Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Filedelinkerbot 2

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.

Filedelinkerbot 2

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

Time filed: 15:10, Saturday August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: No

Function overview: The bot is nearly clone of Commonsdelinker. It removes file links from pages for files which got deleted at Commons. As thoses files sometimes get restored, e.g. when they get OTRS permission, the bot would like to revert his own edits by the rollback function, so addition to the rollbacker group is requested here.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): none

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 10 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes. Rollbacker flag requested.

Function details: n/a

Discussion

What is your expected rate of rollback requiring that tool vs just placing a normal edit? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expect an average of 10 edits per day. This is not rate issue, I'd just prefer to use rollback interface, as the corresponding code is already implemented. --Krd 18:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you expect to have 10 page edits per day, the question is what is the expected rate of rollback use? What are you going to do with the same edit reversion if it was made by or had intervening edits by any other editor? Rollback is expected to be avoided if the edit should be made with a meaningful edit summary. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  The expected rollback use is 10 per day, as all edits for the new task will be rollbacks. All cases where rollback cannot be used (intermediate edits, double unlinks, etc.) shall remain for manual sorting, as they are currently, see User:Filedelinkerbot/restored files. --Krd 07:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BotTrial|edits=50|days=5)). Trial approved, I added rollback to the account for the trial. Please post results back here after the trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When posting results, please be sure to illustrate the ones that used the rollback function. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I'm a bit short on test cases at the moment, so the only ones are Special:Diff/620060495 and Special:Diff/619932515 so far. Please extend trial period for 2 weeks if possible. Thank you.--Krd 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK ((BotExtendedTrial|days=14)) — xaosflux ^Talk 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant edits are listed at User:Filedelinkerbot/restored files. Although they all look good, the number of edits is much lower than I expected. Possibly at the moment there are fewer files restored than earlier. I let it up to you to decide whether to keep this job. I think it causes no harm, but also only small benefit, as it seems. --Krd 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krd maybe we should close this one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. I suggest to approve the task and keep the rollback flag. Thank you. --Krd 17:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krd question before approval: I noticed many questions in User talk:Filedelinkerbot. Do you reply to these? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding the bot are answered normally, while questions or discussion attempts on file deletions, as described in the page intro, are out of scope and cannot be answered. This is the same as for User:CommonsDelinker. --Krd 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BotTrialComplete)) Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Magioladitis (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2014 (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.