Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NoomBot 7

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.

NoomBot 7[edit]

Operator: Noommos (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:25, Saturday May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: On request

Function overview: Trim the list of users eligible for autopatrol down based on set criteria.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot req VPP VPP

Edit period(s): Monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 2

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

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

Function details: Bot will run when the new table is posted each month. It trims the list down according to set criteria and begins submitting them to RFP/A, allowing the administrators working there to deal with them over time. Only edits its own log page, the original table and RFP/A.

Discussion[edit]

I think, rather than post one new request every hour, it would be better to base the number of requests to post by how many are currently on the page (or are currently open?) For example, not add any new requests if there are currently >20 requests, and if there are less, then post 20 - current_number_of_requests. This would prevent flooding the page if there is a period when no admins are reviewing, and would also keep any admins who are looking there busy, rather than giving them one request and then having them think the job is done. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a much better idea than mine, will replace the current request posting. Noom _talk ^stalk 07:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. How's the code looking, and how you would you feel with a few days trial? Is the bot going to give a detailed explanation of why it did/did not submit requests? That would be nice for reviewing administrators and also testing purposes. Also, you'll need an opt-out page, User:MZMcBride is in the report for example, but does not want the right. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It posts to a log page when it's finished processing the list. Will create a page for opt-out users at User:NoomBot/AutoPatrol/Opt-out. Need to finish creating the request posting, didn't finish it yet. Noom _talk ^stalk 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, are you going to look at the number of sections, or are you going to look at each request and check if it's still open? If it's the latter, feel free to borrow the regexes at User:KingpinBot/notdone and User:KingpinBot/done - or just write your own method, they're pretty quick and easy patterns. What will the text (i.e. the "reason") of the request be when posting? It would be nice to include the number of pages created (according to the database report) along with any other useful statistics. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've left a note about this BRfA at WT:RFPERM. Also, please re-trim the list to test the opt out function when possible. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Planning on something like this: "Automatic (bot) request. User has created <articles> with <edits> total edits." Thanks for your patterns to. Noom _talk ^stalk 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added opt-out (diff) and it is able to submit them now to. The only mistake is it accidentally got confused on MZMcBrides name in the Log page, which is now fixed. Noom _talk ^stalk 17:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready for a trial now. Noom _talk ^stalk 12:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (3 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see how it does (oh, it'd also be nice to have the bot automatically add line breaks to the log page, but not a biggie :)) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I was supposed to do that earlier. Just going to wait for taxobox to finish (which should be any minute now hopefully) and will start it up. Noom _talk ^stalk 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this bot is overwriting an existing report. Looking at Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege (configuration), either SvickBOT should be updated or NoomBot should post somewhere else. Competing bots are not okay. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the original request it was asked that the bot overwrite the report, since the trimmed users are unlikely to be accepted for AutoPatrol, but I can remove it's overwriting of the report and keep it posting to it's own list. Noom _talk ^stalk 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my fault. I specifically asked for the bot to overwrite the file. I retract that request. Sorry about that, Noom. I'm ignorant about bot operation protocol. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed overwriting of report and rollbacked bots changes to the report. Noom _talk ^stalk 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the bot was removing blocked users? Why did it add User:Sarah777? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally left a bit of code in from the testing. Blocked users are now properly removed from the trimmed list. Noom _talk ^stalk 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Kudpung for feedback, as he has been closely following NPP operations for quite a while and has a lot of knowledge in that area. He does not approve of the task the bot is working on. He also asked for additional exclusion criteria, which I have copied below.
ignoring users whose articles have a stub tag

ignoring users whose very short articles do not have a stub tag

ignoring users whose articles have naked URLs in the ref and EL sections

ignoring users who have not added project templates to the articles' talk pages

ignoring users whose articles have a 'Please expand from foreign Wiki article' tag on them.

ignoring users whose articles do not have a page top tag, but which have inline and/or section tags.

ignoring users who do not have reviewer rights (which, BTW, were also handed out indiscriminately)

ignoring users who do not have rollback rights.

ignoring users who have not edited during the last 60 days.

ignoring users who not only have CSD, PROD, or AfD notices on their talk pages, but who also have file notification messages, and any other uw templates whatsoever.

I let him know I'd mention his concerns here so we can talk about them. I'm not an expert, so I'm not certain how difficult it would be to implement these adiitional criteria. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC) strike as just being a comment - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take a wikibreak soon, so I'm not sure I'll have enough time to code the new criteria. If there is anyone else willing to pickup the task, they can have the current code and I'll withdraw this request. Sorry, Noom _talk ^stalk 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I have struck the previous message as it was just for comment and input. It's not required for the bot. Sorry for the misunderstanding. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do it, just might be a while before I have time to get it done. Noom _talk ^stalk 06:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to be running great and has been very helpful. We were manually doing the checks before, so the bot is saving us a lot of work. Thanks very much, Noom. My only suggestion would be to reduce the threshold from 20 open submissions down to 5 or 10 as there are not a lot of people reviewing at RFP/A right now. I believe you have already added the most critical requirements and that bot should continue to run as is. The other suggestions could be added at a later date when you have free time. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Have reduced workload threshold, so as to not flood RFP/A. Noom _talk ^stalk 09:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 19 May 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.