Meta:Requests for bot status/DreamRimmer bot
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
- DreamRimmer bot (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.
I have been manually archiving processed requests on Steward requests/Permissions for the past 15–16 months, and I now want to use a bot to automate the process. Manual archiving is a tedious and time-consuming task, and processed requests often remain on the page for several days. I propose archiving handled requests if the last response is at least 15 hours old. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. – DreamRimmer ◆ 14:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Support, definitely has the required technical skills. I'm extremely astonished to see that SRP archiving was manual till now; so thanks for voluteering and helping out so far. – Svārtava (tɕ) 18:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)- Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, I raised this issue back in November about the archiving issue, and I an really glad that this is getting resolved :) ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support--A09|(pogovor) 20:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I definitely support using a bot to archive the page, but does it have to be a flagged bot? Given the traffic at that page, I think running the bot once a day should be enough; and two or three edits per 24 hours (one to the main page and one or two edits to archive pages) shouldn’t flood the recent changes. (By the way, why did you choose a timeout of 15 hours? I’m okay with it, I’m just curious, as it’s not a “round” number.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the bot flag is really needed since there probably won't be many edits, but I will leave that for the crats to decide. As for the 15-hour timeout, I think that's a reasonable amount of time for users to check back and for others to respond, but I am open to suggestions from the stewards if they feel the requests should stay a bit longer. – DreamRimmer ◆ 00:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would keep it at 48 hours, as users occasionally need to respond after closure (eg adding 2FA). Leaderboard (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to that. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I also support 48 hours. – Svārtava (tɕ) 11:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would keep it at 48 hours, as users occasionally need to respond after closure (eg adding 2FA). Leaderboard (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the bot flag is really needed since there probably won't be many edits, but I will leave that for the crats to decide. As for the 15-hour timeout, I think that's a reasonable amount of time for users to check back and for others to respond, but I am open to suggestions from the stewards if they feel the requests should stay a bit longer. – DreamRimmer ◆ 00:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support —MERULEH 22:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong support no-brainer request and reason. //shb (t • c) 00:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)- Strong support --Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 00:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but if I recall correctly, SRP processing used to be automatic. What happened then? Leaderboard (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- JarBot handled archiving until December 2022, but it was stopped after its operator, جار الله, was banned by the WMF. MajavahBot tried to take over, but was stopped due to the different archiving structure, which required completely different functionality from what it used on other SR pages. Since December 2022, archiving has been done manually. – DreamRimmer ◆ 05:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't JarBot's code be used, or was that closed-source? Leaderboard (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard: It was closed-source, and their Toolforge tool was eventually deleted because the WMF ban was global and applied across all WMF platforms. I will make my code open-source so that others can use it in my absence. – DreamRimmer ◆ 15:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- But if it run on Toolforge, didn't their bot had to be open-source as per the WMCS terms of service? (I'm aware this is getting off-topic, so feel free to continue on my talk page or elsewhere) Leaderboard (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was not around when Jarbot was active, but based on my experience with Toolforge, there is no requirement to link the source code on-wiki. Some Toolforge users do not share their source code publicly and also restrict access to their files on the Toolforge server. These tools are still considered open source and comply with WMCS terms of service because Toolforge admins can access them. – DreamRimmer ◆ 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- JarBot violated the terms of use by not licensing their code. This was not caught until after they were banned. * Pppery * it has begun 04:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was not around when Jarbot was active, but based on my experience with Toolforge, there is no requirement to link the source code on-wiki. Some Toolforge users do not share their source code publicly and also restrict access to their files on the Toolforge server. These tools are still considered open source and comply with WMCS terms of service because Toolforge admins can access them. – DreamRimmer ◆ 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- But if it run on Toolforge, didn't their bot had to be open-source as per the WMCS terms of service? (I'm aware this is getting off-topic, so feel free to continue on my talk page or elsewhere) Leaderboard (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard: It was closed-source, and their Toolforge tool was eventually deleted because the WMF ban was global and applied across all WMF platforms. I will make my code open-source so that others can use it in my absence. – DreamRimmer ◆ 15:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't JarBot's code be used, or was that closed-source? Leaderboard (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- JarBot handled archiving until December 2022, but it was stopped after its operator, جار الله, was banned by the WMF. MajavahBot tried to take over, but was stopped due to the different archiving structure, which required completely different functionality from what it used on other SR pages. Since December 2022, archiving has been done manually. – DreamRimmer ◆ 05:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support Obviously. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support 48 hours.--Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support Heh, I did notice you had to manually archive SRP the other day and was surprised to see it has been manually archived for the last 2.5 years. Support of course - ideally the bot would be the same for all steward request pages, but that doesn't matter that much. --Ferien (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support --V0lkanic (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support Trusted users and DreamRimmer is already very technical experienced editor and already working on various task with her bots on enwiki. --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7 talk 07:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that I have started the bot for trial runs so we can see how it performs. It is set to archive requests that are 48 hours old. – DreamRimmer ◆ 16:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Turkmen talk 07:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 11:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support A lot of other wikis have bots that function similarly so I'm surprised that we don't have one to automatically archive some of the highest traffic pages here.-FusionSub (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support ~~Sid~~ 11:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above --Wüstenspringmaus talk 13:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support Jet Pilot 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Done — xaosflux Talk 15:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)- The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.
