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.

Operator: LegoK^ontribsT^alkM

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic Unsupervised

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Overview: Checks and fixes wrong protection tags

Edit period(s): Daily

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

Function Details: Copied from here

1. Gets pages from Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.
2. IF the page is not protected, THEN remove all protection templates from the page
3. IF the page is edit-protected (semi-protection) but the move-protection is autoconfirmed, THEN remove all move-protection templates from the page
4. IF the page is move-protected AND the move-protection is sysop AND the move-protection expiry is "indefinite", THEN add ((pp-move-indef)) to the page

Discussion[edit]

Is this intended to be an adminbot, or by "edit-protected" in step 3 do you mean only semi-protected? Anomie⚔ 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task seems innocent enough, just watch the usual political issues of adminbots and you should be fine -- 05:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawker (talk • contribs)

Lego is not an admin, so I don't think he means an adminbot. — neuro^(talk) 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant semi-protected as this isn't supposed to be an adminbot and I'm not an admin. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. As Tawker mentioned above, this seems uncontroversial. Anomie⚔ 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few issues:

• The bot edited Template:Pp-vandalism/sandbox and Template:Pp-protected/sandbox; perhaps /sandbox subpages should be excluded from bot processing?
• Also User:Silly rabbit/foradiff and User:Margpeng/Sandbox. I'm not sure about user subpages in general, since some people use them to draft changes to articles.
• What happened at Matt Morgan (comedian)?
• And at Jake Delhomme? The first edit was ok, but then the bot edited it twice more?
• Sean Salmon should have had its ((pp-semi)) removed. What happened? Ditto for Santino Marella and Matt Morgan (comedian) with ((pp-semi-indef)), and Jake Delhomme with ((pp-semi-vandalism)).

BTW, I wonder if it's worth having the bot update the expiry parameter when it is editing the page anyway. I wouldn't bother with that if there is no other edit being performed though. Anomie⚔ 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Jake Delhomme page, it looks like there's a minor flaw in the logic I initially proposed: #4 needs an extra clause "AND the page does not already have ((pp-move-indef))". I'm wary of rules that remove edit-protection templates only though, because potential changes to the protection templates could render them buggy. The following rule might be useful, though: "IF the page is not edit-protected AND the page is move-protected AND the move-protection is sysop AND the move-protection is indefinite THEN remove all protection templates from the page, after which add ((pp-move-indef))". ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 05:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are ((pp-move-dispute)), ((pp-move-vandalism)), and ((pp-move)) not appropriate for indefinite-length protection? Your proposed rule would remove them in favor of ((pp-move-indef)).

I think a simpler set of rules would be better: Just look at the edit protection level, remove any inapplicable templates, and if none of the appropriate templates are present then add one, and add/correct the expiry parameter if necessary. Then do the same for the move protection level. Could you elaborate on the type of change to an edit-protected template that would make things buggy? Anomie⚔ 13:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the idea for a rule. The potential change to protection templates is one of merging: with the new ((PROTECTIONLEVEL)) magic word templates can figure out what the level of protection is for the page, and for example ((pp-semi-vandalism)) and ((pp-vandalism)) were merged. Since the primary distinction between protection templates is protection reason rather than protection level, if I or someone else can figure things out properly we could merge more templates, e.g. ((pp-dispute)) and ((pp-move-dispute)), or something. I'm having a bit of writer's block in the regard of merging some of the new functionality into ((pp-meta)) without producing really ugly syntax for producing individual templates, so some of the ideas are still floating around vaguely. It may or may not be a reasonable concern: we can, after all, use User:Legobot III/Stop temporarily if a change were to be made that invalidated the logic. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ((OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D)) What's the status of this bot request? ST47 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think right now all of the protection templates are being merged into one that will auto detect the protection level, so we're just waiting. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to, you could withdraw the BRFA. You'd then be free to re-open when it was clear what needed doing. Just a suggestion though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other templates that should be merged are ((pp-semi-template)) in ((pp-template)) and ((pp-semi-usertalk)) in ((pp-usertalk)). I've also opened a bug for a ((PROTECTIONEXPIRY)) magic word to get rid of the protection expiries, but it's unlikely to be resolved soon. Cenarium (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until further notice, the only merges that will happen are the two Cenarium has mentioned. I don't think it's practical, at the moment, to merge edit and non-edit protection templates. If the bot passes its second test run without the problems from the first, it should be ready for continued use. I'm now especially eager for its activation as my recent centralization (to ((pp-meta))) of the incorrectness-detection function exposed a significant number of incorrect instances in the template namespace. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ((OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D)) Just wanting to see where this requests stands at. Is another trial required after the fixes from above? Or are we waiting on some template changes? Q ^{T C} 23:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are just waiting for template changes. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are stable enough now that the proposed routine should not fail. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Could I have a re-trial please. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D)) – Quadell ^(talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates to fill up. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 edits done so far. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done 12 more. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 03:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits look good to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 more done. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Looks good. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:31, 6 May 2009 (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.