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

Android Mouse Bot 4

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the compliment! The latest (as of this writing) bot code can be found here [1]. It definatly isn't pretty. --Android Mouse 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Where can I contact brion or another developer? --Android Mouse 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [m:Toolserver|Toolserver]] account. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]