Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/One 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

Approved.

One bot edit

Operator: Harej

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: User:RFC bot/afdrelists.php, User:RFC bot/mfdarchiver.php, User:One bot/openbrfa.php

Function overview: Miscellaneous maintenance tasks

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Each of these bot tasks has its origin in some discussion!

AFD relists: User talk:SmokeyJoe#Finding relisted open Afds
MFD archival: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Keeping this page clean
Open BRFA: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, all BRFAs, all re-listed AFDs.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Considering the localized scope of this bot, I don't consider this to be applicable.

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

Function details:

AFD relists: On a regular interval, a bot produces a list of templates that have substituted {{subst:relist}}, sorted by AfD category. The bot also maintains the category Category:Relisted AfD debates by de-categorizing closed debates and non-AFDs. This script has been running without complication on User:RFC bot for a while, but has not been formally approved.
MFD archival: On a daily basis, a bot archives all MFDs listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that have been closed for at least 18 hours. This script has been running without complication on User:RFC bot for a while, but has not been formally approved.
Open BRFA: Similar to above, a bot checks Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval for closed BRFAs. All closed BRFAs still in the category will be de-categorized. This script has not yet been tested.

Discussion edit

This should not be too complicated, since most of these are tried and true stuff and I'm simply asking for the BAG's blessing. It also goes without saying, but as a BAG member I recuse myself from this BRFA. @harej 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first link appears to be a conversation with yourself, not quite community approval.

Second, the MFD, is there some reason that RFC:Bot was doing it without approval? Seems appropriate, straight-forward. However, if it does not require approval, why seek it? If it does require approval why is someone running the task on a bot without approval? Otherwise task appears botable, appropriate, competent operator.

Third task, can't see any issues with this, and mostly it's about whether BAG members think it would be appropriate and how it's done. If they give feedback on this task, and want it done, it's the sort of thing that can be fast-forwarded, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/mississippiforbes is addressed by the Open BFRA functionality. Josh Parris 04:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing IP's concerns:

1) Sorry about that, I forgot to link to the other half of the conversation. It is here: User_talk:Harej/Archive09#Maintaining_WP:MFD.

Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) There was no good reason for me not to seek approval. Out of largely laziness, I just added scripts on top of RFC bot. I have renounced my unapproved-bot ways and am now seeking formal approval.

Any other unapproved bot tasks you're currently running? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its typical for long term bot operators to do basic testing before seeking approval, I know its not in policy but as long as it was small scale and drama less there are no issues. β^_command 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about this bot (RFC bot) and this operator, but, in general it would be better starting out with no unapproved task, and I get the impression that we're talking about running with the task, not testing it. I think, though, that now that the issue is brought up, it's best to get it all out at once, be done with it, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This bot will cover more or less the remainder of the currently-unapproved tasks. There are still the noticeboard summary generators (which I am keeping with RFC bot) and the proposed merger list generator (which I forgot to append to this request and will probably do later). Both of these scripts affect their own isolated environments and no other parts of Wikipedia. @harej 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) The discussion I linked to indicates some modicum of interest, and it would help reduce the amount of menial work the BAG or someone else would have to do.

Which leads me to address Josh Parris' point. I would be glad to add to the scope of that script and to also have the bot add to the list of open BRFAs, but first let's see if there is enough interest in the basic maintenance task. @harej 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, who went and deleted Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/mississippiforbes? Ah, Speedy deleted per CSD G2, test page. Is the bot going to tag 'em if they're old and not on BFRA? Or just put 'em all up for BFRA and let the process sort them out? Josh Parris 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robots can't differentiate between test pages and legitimate requests that forgot to complete the process. Therefore, if/when I add the functionality, it will treat all open-yet-unlisted BRFAs as legit and added to the list appropriately. (The alternative is invariably judging them to be deletion-worthy test pages, which is unduly mean.) @harej 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} A trial run would be nice. @harej 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not BAG, but I looked over those pages and the whole thing looks fine to me. :) Ale_Jrb ^talk 21:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 06:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only new piece of code that needed to be tested has worked successfully, removing the open BRFA category only where appropriate and leaving no closed BRFA behind [1] [2] [3] [4]. I now have it installed on my crontab to run every midnight. As for the AfD relists and the MfD archival script, I have now reassigned those to operate under One bot. @harej 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. All has gone well. @harej 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. No, I didn't leave the category at the top of the page. :)

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.