Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

More bot ideas

Since I'm in the midst of developing this bot, perhaps I should aim high and see if we'd like anymore clerking tasks to be automated. Some of these tasks will be much more challenging to implement than others, so I will prioritize accordingly. On a per-permission basis:

Account creator

• Can it check if the user is identified and meets the minimum requirement threshold per WP:ACC/G#prerequisites? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  In the short-term I can go with the 6 month account age / 1500 edit count qualifications, and eventually also check for a block within the past 6 months. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This, WP:ACC/G#prerequisites, is checked before the user get access to the tool and long before they're ready for this flag. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Only if they are getting the permission as part of being ACC. There are other ways of qualifying for needing this right. My thoughts are that since this is only a clerking task, it wouldn't hurt for the administrators reviewing requests to have something to gauge it against. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems the requirement for this flag (if not for ACC) is non-existent, save an edit-a-thon. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ACCP says if you are involved in the Education Program or other outreach work where they have a need to create accounts without restriction you are also eligible. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That's my point, there's really nothing for the bot to check, that semi'ing the page does not. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems many (most?) of the account creator requests are for users involved with events. The automated comments about not meeting some said qualifications may even be a deterrent toward their good-faith intentions. I'd rather not bother, for now. Thanks for the recommendations nonetheless — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

• Comment if the candidate has created less than 50 articles

  Autopatrolled doesn't just apply to articles. Perhaps it should check if the user has created more than 250 pages in general as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  The 50 article figure came from WP:AUTOPAT, so I'd prefer to stick to that unless there's an established standard for number of pages created. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

AWB

• Comment if the candidate has less than 500 mainspace edits
  • Sounds good. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It should refrain from commenting on bot requests (as it is likely that bots don't have the required mainspace edits) and instead check if it has a WP:BRFA.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed

• Mark as "already done" if they are already autoconfirmed
  • Sounds good, though I may never understand the point of the confirmed permission... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • EoRdE6, I sometimes suggest it to people that are having trouble with CAPTCHA as it gets rid of that so they can get to the 10 edit requirement. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

File mover

• (no proposals)
  • It'd be difficult and possibly resource consuming but could it check if the user has requested at least one file rename (see these) and if not decline. Plus comment if there are less than say 5 (arbitrary number). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

• Comment if candidate has less than 100 main space edits.

  As they don't have enough experience to review pending changes. We can raise the bar to 200 edits because PC right is considered almost equal to rollback right. I think commenting that candidate has less than 100 main space edits will help the admin take the decision faster.--Supdiop ^talk 06:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

• Comment if the candidate has created less than 200 mainspace edits
  • Yep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template editor

• Should be able to check for most of WP:TPEGRANT. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  Similar with account creator, in the short term I think I'll have it just check the 1 year account age / 1000 edit count qualifications, and later checks of the block log. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

General

• Add (non-admin closure) or similar notice to requests declined by non-admins Will not implement — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment if the user has other open requests for permissions

Discussion

Any thoughts, input? Feel free to comment within the subsections above, or add any new proposals. Going to ping some recent/long-term PERM admins and other long-term users involved in the process @Armbrust, Beeblebrox, HJ Mitchell, Kudpung, Mlpearc, Nakon, Swarm, and Xaosflux: — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Xaosflux again since the {{ping}} template apparently doesn't like over 7 users to be pinged at a time — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think NAC notices are really needed in general, maybe if a DONE request is going to be done by a non-admin who is incapable of completing it a flag could help? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admins shouldn't be acting like they can grant requests at all. These look like good ideas in general, the thing that jumps out at me is that it should do the same check for PC reviewers as for rollback as they require a similar level of experience. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Beeblebrox, but there seems to be varying opinions about non-admin closures (check the archives), so I'm just going to go ahead and scratch that proposed task for the bot. Beeblebrox about pending changes reviewer, how many edits should the bot look for? For Rollback I simply went by Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights, there's doesn't seem to be an established figure for pending changes reviewer. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

When all this was originally being debated I seem to recall the idea that it be considered a similar level of trust as required for rollback. In actual practice I think most admins set the bar slightly higher as it is a slightly more powerful tool with no "free" equivalent in Twinkle. Not sure exactly where that leaves us, but I certainly wouldn't give PC reviewer to someone I wouldn't trust with rollback. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if it was noted if the user has more than one active request. WP:HATSHOP Mlpearc (open channel) 03:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I like Mlpearc's idea. Added to General above, though this may be further away on the development road map. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• This thread was originally entitled More bot ideas, so that's what I'll address. I appreciate being among the list of uses pinged (@Armbrust, Beeblebrox, HJ Mitchell, Kudpung, Mlpearc, Nakon, Swarm, and Xaosflux: ), which is a fairly accurate list of the most regular admins working at PERM over the last 3 years or so - in fact for a very long time I practically had the place to myself until I stepped aside in April last year to give some newly created admins more elbow room. Hence, I am wondering what the sudden flurry of interest is from non admins in this remote corner of admin work. Personally, I find NAO and NAC on these PERMS to be simply duplicating the work that the admins are going to double check anyway before granting or declining a request. I see bot handlers simply looking for yet another area for which they can create a bot or argue the toss with other bots. We've seen competitive bot and/or script writing in other places where some of us ::sigh:: have now given up partly for that reason. I can't speak for my fellow admin colleagues but I'm hazarding the guess that they feel the PERM pages get along just fine with our old friend non-admin Armbrust doing the only clerking that's necessary and doing it better than any bot. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input, Kudpung! As a developer, I of course have a desire to create something that does actual work, but the goal here is for it to do things worthwhile and for which there's consensus – not make it do things just because it can. Some things like repairing malformed requests, removing extraneous headers, etc, are procedural and if the bot can do it (which it can!) there's no reason to wait for a human. Humans also go to sleep, the bot will not. Beyond that, other proposals were to allow the bot to comment if suggested qualifications are not met, leaving the human to make the decision. The bot uses it's own set of API calls, so if edit counters are down it won't matter. Allow me to add it's all configurable. So, if you don't want it commenting here, or not make it check the permissions there, or we want to change it to check for 400 mainspace edits and not 200, etc, no worries, there will be a config file to easily change the behaviour.

  Admittedly my eagerness to offer this functionality has resulted in considerable development time, to the point where I can say I more or less have all of this done. Rejecting all aforementioned proposals will certainly not be music to my ears, but consensus makes the final call. That being said, most of what I was proposing above was hypothetical, and just to get a sense of what we actually wanted to automate. In it's simplest form, I thought I'd have the bot (a) report previously declined requests (b) fix improperly formatted requests (c) mark requests as already done if they already have the permission they're requesting. For rollback, I'd like to also have it report the mainspace edits if less than 200, and the same for AWB registration requests (for 500 mainspace edits), if consensus permits. As for double-checking, the bot uses the same database the edit counters do, so if you can trust one you should be able to trust the other. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I have emailed Kingpin13 about MusikBot taking over the task of archiving. I'd like to give him some time to respond, but thought I'd bring up the proposal to you all as well. I like the 36-hour figure KingpinBot is meant to adhere to, and MusikBot would do the same, and use the same well thought out configurations that KingpinBot has used. Essentially I'm not putting down KingpinBot, it's impressive tenure of hard work is nothing to speak lightly of, but I wanted to give the bot an opportunity to retire should it want to. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal, thanks for the email. I've no particular preference either way to be honest, I'm quite happy to keep running to bot at the current frequency for the foreseeable future. I know sometimes the current bot does go on a brief hiatus, which is basically just my fault, other than that there's no much wrong with it as far as I can tell. On the other hand, if you want to take up KingpinBot's mantle then please do not let me stop you - obviously I'm not as active as I once was, and the task could probably benefit from being running by someone more involved in the project. Alternatively, if you want, you could take the source code (F#) and just transfer it to your bot and maintain it. Let me know what ever suits you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingpin13: Thanks for the reply! Obviously I don't want to reinvent the wheel but as I said MusikBot is already parsing through each permission page and the archives, so it could easily take on archiving in the same sweep. If it's okay with you I'd like to take that route. I could port the F# source you have over to the Ruby codebase and go from there. This will take a bit, however, both for development time and approval -- so please keep KingpinBot running for now :) I'm on holiday for another week then I hope to move forward with development. I will then need approval for a trial, which hopefully could be coupled in with the other bot tasks, as otherwise it's going to take quite a while to reach the current allotted 100 edits. I'll let you know when I know more and will be sure to not permit any bot wars, though any edit conflicts should be handled properly. Thank you!! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, drop me a message on my talk page if you want the source code. You can turn KingpinBot's archiving component on/off easily enough using the controls explained on it's user page, so feel free to disable it while you're testing your bot. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of archiving, I have noticed that sometimes an item doesn't get archived and just sits at the top of the list for days or weeks while newer items get archived. Like right now on the requests for rollback page, there's one there that't been up for about two weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingpin13: Maybe the regex is not case insensitive (since the request was marked as "Done" and not "done"? Either way I don't think it should be archived anyway, as it wasn't a request for a permission but rather a request for removal of a permission. Aside from autopatrolled those are never declined. Requests for removal should go here on this talk page, or at least that seems to be historically the case. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I question the need to archive any of this. If we grant a request, there's a log entry. If we don't, and the re-apply before 90 days have elapsed the bot notes it. If it's been more than ninety days it should probably be treated as a new request anyway. I'm not sure there is much utility in even having archives. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well for starters, MusikBot uses the archives to find previously declined requests :) But archiving is of course intended to preserve discussions for easy reference. So for approved requests it's true we won't usually refer back to the discussion. WP:RPP works this way (I think), having only a rolling archive of declined requests so they can be linked to as necessary. We could adopt the same system, but we've been archiving all requests for quite some time, might as well stick with it. I'm porting over KingpinBot's archiving task to MusikBot, and I'll be sure to kink out any bugs. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The bot checks that the user actually has been granted the right (if marked as done) or not (if marked as notdone). So in this case because it was a request for removal the bot doesn't know where to archive it, this is explained in the bot's report ("Mandruss request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback was marked as done but they do not have the user right."), which is in general a good place to check if a request seems to not being get archived. You can make the bot archive the request using User:KingpinBot/override or just manually deal with any reported errors. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Make sense to me! I say we move the request to this talk page and let it get archived here. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I already marked it to get the bot to archive it as done, which is what I tend to do in these cases. Although I like your idea better, perhaps that should become standard practice for requests for removal. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Silliness of the pending changes reviewer position

I was looking at Special:PendingChanges. One of the articles on that list was Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The latest edits needing review were vandalism, so I reverted them. Then I look at another article, and the edits were not vandalism, but in fact fixed a layout issue on a table [1]. I find it hilarious that I can revert vandalism, but I can't be trusted to acknowledge a good edit.

So get the pending changes reviewer bit added, you say. I don't want it. If after all the years and 10s of thousands of edits that I have made to this project I can't be trusted without some special bit to acknowledge a table layout fix as being acceptable, there is a serious problem with the project. More personally, if I can't be trusted to acknowledge a table layout fix to be a good edit, then you might as well block me as disruptive to the project.

Frankly, this bit shouldn't exist. It should be automatically conferred, like auto-confirmed, after some set period of editing/number of edits (and make it as small as possible without allowing damage to the project that pending changes is intended to prevent). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I think this is definitely a big problem with Wikipedia which can hamper its' productivity. Iady391 | Talk to me 15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I don't see in the archives where you ever requested pending changes reviewer. Iady391 your original request was declined simply because were too new to the project, and recent activity at the time suggested you may not be ready for the right. That's not to say you aren't fit for it now. Pending changes reviewer differs from rollback in that it may not be vandalism that you are faced to review, but rather subtle BLP changes or unsourced additions that aren't inherently unconstructive but may be the reason the article was put under pending changes protection. If you'd like to give more input on whether there is a true need for this user right, it's probably best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Musik, I've never asked for it because I shouldn't need it. If I can't be trusted after all I've done, I might as well be banned. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point, that perhaps there should be some automated assignment of this right, but that's certainly disputable. So again I'd say let's redirect that conversation Wikipedia talk:Reviewing or even WP:VPIL, as this talk page is about the requests for permissions process, which is built around the limitation you are questioning — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks for the information. I hope that I'll be able to discuss it on the pages you gave . Iady391 | Talk to me 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: When pending changes was originally being developed, autopromotion of certain users was proposed multiple times in various forms but it ended up being widely opposed in any form. That's why specific criteria for a manually-appointed user group were created. Not saying the idea doesn't have any merit, but this is what the community set up. The ability to review is more or less freely given out to any trusted user. Swarm ♠ 23:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• A big mistake was made some years ago by handing out the reviewer tool willy-nilly on the results of a bot run. I think the criteria for Reviewer should be cranked up a notch or two and then merge it with Rollbacker, AfC reviewer, and including NPPers in it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would the criteria need to be any higher? There are only four reviewing criteria, and they're just the fundamental rules that we expect any editor to adhere to. If the average editor can't be trusted to uphold those four rules (plus the additional guideline of being aware of why the page was protected, the visibility of which could be improved), then the average editor can't be trusted to edit at all and we have a much larger problem. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• There are very good content writers who have had rollback removed because they couldn't or wouldn't differentiate between an edit they disagreed with and vandalism. How would you introduce an automatic system of granting rights such as Rollback without moving to indef blocks for things like edit warring? Other editors have done thousands of edits, but had autopatroller revoked after the BLPPROD was introduced because they didn't raise their sourcing standards when the community did. Some editors cite their edits from day one, others are productive and uncontentious for thousands of edits reverting vandalism or fixing typos, but when they start adding content they are effectively a newbie. If we move to auto promotion to Rollbacker/Reviewer after a certain amount of edits then for some people that will be too soon and for others too late. I can see an argument for merging Rollbacker and Pending changes Reviewer if both require the skill of spotting badfaith edits and having the restraint not to treat edits you disagree with as vandalism. But I don't agree that Rollbackers need to understand notability of new articles, though I do think that is essential for AFC Reviewers. Remembering my own past I'm pretty sure I was ready for Rollback long before I would have been ready for AFC reviewer if that had existed then; That wasn't a problem when I was notching up thousands of edits disambiguating and fixing typos, and it took me more edits to be ready for adminship than if my edits had been adding swathes of content. We have a very diverse community of editors who are ready for different tools after very different levels of contribution - whether you measure that in edits or time, and I'm afraid that requires human decisions for many of the extra buttons. ϢereSpielChequers 09:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• For me (though I know this wasn't your intent, and I mean no disrespect) you've just done a marvelous job of encapsulating what is wrong with Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you take it that way, and more than a little surprised. Could you be more specific as to what you don't like about my post? ϢereSpielChequers 13:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps I wasn't clear, and I'm sorry. There's nothing wrong with your post! What's wrong is Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fly in the ointment is NPP which although being our only firewall against promotion, PoV, CoI, Copyvio, nonsense, hoax and attack articles in the form of complete pages requires no prior demonstration of maturity, skill, or clue whatsoever. Yet we demand PC reviewers to request a permission. Sommat daft in that - or maybe it's just me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator instructions

I've taken a stab at the new "administrators instructions" page convention for PERM, see WP:PERM/AI. Any improvements welcomed — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015

I need permission to insert images in wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahraura this will improve page and also provide more information about city. Ab.singhcs282 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: To make a request for a permission, please go back to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, click "add request" next to the appropriate header and fill in the reason for wanting permission. Please note, very new users may not request permissions other than "confirmed". Inomyabcs (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

Nazrulislamsarkar (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Najrul Islam

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Automating procedural removal of account creator rights

Per this RfC, users who are not active in the account creation process or the education program may have the flag removed. We also do this for event coordinators, usually removing the right shortly after the event. Problem is, us admins sometimes forget to do this, or we have no way of tracking who is no longer active at ACC. So, I thought I'd propose we enlist the help of automation. An adminbot could remove the right when appropriate, but I figure we'd rather have human evaluation. The proposal:

• The bot will check the activity of all account creators once per month (or whatever we decide on). Any users who have not created any accounts during that time will have their username posted at WP:PERM/ACC/Tracking under a "inactive" heading for admins to review. The bot will also include the logged reason for granting the ACC right, and also ping the admin who granted it. Their username entry will be removed should they become active again or if the account creator flag is removed.
• For event coordinators, admins can add the username under the "Event coordinators" heading at WP:PERM/ACC/Tracking and indicate the date of the event. This way the bot can parse it and know when the event took place. Three days after the event (or whatever we decide on) their username will be moved from the coordinators section to the inactive section for review. If the responding admin does not add the user to the event coordinators section, the user will simply be handled like any other account creator.

Bullet #2 is more on the nice-to-have side, but I think #1 will provide us a reliable way of keeping track of our account creators and who is still active in using the tool. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: have you done anything to advance this proposal since posting here? It seriously sounds like yet another great idea and a common sense solution to a problem. I think it'll make the community's will expressed in that RfC more effective and it'll make our job more efficient. Really, it'll just make everyone's lives that much easier. I definitely like the idea of keeping track of event coordinators too! The current system is highly informal and allows users, many with little experience, to gain what is otherwise a highly restricted user right on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. It's difficult to keep track of these users and easy for the granting admin to forget to revoke the right. Let's do it! Swarm ♠ 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, it's officially in my development backlog :) It seemed like an uncontroversial task to me, just wanted to see some support before I started coding. Thank you for your encouraging words — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks for being a an overflowing well of good ideas and technical advancements. So, account creators do their work using a separate account on the Account creation interface. These accounts are suspended as "inactive" after 45 days, so that seems like a good default benchmark for the suspension of the Account Creator permission. But perhaps if we issued a one or two-week notice of suspension, it would encourage people to remain involved with ACC. If we do this, we should probably flag them after a month, so they have an opportunity to remain active before their ACC account is suspended. This may be too needlessly complicated though. If we go without a warning I think they should lose the permission after 45 days, in line with the ACC tool itself. Swarm ♠ 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For members of the Account creation team, a ToolAdmin should contact a sysop when an ACC tool user is suspended. Tracking account creation activity is currently done manually. An automated reminder will be useful. Thanks for your efforts, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Doctree: Are you suggesting that the bot ping the tool admins when a user becomes inactive? That way they can suspend their access to the interface, and then contact a sysop to remove the flag? I can make that happen, but seems like the pings could get annoying to some =P Maybe you all could add the tracking page to your watchlist instead? Additionally, the sysops here at PERM can handle removal of the flag, or whoever gets to it first I guess. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisting the proposed tracking page is ideal,User:MusikAnimal. Only a few ToolAdmins routinely activate and suspend tool access (the others concentrate on technical matters). Automated tracking will be a nice convenience but our group is small enough that manual checking of activity isn't a burden. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BAM! Looks like we have a lot of revoking to do ;) This script ran surprisingly crazy fast – about as fast as one run-through of the PermClerk task – so I can keep this list fairly up-to-date, maybe even have it run daily. I have not implemented the functionality to add event coordinators and post them ~3 days after the event, but that's next on the list. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to question its accuracy. It reported 106 inactive users, and there's but 116 total account creators. Hopefully that's not right — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There's 130 account creators aren't there? There are a number of campus ambassadors on there who apparently need it for the education program and a couple alternate admin accounts (but we can probably contact them and ask if they really need it given it can't do as much is as it used to be able to do). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The other thing is, just because they haven't created an account in the last 45 days doesn't mean that they're inactive at ACC (as they may be declining requests or deferring them for a CU to take a look at) for example Cyberpower678's last action on ACC was four days ago but appears on the bot's list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would explain it! I wonder how I could query actions at ACC? Maybe the tool has an API? The 116 account creators figure came from Wikipedia:Account creator, which uses the NUMBERINGROUP magic word and might be inaccurate. Either way as Swarm recommended we might want to contact many of these folks before revoking the right, at least those who are part of the account creation team. But first of course we should wean out those who are still actively using the tool — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are currently 130 users who have the account creator flag (from WP:ACCRIGHT)?

Would it also be possible for the bot to check for an education program userright, and if there is one to not put them on the list (or remove them)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Very interesting... I purged the page and now I see 130 as well. That is odd, I thought that page caching applied to everyone... Anyway, I could definitely also check for an education userright and exclude those, or if we want list them in a different section. Going to contact the devs of the ACC tool and see if that can make an API endpoint for when the last action was taken by a user — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Listing them in a different section works too! Good idea, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a trial and error and managed to guess my way to the API endpoint [2] so all good there =P I figure we'll have four sections: (1) account creation team, showing last use of the tool, (2) education program, (3) event coordinators and (4) everyone else. #3 will only be accurate moving forward, assuming granting admins remember to add them to the coordinators page. That page will be something like User:MusikBot/ACCMonitor/Event coordinators, containing a bulleted list of users. You'll have to add a timestamp for when the event takes place, and the bot will remove the users from the list and add them to the inactive user list ~3 days (or whatever we decide on) after the event. Alternatively, the bot could list the coordinator as inactive about a week after the right was granted. That way we don't have to reply on people correctly typing timestamps — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Stwalkerster:, as he's farily active as an ACC dev. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 19:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:, do you just need the last active time and status for all ACC users? I can probably make a single endpoint for that (and/or other info, if you need it) so we can optimise it on our side too. Incidentally, we did have an automated list of users who were in the accountcreator group a year or two ago, but not active users on ACC. We used it a couple of times to huge controversy at the time, but this was before anyone used it for education program stuff, and when some people were granted it for edit notice use. I'll see if I can dig out the code we had. [stwalkerster|talk] 12:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: I can get away with the endpoint I found above [3], and actually given how I'm looping through the list of account creators this is favourable than a single endpoint for all ACC users. Provided you don't change the response or require SSL this should be enough for our purposes. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: That endpoint is searching on ACC usernames though, which isn't the same as Wikipedia usernames [4][5][6](OK, it is in like 90% of cases) - just bear that in mind. [stwalkerster|talk] 11:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: Ah, very good point! I take it there isn't an endpoint to search by enwiki username? Preferably it'd work the same way as this one, for a single user. It might also be interesting to know how many total actions the user has taken using the ACC tool. Many thanks for your help — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: No, there isn't, but it's probably time I wrote one. Our db schema isn't ideal for searching by Wikipedia username unfortunately, so it's probably time we revisited that aspect too. I'll try to put together another search parameter for you this weekend. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:  Done. Use the &wikiuser= parameter[7]. Be aware that this is some horridly unperformant code on our end because of a bad design decision I made a year and a half ago, which I've not yet fixed. That's still on the todo list, but at least you can get your bot up and running :) You can also use the ?action=count&user=Foo endpoint[8] to get some basic stats about the user, but at the moment it only includes accounts created, not total actions taken. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) @Stwalkerster: A few issues, actually... first off for nonexistent users there is no response [9]. Next, all due respect as I'm sure you worked hard on this, but the wikiuser endpoint is dramatically slower than the user endpoint. Not sure if there's an easy workaround for that? Thank you for your time! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've updated the edit notice to include instructions to log temporary grants.[10] It's hidden until we put the new system into effect but until feel free to modify as needed. Also, should we work out a template message that gives a notification about the revocation/impending revocation of Account Creator? Swarm ♠ 20:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, have a look at User:MusikBot/ACCMonitor/Tracking and let me know what you think. What you see there should be accurate. As I understand it, users in the education program are OK to retain the right, while the others we'll need to review. @Swarm: a template to issue the inactive users sounds like a good idea. Everyone else okay with that? The bot could issue it maybe a week ahead of time, along with all the currently inactive users? I think just a single notice is enough, as opposed to procedural admin removal which entails 3 notices.

  Also still need to work on the event coordinators functionality... hopefully getting to that tonight. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  Actually I agree we might want to issue a notice for when the right was actually removed too, so two notices total. We can code it to be the same template and take a parameter revoked=yes or something. The revoked notice would of course be issued by the admin — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:, the setup of that page looks good in principle, but there are several event coordinators in the ACC team section. Can/will this be sorted out in the future or should we just fix it manually? Also, do you want me to work out a notification template? I'm happy to help out, unless you already have something in mind. Swarm ♠ 22:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: I assume those users started out as event coordinators before joining the account creation team. At this point I would guess they'd be subject to revocation of the right like the others? If you want take a stab at the template they'd be great. I can help with the templating syntax if you are not comfortable with that. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) I have a create a template for notifying a user that their account creator flag has been revoked or is subject to being revoked, see User:MusikAnimal/ACC notice. Feel free to change the wording. Once we're happy with it we'll move it to the template namespace. Pinging @Swarm and Callanecc: — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, good work. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Looks great! Thanks! Sorry I never got around to it, I've been taking a bit of a break. The message looks perfect to me though and two weeks seems very reasonable. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Should we add a "Notified?" parameter in the table in which we timestamp their notification? Swarm ♠ 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Interesting idea. Unfortunately I can't think of a way to auto-detect if the warning had been sent out, unless you're okay with the bot doing it for us. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

flag rollback LenovoTest01. add request rollback flag in admin users.

Add flag rollback. admin users here.

Requests rollback LenovoTest01. Rollback. LenovoTest01 07:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)