Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AvicBot 6

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 6[edit]

Operator: Avicennasis (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:29, Friday July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: Yes

Function overview: Maintain indef blocked categories

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: unknown

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Will grab users in the indef block categories, and check to see if they are, in fact, indef blocked. If a user is not found to be blocked, the username will be set aside on a subpage. If, after two weeks, the user is still in the category, and still unblocked, AvicBot will remove the category from the user talk page.

Categories affected:

Discussion[edit]

Is there a policy/guideline/discussion regarding their use that you can link in "relevant discussion" as a "consensus for this task"? If not, could you leave a note on the category talk/some noticeboard regarding this, please. Although I doubt this will be controversial. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the category pages (except the last one) have the note "Users who are not blocked should be removed from the category" on them. Still, I can post to the talk pages, though not sure which, if any, noticeboards might be interested in this. ^Avic _ennasis @ 11:08, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more of a bureaucratic point than anything else. So you can point out you invited wider discussion even if no one replies. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice to all the category talk pages, as well as Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, which is also the talk page for WP:WikiProject user warnings, as it seemed most relevant to this request. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:49, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Take however long you need to make the page list (if you haven't already). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:26, 5 Av 5771 / 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the contribs for this run. It appears to have gone very well. I don't see any problems, or concerns with this task. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this mostly affects pages with a subst'ed block template. There are two cases I see where the bot could make a better edit by also removing the surrounding conditional: [1]

{{#switch:User talk|User|User talk=[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

and [2]

{{#ifeq: yes | yes |[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for link-spamming||{{PAGENAME}}]] | [[Category:Wikipedians who have temporarily been blocked for link-spamming||{{PAGENAME}}]] }}

. Not a deal-breaker, but could be nice. Are you are willing to implement these?

Approved for extended trial (75 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anyway, let's catch any more weird cases to see that nothing breaks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - Implemented above suggestions. Removes

{{#switch:User talk|User|User talk=[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

when it finds the whole sting, e.g., here, else it removes [[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy|{{PAGENAME}}]], e.g., here. Likewise with other cats. ^Avic _ennasis @ 05:46, 19 Av 5771 / 05:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I haven't looked at most of the edits yet, but the one you refer to above with the switch coding link is blocked, or perhaps more properly, globally locked and hidden. Is there anyway your bot could account for cases like that? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Currently, the script uses an API call to check for blocks, e.g. like this. The same API call for the locked account looks the same as an unblocked account. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:34, 19 Av 5771 / 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the block appears using the "globaluserinfo" call: [3]. It also shows the account is locked and hidden. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this issue happened a number of other times; at least 22 of the user talk pages uncategorized in the last trial belong to users who are blocked locally and globally locked and hidden. There are several others that I'm not sure about, although it's possible they just never got blocked in the first place. Would it be possible to try and fix this for one last trial run? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be hard to re-work the script, assuming the above API call can catch both local blocks and global locks, and it looks like it does. How many more would you like for the next trial? ^Avic _ennasis @ 03:55, 20 Av 5771 / 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Take however many pages you need to be sure the new call is working - try in increments of ten, perhaps, and see how it goes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before you run that, note that the globaluser thing will probably only return results when the local account is unified to a global account. In general, that'll be most of them, but I have seen a few recent accounts on checkuser that are *not* unified. So you may want to check both just in case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} - Any updates on how this is going? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the additional check, the scripts have been pretty slow - and I haven't had much time for testing this lately. I'll probably have some definite results within the week. ^Avic _ennasis @ 23:00, 28 Av 5771 / 23:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe I've got it down (and have re-coded some things so it's much faster.) AvicBot parsed Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming, and removed all locally blocked users from it's working list, as well as a globally locked account, and found ~80 or so that matched the criteria. (Non-indef-blocked, non-locked accounts in an indef-blocked category.) I processed 30 of them here. ^Avic _ennasis @ 21:30, 6 Elul 5771 / 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. ~55 more here. I believe I have all the kinks worked out now. ^Avic _ennasis @ 23:25, 17 Elul 5771 / 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. I see everything looks good, and no reason to deny this bot, can a BAGer give the go ahead? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Looks good --Chris 11:11, 13 October 2011 (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.