Meta:Requests for bot status/UrbanecmBot

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

UrbanecmBot[edit]

Not ending before 1 December 2020 15:40 (UTC)

Hey,

I propose to automatically mark edits by autopatrolled users as patrolled retroactively. When an admin grants the flag, they don't always go through the account's edit, and they still show at the RC as "unpatrolled", while they should be actually affected by the autopatrolled flag as well.

UrbanecmBot does this job at cswiki, and I think it could do a great job at Meta as well.

In this request for bot approval, I seek the patroller flag, bot flag is not necessary.

Thank you for your consideration, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec I don't understand your 3rd line, in this request part. Are you seeking community consensus for your bot to patrol edits (but do not need a bot flag but needs a patroller flag)? Or are you wanting a bot flag and a patroller flag? If it's community consensus and no bot flags are needed, it will be better to file at Babel? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a request for a bot task approval. If approved, the bot should get patroller flag, but running it with no approval would mean the bot would be unauthorized, so I filled here :-). Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't see a harm in doing so, I will try to patrol all when I grant autopatrol but yes, having a bot doing so might be more time efficient. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is really a task that needs to actually happen - was there a discussion that this is a problem that actually needs addressing? — xaosflux Talk 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost each time I grant autopatrol, I manually patrol all edits. Sometimes, I forget to. I didn't start a discussion about how to fix it, because I have already a working bot from cswiki. Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never do, and don't really think it is necessary. I don't really see anything really wrong with doing it - it just seems unnecessary. Notably, there is no "undo" on a patrol action - so if +AP is added in error there is no way to undo this bot work is there? What type of bot volume are you expecting here on meta-wiki? — xaosflux Talk 15:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in case you grant autopatrol wrongfully, and the user commits some bad edits, you can revoke the autopatrol flag, but can't make the wrong edits unpatrolled again. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with this being done. --MF-W 11:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really familiar with meta policy on this, but are you sure you don't want/need a flag? Wouldn't apihighlimits / noratelimit be helpful for something like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a good question. Interestingly enough, there is no rate limit on patrolling AFAICS, and I'll query the Toolforge DB replicas for list of revisions to patrol, so I don't think either of those are necessary. Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. This bot seems helpful and not harmful to me, so Support Support. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Matiia (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_bot_status/UrbanecmBot&oldid=20738246"