Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DavidWSBot


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied.

DavidWSBot
Operator: David WS (contribs)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Summary: Archive requests over 1/2 hour after approval at PERM.

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

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

Function Details: The bot is written in PHP, and it will archive any approved requests to the approved request page for this month, and denied to the denied page. It will archive the full request and all of the discussion for denied requests, but only the Usercheck-short template for approved requests.

Discussion
User:SoxBot X seems to be doing this for rollback and account creator. AWB and NPwatcher are separate pages transcluded onto PERM for convenience and currently aren't archived at all. Is this really necessary? Has there been a discussion somewhere that decided a central archive should be created? Mr.Z-man 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, User:PeterSymonds suggested it because the aforementioned bot is completely broken. My bot would handle rollback and AC. David WS  (contribs)  12:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If its completely broken, why is it still running? Has anyone told X! about problems its having? Its usually easier to just fix existing bots than replace it with a new one. Mr.Z-man 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was asked to comment here, so I will. At the time, SoxBot was broken for some reason, I forget why; anyway (being a total technical nobody) myself, I asked if a replacement could be written which does something similar (for use when the bot was down, because the page has high traffic and fewer people to monitor it). I think a similar thing was suggested for another bot (Cluebot maybe?), I'm not entirely sure. But SoxBot's working again, which is great; I've sent a memo to David explaining and apologising. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * not needed --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 23:21, 24 November 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.