Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AvicBot 12

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.

AvicBot 12

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

Time filed: 08:54, Wednesday, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: Maintaining Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Removing category after ~~a month~~ 6 months.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#COI_category_maintenance.3F, with notices posted at Category talk:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices and Template talk:Uw-coi-username.

Edit period(s): Weekly.

Estimated number of pages affected: Initially ~ 41k? I'll space these out and monitor the jobs for any errors that might arise. After that, it'll depend on the number of COI warnings issued.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: AvicBot will maintain a list of user talk pages in this category. After a months' time, it will remove the tracking category from the user talk page. This will help to remove 'stale' reports and keep the category up to date and useful.

Discussion

I don't know. A little disappointed to see no comments from anyone else even after three talk page posts and three weeks of waiting. I personally find a month to be too soon for removal, especially for accounts. I would definitely agree with one year as an upper bound on the time limit, but I'm thinking somewhere between three and six months if the template is not explicitly removed by another user or the user is blocked. (On that second point, it looks like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 4 isn't running anymore, which might be useful here. Want to take it over as well? Shouldn't be too bad.) I'm curious to see how many of these 42,000+ warnings are older than a year, to get a sense of what we're dealing with. — Earwig ^talk 18:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even 6 months would be much better than the de facto "indefinitely" that currently seems to be the case. An SQL query could probably show which pages haven't been updated in 6 months+. I've amended the request above. As for picking up KingpinBot 4, I'll add it, sure. It'll be a nice compliment to AvicBot 6. ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:20, 25 Tishrei 5776 / 00:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I collected the following data:

Total pages: 42,102
Older than 3 months: 37,066
Older than 6 months: 35,285
Older than 1 year: 32,643
Older than 2 years: 27,467

Interpret as you wish. Six months sounds like a good starting point. I'm not sure why User:KingpinBot/UWCOIreport says there were 6,215 just this past March, though. At any rate:

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 03:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Test run is here. ^Avic _ennasis @ 19:37, 25 Tishrei 5776 / 19:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. All good, seems uncontroversial. Stick to six months for now unless we find a good reason to change it. — Earwig ^talk 20:58, 10 October 2015 (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.