Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Snotbot 10[edit]

Operator: Snottywong (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:58, Monday November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia with custom code, source code available on request (once it's finished)

Function overview: Fix some problematic AfD nominations, and create a report about others that can't be fixed automatically.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Task used to be performed by User:DumbBOT (although I haven't found the BRFA for it yet) up until about 4 months ago; bot op is currently incommunicado. Also, there's a short discussion at Wikipedia talk:AFD#Bot to correct new AfD.27s that weren.27t added to the log.

Edit period(s): Continuously

Estimated number of pages affected: Probably less than a dozen per day.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will periodically check both Category:AfD debates and Category:Articles for deletion for new pages. For each new AfD, it will perform various checks for common problems. Depending on the problems it finds, it will either fix the problem or add the AfD to a report of problematic nominations.

Issues the bot will automatically fix:
  • For AfD pages in Category:AfD debates which haven't been transcluded to the appropriate log page, it would automatically transclude them and leave a brief note on the AfD page that it has done so.
  • For AfD pages in Category:AfD debates whose article hasn't been tagged with a deletion notice, it would automatically add a deletion notice template.
Issues the bot would compile a report for:

For the problems that the bot would automatically fix, the bot would wait some time (5 or 10 minutes, most likely) after the AfD page was created before attempting to fix the problem, to avoid stepping on the toes of a human that is just taking a bit longer than usual to complete all the steps.

User:DumbBOT used to perform many of these tasks, see these for example, and User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD is a stale report page. —SW— gossip 00:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Seems pretty uncontroversial Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --Chris 02:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First batch of edits done, see here. A few minor bugs found and fixed early on. For AfD's that weren't transcluded, I decided that if the AfD was 3+ days old, I'd add it to the current day's log, otherwise I'd add it to the log of the day on which it was created. Most of the AfD's I found on this first pass were ones that had been sitting around for quite awhile, so the vast majority of them were added to the 2011 November 17 log. Once this is running continuously, AfD's should never sit around for weeks without being transcluded so this situation shouldn't happen anymore. Still some things to do:
  1. Get the report page up and running.  Done
  2. Make the bot check User:Snotbot/control at the start of each run, and stop if there is any text there.  Done
  3. Figure out the timing of the runs. I think I'm going to have two different type of runs: one run that only checks recent additions to CAT:AFD (every 15-30 minutes), and another run that checks every last AfD (every 12-24 hours).  Done
  4. Eventually might start adding {{Uw-afd}} warnings to the talk pages of users who remove AfD templates from articles.  Done
  5. Stop marking all edits as minor.  Done
—SW— express 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hi, most importantly, I'm glad to see a bot that will replace DumbBOT in this area as it hasn't run for ages, thanks for setting this up. Some feedback - Shouldn't all the non-transcluded AfD's be transcluded onto today's log to allow the full 7 days of discussion? Here, here and here the bot added them to previous day's logs; whilst this doesn't bother me I can imagine complaints turning up at WP:DRV or elsewhere about the lack of a 7 day listing on the log, as the AfD may have been missed for the first few days. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 20:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You explained your reasoning above and I can see the logic, but I still believe it would be better for all un-transcluded AfD's to be added to today's log. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 20:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a valid opinion. And, with the bot working continuously, the vast majority of non-transcluded AfD's will probably be taken care of within an hour of having been created. So, hopefully it won't even become an issue. However, it is still important to define how this should be handled. Does anyone else have an opinion one way or the other? —SW— squeal 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about it some more, and I think I agree with you. I've changed the bot's behavior so that it will always add it to today's log no matter what. —SW— gossip 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - Report page up at User:Snotbot/AfD report. I think that's probably enough edits for a trial, so I've paused the bot for the moment.

—SW— yak 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made some updates, I'll do one more run to make sure user warnings and such are working correctly. —SW— chatter 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few more bugs found when dealing with AfD's that had already been previously relisted by the bot, but they are fixed now. Didn't have an opportunity to dish out any warnings though. Trial complete.
Found one opportunity to issue a warning: here
Also, FYI, I'll be out of town until September 28th, so I may not respond quickly to any questions here, and if the task is approved, the bot will almost certainly not be turned back on until then. —SW— speak 23:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. --Chris 08:32, 26 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Snotbot_10&oldid=1141928842"