Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 14

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

Approved.

FastilyBot 14[edit]

Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 23:07, Wednesday, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

Function overview: Leave courtesy notifications for PROD'd files if the tagger has not done so.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: after I write it

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 0-10 daily

Namespace(s): User talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Leaves courtesy notifications for PROD'd files if the tagger has not done so. This task is an extension to Task 6 and Task 12. -FASTILY 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 21 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. go ahead and trial and let us know how it goes. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: Shouldn't the bot follow redirects when leaving notifications? See User talk:The Singing Badger for example. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. This should be fixed now -FASTILY 08:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} was the trial completed? What were the results? Can you link to the series of diffs? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux. This task has been in trial since 28 March 2019. All daily deletion notifications the bot has made since then are here. Some examples of edits: 1, 2, 3. Everything is working as expected thus far. -FASTILY 23:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Everything worked as expected. Task has been temporarily disabled via config change. A few more sample edits: 1, 2, 3 -FASTILY 08:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} If there are no other objections, could this be approved please. Courtesy ping for @Xaosflux. Thanks, FASTILY 23:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: So in reviewing the results, I'm wondering if edits such as the one to User talk:Tiburon are useful - that editor hasn't been active in over 7 years, and this is just adding to bot-spam on that talk page. Perhaps a recipient activity cutoff would be useful here? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the bot is written in a way such that this feature would not be trivial to implement. That said, unless there is overwhelming consensus to the contrary, I'd prefer to keep the current implementation because a) there are several filespace admins who'll refuse to delete a file unless the uploader has been notified and b) the notifications are generally harmless. -FASTILY 00:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: In general, your bot shouldn't make an edit you wouldn't make. If you wanted to nominated a page for PROD, would you 'notify the uploader' if they were marked retired 10 years ago, how about if they were blocked or banned 10 years ago? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both. It's perfectly feasible the users in question may return or be unblocked, respectively. Alternatively, a talk page stalker may be interested in the concern raised and be able to remedy it. Barring very special circumstances, I favor notifications over deletions into the void. -FASTILY 01:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. task approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:42, 27 April 2019 (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.