Operator: Chris
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Auto
Programming Language(s): PHP using Cobi's classes
Function Summary: Adds all the templates on today's and tommorow's fa to Wikipedia:Main Page/Protection which is cascade protected
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): on the hour
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function Details: The bot works like so:
The bot will only run if User:Chris G/FABot Run is set to "Run" (cases insenstive)
Since this is a request for an admin bot I have transcluded this brfa onto Wikipedia:AN so we can have wider community input. Per disscusion at Wikipedia:BN and the Adminbot rfc I am testing to see if this brfa alone can gather enough consensus for a 'crat to be willing to +sysop the bot. Also I would like to make it clear that I am and have been for some time running this bot on my main account. The bot's source code can been seen here -- Chris 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
From an management side of things it's editing a protected page, big stinking deal, it's almost an instaapprove. It's the community acceptance of a +sysop flagged bot which will raise hell.
Can't exactly trial it without the flag... its a community acceptance thing, on a personal note, I have no problems with it -- Tawker ( talk) 05:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
On a sidenote, why not put the images used in it on the protection page as well? SQL Query me! 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Would the bot remove the templates from the protected page the following day? WODUP 06:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've updated the source so that it adds images as well -- Chris 06:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Question: Will this have to go through RfA like User:RedirectCleanupBot did? I can't seem to find any consensus on Wikipedia:BN. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Copying Iridescent's post from Wikipedia talk:RFA to this BRFA. WODUP 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Support, but a beansy thought that someone will need to watch for; presumably if it's run every 10 minutes, a vandal can vandalize a template, add it to the article after vandalizing, and the bot would then lock the template into the vandalized state. Not a major problem but it will happen. Also, will it unprotect all the templates once the article's delisted, or only those that were unprotected to start with?
I don't think the timing problem can be solved. No matter what time it is set to run, unless it is set to run continuously, there will be a break where mischief can occur. Since we started this in July, vandalism during the break has only happened once. In that case someone added a template that should have been in the article already and then vandalized it. In response we lowered the duration been protections. Since then I don't recall anymore problems. As for images, we had a discussion about them when we first created the page and decided not to add them unless they became a target. So far they have not. We were primarily concerned with fair use images, but we also asked what protection of an image would really do, and decided not much. Having worked on the protection page and tweaking with Chris, the bot has my support. KnightLago ( talk) 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I recommend this bot goes to RFA, I say this as the programmer of the original redirect cleanup bot. (check the rename logs for my old username). As far as operation, the idea that east said above is a worthwhile one. If you are doing checks every 10 minutes, then check to see if the template has recently been edited (in last 10 minutes), and if it has, bring the template up for human review somewhere. Have it say something in #wikipedia-en or the like, or post somewhere where people don't mind watching. The only real way out of this is to monitor on IRC. ——
nix
eagle
03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ok, sorry about the lateness of my reply but I've been having a few computer problems. A few points have been raised that I would like to answer:
Of course, the real solution to the problem is a better way of monitoring changes to an article's templates. — Werdna • talk 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've updated the code so that the bot checks if the template was edited in the last 10 minutes if it was the bot will not protect the template and it will send off an alert in #wikipedia-en-alerts. Now I have two questions:
I understand your hesitation about giving a bot +sysop, but RedirectCleanupBot has proven that we won't have a SkyNet style incident. In this case I think a bot is much more accurate than a human and does a better job at protecting the templates. Also could you please explain why you don't like admin bots? The only reason you gave you dismised in the next sentence -- Chris 09:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
SQL Query for later:
SELECT CONCAT('* [http://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=',rev_id,']') FROM revision WHERE rev_comment LIKE 'GymCR47%' AND rev_user = 2091313;
Well, after reading this whole thing over a couple times, and, then giving it another day, I believe that this bot is ready for a trial run, and, that there is consensus for this task to run. For the time being, I would like to restrict this bot to templates only (no images). Being an adminbot, and, this being unusual circumstances, I am going to ask for a thirty day trial, under your administrator account, linking to this BRFA (
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot in hopes that more comments may be generated ) adding the string "GymCR47" at the beginning of the edit summary so that this processes edits may be more easily identified. With your modifications, I do not believe the timing attack mentioned above will be an issue. Please consider pinging #wikipedia-en-alerts on that condition, on IRC. Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
SQL
Query me!
05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
People should be aware that Special:Relatedchanges includes changes to templates. FlaggedRevs would also be an excellent alternative to this. — Werdna • talk 06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am minded to the grant the +sysop and +bot flags in accordance with Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bots with administrative rights, which seems to enjoy a growing consensus, once that ceases to be "proposed" policy. To facilitate this, could BAG members please check that the requirements of that section have been complied with and sign off below if they are in agreement that this bot can be given the appropriate flags? WJBscribe (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I have determined that this proposal meets the requirements set down at Wikipedia:BOT#Bots with administrative rights and am therefore approving the bot to run with sysop and bot flags. Note that this approval is strictly conditional on there being a continued consensus for the bot to operate: should there be a consensus of either BAG or the community that approval should be withdrawn, a request will be made to a steward to remove the sysop flag (bot status can, of course, be removed locally). Any further tasks must be approved separately. WJBscribe (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Operator: Chris
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Auto
Programming Language(s): PHP using Cobi's classes
Function Summary: Adds all the templates on today's and tommorow's fa to Wikipedia:Main Page/Protection which is cascade protected
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): on the hour
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function Details: The bot works like so:
The bot will only run if User:Chris G/FABot Run is set to "Run" (cases insenstive)
Since this is a request for an admin bot I have transcluded this brfa onto Wikipedia:AN so we can have wider community input. Per disscusion at Wikipedia:BN and the Adminbot rfc I am testing to see if this brfa alone can gather enough consensus for a 'crat to be willing to +sysop the bot. Also I would like to make it clear that I am and have been for some time running this bot on my main account. The bot's source code can been seen here -- Chris 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
From an management side of things it's editing a protected page, big stinking deal, it's almost an instaapprove. It's the community acceptance of a +sysop flagged bot which will raise hell.
Can't exactly trial it without the flag... its a community acceptance thing, on a personal note, I have no problems with it -- Tawker ( talk) 05:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
On a sidenote, why not put the images used in it on the protection page as well? SQL Query me! 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Would the bot remove the templates from the protected page the following day? WODUP 06:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've updated the source so that it adds images as well -- Chris 06:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Question: Will this have to go through RfA like User:RedirectCleanupBot did? I can't seem to find any consensus on Wikipedia:BN. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Copying Iridescent's post from Wikipedia talk:RFA to this BRFA. WODUP 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Support, but a beansy thought that someone will need to watch for; presumably if it's run every 10 minutes, a vandal can vandalize a template, add it to the article after vandalizing, and the bot would then lock the template into the vandalized state. Not a major problem but it will happen. Also, will it unprotect all the templates once the article's delisted, or only those that were unprotected to start with?
I don't think the timing problem can be solved. No matter what time it is set to run, unless it is set to run continuously, there will be a break where mischief can occur. Since we started this in July, vandalism during the break has only happened once. In that case someone added a template that should have been in the article already and then vandalized it. In response we lowered the duration been protections. Since then I don't recall anymore problems. As for images, we had a discussion about them when we first created the page and decided not to add them unless they became a target. So far they have not. We were primarily concerned with fair use images, but we also asked what protection of an image would really do, and decided not much. Having worked on the protection page and tweaking with Chris, the bot has my support. KnightLago ( talk) 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I recommend this bot goes to RFA, I say this as the programmer of the original redirect cleanup bot. (check the rename logs for my old username). As far as operation, the idea that east said above is a worthwhile one. If you are doing checks every 10 minutes, then check to see if the template has recently been edited (in last 10 minutes), and if it has, bring the template up for human review somewhere. Have it say something in #wikipedia-en or the like, or post somewhere where people don't mind watching. The only real way out of this is to monitor on IRC. ——
nix
eagle
03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ok, sorry about the lateness of my reply but I've been having a few computer problems. A few points have been raised that I would like to answer:
Of course, the real solution to the problem is a better way of monitoring changes to an article's templates. — Werdna • talk 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've updated the code so that the bot checks if the template was edited in the last 10 minutes if it was the bot will not protect the template and it will send off an alert in #wikipedia-en-alerts. Now I have two questions:
I understand your hesitation about giving a bot +sysop, but RedirectCleanupBot has proven that we won't have a SkyNet style incident. In this case I think a bot is much more accurate than a human and does a better job at protecting the templates. Also could you please explain why you don't like admin bots? The only reason you gave you dismised in the next sentence -- Chris 09:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
SQL Query for later:
SELECT CONCAT('* [http://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=',rev_id,']') FROM revision WHERE rev_comment LIKE 'GymCR47%' AND rev_user = 2091313;
Well, after reading this whole thing over a couple times, and, then giving it another day, I believe that this bot is ready for a trial run, and, that there is consensus for this task to run. For the time being, I would like to restrict this bot to templates only (no images). Being an adminbot, and, this being unusual circumstances, I am going to ask for a thirty day trial, under your administrator account, linking to this BRFA (
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot in hopes that more comments may be generated ) adding the string "GymCR47" at the beginning of the edit summary so that this processes edits may be more easily identified. With your modifications, I do not believe the timing attack mentioned above will be an issue. Please consider pinging #wikipedia-en-alerts on that condition, on IRC. Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
SQL
Query me!
05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
People should be aware that Special:Relatedchanges includes changes to templates. FlaggedRevs would also be an excellent alternative to this. — Werdna • talk 06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am minded to the grant the +sysop and +bot flags in accordance with Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bots with administrative rights, which seems to enjoy a growing consensus, once that ceases to be "proposed" policy. To facilitate this, could BAG members please check that the requirements of that section have been complied with and sign off below if they are in agreement that this bot can be given the appropriate flags? WJBscribe (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I have determined that this proposal meets the requirements set down at Wikipedia:BOT#Bots with administrative rights and am therefore approving the bot to run with sysop and bot flags. Note that this approval is strictly conditional on there being a continued consensus for the bot to operate: should there be a consensus of either BAG or the community that approval should be withdrawn, a request will be made to a steward to remove the sysop flag (bot status can, of course, be removed locally). Any further tasks must be approved separately. WJBscribe (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply