Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HereToHelp (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 6 January 2007 (→Discussion: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ProtectionBot

Operator: Dragons flight

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Python (partially dependant on pywikipedia, but mostly original code)

Function Summary: Intended to automatically protect templates and images appearing on the main page or today's featured article, and unprotect them when they are no longer in these high profile locations. This bot will require sysop rights.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Every 15 minutes

Edit rate requested: N/A

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

Function Details: The bot reads Main Page and Main Page/Tomorrow, identifies the current and immediate future featured articles, and then generates a list of all templates/images appearing on any of these four pages. The bot then checks each template and image to see whether it is protected (i.e. edit=sysop, move=sysop). If it is not protected, the bot will automatically protect the template/image, and add that item to an internal list. The bot will also check this internal list for items it has protected in the past but which are no longer in high profile locations and restore those items to their pre-existing state. It will not remove protection that had been added by someone else.

I have already written code capable of performing most (but not all) of the above functions, but I am coming here to get feedback from the community before carrying this project further. As noted above, this bot would require sysop rights in addition to ordinary bot approval. For an alternative but less extensive proposal, see: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Shadowbot2. Dragons flight 11:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In order to protect images which come from Commons, I have added an ability to upload them to Wikipedia. When the local copy is no longer needed, I would have the bot tag them for speedy deletion. Dragons flight 06:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this, I am proposing that the bot copy the image, image description, and any neccesary templates that exist on Commons but not locally. When the local copy was no longer needed, the image would be tagged for deletion. Any commons image templates would be left here since presumably they could be used for future images. Dragons flight 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: Per suggestion, it would also track images/templates used within Template:Did you know/Next update. Dragons flight 10:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I now have an essentially fully functional code base, and have updated User:ProtectionBot to give more operational details. Dragons flight 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • support, we need this. Giving it admin status is no problem as long as it is assured that it will only ever use them for the task described, and as long as it has a giant "nuke me now" button in case it should malfunction. dab (𒁳) 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Ligulem 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - On AN you also mentioned protecting templates and images for the article of the day, but this is not specified above. That should be clarified. (Misread section) I'm fine with the proposal so long as the article of the day page itself is not protected... the blurb about it on the main page and all templates/images displayed on it can be protected, but the article itself should be open to editing. Note that this might result in a vandal image being added to the page and then protected by this bot... but someone could then still revert to remove the image from the page itself. Also note that Main Page/Tomorrow duplicates all but four of the templates used on the Main Page and thus it might be better to check some of those templates directly. Specifically, the other templates are the 'article of the day', 'picture of the day', and 'on this day' sections for the following day and Template:Did you know/Next update in place of Template:Did you know. The 'next update' page often gets updated several times per day and is currently accessible to non-admins and thus might not be appropriate to protect prior to be placed on the Main page. --CBD 13:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - every 15 minutes is not good enough. That would give a vandal or an unauthorised (well, obviously it would be unauthorised!) vandal-bot 15 minutes to act first. Suggest changing to a lower but unspecified amount of time so that vandals are not aware of how long they have. Ideally, if possible, make it impossible to add unprotected images and templates to these sensitive areas. Can we also come up with a bot-assisted plan to deal with the template vandalism that was seen on 'today's featured article' for about a week, as that will surely return at some point unless it is dealt with now. Carcharoth 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As described it would be looking at Main Page/Tomorrow and Tomorrow's Featured Article as well as the current ones, so predictable elements will be protected before they actually reach high profile status. The unpredictable elements (such as a news event causing a new image to appear on In The News) would be caught the next time the bot runs, but ideally should still be protected by the admin who added them. It has been the predictable elements that have been greatest sources of vandalism lately, and so that ought to be eliminated. I also plan to add random jitter to the bot execution times, so as to make it more difficult for anyone to race the bot. Dragons flight 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per the comment here, what are the mechanisms in place for alerting people as to whether the bot is working or not working. If the bot is approved and successful, people will gradually let the issue drift to the back of their minds and come to rely on the bot. How can we ensure that there is always someone watching the bot (more than one person and not just the person running the bot)? Carcharoth 15:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Carcharoth raises a very crucial issue here. Shadowbot2 has also had a problem as well, see User_talk:Shadowbot2#Problem. Because it sends an email, we were able to detect it quickly. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is expected to be offline, I would warn people. At present I have no other plans for ways to make sure any unplanned downtime is noticed, but I am open to suggestions. Dragons flight 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the function described here to provide a limited sort of warning if it stops working. Dragons flight 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About time for this to come here, I have full support of this bot and bot operator, you have done great work at WP:RFASUM and as long as you are willing to share the code with other admins via e-mail or other secure method I have no problem with this bot not being approved. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Since the plan is for the bot to also protect images that appear on the main page, how will it deal with those from Commons? The current procedure is to upload a local copy here onto Wikipedia, tag it with {{C-uploaded}}, and protect that. Protecting just the image description page here does not work because a vandal can simply log onto Commons using a sleeper account and save a new version of the image there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The code written so far would ignore images uploaded only to Commons, but ultimately, the ideal behavior is probably to do what admins currently do and upload a copy locally for protection. This will take a bit of time to implement, but certainly seems doable. After it was no longer needed, I could have to bot tag the image for local deletion (I prefer doing that than having the bot actually delete the image, as an extra safeguard against rogue deletion behavior). Dragons flight 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by "[the bot] would ignore images uploaded to Commons" - does that mean they would remain unprotected unless a (human) admin uploads and then protects the images? This would be a serious concern. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I now have code prepared to automatically copy images over from Commons so that they can be protected locally. Dragons flight 06:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for clarifying this! A few more questions/comments: would the bot be programmed to delete the image once it is off the Main Page? If there are prior revisions in the image description here (i.e. FA tagging) will the bot restore those revisions? In addition, does the bot also copy the image information (i.e. description and licensing information) from Commons? If it does, will it recognize when a template used on Commons isn't used here, leading to a red link? (In other words, Commons had a template that we didn't have; I've had to manually substitute the code on Commons, sometimes several times for templates within templates, copy the code here, and then revert myself on Commons.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • When the local image is no longer needed, it is programmed to add a tag that marks the image for speedy deletion and includes a reminder to the deleting admin to restore any pre-existing description page content after deleting the local copy. Given the unusual nature of this project, I felt it was prudent not to go handing direct deletion authority to a bot. It does not copy the description from Commons but rather provides a template that points at the Commons description page, similar to {{c-uploaded}}. Dragons flight 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I personally think that the templates and images on the main page need to be watched by more sets of human eyes. Historically, most of the disruption on the main page is caused by sysops making small changes without consensus and often introducing bad markup in the process. Every template and image on the main page should be checked by human eyes after any edit is made. I fear that adding a bot will reduce the amount of redundant checks on these pages and thus cause minor mistakes to stay up even longer. --- RockMFR 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with the general sentiment of this comment; I'm always wary of entrusting a task to a bot without continuous human oversight. As pointed out above, there is no mechanism to ensure that admins are alerted if the bot is malfunctioning or stops working, and the results could prove disastrous. The current system works, and given the new system of checks with Shadowbot2, I don't feel that there is an urgent need for the bot, especially with the (very real and plausible) chances of malfunction or stoppage. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If by some miracle the community emerges from its haze of ignorance and and actually permits this bot to acquire a sysop flag, then for god's sake use the precedent to get the same thing done with other bots that need it. There's a bloody user javascript subpage transcluded on to the Main Page because people refuse to give the FA-counting bot the necessary flag. In other words, they're happy to let it edit a template on the Main Page via some clumsy hack, but they won't sysop it so it can do so the normal way – Gurch 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the concerns raised by people over an admin-bot were (and continue to be) valid, even though I don't necessarily agree with all of them; I also hope that following discussion here, any attempts to make the bot a sysop will go through the usual channel of RfA, which seems to be more appropriate (i.e. it's the place for all requests for admin rights, and would have a wider participation than here, on the bot request page.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though note that usually the admin protecting a page looks at the page before protecting it; if this bot protects an already vandalized template it will be harder for regular users to undo that vandalism. — brighterorange (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For that matter, the bot would also not be able to recognize vandalized images prior to protection. Although (hopefully) people will catch the vandalism prior to protection or, at latest, prior to the image being shown on the Main Page, this contributes to my queasiness about eliminating human oversight. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. If the bot cannot recognize vandalized images and templates, then I would rather have non-admins constantly revert those files until another sysop can step in. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the bot couldn't tell a vandalized image/template from a non-vandalized one... but should it need to? Think about the way it works. It would protect all 'daily' content on the main page (except 'In the news' and 'Did you know') starting at midnight the day BEFORE it went live. So maybe a vandal could sneak something in just before midnight and the first bot protection... causing the bot to then protect the vandalized material. However, that would then be visible for an entire day before it went live. There'd still be a need for 'human eyes', but we'd have a full day to catch vandalism before it was widely distributed. After midnight of the day before 'activation' the page would be 'safe' unless an admin vandalized or unprotected it... and even the latter would only last for a few minutes. The 'article of the day' would work the same way except that since that page itself would be unprotected someone could add a vandalized image or template to it... which the bot might then protect. However, the article would still not be protected and any other user could just revert/remove the call to the vandalized image or template. There would be 'vulnerabilities' if this proposal were implemented (including some I haven't mentioned to avoid educating the vandals), but they would be significantly less than those which exist now. --CBD 10:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. Unless the vandalism is very subtle or there are no admins looking (unlikely) then this is not really a problem. I just wanted to point out that part of the act of an admin protecting a template from vandalism (which is checking that the template is not currently vandalized) can't be replicated by a bot, so we still need some oversight. — brighterorange (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Though the chances of either an image or template being vandalised and then protected are slim, I've seen it happen before; vandals hit the images/templates scheduled to come up in a few days. Although rare, I've (luckily) caught this before, and although I'm also confident that (hopefully) an admin would catch this either before to or after the protection, I'm still hesitant with a bot doing this. (Note that vandals also adapt to our tactics; once they figured out what time the bot protects, they could easily do some damage if no one was watching the process.) Perhaps some checks could be implemented here, if possible? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Trials

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Well it looks like there is more then enough support to run trials with this bot, so Conditional Trial Approved if it is possible to run this without admin rights (perhaps generating the lists so we can verify the parsing?) As this type of test will produce beany results if it can post the results to a page that is then swiftly deleted admins can review the results. Due to the expected high visibility of this bot lets also leave this discussion transcluded on WP:RFBOT for now. — xaosflux Talk 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already run all the trials I feel are necessary short of full-scale deployment. You really want me to sit around generating lists to show that I know how to parse text? That feels very much like a waste of time to me, and potentially hazardous as well if made public. The current and tomorrow's main page/featured article collectively contain 53 templates and 31 images. All 53 templates are already protected as are 20 of the 31 images. Of the 11 unprotected images (none on the main page currently, thankfully), 6 are local and 5 reside on commons. Parsing out the relevant bits is somewhere around step 2 in a 10 step process. You are welcome to review the code, as several other people have volunteered to do, but if we are going to have a trial I would ask that it be a full demonstration that it works, rather than making extra pointless work for me. Dragons flight 06:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dragons flight the only way to test is to actually run the bot on the main page. Unless Xaosflux or any other BAG has an objection I give my support for a 24 hour trial (this will cover todays FA and tomorrow's FA protection, and the unprotection of the current FA once it leaves the main page) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many humans will be watching our robot overlords during the test? :-) Carcharoth 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some serious comments. I like the safety valve feature, but I wonder if there is a way to test that as well to make sure the "not editing for 90 minutes" thing does work? Also, is it possible to make clear to admins using the emergency shut-off button that they should follow-up and make sure that protection is dealt with by humans, rather then just walking away with a "bot's shut off now, everything should be OK now" shrug of the shoulders. That's the only thing I can think of at the moment. All looks really good! Carcharoth 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The safety valve is controlled by MediaWiki itself through template syntax, so as long as it's tested once to make sure the math is right and it does kick in after 90 minutes, it should work the same every time. Also, blocking the bot would trigger said safety valve 90 minutes after the block; since the bot would theoretically have already handled the next day's protection, I think warning within 90 minutes should be plenty. —bbatsell ¿? 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • In the last admin bot BRFA, it was felt that the lack of support shown on the BRFA carried through to the RFA's failure. By showing our support here we are avoiding this ill fate and showing the BAG that there is community (or cabal Template:Emot) approval of the plans. In any case, anyone can express their opinion in a BRFA, or their support for a proposal - in fact I went and commented on a few today. Helpful suggestions or just plain support for an idea can help :) Martinp23 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Trial

I have begun running this on my admin account on a manual basis. In doing so I have identified several issue:

  1. A unicode handling bug in one part of the program that crashed it. This is now fixed.
  2. A problem with dropped wikisession information. I suspect that this was caused by how Mediawiki handles sessions and a conflict with my trying to use my account at the same time the bot was running. If I am correct, this means that this bot cannot run on my account at the same time that I am using it, and consequently continuous operation absolutely requires a seperate account. I will be investigating this further.
  3. A formatting issue wherein the bot converted a newline to a space. I haven't yet tracked down why this occured.

The first two errors, being fatal, required me to do some substantial manual cleanup after the bot during this initial run. It has also suggested ways that I can improve the error handling which I intend to do now. Aside from these issues, it appears to be working as designed. Dragons flight 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ProtectionBot&oldid=98795966"