other suggestions for how bureaucrats can confirm the e-mails were sent appropriately; pretty much all discussion on WP:BN regarded e-mailing a copy to wikien-bureaucrats, which is why I did. :/ — madman 01:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, yeah, the flood of emails was just, well... floody, but I'm sure it'll be a one-time thing due to the first run of the bot. The Toolserver seems to be very reliable with the .forward stuff, so as long as you get it I think you can safely assume we got it as well. One possible idea would be to have the bot post to BN something like "I just ran and sent out X emails, please confirm" and then we'll let you know if the count doesn't match up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's because two months were missed; normally it's like eight. It can post to WP:BN as you suggest and I'll also see if I can have it send one e-mail with all of the MediaWiki copies as attachments with the original headers. I think that'd be the best possible solution. I'll try to get that working before the next round of notifications so there'll be no more flooding. :) — madman 01:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be nice to try, although I'm not sure how well Mailman will handle attachments, even if they're all emails. It's rather notorious for sucking at everything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true; it depends on Mailman configuration, specifically whether it's set to scrub non-text attachments. No harm in sending a test e-mail within a few days (clearly marked test of course!) to see.

— madman 04:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 run). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Alright, well I'm not exactly following what went wrong or what exactly went right about those emails, but it seems obvious more trialing is needed before giving this the full thumbs up. I expect the next run to take Hersfold's feedback (as well that of other crats' if they said something) into account, obviously. And if it's not already included, it might also be smart for the bot to create some kind of report about who got notified by email, and who doesn't have an email linked to their account. But that last part are just my two cents. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a summary of all of the above is since there were 28 inactive administrators (we skipped a couple months of this task), 28 e-mails were sent to the mailing list and that's kind of spammy. The report you mention already exists; see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#April 2012 for the bot's report. Hersfold, can you let me know if other 'crats have commented within the mailing list? Thanks! — madman 22:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's going to be different next time? A single email to the mailing list detailing everything? Or just fewer emails? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to send one e-mail with all the individual e-mails as attachments. I think it's important for verification purposes that all of the e-mails have all of their original headers. This is easy to do. However, I'm going to have to send a test e-mail sometime this week to see if Mailman is going to scrub the attachments. — madman 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the other crats and some users feel that it is essential a crat verify that the emails were sent by being able to view the headers, but if Madman shows me on-wiki that he left the notes and tells me he sent the emails, I would trust him because the action is so easily reversed. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also leaning towards posting the e-mails with all headers on the Toolserver in a public_html directory and then sending one e-mail advising wikien-bureaucrats how and where they can be reviewed. This would actually simplify the code considerably, as the e-mail would barely have to be parsed and wouldn't have to be translated, whereas sending an e-mail with all of them as attachments would actually complicate it quite a bit. — madman 03:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the point in that given if any mistake is made the users can just ask to get the bit back at any point as specified by policy? :S Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to run the second round of notifications today, it being a week before 1 April, but as they only have to be sent when deactivation is "imminent" and I'm quite busy today, I might end up doing it tomorrow instead. — madman 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second batch of notifications has been sent out by the bot; all talk page messages and e-mail messages were sent successfully. The only bobbles were while updating the report, due to a typo, the diff link didn't include the revid (fixed), and I only came up with the clever idea of linking to a copy of the e-mail after all was said and done (hindsight is 20/20). All input on this trial is welcome, here and at the BRFA! — madman 00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Again hindsight is 20/20, but a second check for inactivity should have been done before sending out the second batch of notifications in case some administrators were prompted by the first notification to become active again. Most were not (only responding to the notification on their user talk page), but those who were should not have been bothered a second time. My apologies. I'll update the code to do a second check for inactivity and remove administrators who are active again (either there's a recent log entry or edit to something other than user talk page). Update: Looks like this only affected Veinor; I removed the talk page notice. — madman 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first of the month very soon. Will there be another trial? Josh Parris 14:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh; I must have missed your message – I was just about to ask this myself. Could I be approved for trial or could the task be approved? The bureaucrats seem happy with how it's gone. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Inactive administrators. — madman 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of Mike, Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Just keep hitting it with sticks until the dang thing works. I got a hammer I can lend you if you need it. Josh Parris 12:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, everything works; I'd just like to add some last "like-to-haves" like automatic links to the copies of e-mails and such. — madman 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First run went beautifully as expected, including automatic links to e-mails and the other "like-to-haves". See everyone in three weeks or so. (The second run's code is exactly the same as that for the first run, except for the content of the messages and the inactive checks in the reporting code.)

— madman 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: trusted, experienced op who's emailing admins and 'crats and has only himself to blame for when he gets fried down to a crisp. Josh Parris 12:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this means. I haven't been fried down to a crisp yet and don't expect to be; also, I'm not e-mailing 'crats anymore. Cheers, — madman 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without administrator permissions, won't this bot wrongly notify (and log as inactive) an administrator who has edited only pages which were since deleted—so only recorded on Special:DeletedContributions? AGK [•] 23:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the bot queries the Toolserver's database directly, it doesn't matter that it's not an administrator; it can check the archive table for an administrator's last deleted edit. Now, it doesn't currently do so, as it seems to me that'd be quite the edge case (an administrator still being active but all edits in the past year have been deleted), but I can make it do so if you'd be more comfortable with that. Cheers, — madman 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Ran its final task of the month beautifully today. It automatically removed Rhobite from the list as he no longer meets the removal criteria. — madman 17:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would approve this, but I think I've been too much of a cheerleader to be seen as neutral, so I'll go poke someone. MBisanz ^talk 14:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Everything seems kosher. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:57, 26 April 2012 (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.