Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drm310 (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 26 March 2021 (→Concerns about MDanielsBot and AIV: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Overview Dictionary Bot policy Bot Approvals Group Guide Noticeboard Newsletter Bot Requests Requests for Approval Adminbots {{BAG Tools}} Creating a Bot List of bots Activity monitor Status report History Types

• WP:BOTN
• WP:BON

Here we coordinate and discuss Misplaced Pages issues related to bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our bot policy and know where to post your issue.

Do not post here if you came to

• discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page
• discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at WP:BOTISSUE
• discuss general questions about the MediaWiki software and syntax. We have the village pump's technical section for that
• request approval for your new bot. Here is where you should do it
• request new functionality for bots. Share your ideas at the dedicated page

WP:PYWIKIBOT

Apologies if this isn't the right place—couldn't see a project talk page. Is this thing approved to run on en.wp? ——Serial 12:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

All bots have to be approved by BAG, as per WP:BOTPOL - how those bots are written is ultimately irrelevant. Many, many bots on enwiki use Pywikibot, so yes, as long as you file a BRFA and get the task approved, using Pywikibot is fine. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much what firefly says. It doesn't really matter how a bot is coded or what frameworks it uses (AWB, pywikibot or from scratch) for the purposes of bot policy. Bots coded using pywikibot still have to go through approval like all others. There are also some pywikibot semi-automated scripts editors can use I think - those would fall under WP:ASSISTED like other types of semi-automated editing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

PearBOT 5 starting up again

I just wanted to say that PearBOT 5 has started adding short descriptions to biographies again! The only reason it was away was me not having the time to manage it last spring and me just not bothering to start it up since. I would however suspect there will be some questions about the bot this time around as well so I thought it would be good to inform you all of this. If there are any issues write anything at User:PearBOT/Biography short descriptions/stop page and the bot will stop immediately. Don't hesitate to use it; it's faster for me to clean up any issues if I have to look through fewer edits. --Trialpears (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to mention but all edits will come from User:PearBOT II (contribs). --Trialpears (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You may need to update the bot as the guidance has been updated since your first run, and short descriptions for biographical articles are now normally recommended to include dates - see WP:SDDATES. Also, the bots=PearBOT 5 parameter should probably be omitted unless you intend to use it yourself. The parameter isn't used by any other bot, doesn't add any information that can't be deduced from the page history, and just adds clutter to the wikicode. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

ShortDescBot is able to handle biographies as well, and I was planning to start on that after it has completed its organism runs. There's no reason both couldn't operate, though. As ShortDescBot looks at categories and infoboxes as well as leads, it may be able to sweep up some of the articles that PearBOT 5 skips. I'm essentially aiming at 100% coverage of target articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear that ShortDescBot is doing well! There shouldn't be any interference so I don't think both running would be an issue. The bot parameter has made it slightly easier to pick up some rare issues, but I wouldn't be fussed if it was gone either. My thought was that it would be mildly useful and the cost very low. With regards to dates I could easily extract it from infoboxes (omitting it if not available). This would however be a significant addition so I don't know what bag thinks on the matter. I've paused the bot until this is cleared up. --Trialpears (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine that BAG will be OK with amending the bot to add dates as WP:SDDATES does have consensus, and bots ought to follow that. Of course, it's always good to double-check. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't thinking about consensus but possibly an extra trial or something. Just want to be on the safe side. --Trialpears (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yapperbot on autopilot

We probably need someone to take over Yapperbot, which does various things including WP:FRS notification on user talk pages. I've been reporting issues with it (non-"fatal" ones) , but it turns out the bot operator has gone missing since 2 August 2020 .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about MDanielsBot and AIV

Hi, I don't know if this is the correct forum to raise this. If it's more appropriate for another place, I'm happy to move the discussion there.

Currently MDanielsBot clears the AIV board of reports anywhere from 4-8 hours old, as they are deemed stale. I certainly don't take filing reports there lightly, so I have become concerned when two reports I filed in the last month were cleared out without any apparent attention (Ds Abhishek, Special:Diff/1007893544; Nawzad Shekhany, Special:Diff/1014006514). In the former case, the user went on to post promotional content twice more before being blocked.

I realize this was probably deemed necessary because the board was being overloaded/abused with frivolous and/or illegitimate reports. My concern is that legit reports (particularly of spammers/self-promoters) are being wiped out without ever having been looked at. Is there no better way to manage the backlog? If an admin was able to tag the report with a template to say no action is required, no further explanation needed... or at least increase the time before the bot clears the report, to give more time to investigate... I'd at least have confidence that my reports are not being made in vain. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages bots
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards