Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 36

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Legobot 36

edit

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

Time filed: 09:18, Monday March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: [1]

Function overview: Closes FACs/FLCs/FARs and updates relevant pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User:Maralia/FA bot, User:Hahc21/FL Bot, VoxelBot 3

Edit period(s): Continous

Estimated number of pages affected: No clue.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: User:Maralia/FA bot and User:Hahc21/FL Bot. For the time being the bot will only do FACs and FLCs. I'll add in FAR in another request.

Discussion

edit

@Legoktm: Sorry I didn't respond sooner after you posted on my subpage; I figured checking in on my talk page and notifications would be sufficient while I was away, so I missed your post which only hit my watchlist. Many, many thanks for taking this on. I have been filling in for Gimmebot/Voxelbot on this task for years and should be able to answer any questions you might have, and review the test run. I'll keep a close eye on this page. Thanks again—this is a huge load off my mind. Maralia (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --slakr\ talk / 07:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone went through and manually did everything the bot was going to do, so it only made 3 (perfect!) edits... [2], [3], [4]. I'll do a few more runs over the next few days to finish the trial. Legoktm (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just did 35 more edits, everything went well except for one where a human tried to do part of the closing manually, and screwed it up. I made the bot a little more resilient so it should no longer die when encountering something like that. Legoktm (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a few and see some cases where a new articlehistory was created despite one already existing. Will look through the rest of the run and summarize here shortly. Maralia (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the bot is failing to catch existing {{Article history}} at least with that precise capitalization. See the following examples:
  • This FAC, where it should have appended a new action;
  • This FLC where it also should have appended a new action; and
  • This FLC, which (like the one you mentioned) had been manually closed by someone, so the confusion is understandable, but where the bot still should have caught that articlehistory existed.
There is a lesser, secondary issue in that the bot doesn't seem to be designed to incorporate intervening events into articlehistory (i.e. the last recorded articlehistory entry may be action3=PR, so the bot would iterate to action4 for FAC, but it's not catching a GA that happened in the interim, so now we have a continuity issue). Gimmebot handled this, fully implementing articlehistory for all relevant actions; while Voxelbot never had the capability, that is where we want to end up. I realize it's a leap in scale, and certainly the first target is to restore basic functionality, but just wanted to make the requested scope clear. Maralia (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another minor issue with the FAC; the article history is listing the article as a FFAC (Former FAC); my understanding (and Maralia can correct me if I'm wrong) is that because the article was a Good article, the Article History should still list it as GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the currentstatus after a FAC is not always FA or FFAC; a GA which fails at FAC would still retain its GA status. Thanks for picking that up. Maralia (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worth bearing in mind for the future, a de-featured article does not revert to good. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, so most of those bugs are just mistakes on my part. [5] fixes not detecting {{Article history}} properly, and [6] fixes overwriting currentstatus=GA. Still looking into how to handle picking up the GA into the article history template. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[7] is an example where Legobot should integrate in the {{GA}} template. Working on the code for it now. Legoktm (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And [8] is what it did (with a little help from me, but I fixed that in the code). Legoktm (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just found this page. Legoktm: What GimmeBot used to do was documented in this page: User:Matthewedwards/FL#GimmeBot_steps. However, I think that my template FCloseTop is far more bot-friendly than fl top, given that the bot just has to fill in parameters instead of writing a single sentence. My template is also adapted to work with FAC so you can use it for that too (I don't mind if my template is renamed). Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 04:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that :). I already wrote the code to construct the sentence, but in the future I'll switch it over to use your template, which is superior. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how long bot requests usually take, but nothing has happened at FAC with this bot for a while, and I was just wondering how far along we are now, and when it will begin running properly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.. Sorry about the delay. I fixed a bug where someone had updated the hidden comment in a template, so the bot wasn't detecting already-archived pages properly. Other than that, I think everything is ready to go? Legoktm (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lego. I looked at three of the bot's most recent closes, and found some areas that need work:
  1. timestamps: The bot seems to be adding four hours to the proper timestamps.
  2. oldids: Probably due to the above issue, the bot is not recording the correct oldids.
  3. action#: The action# is apparently getting incremented by 2 rather than by 1.
  4. currentstatus: GAs which fail at FAC are getting marked currentstatus=FFAC, but they should be =GA (as discussed above).
For examples of these issues, see Talk: Economy of Visakhapatnam, Talk:Roman Empire, and Talk:The Doon School. As always, thanks so much for working on this. Maralia (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm, any update? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legotm. Operator assistance is needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately I don't have the time that I expected I would to run the bot. I'm working with another bot operator right now to take it over. Legoktm (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: Please advise on further action. You may use {{BotWithdrawn}} if required. — JamesR (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm and I have decided that I should assume leadership in this task. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Withdrawn by operator., Σ will file his own request. Legoktm (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Legobot_36&oldid=1140416324"