Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UTRSBot

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.

UTRSBot

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

Time filed: 08:03, Thursday, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Github

Function overview: This bot notifies users, admins, and WP:OPP when their attention is requested on a unblock ticket.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): On demand

Estimated number of pages affected: 10 pages per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: There are three primary functions:

User Notifications

These notifications happen when a user verifies their email address when appealing a block. It places a template on the user's talk page notifying interested editors that the user has appealed their block on UTRS.

Admin Notifications

This notification happens only when a reviewing administrator determines that the blocking administrator's input is needed when reviewing a block. The bot automates the process a reviewing administrator would take to notify the blocking administrator manually.

OPP Notification

This function happens only when a reviewing administrator determines that an IP address requires a review of WP:OPP. The bot only places the request automatically for block appeals from IP addresses only. A block appeal by a named account will require the reviewing administrator to post the request manually. The bot uses a template {{UTRS-OPP}} to place a request for proxy check on WP:OPP.

Discussion

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Some of this bot's pre-trial edits appear to have required oversight suppression - is this going to be a common occurrence? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were test edits that revealed my IP address. I filed test appeals as an IP address and then sent that appeal to a fake OPP page in UTRSBot's userspace. They were intentional edits to test functionality and I had an oversighter on standby.--v/r - T P 16:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Tparis's request, I've reviewed the suppressed content. I'm not a programmer so I cannot speak to whether that was a good or bad testing method, but I can confirm that they appear to be deliberately-made edits that involved an IP address as part of the testing process, not bot (or user) errors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the updates on that. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have this bot listed as "on demand" will it only be manually triggered? If this is not manual, will the trigger being occurring outside of enwiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the automatic stats update in DeltaQuad's userpage, each edit from this bot is triggered by an action on the UTRS web interface. And none of the posted content is user generated. The user notifications are triggered when a user confirms their email address. The admin notifications are triggered only when a reviewing administrative makes the deliberative decision to request the blocking admin's input. The reviewing administrator would have to request help on the blocking administrator's talk page anyway, so this bot simply automates that step. And the OPP post only happens when a reviewing administrator requires an IP address to be checked for open proxies and deliberately clicks that button. Because of the need for privacy, this automatic process only occurs for IP address requests. Named accounts, and account creation requests, will trigger an alert on the web interface directing the reviewing administrator to post the OPP request manually.--v/r - T P 00:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions on the pre-trial edits:

Not sure if this will be changing-- in some of your pre-trial edits, you appear to be adding a redlinked category Special:Diff/718190567 is this going to be used?
The user page edits are "wall of text" type edits (Special:Diff/718729519) unless there is a good reason not to, can these be made with templates (or not subst'd)?
For the blocking admin edits - what do you expect the blocking admin to do here - go sign up for a UTRS account, or reply on this page? The directions for what you want them to do should be more specific.

Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first question, I was going to blue link the category and add it as a subcategory to Category:Requests for unblock. On the second, it is a template. I can remove the subst so it becomes a smaller notification. For the blocking admin, I'll change the instructions to make it more clear. There are 170+ admins registered on the UTRS interface which often covers the admins that are generally involved in blocking users. Requesting blocking admin input happens occasionally and right now the process is to manually notify them. If they want to register, they do. Sometimes they ask us to post our questions on-wiki which is fine too.--v/r - T P 01:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We generally substitute notices like this, but I never understood why. — Earwig ^talk 01:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the user block templates, historically it was to make it harder/more obvious that the user was removing it and/or to avoid mass template vandalism - but that was a long time ago and editfilters, more intelligent bots, and additional protection levels have alleviated most of that. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the template for soliciting blocking admin info is the one that will probably need the most thought, but is not really a "bot issue" - I know I block users, and never did sign up on UTRS so if this got slapped on my page I'd probably just reply under it - not sure if that is the desired response? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits or 10 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. OK to trial after addressing the few items discussed above. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get the templates fixed and then work with the team to get a trial started.--v/r - T P 01:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux and The Earwig: Just to confirm, should I substitute the templates or not?--v/r - T P 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go without subst'ing for the trials. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this has been adressed since I first raised this point TParis, but a detail still bothers me: specifically, the part about leaving a note on the blocking admin's talk page. How does UTRSBot pull the blocking admin username? Does it work off of the UTRS ticket's "Blocking Admin" field, or does UTRSbot pull the "real" information from the on-wiki blocked user's block log? The former is undesirable IMO, because the UTRS ticket's "Blocking Admin" is an unverified text field provided by the appellant and is often (almost commonly) incorrect. We've had an issue open on UTRS's GitHub which, once resolved, will make the "Blocking Admin" field be pulled automatically and not filled out manually be the appelant, but as I understand it it's not planned in the very short term (and would probably be included in our future plans for OAuth integration?). Also, a minor technical note, is the bot "trained" to work well with redirected talk pages (for renamed users and whatnot)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admins and very often either entered correctly or misspelled. Very rarely is the wrong admin entered. If the value specified in the blocking admin field is an invalid user account, meaning the account doesn't exist, then the notification isn't placed. The bot handles redirects well.--v/r - T P 19:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to dispel your misconception that the "blocking admin" field provided by the appellant is something that can ever reliably be used: out of the dozen appeals quickly accessible from the UTRS responder dashboard, almost half are incorrect:

UTRS appeal #15742 links to User:Jac16888 Talk
UTRS appeal #15730 links to User:Didnt notice
UTRS appeal #15739 links to User:User:Ponyo
UTRS appeal #15744 links to User:RH Worth
UTRS appeal #15736 links to User:Bb23

At least one of them (the last one) would have, according to your above comment, resulted in UTRSBot placing a notification to "the blocking admin" on a wrong user talk page, because the account Bb23 exists. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: How is this?--v/r - T P 21:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to be a coder, but do I understand correctly that initPage( "User_talk:" . $blockinfo['by'] ); means you're now grabbing the blocking admin's name from the block log entry itself? If so, that's perfect. I also seem to notice you check if the user is an admin and not just if it exists (if ($admin->exists), so UTRSBot would not leave messages to former admins? If so: good idea! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really check if they are a sysop. It only checks if the account exists. It's a bit redundant now that it's pulling from on-wiki but it doesn't hurt to have it.--v/r - T P 21:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I just wanted to point out that I changed the admin template as requested.--v/r - T P 21:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. As far as the "blocking admin" problem - is there any way to address this before it ever gets to the bot, such as by the initial input form? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an option for the UTRS tool to actually pull the log and get the "real" blocking admin from there? Understanding this would not be simple for rangeblocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #40 remains open on UTRS's GitHub thus far. I won't pretend that I'm skilled enough with code to implement a solution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. The Peachy implementation I'm using actually makes it very easy and we may look at using that in the future. But for now, those kinds of requests for the tool should be placed on github, where Salv has already opened a ticket for this request.--v/r - T P 23:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And i've asked for it specifically to be a part of this update, as really it's needed fixing a long time ago, and we already have the code around for it with what you have created. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trail has started with the push of code to live. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty cool, but right now, if you click edit to edit the request, instead, it attempts to edit the template. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the template is transcluded (not substed) and the header is part of the template; thus, the section edit link tries to edit the template's own section. This could be resolved by either substing (already discussed above), or making the bot create a new header on the talk page under which it would transcluded the headerless template. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone with the second option. I'm pushing the change to alpha right now, and I'll push it to live if it works without problems.--v/r - T P 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.

The bot's trial has hit the 10 day mark. The following are links to the versions at milestones during this BRFA:

BRFA Open: 80ee9560fdeb7fc73b8039f855390f4bd3c7dbbd
Trial Start: a09f372c0b523de82d89ba4d26306970c73e4bf3
New: 01960ee4c4a25b3e5db24442a4d90fdad8c78882

Many changes were made during this trial to adjust for errors, bugs, and requested features. The changes since the BRFA opened are here. For a list of the bot's edits after all changes made, see this contributions list. All of the diffs on that list are with the latest updates and can be fully scrutinized.--v/r - T P 02:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Do you feel there are any outstanding testing items that this needs additional trial time for? Once live, are there any reasons this account should not be using a bot flag (e.g. you will be updating watch-listed pages, etc but don't want to have different code for asserting the bot flag). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I believe we were pretty responsive in sorting out issues that sprung up as they appeared. Most issues were aesthetic in nature such as changing templates and setting up the bot to provide the additional template fields. The logic is pretty straight forward and I have no doubt that additional testing would not produce new results. While we only have 26 edits related to this BRFA since the lastest version was pushed to live, almost none of the changes affected the logic of the system. The biggest difference was the addition of the "close appeals" functionality but it hasn't had a single error since it was deployed. I do not see any reason why the bot would need to go without the bot userright. The code is already configured to use the bot flag.--v/r - T P 03:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I see you've still flying the "semi-retired" banner - do you expect to be able to handle any inquires about this bot once it is in operation? (We have recently had multiple bots that got set up and the operators left as they slowly broke down). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I will leave a link to the github issues page on the bot's user page. There are several other developers. If I were to disappear, one of those developers can create and operate a new account with the same code. However, I believe I'll be around enough to be responsive to requests for this bot.--v/r - T P 03:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 20 May 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.