Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RscprinterBot 8

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.

RscprinterBot 8

Operator: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:23, Tuesday, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Function overview: Archival at WP:AfC/R

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#A_special_kind_of_archiving_bot

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

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

Function details: Quite a simple task really. No problems forecast.

- At a specified time each day, scan AfC/R for sections closed with {{afc-c}}
- Select which of those sections were last edited over 24 hours ago (this allows initial requesters to see the result, and appeals)
- Move them to the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/YYYY-MM

Discussion

Sorry, been a little busy so I didn't have a chance to look at this. Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I figure you'd want to do the archiving at 0:00 UTC each day? — Earwig ^talk 05:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer more like 18:00 then I'm awake to keep an eye on it, esp during the trial. Rcsprinter¹²³ (rap) 08:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sure, forgot it was supervised. That's fine. — Earwig ^talk 20:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Edits at [1]. I think it all went smoothly. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcsprinter123: Am I correct in observing that a few declined requests were lost between [2] and [3]? There was definitely some other weirdness going on there where the bot removed a misplaced article submission, which doesn't seem intentional. Same sort of thing between [4] and [5] regarding the last few requests, and along with a strange removal of an editor's signature. Is the bot just ignoring blank submissions? — Earwig ^talk 01:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you see is supposed to happen. Blank submissions aren't placed into the archive, because there is no need to keep them. As for the signature removal, you will have to point that one out. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) 12:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the argument either way with blank submissions, but alright. For the signature removal, go to the diff and search for "Category:Education in Uttar Pradesh", which is part of the penultimate section after the bot edit. In the original text it is followed by the requestor's signature, which the bot removes in the edit for no clear reason. — Earwig ^talk 19:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't account for that. If that makes you hesitant to approve, perhaps another trial will establish whether it will happen again. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) 20:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it also happened in this edit at the end, didn't it? Can we look at your code? — Earwig ^talk 20:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: OK, I emailed it you (forwarded). Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) 13:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where the signature removal was in [6]? Rcsprinter¹²³ (drone) 14:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not signature removal. Content loss. Everything from "Line 988:" onwards on the left side of the diff.
Can you clarify what was meant by "You can when I find how to access it"? How are you running the code without access to it? — Earwig ^talk 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming after code review I see no clear indications of why this is happening. — Earwig ^talk 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content loss - I thought we covered that; empty or non-requests don't need placing in the archive.

Well, it was just provided to me as a script, which I needed to find the underlying code for. But now I do have it. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Rcsprinter¹²³ (witter) 10:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — Earwig ^talk 20:33, 31 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.