Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 36


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Legobot 36
Operator:

Time filed: 09:18, Monday March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:

Function overview: Closes FACs/FLCs/ FARs and updates relevant pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User:Maralia/FA bot, User:Hahc21/FL Bot, VoxelBot 3

Edit period(s): Continous

Estimated number of pages affected: No clue.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: User:Maralia/FA bot and User:Hahc21/FL Bot. For the time being the bot will only do FACs and FLCs. I'll add in FAR in another request.

Discussion

 * Comment – Will it take the general workload and follow the same pattern as GimmeBot on the Featured article pages? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 06:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "the general workload" is nor what exactly GimmeBot did. Right now the bot will do exactly what is specified on User:Maralia/FA bot under "FAC Closing" and User:Hahc21/FL Bot for FLCs. Legoktm (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant those two only. I have one suggestion, can the GA pages be also included in the bot's "to do list"? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 08:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do what to GA pages? Legoktm (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update the article history? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 11:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner after you posted on my subpage; I figured checking in on my talk page and notifications would be sufficient while I was away, so I missed your post which only hit my watchlist. Many, many thanks for taking this on. I have been filling in for Gimmebot/Voxelbot on this task for years and should be able to answer any questions you might have, and review the test run. I'll keep a close eye on this page. Thanks again—this is a huge load off my mind. Maralia (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

-- slakr \ talk / 07:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, someone went through and manually did everything the bot was going to do, so it only made 3 (perfect!) edits... [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Ricky_Martin_albums_discography/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=603847274], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Martin_albums_discography&diff=prev&oldid=603847284], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ricky_Martin_albums_discography&diff=prev&oldid=603847292]. I'll do a few more runs over the next few days to finish the trial. Legoktm (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just did 35 more edits, everything went well except for one where a human [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:85th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=603673127 tried] to do part of the closing manually, and screwed it up. I made the bot a little more resilient so it should no longer die when encountering something like that. Legoktm (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at a few and see some cases where a new articlehistory was created despite one already existing. Will look through the rest of the run and summarize here shortly. Maralia (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like the bot is failing to catch existing  at least with that precise capitalization. See the following examples:
 * This FAC, where it should have appended a new action;
 * This FLC where it also should have appended a new action; and
 * This FLC, which (like the one you mentioned) had been manually closed by someone, so the confusion is understandable, but where the bot still should have caught that articlehistory existed.
 * There is a lesser, secondary issue in that the bot doesn't seem to be designed to incorporate intervening events into articlehistory (i.e. the last recorded articlehistory entry may be action3=PR, so the bot would iterate to action4 for FAC, but it's not catching a GA that happened in the interim, so now we have a continuity issue). Gimmebot handled this, fully implementing articlehistory for all relevant actions; while Voxelbot never had the capability, that is where we want to end up. I realize it's a leap in scale, and certainly the first target is to restore basic functionality, but just wanted to make the requested scope clear. Maralia (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another minor issue with the FAC; the article history is listing the article as a FFAC (Former FAC); my understanding (and can correct me if I'm wrong) is that because the article was a Good article, the Article History should still list it as GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the currentstatus after a FAC is not always FA or FFAC; a GA which fails at FAC would still retain its GA status. Thanks for picking that up. Maralia (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth bearing in mind for the future, a de-featured article does not revert to good. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Ok, so most of those bugs are just mistakes on my part. fixes not detecting  properly, and  fixes overwriting currentstatus=GA. Still looking into how to handle picking up the GA into the article history template. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * is an example where Legobot should integrate in the template. Working on the code for it now. Legoktm (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And is what it did (with a little help from me, but I fixed that in the code). Legoktm (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just found this page. : What GimmeBot used to do was documented in this page: User:Matthewedwards/FL. However, I think that my template FCloseTop is far more bot-friendly than fl top, given that the bot just has to fill in parameters instead of writing a single sentence. My template is also adapted to work with FAC so you can use it for that too (I don't mind if my template is renamed). Cheers.  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that :). I already wrote the code to construct the sentence, but in the future I'll switch it over to use your template, which is superior. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

. Sorry about the delay. I fixed a bug where someone had updated the hidden comment in a template, so the bot wasn't detecting already-archived pages properly. Other than that, I think everything is ready to go? Legoktm (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long bot requests usually take, but nothing has happened at FAC with this bot for a while, and I was just wondering how far along we are now, and when it will begin running properly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Lego. I looked at three of the bot's most recent closes, and found some areas that need work:
 * timestamps: The bot seems to be adding four hours to the proper timestamps.
 * oldids: Probably due to the above issue, the bot is not recording the correct oldids.
 * action#: The action# is apparently getting incremented by 2 rather than by 1.
 * currentstatus: GAs which fail at FAC are getting marked currentstatus=FFAC, but they should be =GA (as discussed above).
 * For examples of these issues, see Talk: Economy of Visakhapatnam, Talk:Roman Empire, and Talk:The Doon School. As always, thanks so much for working on this. Maralia (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Legoktm, any update? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Legotm. Operator assistance is needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Unfortunately I don't have the time that I expected I would to run the bot. I'm working with another bot operator right now to take it over. Legoktm (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please advise on further action. You may use BotWithdrawn if required. &mdash; JamesR  ( talk ) 01:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Legoktm and I have decided that I should assume leadership in this task. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 05:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks., Σ will file his own request. Legoktm (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2014 (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.