Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Denied.

Shadowbot2[edit]

Operator: Shadow1

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Shadowbot2 will check the protection status of templates transcluded onto the Main Page.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily

Edit rate requested: 1 edit per day

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

Function Details: Due to the recent template vandalism resulting in shock images being displayed on the Main Page, I've written Shadowbot2 to automatically check the protection status of templates that are transcluded onto the Main Page, to ensure that vandals cannot affect the Main Page. When run, it will generate a list of templates transcluded onto the Main Page, then go through each template and check whether it is protected, generating a report at the end.

Discussion[edit]

I'm not entirely sure about how Shadowbot2 will display its reports; I don't want it to aid vandals in their target selection. Any thoughts? Shadow1 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it privately check the templates and if something is not protected, have it send an alert email through the email function to a few whitelisted administrators? (Myself and PFHLai come in mind, although there are a few more with experience in this area.) This way, those admins would be alerted immediately, and vandals would not be able to be alerted. Is this technically possible? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come only a few whitelisted admins? I think it should be any admin who requests to be on this mailing list. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it reports on templates that are on the Main Page and vulnerable right this minute, I think it should be a restricted email list - if it's public then it'll be even easier for vandals.
Would it be possible to make the bot check the templates that are going on to the Main Page in one or two days' time? That could be maintained as a public list, since it wouldn't do vandals much good to vandalise a page before it went live (they could gross out one or two admins, but that's it). --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a little more thought, I would much prefer a bot-maintained list of soon-to-be-front-page articles and their current protection status, over the original suggestion of a bot that watched current front-page templates (though it could do that too). Prevention is much better than cure. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles on the Main Page themselves shouldn't be protected in general. Would it be possible for the bot to check the templates at {{Main Page toolbox}} and alert several whitelisted admins through the emailuser function if one of those templates or any images on those templates are unprotected? Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*hand -> forehead* By 'articles' I meant pages, templates, what have you - the stuff that appears on the Main Page, not the FA itself. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The templates on the Main Page should all already be permanently protected. This bot would detect if someone added a template to the main page without protecting it (unlikely but possible). You then have to consider the next level down, of templates within the templates, and how the content of the template is generated for each of the four main sections. In fact, the processes currently in place work pretty well for the Main Page - it is really rather rare to see this sort of vandalism that is visible directly on the Main Page. Most often, the vandalism (like the recent spate of image vandalism) is to templates on the day's featured article. That is the main problem, as the featured article changes daily and protecting the templates in those articles, and then unprotecting them, is a real pain (apparently). That problem is being discussed at Wikipedia:Main_Page_featured_article_protection. Would it be possible to have this bot generate a list, in advance, of unprotected templates in use on the featured article? That way, any vandal would have to create new templates to use, and that would involve an easily reverted edit that any editor can revert, rather than having to know how to search through the templates to find the unprotected one. Carcharoth 19:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Better yet, can we get the bot to actually protect the template? (Yes, I know what that means, an adminbot). Titoxd(?!?) 20:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little queasy about that. I know, for instance, that LDBot (talk · contribs) sometimes stops working somehow, thereby leaving upcoming Portal:Current events subpages uncreated. If the bot breaks down, the MP templates would not be protected; I doubt an admin would notice if that were to occur. -- tariqabjotu 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've written and posted something on this general situation here. Please comment on how to tighten up the checks and balances we need to have in place. Carcharoth 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One edit per day[edit]

This should certainly update more than once each day. I presume the update would be somewhere near the beginning of a day... say... 1:00 (UTC). However, images get added to the Main Page all the time, and other things might be changed. I suggest every hour or so, since it's very important that unprotected pages and images on the Main Page are spotted immediately. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

Run it please - approved, with all the usual paperwork filed. Personally I'm in favour of having the bot auto protect said templates but you know what happens when we talk about adminbots.... -- Tawker 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously considering writing an autoprotect bot, though I am unlikely to start on such a thing before I get back to California following the holidays. Dragons flight 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've set the bot to run once per hour, generating a report at User:Shadowbot2/Report. Shadow1 (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bot still updating once per day? Also, is there a reason the Jmax-bot FA Count page is marked as protected, when it's not technically protected? Is that just a built-in override or part of the program, checking if the bot can edit the page? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only Jmax-bot and admins can edit user's js pages. It's basically protected -- Tawker 18:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it check templates within templates? Voice-of-All 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we have an equivalent for tomorrow's templates? --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has suggested running the bot to also check Main Page/Tomorrow, which does what it says on the tin (it uses the sections done for tomorrow). Carcharoth 00:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ie. check both today's and tomorow's page. If anything unprotected today, scream blue murder. If anything unprotected for tomorrow, scream slighter lighter blue murder. :-) Carcharoth 00:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've always wished for a bot that automates the protection of main page templates. :) --Ixfd64 04:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - can it be run more often than once a day? Can it also check image protects? DYK changes fairly frequently. Have it check the images on Template:Did you know/Next update as those are likely to be moved over. (DYK process may need to change a bit, as those are often not going to be yet protected... maybe have it edit that page to add "image not protected yet, not OK to move" rather than mail someone) ++Lar: t/c 11:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support and possibly recommend expanding the bot's duties to add <includeonly> "image protection required" notices to ITN and DYK/NU if images used therein aren't protected. In this case, prudence reigns supreme. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support, we need it. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article templates[edit]

Can this bot be set to automatically check tomorrow's featured article, and email a list of templates that need protecting? Can it also do the reverse, and check whether templates have been unprotected after they've left the main page or the featured article is no longer linked from the main page? Carcharoth 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather that tomorrow's list, if created, was posted publicly rather than emailed. Vandals can't do much harm committing vandalism that only one or two admins will see, and it's one less step for someone to bother checking it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have the whole community see the list. First, more admins will be able to double check the templates. Secondly, I do not see how hiding it will make a difference. If it is a determined vandal, he could figure it out anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after sorting through the various feature requests, the bot will:

  1. Scan the Main Page templates
  2. Scan tomorrow's Main Page templates

I'll start working on template recursion now. Shadow1 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

I have proposed an adminbot to enforce protection in these high profile areas. Dragons flight 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not approved, discussion archived. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Shadowbot2&oldid=1138383289"