Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 3

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

DatBot 3

edit

Operator: DatGuy (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:45, Friday, November 4, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: My GitHub (outdated)

Function overview: Reports users who have either tripped 5 filters quickly in a list, a filter that is in an "immediate report" list, or a very suspicious username-related filter.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 2

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This task was previously done by Mr.Z-bot (talk · contribs). However, Z-bot and Z-man are currently inactive. I have used the previous code, but added a section for username-related filters that should be reported to UAA. If/once this task is approved (for trial), I will create User:DatBot/filters.js. It will contain
immediate=
vandalism=
UAAreport=
When the bot will report, it will contain the filter in the "reason for reporting" box. More details can be found at this BRFA.

Discussion

edit
  • @Xaosflux:  Done at a js per your comments and the fact that there are barely any non-admin EFMs. The non-admin EFMs I do know I'm sure can email an administrator. Also, I believe that Mr.Z-man thought of a hacky workaround, so that even if the filter is private it will still be able to access it? Either that or the filters haven't always been private. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost half of these filters (including all of the 'immediate' ones are private filters - do you expect to actually be able to have your bot use these? — xaosflux Talk 16:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Z-bot never had EFM, but it was still able to perform. See also [1]. I have no idea if in August the filter was private, but I believe that the code uses a workaround. There is also a library called "wikitools," so perhaps that was used as a workaround. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (150 edits or 30 days, userspace only). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Can you by start making some private-trials (report to a bot subpage), verify if you are able to do what you expect - try configuring it for only the private filters and see if it actual works. — xaosflux Talk 17:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going a bit out of your request. I've jsub'd it on Tool Labs. I want to see if everything works properly first, as I'm not sure if 1. The import modules still work and 2. If I configured the import modules properly. If it works for the night then I will change it so that it will be only private filters. Cheers, Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dat Guy One thing I want to see out of an eventual trial is you actually posting the reports, but to user space for review. — xaosflux Talk 02:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? What I am trying to do now is post everything to the DatGuy sandbox. I've encountered a mystery error over the night, but restarted the job now. It was the only error, so if it is fixed it should work. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fix didn't work, I'll try to debug it and ask for help. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Christ, that was a stupid error. Probably fixed now, pending restarting of the task and hits. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • xaosflux, I have some great news. With the help of Samtar and some from Bd808 (with collaboration from Krenair), we managed to get the bot working. It should start writing to my sandbox any second now. The only issue we encountered is that while debugging, for private filters, it does not find the filter. It just prints the user and the time. However, since administrators will check the filter log, I believe this won't be much of an issue if once we print to Wikipedia, it still does not work. It also prints to #wikipedia-en-abuse-log connect, as Mr.Z-bot did. If/when the task gets approved, I'll request to send an email to the EFM mailing list. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. DatBot knows when private filters are tripped and on what page, but not which filter they are tripped on. I request approval of this bot, and hopefully later on I would be able to debug the reason why Mr.Z-bot was able to know what filter is hit. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DatGuy The next step would be to move you to a trial for reporting to a live page - do you plan on sending to WP:AIV/AVB or somewhere else? — xaosflux Talk 01:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 and Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. The UAA currently doesn't work since the only filter there is private. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bot also managed to find an annoying duckmaster, see Suix and co. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -@DatGuy:, you are OK to start reporting to the noticeboards. Please be very responsive to any issues brought up and stop reporting if you are causing any problems. Please report any presented and resolved problems here; please provide an update in a week after you start as to the status. — xaosflux Talk 16:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Private filters weren't found/used -   Bug fixed
  2. Usernames were reported twice -   Bug fixed
  3. Edit conflict (?) Results in page protected error  New:

  1. Log became too big -   Bug fixed Scheduled a crontab

I'll keep updating this. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux May I add one thing for the code? I modified some of DeltaQuadBot's code (with permission and attribution for DeltaQuad) and now I have some notes. For example, at User:DatBot/testing, for filter 808, which is targeted against a specific sockmaster, it'll say:

I could also make it single-line if requested. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem fine, I don't think you need to clerk report on your own report though - single line notes that would be helpful. — xaosflux Talk 20:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coded. However, bot is going to be down today while I sleep. Sorry. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note system isn't going to be working for now while I attempt to fix an issue. For the summary, DatBot probably has around a 95% report-to-block ratio. The probable 2% has now been moved to vandalism (most of them were from immediate, such as Special:AbuseFilter/31), 1% is an issue with Special:AbuseFilter/168 that I'll try to nag some edit filters to change something, and the other 2% is users not being warned. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. — xaosflux Talk 20:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DatBot_3&oldid=1244938142"