Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xphoisbot
- 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: Samtar (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:13, Wednesday, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised
Programming language(s): PHP
Source code available: Not as of yet
Function overview: Checks Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues for usernames which have already been blocked indef
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: A low % of the editors listed in the category will have their userpages edited.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The bot, when manually run, scans 100 all of the editors listed at Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues and checks to see if they have an active indef block. If they do, the bot will remove the category from their user page.
Discussion
edit- Is there a reason why "bot" isn't in the username of this bot? ~ Rob13Talk 21:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: No reason, I'll request a username change and update the above - would that be sufficient? -- samtar talk or stalk 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've requested a username change -- samtar talk or stalk 06:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Username has been changed from Xphois to Xphoisbot -- samtar talk or stalk 07:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for addressing the concern and yes, that's sufficient. ~ Rob13Talk 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you demonstrate why a bot with this function is necessary or link to a discussion where a need such a bot has been expressed? It is my concern that editors whom this bot identifies could be blocked for a different reason (e.g. 36 hours for vandalism), but the username issue has yet to be dealt with - and now may not be because the bot has taken them out of the category. Also, the bot's username does need to reflect the automated nature of the account, per policy. Rcsprinter123 (tell) 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If the bot checked only for indefinite blocks, I would consider it uncontroversial. ~ Rob13Talk 01:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot does indeed only act upon indef blocks, which I assumed would be uncontroversial as BU Rob13 says above from the notice at the category page which states "
Accounts should be removed from this category when they have been indefinitely blocked [...]
". The username concern should hopefully be addressed above -- samtar talk or stalk 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot does indeed only act upon indef blocks, which I assumed would be uncontroversial as BU Rob13 says above from the notice at the category page which states "
- The category currently has ~800 entries in it, would you not be able to handle checking all the users instead of only 100 of them per run? — xaosflux Talk 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Execution time would be a little above what I would like, but yes it could definitely be modified to do so - would this be preferable? -- samtar talk or stalk 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the update settings, this seems fine to trial:
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux Talk 04:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Under the new name that is (User:Xphoisbot). — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. last 25 edits show the result of the trial - I've had to tweak the edit summary as it was missing a wikilink for the blocking admin and a couple of spaces, but the test ran as expected and removed the categories from the user pages -- samtar talk or stalk 07:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The user page changes looked fine, would you tweak your summary a little, e.g.
- From
- (Removing category from blocked editor - user was blocked by BethNaught( {{uw-spamublock}} ))
- To
- (Removing CAT:UAA - user was indefinitely blocked by BethNaught ({{uw-spamublock}} ))
- From
- I think that would make it more clear in the summary exactly what occurred, and why. — xaosflux Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The user page changes looked fine, would you tweak your summary a little, e.g.
Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. To verify changes are stable. — xaosflux Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. -- samtar talk or stalk 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Trial looked fine, low impact, low edit runs - this is good to do. You may want to look at adding a second task after this is running in production, to remove old WP:COIN notices from indef'ed users, you may be able to reuse most of your existing code. — xaosflux Talk 18:25, 26 July 2016 (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.