Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 66

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.

AnomieBOT 66

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

Time filed: 15:01, Wednesday August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/DRVClerk.pm

Function overview: Clerking at WP:DRV

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WT:DRV#DRV bot request

Edit period(s): Hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: WP:DRV and its subpages only

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will perform various clerking tasks at WP:DRV:

Create the daily DRV log subpage.
Create the monthly DRV log subpage.
Fix the headers on the daily DRV log subpages, if they get removed or damaged.
Remove section headers from DRV log subpages when all discussions on the page are closed (per the instructions) and the page has not been edited for 24 hours.
Update Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active to contain the current day's log page and any non-empty log pages less than 8 days old.
Update Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent to contain any non-empty log pages less than 15 days old and any older log pages with unclosed discussions.

Discussion

Adjustments may be made (e.g. changing the 24-hour wait) or additional clerking tasks affecting only WP:DRV and subpages may be added in the future based on consensus at WT:DRV. Anomie ⚔ 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Seems straightforward. Five days may be a bit much or too little; allow enough time to test all components of the bot reasonably thoroughly. — Earwig ^talk 19:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only bit that might not be hit is the section header removal; there are two header fixes that will run immediately, as will the updating of the Active and Recent pages, and it should get to create a new daily page soon too. So I've set it up as "5 days and all functions run at least once". Actually, it's set for slightly over 5 days so it won't stop 10 minutes before it would create the August 9 log page.

Edits for this trial should be the only edits by the bot to Wikipedia:Deletion review and subpages. Anomie ⚔ 23:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anomie and The Earwig! One small thing: when removing headers, any L5 or L6 ones will need to be replaced - maybe with simple bolded text like this - so that the TOC doesn't look really odd. I don't think that's in the code yet. T. Canens (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, a simpler solution might be to add a TOC template to Template:Deletion review log header which is not listing L5 or L6 headlines at the DR page. Just an idea, Might be a simpler solution... mabdul 07:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BTW, it seems the bot is going to have a hard time getting to remove headers, because the humans are used to doing it right away after they close the last open discussion. Anomie ⚔ 17:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to get people to stop doing it... T. Canens (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I just realized that we missed one subtask: can we have the bot create the monthly logs like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July as well? I'd imagine that it would be uncontroversial, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August is a redlink right now so we can even create a page during the trial. T. Canens (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Seems a sensible and uncontroversial addition. Anomie ⚔ 14:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And...it seems like people are too used to clicking "recent" in the TOC and scrolling up. Can we always have the 7th day's log in /Active regardless of whether it is empty? T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, yes. But is it the best idea? It seems it might be confusing to have e.g. 2 August visible on 2 August, then disappear, then reappear (still empty) on 9 August, and then disappear again the next day. It might be more straightforward for people to close the first day under Recent rather than the first day above it. Anomie ⚔ 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Good point. Let's keep it the way it is for now; we can always change this later if needed. T. Canens (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Anomie ⚔ 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Can we get this wrapped up? T. Canens (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — Earwig ^talk 23:14, 19 August 2012 (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.