Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 2
- 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.
Operator: Kingpin13 (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): C# .NET
Source code available: No, available to any experienced user at request
Function overview: Archiving the requests for permissions requests, after they have been inactive for some time.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot 4
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Just the one and it's sub pages.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No, no need as it's only editing a few pages, and only once a day. I think I will give it a non-admin shutdown, but since I'm on pretty much every day I can handle the bot.
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: DustyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) used to do this (and SoxBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) before that I believe). I'd like permission to archive any requests for permissions pages. I've been archiving most of them myself (occasionally with the help of a tool) for some months now, since DustyBot started playing up. To start off with this bot will just archive the rollback page, but all the other pages are much easier to manage, so I'm more concerned about getting the rollback page into the hands of a bot. I except I'll quickly hand them all over to it. Archives are indexed at WP:Requests for permissions/Archive, the format will be the same as I've been using for the past months. The bot will also re-sort the requests chronologically, since lots of users place new requests at the bottom rather than top of the page, or vice versa.
I'd also like the bot to do two related things: It will sort the requests chronologically, since many users neglect to add their request in the right place. And it will place {{Alreadydone}} on requesters who already have rollback (or have received it in that request) but who have no template to acknowledge it. Since the bot identifies if a request has been addressed or not by if the templates have been used (see User:KingpinBot/done /notdone). The bot will later archive it identifying it's own template, so long as no one has intervened.
Discussion[edit]
Previously approved, and I've talked to a number of editors about this, doesn't appear to be controversial. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. as this is a re-implementation of a previously approved BFRA, by a previously approved operator who has a deep understanding of the task; please have diffs available for review at the end of the trial period. I expect you'll be checking the bot's edits yourself during the trial.
- During the trial period I encourage further comment from any interested parties, and ask the operator to alert Wikipedia Talk:RFPERM to the trial (given you've already alerted them to the discussion). Josh Parris 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Trial complete. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Day 1
Had a slight problem with the first attempt. Reverted all the bots edits, fixed up the code. And started over. It archived 70 requests (diff). I checked each request manually to check it was placed at the correct archive. There was another small problem here, which I fixed.
This was the most complex archive, since the backlog meant that the bot had to archive to various different subpages. For most days only requests from one day are archived.
Day 2
Nothing needed archiving, re-ordering, or commenting on. The bot did a dummy edit, which moved around whitespace, but I figured a way to stop it from saving if only whitespace has changed.
Day 3
No problems today as far as I can see. Just archiving a few reports.
Day 4
Today was the first time the bot actually re-ordered the requests, it moved Wexeb's request to the correct place, which worked fine (when Wexeb added their request, it should have been just above Nascar's (rev), that is where KingpinBot moved it to (rev)). No problems with the archiving.
Day 5
Just three requests to archive, all went to the right places.
Day 6
Again, not much to say. Everything went smoothly.
Day 7
Nothing to do.
Well, that was dull. 
Approved. Josh Parris 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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.