Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

If you want to report an issue or bug with a specific bot, follow the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE first. This 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).


Reporting article assessment "WP 1.0 bot" misbehaving[edit]

Back into August and now again since October 8th, and October 25 the bot is having "quality log" issues.

First part, creating assessment tables runs correctly.

Second part, is "stuck" creating multiple logs since October 25th. Tonight 8 days of logs with 7 days are repeats, for most but not all WPs. Details at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.

Interested users are (audiodudeKelsonWalkerma). Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Notified currently listed operator at w:fr:User talk:Kelson. I'm also a bit concerned as to who is in currently taking responsibility for this bot, it appears to have changed operators many times and even its own User and User talk pages do not agree on this matter. — xaosflux Talk 04:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @JoeHebda: other than engage the operators and call them to task, the only other tool we have are blocking or deauthorizing a bot, as far as the possibility of blocking: I don't see an "urgent" issue as it is not editing reader-facing material (i.e. articles, certain templates). As far as the errors you are reporting, is this bot making any useful edits along with what you are calling out as problems? — xaosflux Talk 04:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: - Yes the bot is daily updating Wikiproject assessment tables - that function is working correctly & is visible to all interested WP updaters/maintainers. The second part of creating daily logs is not functioning correctly. Two issues, first with each passing day since Oct. 25, most WPs are being loaded up with repeat logs (last night 7 days worth); secondly the bot stops processing logs at "B" in the alphabet & never updates "C" to "Z" named WPs. These WPs have no logs updated since October 8th. Hope this clarifies.
Work is started on revamping WP 1.0 bot so ultimately it will be replaced. Because the timeline is uncertain, I'm reporting here to hopefully find someone to fix the bot. JoeHebda (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@JoeHebda: thanks for the note, and we can certainly keep following up on this. To recap: you think the bot should keep working, but get rid of the problem - and the current problem isn't sever enough to block the bot and stop the things that are working until it is fixed - correct? — xaosflux Talk 15:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: - Yes, the bot is still running daily. From "back in the day" I was hired on to cleanup database mess created from aborted (2 days live) project. Had to learn IBMs PL/I programming in a couple days. And disk storage was precious & expensive in those times. My concern is all those daily (repeat) log files & how they can be removed? So far there have been zero complaints from WPs ("C" to "Z") not getting the daily logs. JoeHebda (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@JoeHebda: the rate and size these are being editing isn't anything to worry about performance wise. From looking at the edits I'm not sure if they are useful to anyone but they don't seem to be "wrong"? I'm assuming you are referring to edits such as these? — xaosflux Talk 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────── @Xaosflux: - Yes, those edits & there are 1000's of them. I was using them all the time along with Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment & WP Saints, WP Military history, WP Biography; to check articles being updated. The logs are useful tracking tool & I miss them. JoeHebda (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: sorry, I'm a bit lost :D Can you show an example of a few edits this bot made that you don't think should have been made according to its current approval (e.g. a malfunction)? — xaosflux [[User tTalk 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Many malfunction examples at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. JoeHebda (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux, as JoeHebda implies the bot does not make mistakes, it just does not complete its 2nd task. So any project log that I have an interest in never get made. They are beyond the letter B. These logs are incredibly useful to see project assessment changes and reasses such articles as necessary but without, it's very difficult to assess article that don't appear elsewhere as a convenient list. I really miss them. ww2censor (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
OK @Ww2censor and JoeHebda: the 'problem' is that the bot is not making an edit that you would like it to? If so only the operator can deal with that - I am still certainly concerned for whomever the operator of this bot is to be properly identified! — xaosflux Talk 23:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Answering @Xaosflux and Ww2censor: WP 1.0 bot has two problems
1. Not creating logs for WPs with names "C" through "Z".
2. When creating logs for WPs "A" and "B" (stalls out during Bs & goes back to assessment tables) it keeps repeat creating logs since Oct. 25. For example, last night Logs for Oct. 25,26,27,28,29,30,31-repeats and Nov.1-new; for every one of those A-B wikiprojects. Following this pattern, tonight's repeated logs will be Oct. 25 to 31 & Nov.1, and Nov.2-new logs. JoeHebda (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for update - still pending an operator to show up to this conversation. — xaosflux Talk 23:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If it helps, Kelson seems to be the only person trying to keep this running per [1] and while elsewhere Hedonil nor Theopolisme may still be associated with the bot neither are active users here as I mentioned [Wikipedia talk:Versio 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Is_tools.wmflabs_down?|this post] about 6 weeks ago. Audiodude is now also listed as a maintainer. ww2censor (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone tried emailing Kelson (or contacting him through other channels)? He doesn't seem to be currently active on frwiki, where the talk page message was posted. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I've tried leaving a message to get the attention of the operators - asking that the bots usertalk be updated. SQLQuery me! 06:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Update for (XaosfluxWw2censoraudiodudeKelsonWalkerma) From Nov. 3 WP 1.0 bot processing I updated at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#November 3, 2018 - WP 1.0 bot processing to report two bot issues. A possible "Missing template for WP Bihar" and "Date timestamps, corruption". JoeHebda (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot. Looking at e.g. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biblical Criticism articles by quality log, today, over the course of 28 edits, it duplicated the already present contents of that page, with logs for 2009 to 2012, and nothing newer. This is utterly useless and confusing. At Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Beyoncé Knowles articles by quality log it is working the 2014 log, making today more than 200 edits to that page in a row, with the end result that it reordered 14 entries, and changed http to http[2]... Here it made more than 100 edits to change absolutely nothing. As always, feel free to unblock without contacting me once these issues have been solved. Fram (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: - Thankyou. At Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index I posted summary of Nov. 4 processing and agree 100-percent with need to block bot. Difficulty is finding the Expert with knowledge and tech skillset to fix. Myself being retired (after 44 yrs with computers), I have the time, but zero ability to fix. I've only been on Wikipedia since 2014 mostly doing article tags & assessments. I can toss out questions is about all I can do. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Now that this account is blocked, it should not be unblocked without clearly identifying which human(s) is in control of it. — xaosflux Talk 17:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux, I support the block. The malfunction in of itself wasn't of a nature that caused major disruption to justify blocking, but the fact that the operator of the bot is not clear is enough to justify a block in addition to the malfunction. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidently sent above to Archive & I don't know how to "unarchive" so I copy-and-paste back here. JoeHebda (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You could have gone to your contributions, clicked the "diff" links for this page and the archive, and then used the "undo" link provided in each one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock for 1 hour?[edit]

Can I request that the Bot 1.0 be unblocked for 1 hour so I can update WP:MILHIST/Biographies and WP:MILHIST – Please? Adamdaley (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: - Since the bot was blocked at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard, I will copy-and-paste your question there. I myself don't know how to block or unblock. Wish there was a button for those two functions.
Also be aware that when you request assessment with emwp10 it updates the assessment tables only & no quality logs. JoeHebda (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Adamdaley: please ask the operator of this bot to request unblocking, one of the reasons it is blocked is because it is unclear who is taking responsibility for its actions. @JoeHebda: while some bots have "enable/disable" buttons, this one is blocked and will require a administrator to unblock. — xaosflux Talk 14:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
While the bot is blocked there is an alternate process to help WP people. It is posted below. JoeHebda (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternate process[edit]

While WP 1.0 bot is blocked, there is a way to get current article counts (assessment wikitable) for your WikiProjects. Follow the two-step process below.

  1. Generate new project data - At Update project data page, choose your Wikiproject & click the Go button. Depending on how busy enwp10 tool is there may be considerable wait time. After completion, run step two.
  2. Display project table - At Project summary tables page, choose your Wikiproject and click the Make table button.
  • Both of these processes can be bookmarked on your laptop. Credit to Adamdaley (talk) for this helpful contribution. JoeHebda (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not only bookmarked on a laptop, but also a desktop. Anyone doing this must remember to call each of the bookmarks differently to avoid confusion. Adamdaley (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

November 27, 2018 - update[edit]

Greetings, Today I added a plain to-do list at here for "WP1.0bot". Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

December 8, 2018 - update[edit]

Thanks to a workaround from @Gonzo fan2007: here the WP1.0bot is now successfully processing Assessment Tables only, without the quality logs. First run was Dec. 6 & last night Dec. 7 was also good. JoeHebda (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

JoeHebda, Gonzo fan2007 - Did we ever definitely answer the question "Who is in control of this account?"? I believe that this was one of the conditions we wanted to see met before unblocking (mentioned specifically above by both Xaosflux, and Cyberpower678).
When I asked, all I got was "the bot is run by the few of us left on the WP:1 project".
I would be happy to unprotect the bot's user/talk pages so that they can be updated. SQLQuery me! 19:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
SQL, it was my understanding that Audiodude, Kelson, and Walkerma were in charge of the account based on this comment. I have unprotected the user talk page of the bot, fyi. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, Could be. I think what we're looking for is "X, Y, and Z have access to this account.". That comment lists an indeterminate number ("the few of us"), a main person that maintains it (I presume this means that they have access to the account), someone whom is writing code for it (does this mean that they have access to the account too?), and is posted by a third person that you mention, whom doesn't specify if or if not they have access to the account in that comment.
Now that the talkpage is unprotected, one of the operators simply providing a clear update to "It is a bot is operated by Theopolisme and Wolfgang42" on User_talk:WP_1.0_bot would suffice. SQLQuery me! 20:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007 and SQL: agree - edits made by bots are still the responsibility of the editor(s) that are in control of the bot account - they need to be clearly identified and responsive to queries about their edits. — xaosflux Talk 20:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
SQL, Xaosflux: you are correct. My unblock of the bot account was based on the understanding that the account was accessible and under control by the users I referenced above. If this is not the case, obviously please feel free to reblock. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
SQL, Not as far as I can tell. I am not aware of anyone coming forward here. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 03:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kelson: are you the person in control of (and taking ownership of edits made by) @WP 1.0 bot: ? — xaosflux Talk 20:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    • SQL, Xaosflux. and Cyberpower678: I have reblocked the account on the grounds that ownership of the account is clearly ambiguous at this point, and that is not something we want to perpetuate with a bot acocunt. Audiodude, Kelson, and Walkerma, if either or all of you have access to the bot account, please indicate it by performing a manual edit while logged in to the bot account on its talk page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: @Gonzo fan2007: Yes I do, I have made a blank edit here. Please unblock the bot. Kelson (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kelson: thank you! I've unblocked this account, please be sure to follow up on the questions and issues about malfunctions that have been raised above. — xaosflux Talk 17:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot not running daily updates[edit]

Greetings for January 2, 2019 - Noticed bot is not processing daily Assessment table updates (and possibly Quality logs). Any ETA of when it will be re-started? JoeHebda (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For questions about edits NOT being made, please follow up directly with the operator, Kelson. — xaosflux Talk 15:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Double redirects?[edit]

Just curious: Are there any examples of bot(s) fixing double redirects in the "Wikipedia:" namespace in the previous 24 hours? Just wondering as I just fixed a few from page moved that happened almost a day ago. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Steel1943: just going off of edit summaries, looks like there haven't been any in a couple of days, see quarry:query/32343. — xaosflux Talk 17:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thanks for the prompt response. That’s quite alarming, and I’m not sure who to contact (such as any specific bot operator) to find out what’s going on with that. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Steel1943: well for EmausBot we can ask @Emaus:. — xaosflux Talk 18:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, it would have helped if I looked at the query to see the most recent bot who performed such edits before I commented. 😅 Either way, I also left Emaus a comment on their talk page on the Russian Wikipedia (as per their user page) referring to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello! Currently my bot works on double redirects in 2 modes:
    1. New moves. Bot regularly checks moves in the following namespaces: 0, 1, 10, 11, 14, 15 and ignores others since these cases are the most proper.
    2. Special page. Here bot handles all pages without exception. And this special page usually updates once per 3 days.
  • In first mode bot ignores ns 4 because of high risk of vandalism (in my opinion), but I can remove this filter and process every namespace if you concern it is not. By the way all ns 4 double redirects appears on the special page and bot finally processes them. --Emaus (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for the update Emaus! @Steel1943: these appear to be getting worked on still, see last example at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Warcraft/to_do. Don't think there is much else left needed here? — xaosflux Talk 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

BAG assistance requested[edit]

I would say that Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal has completed at this time.

I would like to request a BAG member to summarize and close the discussion as it is primarily about a particular bot's function. --Izno (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: this isn't really BAG remit, ultimately it is a guideline that applies to any editor, including human editors. However, if the community standard changes, any bots doing this task should also be asked to change - and if they don't they can be dealt with here. — xaosflux Talk 22:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I agreed that this isn't in BAG's mandate, although it certainly doesn't preclude a BAG member from closing things in his personal / admin / crat / whatever capacity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh certainly, any editor can close RfC's. If it is overdue you can list it at WP:AN/RFC as well. — xaosflux Talk 22:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Huh, I might have misjudged BAG on this point. The RFC asks a question about a specific bot's specific function (i.e. whether it has approval to continue in that function), which I was fairly certain is in BAG's remit. --Izno (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: I don't see that that Help talk: discussion includes the bot's operator at all, were they invited to the discussion? In general, edits made by bots are the responsibility of their operator, and those edits should conform to community standards. Points 2 and 3 are much more salient, and anyone can close the RfC related to those. Once decided the bot operator will need to make changes or stop operations if their edits no longer have consensus. I'll send notice to Smith609 as you are discussing their bot. Hopefully this isn't another case like WP 1.0 bot above, where the operator is unresponsive/unknown (in which case the bot should be blocked outright). — xaosflux Talk 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Additional pings to @Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan: who are listed as additional contacts on the bot talk page. — xaosflux Talk 23:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: The current maintainer of the bot is still Smith who is reachable, but the majority of the patches recently submitted are by AManWithNoPlan, who indeed commented in the RFC. An invitation was provided on User talk:Citation bot. --Izno (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I am largely not opinionated; I mostly write code for fun. I generally only get involved when people make statements about the bot's history that are untrue (such as people mistakenly not realizing that the function in question was not new). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan: thanks for the feedback. @Izno: from what I see so far, the bot operators appear to be open to changing to meet what ever the consensus for citation standards end up being. Keep in mind that while this is naming this one bot, this appears to mostly be a general editing/citing standard that should apply to everyone (and by extension any current or future bots). — xaosflux Talk 23:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I do have one opinion. That is that people should create pages for journals and wiki link that to differentiate hard to find publications; instead of relying on publisher= and such. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive URLs[edit]

In a nutshell: Do not make mass modifications to URLs without accounting for archive URLs which are complicated and require more than a search-replace

Since about 2015, the number of archive URLs on Enwiki has gone from about 600,000 to 3 million. This is the commendable work of IABot, and the numbers increase daily. The problem arises that user scripts, bots and tools that make modifications to URLs but are often not accounting for archive URLs.

Examples why search and replace does not work. :

  1. The website http://example.com/... has moved domain to http://example.co.uk/... so a bot or script changes all occurrences in a search-replace. This causes http://web.archive.org/web/20180901010101/http://example.com/... -> http://web.archive.org/web/20180901010101/http://example.co.uk/... but this archive URL does not exist creating a dead archive URL.
  2. However even if the archive URL is skipped with regex, using the same example: {{cite web |url=http://example.com/... |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20180901010101/http://example.com/... }} Arguably the correct action in this case is to replace the |url= with http://example.co.uk/... and delete the |archiveurl= (and any |archivedate= and |deadurl=) because the new link is working, and the old |archiveurl= is no longer an archive of the |url=. Search and replace does not work.
  3. Even if #2 is not done and the original |archiveurl= is kept, the |deadurl=yes would be converted to |deadurl=no as the |url= is no longer dead.
  4. If there is a {{dead link}} template next to the link, that template would be deleted as the link is no longer dead.
  5. In addition to CS1|2, there are similar issues with {{webarchive}} and bare URLs.
  6. There are similar issues with the 20+ other archive providers listed at WP:WEBARCHIVES. It is not isolated to Wayback which is only about 80% of the archives.

My bot WP:WAYBACKMEDIC is able to fully automate URL changes while accounting for archives. It's not a simple bot so I don't expect anyone else to custom build something like it though hope others will. For now, I'm trying to intercept URL change requests at BOTREQ, and to remind bot makers at BRFA.

Should this be in policy ("Archives should be accounted for when modifying URLs")? Should we have a Wikipedia:Bots/URL subpage for requests; or a project for URL change requests? Should a project be on enwiki, or at meta to notify other language wikis globally? Feedback or thoughts, thanks. -- GreenC 01:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand your problem with #2. I have seen no documentation anywhere to indicate that the archived page must reflect the URL of any currently living page. And there are some cases where it cannot or will not, such as a domain-specific archive URL (e.g. The NYT). Our objective is the content at the live URL. --Izno (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Initially I responded why I believe #2 is a best practice, but am refactoring because in the end it's up to you what to do. The point of this OP is that mass URL changes require more than a search-replace it needs a special-purpose bot. The hope here is to raise awareness of the issues so that in the future whenever URL changes come up, there is recognition of what is required, or at least taken into account. -- GreenC 22:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I may start to sound like a broken record, but in general: what do we expect human editors to do in these situations? From the samples above, it certainly makes sense that human editors should not be introducing broken links (like in example 1) - so bots should not either. The guidance on this should be a general citation/archive guidance more than just a bot-guidance though. — xaosflux Talk 00:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
As for "old" archiveurl's - I'm not very up to speed on this, is it meant as only "an archive of the url that is in archive=" or "here is another archive where this reliable source can be found"? — xaosflux Talk 00:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification of BAG nomination[edit]

I am just writing this to inform WP:Bots/Noticeboard that I have requested to join the Bot Approvals Group (BAG). I invite your thoughts on the nomination subpage, which is located here. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible unregistered bot?[edit]

Could someone check out the contributions of 2600:1700:7E31:5710:E52A:C47D:7520:DA36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? I know it's stopped but I don't know the procedure for dealing with constructive unregistered bots. [Username Needed] 13:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm just seeing an IP that has made lots of small gnomey edits in quick (but not super quick) succession. Nothing to indicate it is a bot. SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)