Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Android Mouse Bot 4 2


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Android Mouse Bot 4
Operator: Android Mouse

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): C

Function Summary: Ability to edit protected pages on the Talk, User talk, and Wikipedia Talk namespaces.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Depends to semi-daily.

Edit rate requested: 5 edits per minute

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

Function Details: The bot currently fixes internal link rot on several commonly archived pages. The problem is, it is unable to fix rotted links on protected pages. Many admins commonly protect their archived talk pages and some who leave wikipedia or are blocked, commonly have their talk pages protected. This means the bot will never be able to fix the broken links on those pages. For a more technical account of how it fixes the links see its original request for approval, and optionally check out some of its recent diffs.

Discussion
I understand requests for a bot running with elevated privledges are commonly denied, but all that is needed is the ability for it to edit protected pages in the Talk, User talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces, not any of the other privledges that a sysop has.

It is probably even further frowned upon of having a bot operator operating an account with higher privledges than themselves, but I don't have a problem with handing over the bot account and the bot's code for someone else to operate. --Android Mouse 06:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I can't say right now as to how well your bot works; I'll review quite a few of its edits tomorrow -- it's late right now.  However, I would definitely suggest having a trusted administrator run it if that's what the community wants -- personally I have no opinion, I think you're a responsible bot operator -- and I would definitely like to see the source code published.  That would be the most important factor for me.  — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 06:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and the compliment! The latest (as of this writing) bot code can be found here . It definatly isn't pretty. --Android Mouse 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This bot is useful, however there is currently no usergroup specifically for editing protected pages. YOu would need to ask a developer to set this up. The only alternative is sysop access, which would require an RFA, which would probably not succeed. However, i'd advise asking brion or someone like that for the second group. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Where can I contact brion or another developer? --Android Mouse 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that a developer will create another usergroup at this time, seeing as there's not really any demand for it at all. I'd hate to bother them, but if I recall correctly, any steward can grant an account the 'protect' permission without making it a member of the 'sysop' usergroup, which might be a solution the community would accept.  I've brought this up at the Village Pump.  — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recomment contacting them in the #mediawiki IRC channel, or email User:Brion VIBBER. If he's not around, try User talk:Tim Starling. I thought that stewards can only place users into groups, which had the right permissions. If I recall correctly, there is no group just for editing protected pages, one more would need to be created. It's a simple change to LocalSettings.php, so shouldn't be too hard. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not, but on Wikipedia, it's not something to be taken lightly. I was under the impression that stewards could assign users individual permissions per a Bugzilla ticket, but I was wrong; the conclusion was that if such an ipblock-exempt usergroup were to be created, that stewards could then add users to it.  Perhaps if the consensus is that the bot should only have the protect permission, we should create another ticket.  — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It might just be easier to create a RFA, considering how the relevant Bugzilla tickets are going. I don't think the chances of it being approved are as slim as TheFearow seems to think, though it may be requested that you give the code to someone else, given that you're not a sysop. The question is whether editing protected pages is necessary, and I don't think we've established that yet.— Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing protected pages isn't absolutely necessary, but then again the bot isn't absolutely necessary. It is only a convience really. But I think in order for it to perform its approved task thoroughly it needs to be able to edit all talk pages. If the RFA route is taken, I think it would be best to choose an alternative operator first, that already has sysop status. --Android Mouse 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a BRFA member who is also a sysop would be willing to help you out with that procedure. Either that or a sysop who also has a Toolserver account. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is slim as "sysop bots" are in the frequently denied bots category. Also, I meant stewards couldnt directly assign individual privileges, they have to ask a dev to add the group, as has been done with the import privilege on mediawiki.org. I asked in #wikimedia-tech on IRC but no devs seem to be online. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking for asking on IRC, TheFearow. Would it be a lot of work for a dev to do this, if consensus supports this? Or could this be done relatively quickly without wasting too much of their time? --Android Mouse 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As said, it is very slim that they will make a new user group..it had been denied before iirc to add a new user group that have the roll back button..so you have three solutions:
 * 1) Apply for adminship then use the bot.
 * 2) Just tell someone else to operate the bot for you.
 * 3) Make a page that the bot edits in which it adds the edits on these protected pages and ask the sysops to watch it and make the edits by hand.--Alnokta 03:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. Although I don't think 1 is possible at the moment. And I think it also violates policy to run a bot under your own account. As for 3, that's possible but I think there is already better uses for an admin's time than having to go through and manually update a hundred or so individual archive links. --Android Mouse 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 would indeed violate policy. I'd recommend 2.— Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 looks like the most feasable option... so is there anyone willing to run this? It currently runs on linux and is completely automateed, but could easily be ported to ues winsock and run on windows.--Android Mouse 01:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding a seperate user group, it would need the addition of about 2 lines to LocalSettings.php, so I assume a dev would do it with consensus. A sysop account for the bot is probably the only other option - I would recommend asking an existing sysop or a crat to run it - the latter will probably have a hgiher chance of being approved but good luck finding a crat to do it, whereas the former will probably involve a heated RFA< but it may pass. I'm just curious to what you'd answer for the RFA questions :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, reading over how some recent RFAs have turned out, it sounds like this would get torn to pieces. What IRC server and channel are most of the devs on? --Android Mouse 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * irc://irc.freenode.net/mediawiki --ais523 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my memory is that the rollback group was temporarily added, but removed again because RFR didn't reach consensus. (You may be confusing it with DUU90, a proposal that did reach consensus but was rejected by developers). --ais523 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ais, the actual channel is irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-tech as the mediawiki channel is for mediawiki discussion, not wikipedia related technical stuff. I'll ask for a dev to comment here, once I get mirc installed on my new M Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tend to be quite literal-minded and I did give the correct answer to the literal question 'what server and channel are most of the devs on?'; I didn't realise until your reply that it might not have been helpful, though. The recently closed 6711 may be relevant, though. --ais523 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats ok. I'm going to ask some devs myself to comment here - because of my timezone I can never get hold of devs on IRC. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TheFearow, I was going to get on IRC yesterday and ask for comments here but never got around to it. --Android Mouse 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If for some reason the community wants a sysop-bot to edit old talk pages, I'd say it certainly needs to run under a unique account, and not be just an additional function of an existing bot. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot is already approved to edit old talk pages, just not protected ones. --Android Mouse 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually talk pages are protected for a reason... still, even if it is approved, it would be more expedient to run this thread under a separate bot account, which isn't an issue, as you already have several. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * D(Also, note: I am NOT bag. The message is incorrect, and its the only one that the bot uses.) If you are still interested in this bot, i'd be happy to set up a ticket, so we get some devs comments, and someone might implement it. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still interested and would be interested in hearing some of the devs' thoughts. Thanks in advance. --Android Mouse 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bugzilla ticket sent, see bug 10597. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Android Mouse 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If this request is going to be contigent on both a software change, an en:'s desire to use the change, can we close this for now? —  xaosflux  Talk 23:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd probably be best for the time. --Android Mouse 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.