Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionTaggingBot
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic.
Programming Language(s): Python.
Function Summary: Add protection tags to protected articles that lack them as well as remove protection tags when the expire.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):
Function Details: This is an adminbot. A list of all protected pages is pulled from the API, the pages are then checked to see if they contain a template from Category:Protection templates. If true the page is skipped, if false and the protection doesn't expire in than 24 hours a template is added with the following logic.
if edit protected and move protected
if protection level sysop
pp-protected
else if protection level autoconfirmed
if expiry is infinity
pp-semi-indef
else
pp-semi-protected
else if move protected
pp-move-vandalism
The protection template is added to the top of the page with the format {{pp-*|small=yes|expiry=Month day, year}}, with the expiry being omitted for infinitely protected pages.
The removal portion will be documented after the code is started.
Discussion[edit]
Requesting a speedy trial to begin testing on autoconfirmd and move protected pages (doesn't require +sysop) so I can work out the kinks before submitting the code for review. BJTalk 11:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --Chris 11:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, if it comes across a page that is only edit protected, is there a branch for that? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Will it be using the "small" parameter or the "expiry" parameter in the templates? Will it only run on articles? (it would be really nice if people had more than 8 minutes to ask these questions before the trial started ...) Mr.Z-man 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say that running a bot trial to template articles that are protected is having a problem if the articles templated aren't actually protected? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it would but the article you reverted on is in fact move protected. BJTalk 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't the majority of articles move protected, and why and since when would a lock template be necessary for only move protection? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, under 10,000 articles have any form of protection out of 2.5 million. BJTalk 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Still, I have a lot of articles on my watchlist that are move protected, and obviously don't have the protection template on the page, if that's what this addition is for. Why is it necessary for a move protected article have a lock template? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, under 10,000 articles have any form of protection out of 2.5 million. BJTalk 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't the majority of articles move protected, and why and since when would a lock template be necessary for only move protection? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Possible bug at Cambrian explosion where the bot's added the template twice. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't add {{pp-move-vandalism}}. Current practice is that it is used only on pages that are likely to be moved in the future, but has not to be put on pages with no reasonable reason to be moved. A bot can't make the distinction. Reasons for not adding this are multiple, it doesn't affect editing, it's a form of recognition for vandals, it's ugly for readers and it's completely unneeded. If you want to categorize, you still can add a subcategory of Category:Move protected, for example Category:Move protected due to vandalism, so that we can see which ones are protected due to dispute, which are the most important ones to be aware of. At least, discuss the matter before continuing tagging with {{pp-move-vandalism}}. Cenarium (Talk) 04:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of the reason a page is fully-protected from moving, it should be tagged. Fully-protecting articles from moves contradicts the openness of a wiki, and if admins choose to indefinitely move-protect pages, then there is absolutely no reason to be coy about it. The icon is an indicator that an action has been taken and the page is no longer free to be moved about by non-admins. To conceal this information by intentionally not tagging the pages would be in direct contrast with our principles of transparency and openness.
If there's a specific issue with Template:Pp-move-vandalism, either the directions should be re-written for it, a new template should be created (Template:Pp-move-indef?), or the instructions for Template:Pp-move should be re-written. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Moving is not editing. Just like protecting, or deleting is not editing. When there is absolutely no reason to move a page, like dates, month days, non-ambiguous biographical articles, and other basic articles like Clothing, Cold, Christmas, there is no need to mark the page. Much in the same way we don't put a tag on articles with more than 5000 revisions because they can't be deleted. It's useless because admins will found out, and likewise, users who know what moving means will find out. There is a purpose for the template in case of name-disputes: warn a reader that the name of the article is disputed. We're a wiki, but first we're an encyclopedia. So we must judge if a notice template is warranted for readers, while it's clear that pp-semi-protected and pp-protected are, pp-move-vandalism is generally not, and a category can inform users and be used for maintenance anyway. As for categories, we must differentiate articles that are move protected because of dispute (like Burma), there are to be aware of, and others that are move-protected because of vandalism, so create another category for them. Cheers, Cenarium (Talk) 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your analogy to deletion doesn't compute. A registered user is able to move articles. They are not able to delete articles. Notifying them that they cannot delete an article with over 5,000 revisions would be pointless because they also cannot delete an article with under 5,000 revisions. Certain admins have made the choice (without any community involvement) to batch move-protect articles in an ill-conceived effort to 'protect' the pages. That's all well and good, but actions have consequences. Indefinite move protection is the rarity, not the norm. We have obligation to readers and editors alike to notify them when an article does not fit an expectation. It's simple courtesy and it would be a bad practice to not do so. But you seem to really just be arguing about the use of Template:Pp-move-vandalism more than anything else. So would it be acceptable if I simply created a separate template / category (I'm thinking Template:Pp-move-indef)? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- IPs however are not able to move articles, only autoconfirmed users can. I think that initially only developers could move pages and it has been extended to autoconfirmed users, similarly to deletion and protection that has been extended to admins. So notifying IPs (which constitutes the vast majority of our readers) that they cannot move an article is equally pointless, especially when the article has not a snow ball's change in hell to be moved legitimately (like Time, 2008, etc). So I think that, unlike for edit protection, the move-protection lock is generally not warranted. However for articles that may need to be moved, or whose name is disputed, they certainly are. Basically, a bot can't make the distinction. But there's a solution, I think. If we can add an optional parameter to Template:Pp-move-vandalism 'lock=yes/no', with default no, that displays or doesn't display the lock, but always categorizes in Category:Move protected due to vandalism. Then any user who wish to move the page will be informed when seeing the template in edit mode, or the category. And Category:Move protected would be used by Template:pp-move, where we can put articles that are move-protected due to disputes. I think it's important to distinguish between articles move-protected due to disputes, and others, so I'll create the category Category:Move protected due to vandalism if there's no opposition. Cenarium (Talk) 14:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's not really how we do things. The lock icon shows up if the user is blocked and unable to edit the page. Hell, even the tab will read "edit this page" if your IP is blocked. If admins make the decision to move-protect articles (which is not the norm), we should make an indication of this on the page. Or, alternately, the pages can be unprotected. But I don't see a reason to try to hide the fact that admins have protected certain articles. That's simply the way it is and in the interest of transparency, we shouldn't hide this. I'll also note that things like cleanup tags and whatnot are visible to everyone when most users are readers, not editors. It doesn't particularly matter; the pages are locked, we should indicate so or unprotect them. We're a wiki; the expectation is that things will be open to change. If there's a break from that norm, we must tell the user, anon or not.
As for the category name, it would be nice if we fixed all of the categories at once. "Category:Protected" should really be "Category:Wikipedia protected pages," etc. So something like "Category:Move protected due to vandalism" would become "Category:Wikipedia pages move-protected due to vandalism" or something. That sort of sounds like it only applies to project-space pages, so perhaps we should ask someone who deals with categories more often, though I believe the Wikipedia prefix for internal (editor) categories is the standard convention. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've created Category:Move protected due to vandalism and Template:Pp-move-vandalism begins to categorize there. I don't question the fact that users should be informed of the fact an article is move-protected, but that maybe using the lock isn't the best way to accomplish that while there are other ways to do so and most readers are not concerned by move-protections of articles with no reason to be moved. It is important that cleanup tags be showed to all because it acknowledges the problems an article may have. I think that maybe having a move tab visible for non-admin autoconfirmed users also for move-protected articles explaining when clicked why they can't move the page would be a net positive, and I think we should make a bug for that. As for categories, I suppose we'd have to start a discussion at a more appropriate place if we want to change the names. Cenarium (Talk) 17:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, fair point. Though the icons are colored based on level of protection and they include hover text, the concern that new users would be confused by the icons is a legitimate one. I don't believe any software change will go through as it will interrupt caching, but that's not my area, really, just my thoughts. If you have a spare moment, please file a bug about that. The bot should still definitely tag these pages so that they can easily be categorized and backlinked, but for the moment, leaving the lock icon to off seems reasonable. More discussion from more people can always come later and it's an easy switch to flip should there be consensus to have the icons if the bot has already tagged the pages using a template. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've created Category:Move protected due to vandalism and Template:Pp-move-vandalism begins to categorize there. I don't question the fact that users should be informed of the fact an article is move-protected, but that maybe using the lock isn't the best way to accomplish that while there are other ways to do so and most readers are not concerned by move-protections of articles with no reason to be moved. It is important that cleanup tags be showed to all because it acknowledges the problems an article may have. I think that maybe having a move tab visible for non-admin autoconfirmed users also for move-protected articles explaining when clicked why they can't move the page would be a net positive, and I think we should make a bug for that. As for categories, I suppose we'd have to start a discussion at a more appropriate place if we want to change the names. Cenarium (Talk) 17:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's not really how we do things. The lock icon shows up if the user is blocked and unable to edit the page. Hell, even the tab will read "edit this page" if your IP is blocked. If admins make the decision to move-protect articles (which is not the norm), we should make an indication of this on the page. Or, alternately, the pages can be unprotected. But I don't see a reason to try to hide the fact that admins have protected certain articles. That's simply the way it is and in the interest of transparency, we shouldn't hide this. I'll also note that things like cleanup tags and whatnot are visible to everyone when most users are readers, not editors. It doesn't particularly matter; the pages are locked, we should indicate so or unprotect them. We're a wiki; the expectation is that things will be open to change. If there's a break from that norm, we must tell the user, anon or not.
- IPs however are not able to move articles, only autoconfirmed users can. I think that initially only developers could move pages and it has been extended to autoconfirmed users, similarly to deletion and protection that has been extended to admins. So notifying IPs (which constitutes the vast majority of our readers) that they cannot move an article is equally pointless, especially when the article has not a snow ball's change in hell to be moved legitimately (like Time, 2008, etc). So I think that, unlike for edit protection, the move-protection lock is generally not warranted. However for articles that may need to be moved, or whose name is disputed, they certainly are. Basically, a bot can't make the distinction. But there's a solution, I think. If we can add an optional parameter to Template:Pp-move-vandalism 'lock=yes/no', with default no, that displays or doesn't display the lock, but always categorizes in Category:Move protected due to vandalism. Then any user who wish to move the page will be informed when seeing the template in edit mode, or the category. And Category:Move protected would be used by Template:pp-move, where we can put articles that are move-protected due to disputes. I think it's important to distinguish between articles move-protected due to disputes, and others, so I'll create the category Category:Move protected due to vandalism if there's no opposition. Cenarium (Talk) 14:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your analogy to deletion doesn't compute. A registered user is able to move articles. They are not able to delete articles. Notifying them that they cannot delete an article with over 5,000 revisions would be pointless because they also cannot delete an article with under 5,000 revisions. Certain admins have made the choice (without any community involvement) to batch move-protect articles in an ill-conceived effort to 'protect' the pages. That's all well and good, but actions have consequences. Indefinite move protection is the rarity, not the norm. We have obligation to readers and editors alike to notify them when an article does not fit an expectation. It's simple courtesy and it would be a bad practice to not do so. But you seem to really just be arguing about the use of Template:Pp-move-vandalism more than anything else. So would it be acceptable if I simply created a separate template / category (I'm thinking Template:Pp-move-indef)? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Moving is not editing. Just like protecting, or deleting is not editing. When there is absolutely no reason to move a page, like dates, month days, non-ambiguous biographical articles, and other basic articles like Clothing, Cold, Christmas, there is no need to mark the page. Much in the same way we don't put a tag on articles with more than 5000 revisions because they can't be deleted. It's useless because admins will found out, and likewise, users who know what moving means will find out. There is a purpose for the template in case of name-disputes: warn a reader that the name of the article is disputed. We're a wiki, but first we're an encyclopedia. So we must judge if a notice template is warranted for readers, while it's clear that pp-semi-protected and pp-protected are, pp-move-vandalism is generally not, and a category can inform users and be used for maintenance anyway. As for categories, we must differentiate articles that are move protected because of dispute (like Burma), there are to be aware of, and others that are move-protected because of vandalism, so create another category for them. Cheers, Cenarium (Talk) 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of the reason a page is fully-protected from moving, it should be tagged. Fully-protecting articles from moves contradicts the openness of a wiki, and if admins choose to indefinitely move-protect pages, then there is absolutely no reason to be coy about it. The icon is an indicator that an action has been taken and the page is no longer free to be moved about by non-admins. To conceal this information by intentionally not tagging the pages would be in direct contrast with our principles of transparency and openness.
(unindent) Agreed. Before creating a bug on the move tab, I'll open a thread at Wikipedia:VPR to discuss it more fully and see what kind of message we can use. The migration to Category:Move protected due to vandalism is now over, so we can cleanup Category:Move protected more easily. For Template:pp-move-vandalism, I propose to use #if:{{{notice|}}} , if we use {{pp-move-vandalism}}, it will only categorize the page, if we use {{pp-move-vandalism|notice=yes}}, it will show the big notice and if we use {{pp-move-vandalism|notice=yes |small=yes}}, it'll show the lock. The bonus is that we can then also add {{pp-move-vandalism}} to pages with move-protection and semi-protection, since the lock won't show up. So it would require to change the bot's code. It's possible to manually add notice=yes and small=yes when warranted (which constitutes a small part of all move-protected articles). Cenarium (Talk) 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had accidentally removed the above post. Note that I have started a thread at VPR. Cenarium (Talk) 01:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What possible reason could you have for protecting Chew Valley? It has rarely if ever been vandalised. I was also puzzled by Bath, Somerset and Cider, although the latter does attract very occasional vandalism it isn't anything that needs protecting. Is this bot being overzealous? --TimTay (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- The bot isn't protecting any articles, just adding the template (the little lock in the top right). All those articles have been protected (or move protected) by admins. BJTalk 09:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It has only been protected from moves. Move-protection is completely distinct from edit-protection. But it's true that Chew Valley and Bath, Somerset have never been moved. I think it has been protected because similar articles have attracted page-move vandals, but I won't discuss the merit of those protections here. Cider has been moved and there being no thinkable legitimate reason to move the page, it shouldn't be a problem, nor the lock seems necessary. This is another inconvenient of the pp-move lock, it tends to be confused with the pp-semi lock. Cenarium (Talk) 14:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It all comes down to if those articles should be protected. If articles were only move protected with good reason the total protections would be small, making the whole argument moot. On the other hand, if we are going to mass protect everything that has no reason to be moved it starts to become annoying. BJTalk 14:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are still hundreds of articles that are move-protected with good reasons. While we could debate whether move-protecting articles that are very similar to articles that have been the target of page-move vandals and have no reasonable reason to be moved is sound, undoing all those would be globally negative for Wikipedia. However, the question is whether showing the lock is justified or not, when there's no reasonable reason to move a page and we have other ways to inform autoconfirmed users of why they can't see the move tab. The vast majority of readers is not concerned by that, this should stay behind the scene. Unless the article's name is actually disputed or likely to be changed, there is no reason to inform all readers of a move-protection. Cenarium (Talk) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It all comes down to if those articles should be protected. If articles were only move protected with good reason the total protections would be small, making the whole argument moot. On the other hand, if we are going to mass protect everything that has no reason to be moved it starts to become annoying. BJTalk 14:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It has only been protected from moves. Move-protection is completely distinct from edit-protection. But it's true that Chew Valley and Bath, Somerset have never been moved. I think it has been protected because similar articles have attracted page-move vandals, but I won't discuss the merit of those protections here. Cider has been moved and there being no thinkable legitimate reason to move the page, it shouldn't be a problem, nor the lock seems necessary. This is another inconvenient of the pp-move lock, it tends to be confused with the pp-semi lock. Cenarium (Talk) 14:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- About Today's featured article, I'm not sure it would be useful to have it tagged then untagged for the time on the Main Page. Is it possible to have an exception for it ? Cenarium (Talk) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this bot added {{Pp-semi-indef}} to Wind-up Records (link), even though the page is not protected and never has been. Am I missing something? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Since the five day trial is over, could this be given a bot flag? It's currently showing up in [1], which is a bit annoying. I think that goes away once it has a bot flag. --fvw* 10:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing auto edit placement of tag[edit]
A fundamental principle of WP is that anyone can edit and such edits can be anonymous. Only when an article is being disrupted unreasonably can any kind of block or protection be considered. At "tax haven" this is not the case. Tag removed. Please take more care! Paul Beardsell (talk)
Conclusion[edit]
Trial over for 3 days, dont seem to be any glaring irregularities, nor any valid lodged complaints or misbehavings. 
Approved. Q T C 10:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.