Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dreamy Jazz Bot 6


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Dreamy Jazz Bot 6
Operator:

Time filed: 17:55, Monday, November 30, 2020 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Pywikibot

Source code available: Will likely publish it when written

Function overview: Place on pre-existing user talk pages of users beginning with "Vanished user" or "Renamed user" with or without the space.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: from a quick count from Special:ListUsers, it seems around 2,000 users start with Vanished user or Renamed user. A proportion of those will have their talk page edited once. I will get a more accurate number if this goes ahead.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No (see more below)

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This proposed bot will add to the user talk pages (and not user talk subpages) of users with usernames which start with   or   (case insensitive and with/without the space). This is following a discussion in November 2019 where it was thought a good idea to have vanished users not receive ACE election notices. To do this Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery would need to be added to their talk page. It was also thought that it would be best to have vanished users not receive any bot talk page messages, as they will not be read by the person they are intended for. To simplify this, the category can be included by providing a parameter to the nobots template. Therefore this bot, if approved, will add this template with the parameters  and   to prevent unnecessary posting of bot talk page messages to vanished users, who by the very nature of their vanishing won't need to see these notifications. To prevent the bot from re-adding it if it was reverted, I will add a check to ensure that this bot task will only ever edit a page once.

This bot task won't be completely exclusion compliant. This is because simply adding the nobots template will not prevent mass messages being added. Per the documentation,  needs to be included in the   parameter before it is added to the talk page. Therefore, if the page is not in Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery, the bot will add  to the   parameter to the nobots which is present. If the optout parameter was not included, the bot will add  as a parameter to the nobots template. If nobots is present and the page is in Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery, the bot will skip the page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To add, post filing this I've decided that the bot will only edit pre-existing talk pages. This is because talk pages of vanished users which don't exist are unlikely to be created. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the parameters in nobots to be added. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
An interesting idea, and not one that I'm necessarily opposed to. However, I do note that in the discussion you link to says this should be discussed at WP:VPR first; has this been done? Primefac (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but I could certainly start one. I will do so now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't dug in to that template, but adding the mms-opt-out category seems just fine, but do you also want to force them to opt-out of everything else? Why?  If an file-fixing bot, or a linter-fixing bot comes along - what's the problem? —  xaosflux  Talk 18:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am personally happy with just mass message prevention, but thought that vanished users don't need to have file fixing bots posting at their talk page. Although it isn't a big problem, I thought while the mass message category was added it made sense to me to add the nobots as well. Vanished users are very unlikely to be reading their talk page, so talk page messages don't serve a use to the intended target (the vanished user). Editors who watchlist the page may possibly find it useful, but I would say more times than not these messages go unread. mentioned that it might be an idea to add nobots when adding the category. I'm currently writing the start of a VPR discussion, so hopefully some kind of consensus for what it wanted will appear. I started the BRFA to get the ball rolling and did think that a VPR discussion / wider discussion would likely be needed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the bot could be constrained to only editing talk pages which exist too? That would reduce unnecessary edits, as talk pages which don't exist for vanished users are unlikely to be created. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added that the bot task will only edit pre-existing talk pages for vanished users. I've also started the disucssion at VPR at . Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

is not the correct syntax. should never have parameters. If you want to deny all bots and opt them out of MassMessages, it should be. If you want to opt them out of all messages, it should be. If you want to just opt them out of MassMessages, it should be. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing this. I assumed that  could be put in optout based on the documentation. I'll update the BRFA details. I've gone with deny all bots and opt them out of mass messages, but if consensus at VPR or here want's different, I am happy to modify it. Dreamy Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There should be a way to identify who left the template so that other bots have the flexibility to bypass it should they need to. Typically this is done with the inclusion of a Dreamy Jazz Bot 6 or similar tagging.  --  Green  C  19:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can certainly add that in. Perhaps that might need to be added to the template's documentation for further bot operators. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Exclusion compliant bots should be following the current documentation, not going around it depending on how it got there. That defeats the purpose. allow exists for to allowing specific bots. A bot in would be confusing. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to add or leave it, though I would prefer without it as wikiblame or an inspection of the page history would give you who placed it. If said parameter is wanted, I would like it to be less ambiguous in its meaning per JJMC89's comment. Perhaps the parameter could be "placed-by" or even "placed-by-bot" (similar variations also would be good)? Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pump thread got archived leaning towards nobots and MM prevention. Let's see where this leads us. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Will be a little bit before I run a trial. Need to code, but shouldn't take too long. Happy new year. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably after the 14th I'll run the trial, due to Christmas, New Year and other things on my plate. There is no great rush anyway. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a mistake in the top area. The template to be added should be bots and not nobots. I realised that when coding. Nobots takes no parameters, wheras bots does per the syntax on the template page. I'm nearly finished coding. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 01:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident in the code, but I am running tests on live pages without saving to spot issues. I'll likely run the actual edits tomorrow. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 01:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm running the trial now. No issues so far. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Primefac (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * bot made 50 edits. Stopped the bot running a couple of times. The first time, I updated the summary to clarify that the bot was making the edits as the user was vanished. The second time I stopped was to run on a specific user talk page to demonstrate that the bot could update a bots template. It was in this edit. All other edits were the bot running through all users beginning with "Renamed user" or "Vanished user". Saw no issues when I checked diffs. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 Bots/Noticeboard.