Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AFC clerk bot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

AFC clerk bot[edit]

Operator: I-20 (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatically

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: I will write it and place it in my Toolserver SVN repository

Function overview: Relocate AFC submissions

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WikiProject Articles for creation

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: depending on how many misplaced submissions there are

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N (AFC pages are not meant for bots, but this is a example)

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

Function details:

Patrols pending AFC submissions
If a submission is not in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, it strips the username/IP out and moves it to a subpage of AFC

I know that this will face opposition, and the fact that we don't have that many misplaced submissions.

Discussion[edit]

So far, the results are looking great. —I-20 the highway 23:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you could post a note somewhere that you think it would meet opposition and link that from here so we can check on consensus, that would be great. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you could provide some details on "patrolling" and some code that shows your bot would not be as stupid as mine was that I closed recently because it wasn't worth it. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MBisanz, I will do that. DeltaQuad, I'll post the code in a moment. —I-20 the highway 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Patrol" = search in. The code is posted now. I have also shot a link to this BRfA. —I-20 the highway 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is really necessary. The very few requests we have on the mainspace are quickly spotted or just deleted for G11, etc. For userspace submissions, that is perfectly OK as it is suggested that users can submit an article starting in their userspace. —fetch ·comms 22:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that. —I-20 the highway 22:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed going over the code is that your tagging all submissions in NS 4. When I was programing for my bot I was told that NS 4 is fine and even sometimes required. Also I don't see anything about user subpages that my bot moved improperly to WT:AFC/USERNAME/SUBPAGENAME. Does you bot cover this? -- DQ (t) (e) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(additionally) If you are going to be moving submissions to the Wikipedia talk: namespace, it would be best to tag submissions with |ns=5 instead of 4. — The Earwig ^(talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the answer to one of my questions, the userpage one. Is this it?:tmp = tmp.replace(tmp.split("/")[0]+"/","") Also I had the CSD tags removed, but it also ignored some CSD taggings like copyvios and attack pages. Is you bot set to do both the checking and removal so we don't waist administrators time? Also what about moving if the article has already been created? I have had those issues a few times. (Like approved by a reviewer, but still have the tag) Also does you bot leave a CSD tag behind after a move, but of course not in the userspace so users know where the article went? Also how does the bot deal with edit conflicts? (I ran into that issue several times) -- DQ (t) (e) 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway: I will process namespace 0 (Main space) and move to 5 (Wikipedia talk). I will also obey CSD tags (at least {{db- tags placed by Twinkle). —I-20 the highway 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will request comments on WT:WPAFC and WP:VPP if I will do userspace, since some people are opposed to that. —I-20 the highway 00:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and got the bot autoconfirmed. —I-20 the highway 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I still have a few outstanding quesitons from above like: "What about moving if the article has already been created? I have had those issues a few times. (Like approved by a reviewer, but still have the tag) Also how does the bot deal with edit conflicts? (I ran into that issue several times)" Could I get some answers please? -- DQ (t) (e) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If the article was created (but the tag hasn't been removed), the bot currently moves over the redirect (this is possible in MediaWiki). However, I could not do that and warn the reviewer, but that's for another debate. —I-20 the highway 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is now fixed. More on my talk. —I-20 the highway 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. (for quite some time) —I-20 the highway 23:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully request that this request be put on hold until the operator discusses it with the project concerned. I did not even know about this bot until today. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —I-20 the highway 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need to deploy a fix. —I-20 the highway 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot has done rouge: admins should fix page titles and block the bot. Withdrawn, ~~since I feel that I have lost the community's trust to program bots.~~ for a fresh start on this. —I-20 the highway 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You don't need to withdraw it. It would be very useful to have such a bot. It just moved 10 articles into AFC. I'm sure you can fix it. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.