Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 12


 * 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 Symbol delete vote.svg Denied

Legobot 12
Operator:

Time filed: 04:44, Monday March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python using the rewrite branch of Pywikipedia

Source code available: User:Legobot/userspace.py

Function overview: Moves userpages which were accidentally created in the mainspace to the userspace.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Botreq

Edit period(s): Hourly (unless a more frequent time period is requested)

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details:
 * Gets the latest 100 new pages in the mainspace
 * Checks if the page title matches "pagecreator/*"
 * Moves it to "User:pagecreator/*"
 * Leaves a message on the creator's talk page.

Discussion

 * What happens in the case of a user named User:AC creating the AC/DC page? Should be extremely rare, but I'm curious about what would happen. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would get moved. If it was a false positive, would need to be added, and the bot would ignore it. I really don't forsee that happening, nor do I have a way to accurately detect such an article. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * K, just checking. The message left on the userpage should mention this possibility + instructions on how to revert/prevent the bot from doing it again. Another question, do you have any idea of often page moves would occur, typically? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The message already contains that. See User:Legobot/userfy move. I just ran through the last 1000 newly created articles and the bot did not pick up any. At a random guess, I would think one page move a week? I am not a very active new page patroller so I really have no idea how often this happens. LegoKontribsTalkM 05:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, then let's go for one week (or 10 edits, whichever comes first), and see where that gets us. Some additional remarks. First, linking to WP:MOVE would go a long way to make that message more noob friendly. Second, a quick glance as Special:NewPages show that from noon to midnight (my time), the average rate was 50 pages/hour. And considering Sundays aren't usually very active, and bots could further crank up the number of new pages (like Ganeshbot did today), fetching only the last 100 pages every hour will definitely miss stuff. Fetching the last 500 seem safer. Or better yet, have some fancy logic that will fetch all new pages created since the last time the bot checked for new pages. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I just rewrote the user message, hope that does not impact the trial or anything. On a sidenote, how about coding the bot so it checks whether it has moved the page before? I have no idea if that would be difficult to code, but it would prevent this bot from edit warring if it gets a false positive without needing hidden messages like  . Yoenit (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed your sig from the bot's message. The bot will have to subst the msg and its own sig. Josh Parris 06:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * doh, that is stupid. Thanks. Yoenit (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Trial
What's the skinny? Josh Parris 22:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be closing this in a day or so as abandoned. Josh Parris 03:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Legoktm has not edited since the 6th of march, so he is unlikely to respond. I still have interested in this bot though. What course of action would you propose? Yoenit (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you interested and able to pick up the python code (linked above)? If so, I invite you to start a new BRfA.  We'll go straight to trial. Josh Parris 10:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, without prejudicing re-opening. Here's hoping Legoktm is okay. Josh Parris 10:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for leaving without any notice, real life events took over for me. I'd like to re-open this request now that I have time. I have updated the code to check that the bot has not already edited the page (which will prevent any type of edit-warring). I would like to re-start the original trial again. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 02:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BAG assistance needed LegoKontribsTalkM 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You already are approved for trial, nobody has revoked the green light above and you are in the trial period section of WP:BRFA. So go ahead.  Rcsprinter  (talkin' to me?)  17:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok that wasn't exactly clear to me, but I've started the trial now. LegoKontribsTalkM 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No moves were made. LegoKontribsTalkM 10:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's impossible to evaluate the results of the trial when there are no results. Why don't you keep the trial going for another 2-3 days; if there have still been no edits by then, I think this task may not be useful enough (per BOTPOL) for approval and it'd be best to withdraw or deny it for the time being without any prejudice as to re-opening it in the future. Cheers! &mdash; madman 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * for the time being; not enough demand to be useful. Should it look like there's more demand in the future, this request may be reconsidered. Thanks! &mdash; madman 17:30, 13 July 2012 (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 WT:BRFA.