Commons:Bots/Requests/EuseBot - cat sync

EuseBot (cat sync feature)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Synchronization of a Commons category on the basis of a en.WP category. An en.WP cat (source cat) and a Commons cat (target cat) are given to the bot. For each page in the source cat (non-recursive), if a category with the exact same name exists on Commons, tag it with the target cat. Otherwise, look for a gallery with the exact same name. Otherwise, skip. Useful for populating newly created cats.

Test run: removing the command, performing the task (filter the log with "synchronizing Category:Alumni of King's College London", or look at individual diffs: category or gallery).

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Should be automatic, with orders taken from users at User:EuseBot/commands (currently not protected).

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily?

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): put_throttle is at 2, but edit rate for this feature is muuuuch slower. It depends on external constraints, but I currently observe 1-2 edits per minute (hopefully it might be improved in the future).

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No, EuseBot is flagged already

Programming Language(s): Python, pywikipedia, on the toolserver.

Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A remark: the commands page is currently unprotected, and would be advertised from the bot's user page if the feature is validated. --Eusebius (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks perfectly okay to me.. But please protect that command page :) Huib talk 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I do that, then the command page has to be cleaned manually afterwards, because the bot has no sysop rights (and doesn't want them). --Eusebius (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that is valid point.. What is our policy about granting adminflags to a bot for this reasson? Huib talk 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not a big fan of this solution, I wouldn't like to make a mistake. However, I don't use admin-only features in my code, so if you think it is better to flag the bot, why not. Your decision, I'll adapt myself. --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer solution like User:CommonsDelinker (regular bot) and User:CommonsDelinkerHelper (bot with administrator flag). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and add the requested details to the bot's page? (This is new). A good example can be found here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EugeneZ, two bots would be a good approach. Would semiprotection of the request page reduce risk enough to be an alternative solution? ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're convinced that two bots is better, I'll open a second account, if you think semiprotection is enough, let it be so... Please take the decision and I'll adapt myself. --Eusebius (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? --Eusebius (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I think I prefer 2 IDs, one tasked with cleaning the command page and given the admin flag, and one that does most of the work. You yourself are an admin so no worries there I should think. (question, how would the admin bot know it's time to clean? off-wiki note left by the other bot?) Any other views on this? ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both bots can share data on the toolserver, so that the sysop bot can perform selective cleaning on the command page (not implemented yet). If another bot wants to do cat sync from the same command page, though, I should come up with another solution. --Eusebius (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:EuseBotHelper created. --Eusebius (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So is everything all set now? Have you done a test run of the helper? I'm thinking we're good to go? 98.243.188.29 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't arranged the code for the helper yet, I only have the one-bot config, and no much time to do that this week. --Eusebius (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just let us know then... Do you plan to run a test eventually though? ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll be able to perform a test similar to the one with the single-bot config. I'll point you to the results. --Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it should be ready to go. Here is a manual synchronization request, some synchronization actions on categories ([1] [2] [3] [4]), and the removal of the command line by the helper bot (which should be robust to manual command insertion or removal during the synchronization process). Once User:EuseBotHelper gets sysop rights (and maybe a flag, but it's not so important here), I can protect the command page and advertise the feature. --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and please suggest a frequency for the crontab: daily, hourly? more often? --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion on that, what is it that's being run by crontab? the bot itself? That would depend on frequency of category requests and how important a very fast response is. I would think. Whatever you think best. You may want to note the frequency on the bot's user page. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crontab starts the bot itself. Since it is not computationally expensive when the bot has nothing to do, I think I'd go for every 15 minutes (so that it does not get too much frustrating for users). --Eusebius (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the upshot here is the following:

Mark (in the archive) that EuseBot is approved for the new cat sync feature/task, with no change in flagging
Mark (in the archive) that EuseBotHelper is approved for adminship, and approved for the cleanup task, running unflagged so we can see actions in recent changes.

Note that giving this bot adminship without a formal RfA might be considered odd by some but I believe it's not a big deal to do so. However consider: Commons:Requests_and_votes/CommonsDelinkerHelper and Commons:Requests and votes/MediaWiki Update Bot... these are our two bots, flagged as such, that have the admin flag. Both are operated by users who already have admin. I'm sorry to raise this at this late date (you must be hating my suggestions and comments by now) but do you think we need to go with an RfA here? What do others think. Personally I'm comfortable with just granting the flag. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a RfA if people think it's better, but I think it's rather irrelevant for a bot. --Eusebius (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've received some offline comments that suggest that an RfA probably would be a good idea, given the precedent (something I forgot when we were talking about this at first). Sorry for how this is dragging on. If you want, I'll write it up and launch it for you. ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Requests/EuseBotHelper --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (and sorry for the extra churn on this...) ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this... the RfA for EuseBotHelper passed: EuseBotHelper. Will mark and archive as outlined above. Thanks for your patience and good cheer, Eusebius! ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]