Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Creffbot

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

Request Expired.

Creffbot

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

Time filed: 01:45, Thursday, November 14, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://github.com/creffett/creffbot_wikipedia

Function overview: Maintain CAT:UAA by removing the template from users who have had the template applied for a long time and users who are blocked.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Feedback_request_-_bot_to_maintain_CAT:UAA_and_similar_categories

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: currently 4,000 in the category

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: creffbot will remove the category tag for users who have been tagged as having possible username issues and are either stale or blocked. Per the category's description, Accounts should be removed from this category when they have been indefinitely blocked, inactive for more than one week, or are clearly not violations of the username policy. My plan is to initially have the bot only run on users who have been inactive for more than one year during initial testing, and then move it up to one month during operations. The bot would run once daily. Note that User:AvicBot was approved for a similar task, but that was AWB rather than fully automated and AvicBot's human has been inactive for a while.

Rationale: currently, CAT:UAA isn't very useful to patrollers since it is clogged with very stale users. By pruning the category, it would be practical for patrollers to monitor the category.

Discussion

Two further notes:

I have tested the user-identifying capability successfully, but haven't tested the template-removal. I will test that in the bot's sandbox in the immediate future. I hope to have the bot ready for operational testing within the next day or two.
I will have the bot log its operations to a subpage of its userpage.

creffett (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful task. Would make that category usable again. –xeno^talk 14:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editing features tested, ready for limited operational testing. creffett (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ns:23 only. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a link to your task (either a description on your bot userpage, or this BRFA) in your edit summaries. Mark edits as "minor". — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, isn't it ns:3 (User talk:)? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears: ah ok, in that case reducing that trial to 10, since every case of this is going to trigger the "new messages" flag for these accounts while running without a bot flag. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all might consider adding this bot to MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist - if my understanding of the scope of that page is correct, listing the bot there will prevent it from generating messages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: that page only works for things like inline/summary notifications, not for directly editing a usertalk page. Once flagged as a bot, the account will gain access to 'nominornewtalk' permission that will suppress these. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Test complete, no significant issues (it didn't log the first removal due to a syntax error in the logging function, the rest of the issues were just me realizing that a few log messages and edit summaries needed to have links added). Please have a look at the bot's actions at Special:Contributions/Creffbot at your convenience. For reference, I set the inactivity threshold to 1 year for testing, per my BRFA above I plan to move that down to one month after approval unless someone would prefer it be a different value. creffett (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Creffett: I'm not sure if a per-edit log-edit is needed for this task, will you need that to go live? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, that's easy to remove. Will take care of that. creffett (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All set, but I'll be traveling for the rest of the week so no test runs for a while. creffett (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: regarding the usefulness of the category, do you find that the task threshold above is appropriate for removals (~1 month)? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A month seems fine. I wonder if the removed names should be tracked for resumption of editing? –xeno^talk 15:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, are you suggesting that editors who were removed would be re-added if they become active? I could do that, though I'd rather that be a separate BRFA so I can get this signed off. In the interim, I can compromise on logging (re xaosflux's comment above) - I'll batch the logging so that it only logs at the end of a run instead of logging after every removal. creffett (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creffett, looks like there are still 5 edits to go in the trial. Do you still want to proceed? Primefac (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, yeah, I would like to proceed with approval - I thought that that 10 was a max rather than expected number of edits, and I was satisfied with the bot's operation after those first five edits so I stopped early. creffett (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the expected number, so that any issues or bugs can potentially be worked out. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, understood. I do have a couple tweaks that I'd like to make, so I'll go finish that off now. creffett (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Primefac okay, ran the other five edits in order to test out batched logging (and yes, I did run find a couple of bugs in the process...). Ready for review at your convenience. creffett (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Primefac/xaosflux friendly ping, is there anything else I need to do to get approval done now that the trial is complete? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see from the source code (I'm unfamiliar with the library used though), it removes the category from temporarily blocked users as well. Is that intended? (I don't think it is for most categories) How about the new partial blocks? Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 14:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edible Melon, the bot should only be dealing with users in CAT:UAA, which I would guess does not contain temporarily blocked users. Woudl this be a fair assessment, Creffett? Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (thanks for the ping, I missed the original question), that was my assumption when designing the bot. If subsequent BRFAs expand this bot to maintain other categories, that assumption might need to be revisited, but I expect that the overwhelming majority of blocked users in CAT:UAA will have gotten either a username block or spam block, both of which are indefinite and complete blocks. Now, I could certainly see a case for CAT:UWCOI behaving differently, since I could see a policy of people with COI issues getting partial blocks in their COI area, but that's out of scope for this task. creffett (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Creffett: I didn't know that this existed and had/have Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 6 approved to do this and have been actively monitoring the category for a while now. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. This has sat for quite a while now with no major input from either the botop or BAG to address the comment that there is already a bot performing this task. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2020 (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.