Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

[edit] HBC AIV helperbot

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: HighInBC

Automatic or Manually Assisted:Automatic

Programming Language(s):perl

Function Summary: Will add and remove the admin backlog notice as needed.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):continuous

Edit rate requested: X edits per TIME Not very often, whenever the amount of reports changes to necessitate the changing of the backlog status.

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

Function Details:

New function to automatically add and remove the admin backlog template from the pages this bot already covers. I have discussed this here and seem to have community approval.

This function will be controlled by a tag on the same line as the backlog template. It looks like this: <!-- Autobacklog=On AddLimit=10 RemoveLimit=5 -->

Putting parameters in the html comments allows for the community to decide how the function will run. AddLimit is the number of reports, that if exceeded will result in the backlog being added. RemoveLimit is the number of reports, that if it drops below will result in the removal of the backlog. Setting Autobacklog to anything but On or on will disable this function.

[edit] Discussion

This functionality has already been coded[1]. I have tested it by having the program write to a text file instead of the Wikipedia page and is seems to be working well. Once again I merely need to uncomment the page save command after approval. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Approved for trials. — xaosflux Talk 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Some questions though:
  1. Could you put the "control" tag for this in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/header instead? I think it will be less likely to be accidently or maliciously tampered with there. — xaosflux Talk 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Can the code make it where this edit will only happen if the bot was going to to make an edit already (to save cycles)? — xaosflux Talk 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to start by saying I have already given thought to both of these issues.

Regarding point 1. My bot serves two pages, and is capable of serving any future pages needing this service, pages that do not carry that header. Currently WP:AIV/TB2 would not benefit if I used this in the header. To work with the page in question, it needs to be associated with that page. It seems to me that this is no more prone to accidental or malicious abuse than the current model.

Regarding point 2. I certainly could with a little bit of effort. However, the edit summary for my bots regular contributions is already bordering on the edge of the size limit. I think it is important to mention in the edit summary that the backlog has been edited or removed. Also, the addition or removal of the backlog is not a common occurrence, and if not done by the bot would result in an edit anyway by a human. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the quick replies, both make good sense. Let's run this for a week, and if no issues we can say it's gold. — xaosflux Talk 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, first thing in the morning, that is, my morning. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trials have begun and seem to be working properly: [2] [3] [4] [5] HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Update, a small bug occurred when the page was reformatted [6], resulting in the bot removing the header [7]. I got an error report [8], repaired [9] and tested it [10] within 14 minutes. Now any change in formating will result in the function still working or not taking any action at all. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say the trials are complete, the function has been working properly for some time now since the last alteration to the code. The community having fun changing the setting about and seem to have come to an agreement as to what constitutes a backlog. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks great, FUNCTION APPROVED. Bot on. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.