Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot 3 (3rd Request)


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

Chris G Bot 3
Operator:  Chris 

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP stealing Cobi's classes

Function Summary: Archiving CHU/SUL

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Once a day

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

Function Details: Archives requests marked with done and notdone

Discussion
The Source is available here for inspection -- Chris  07:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would this bot be able to take over the archiving of the other rename pages - CHU and CHU/U - as well? WjBscribe 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought CHUU was already auto-archived. If not, then I can get ClueBot VI to do so as part of its mandate to clerk CHUU.  -- Cobi(t 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both CHU and CHU/U are supposed to be archived by, however there have been issues with this all year that I have mentioned to Voice of All but it seems he hasn't had time to fix. Whilst the archival of requests tagged as done works fine on both boards, at CHU/U, the bot doesn't ever seem to archive requests tagged as not done. At CHU, requests tagged as not done are added to the archive but not removed from the request page, leading to duplication. Though I keep an eye on this now, but this archive shows what would happen if no one watched the bot. I think it's time to acknowledge that the calls on Voice of All's time now are such that it would be better if other bots took over the management of these pages. VoABot was programmed not to archive requests unless in addition to the templates done or {tl|not done}}, they included the signature of a current bureaucrat (using the list at the bottom of User:VoABot/PPLayout.js)- this seems an effective way of making sure requests aren't archived without getting proper attention so I would ask that any bot doing this work have the same feature if possible. WjBscribe 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the code and it seems to be sound. -- Cobi(t 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, for it to archive it now needs to have done or not done and the signature of a current bureaucrat. I've also notified VoA about this so we can have his input on archiving chu(/u). -- Chris  06:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks OK to me. I'm not going to have much time to maintain my bot in the indefinite future. Getting a new bot to take over these pages seems like a good idea.  Aar on Sc hulz  13:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded I'm ready for a trial, cobi's bot appears to be archive CHU/U so I'll archive CHU and CHU/SUL -- Chris  02:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it check for a bcrat signature?  Aar on Sc hulz  03:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine does, not sure about cobi's -- Chris  03:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking through the Source it would appear that cobi's checks as well -- Chris  03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Approved for trials. Lets test this out for a week. My bot is disabled in this area now.  Aar on Sc hulz  03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be working well so far. My only concern is that the archiving is going a bit fast. That's not too much of an issue for done requests, though it might be an idea to keep those up so users can quickly point out any difficulties or follow-up requests. Perhaps those could stay for 12 hrs after being done? It's more an issue for not done requests, where users may have difficulty tracking the request to the archives and discovering why it was declined. I think it's best if those stay for a couple of days after being declined. WjBscribe 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * done will now stay on for 12 hours and not done will stay on for 48 hours -- Chris  07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded Trial Complete -- Chris  09:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BJ Talk 06:32, 22 July 2008 (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.