Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MilHistBot
- 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.
Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 21:44, Sunday May 25, 2014 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Source code available: User:Hawkeye7/aclass.pl
Function overview: The Bot promotes or fails an A-Class review following the manual procedure. This procedure is straightforward, but has many steps, and has proved very error-prone for humans. The bot is triggered by a MilHist coordinator changing the A-class=current to A-class=pass or A-class=fail on the article's talk page. This is similar to the Bots that process GA and FA articles.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#A_Bot
Edit period(s): Runs half hourly.
Estimated number of pages affected: Less than one promotion per diem - roughly 200 per annum. Up to ten pages are affected by each promotion. No mainspace pages are affected, only those in the Talk and Wikipedia spaces.
Exclusion compliant No: I can modify the Bot to do so, but am having trouble seeing the use in this case.
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details:
- The Bot only honours requests from MilHist coordinators
- It follows the manual procedure step by step
Discussion[edit]
Hawkeye7 If there are only 200 pages that would be affected by this bot annually, why should the bot run every half hour when a longer period would not be so bad in terms of wait time (perhaps every 4 hours). Also from what I can tell from the underlying consensus discussion, you were previously running this bot under your user account with is a real big error in terms of policy. I'm not a BAG member but I think you really should affirmatively note that you will not running bot processes from your account again. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure what the standard amount of time is for such a task. If there is no work to be done, then the bot will only read two pages. I'm impatient by nature and usually expect results fairly quickly. The script can certainly be changed to use a different wait time period. I was anticipating some feedback here. There's the matter of the prohibition on editing using more than one account. (WP:SOCK) When confronted by a repetitive task which must be frequently carried out, most editors will write a script. My understanding is that there is no prohibition on running such scripts. (Tools not considered to be bots do not require a separate account) (WP:BOTASSIST) I've now modified my script to run as a bot, and am requesting that a bot account be created for it. The difference between the script and the bot is that (1) the bot will run constantly, and unsupervised; and (2) the bot will carry out its mission on behalf of any of the MilHist coordinators, and not just on my command. I'm not a BAG member either, and this is all new to me, so the BAG members can consider me a newbie. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 There's a distinction between a Bot Operator (which anybody who has a good justification) can be and the Bot Approvals Group (who gives authorization for trials/approves bot tasks) Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure you mean well, Hasteur, but it appears to me that you're looking for issues that aren't there. Hawkeye made a bit of a faux pas by running the bot from his account, but there was no mal-intent, and as soon as the relevant bit of policy was pointed out to him (as it happens, by me, in the discussion you mention above), he came here. The bot is harmless, it doesn't affect mainspace, it doesn't have any contact with editors, and (speaking as a MilHist coordinator) it fulfils an indisputably useful function in that it automates a fairly simple process that is tedious and time-consuming to do by hand. I know very little about bots, so I don't normally comment in this forum, but I can't see anything that would suggest to me that this bot would be remotely problematic (and the coordinator team would presumably keep an eye on it anyway, so any issues could be dealt with quickly). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 There's a distinction between a Bot Operator (which anybody who has a good justification) can be and the Bot Approvals Group (who gives authorization for trials/approves bot tasks) Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Approved for trial (1 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. since the WikiProject agrees I think we have to give a try. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: you'll have to register the bot account first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- The bot was run for one day under the new bot account and promoted two articles. The Bot errored off when it encountered a malformed nomination on the nominations page. I can make the bot more resilient, but for the moment prefer to chase up any problems manually. The page was corrected with this change, and the Bot continued. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 should I mark it as "trial completed" or should I give it 1-2 days more for testing? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please mark the trial as completed. I stopped the bot after 24 hours of running time had elapsed, having restarted it after the stop. I am happy with the bot's performance and I think it is working fine. It could have ignored the malformed entry and reported the problem and continued rather than stopping; but I would have still have had to correct the problem manually, and it handled the problem safely. I could teach the bot to recognise this situation (an A class nomination that is a redirect) and handle it. If you feel that an extended trial is warranted, I would suggest at least a month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 should I mark it as "trial completed" or should I give it 1-2 days more for testing? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Trial complete. Let's give it a couple of days for whose are interested and may comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: could you please make a user page and talk page for the bot? :) ·addshore· talk to me! 09:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 bot approved but please create a user page before running. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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.