Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RF1 Bot

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

Speedily Approved.

RF1 Bot

Operator: RhinosF1 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 12:52, Saturday, December 29, 2018 (UTC)

Function overview: Creates redirects from user pages linked to archives to main userpage.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Based on https://github.com/TheSandDoctor/redirect_maker

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Should only need to edit Yearly but may run more often will only run once per calendar month at max (date will be random and depend on when I can run it.

Estimated number of pages affected: 24 per year (1 per month per archive)

Namespace(s): User: (OWN User, OWN Usertalk, Operators USER, Operator's Usertalk).

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot creates redirects from User:(insert user)/Archives(YYYY)/(Month) to User:(insert user) for me in my userspace and the bot's (and anyone who requests (although no one has)). Not exclusion compliant as page it's running on is inputted by me anyway so no need. Code was built by User:TheSandDoctor in response to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Creating_redirect_to_main_userpage_from_subpages.

Discussion

Comment: Request started in response to edit filters being tripped causing it to be blocked RhinosF1 (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The bot has a hard coded wait of 5 sec per edit which can be extended if required. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is having no non-talk pages for archives an issue for you? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to have the article page that corresponds to the TP archive to not be red-linked and it makes it easier on mobile to get back to my userpage after RhinosF1 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice in the bot's deleted contributions that it arbitrarily created dozens upon dozens of user pages with no corresponding talk page. If there's no talk page there, it shouldn't create a user page anyway. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac:It does it for the year so the next run will cover up to Dec '19. The bot has a function to stop it running on pages before a certain date so I will apply this for where there are months with no discussions. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just do one edit per month if the talk archive is created? Why create pointless redirects for talk pages that might not exist? You could very easily do this task without approval if you're only doing two edits per month (maximum). Primefac (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: It's quicker to do it once a year. I know it can be done manually but this requires a lot more effort that running a script occasionally. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this bot is only going to edit its own/its operators page at such a low volume, it doesn't need to be approved or flagged. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It set off edit filters so it was advised I come here although you are correct at the moment it would only edit its own and my userspace. I would open it up to other users if asked though. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: I reviewed those hits, they are 'track-only' and at your anticipated volume level should be non-issues. For yourself, you should be able to just run this under your own account too. If you want to explore making this be an opt-in for other users we can continue this review - please provide details on the process and procedure that this will entail. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I would consider an opt-in function and it would probably require adding the page to a list or category. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: if you want this to be reviewed you will need to code this and document that usage (else there will be nothing for you to trial). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that over the weekend, it would probably just use a list that I would paste into a file on my PC that the bot would just read line by line. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: to put this in perspective - if all you want to do is manage your own pages with this, I'll speedily approve the task for yourself - and it will not run with a bot flag, this is such a low volume task. If you want to do this for other people, you will need to have a way to reliably do it - meaning that people should be able to use a template or at least sign up on a opt-in configuration page, and then you will need to commit to running it on the right interval. If you want to expand to others in the future, you can always request task 2 for that. That your edits hit a log-only filter isn't anything you need to worry about. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you speedily approve it then for operating in its own and my userspace again with a first run on 15 January 2018? I don't mind not having a bot flag but was advised to take it here so if we can proceed as approved that would that be fantastic. Thanks for your help, RhinosF1 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Approved. as the scope is now only the bot and the operators user/usertalk spaces and this is low volume. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 4 January 2019 (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.