Wikivoyage:Script nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

According to the Wikivoyage script policy, scripts have to be approved by the Wikivoyage administrators. To create a script that runs against Wikivoyage, post the name and reason for the script beneath the line below.

Explain why we need the script, why it can't be done by hand, and what the script will do. If 2 administrators voice their support for the script and there are no unresolved objections, the script can be run with a bot flag. If objections arise later, the bot flag can be undone.

Scripts that have passed through this process can be found in Project:script nominations/Archive. The user page for any approved bot should include {{bot}} to indicate the wiki user responsible for operating the bot; a list of all active bots will then appear in Category:Wikivoyage bots.

NOTE: you must apply for approval on each language version of Wikivoyage. Approval on this page only allows you to run a bot on Wikivoyage in English.


DannyS712 bot - automatically "patrol"ing reverted edits[edit]

If an edit is reverted via rollback, the original edit is automatically patrolled, but if it is reverted via manual undo or via a manual revert, the old edit is still not patrolled, and thus still shows up when searching for unpatrolled edits in Special:RecentChanges. Since these edits don't really need to be checked by human patrollers, since they have been reverted, I propose that they be automatically patrolled by a bot.

I haven't written the code for this yet, but essentially

  • query the api for recent changes that are edits and are not patrolled, and are tagged with the reverted edits tag ("rctag": "mw-reverted", "rcshow": "!patrolled")
  • for each resulting edit, mark it as patrolled via the api

Thoughts? If this has approval, I'll write the code and grant the patroller flag to the bot account to test it out. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Go ahead. The dog2 (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like this idea at all. The most active vandal on this site has reverted a lot of edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to make sure it's not a misunderstanding, I think this is to automatically mark as patrolled an edit that was reverted. If the person who reverted is not autopatrolled, the the revert itself will still be marked for patrolling, and patrollers can still go and have a look. The dog2 (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The dog2 yes, that is correct. Consider the following:
  • User without autopatrol (or an IP) makes an edit, Edit A
  • Someone else reverts, Edit B
Unless rollback is used (which patrols reverted edits automatically), Edit A still needs to be manually patrolled. The bot would mark Edit A as patrolled, since it was reverted and so doesn't really need attention from human patrollers. The bot doesn't care about Edit B DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, sure, this is a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. EpicPupper (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. That guy pretty much never reverts anything. That referred to someone who was the most active vandal at the time I posted that reply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking back, Brendan isn't really a vandal, but more a copyright violator. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]