Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lowercase sigmabot IV 1


 * 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 neutral vote.svg Request Expired.

Lowercase sigmabot IV 1
Operator:

Time filed: 02:26, Saturday, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Soon

Function overview: Replace CSD tags on pages if the tags are removed by the author

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot, Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: [0, ∞)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: From the link: If a page which has been nominated for deletion has it's speedy tag removed by the author of the page, this bot will replace (or revert, depending on what you people want it to do ;D) the deletion tag and warn the user.

Notice that I am not implementing the G7-tagging part. I've seen that some authors will blank a new page they create right after they create it, and then later, add more content. WP:NPPNICE; I wouldn't put this up to this bot as I envision it.

Discussion

 * So If I create a page, then speedy it, then change my mind - this will revert me? — xaosflux  Talk 03:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 04:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which warning template will it use? Will it revert indefinitely, or only a set number of times per page? —  Earwig   talk 05:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A few observations from a quick look at SDPatrolBot's contributions:
 * It reports the editor to AIV for removing CSD templates
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanzeel007&oldid=568028622 It first sends a custom uw-speedy1, then a regular uw-speedy2, then uw-speedy4. It may have been overlooked that uw-speedy3 was not used.
 * It restores the CSD template without reverting any other changes
 * That should answer a few of your questions. I also found Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II and have added it to the list of relevant discussions at the top of the page.
 * I think it may be wise for the bot to respect 3RR for safety and that deletion should "reset" the 3RR clock: if the page is recreated after deletion, and CSD tagged again, the bot should restore the CSD tag if it's removed again. But I have nothing against carrying out the decision of this discussion wherever the chips may fall. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 05:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason for the skipping of the level 3 warning was to be able to give a final warning before reporting to AIV, without violating the 3RR. The number of time the bot reverts was actually a configurable option set at User:SDPatrolBot/configuration/replacementslmt.css, I think it would make sense to keep to 3 reverts before reporting, to stay inline with 3RR, and it therefore seems to make sense to follow a warning level of 1, 2 and then 4, so that a final warning is presented before reporting (reporting instead of reverting the fourth time the tag is removed). - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You should also exempt G13s from this bot, because, obviously, if the creator edits their draft nominated for G13 to remove the notice, then it no longer qualifies for G13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni Flames (talk • contribs) 11:11 19 June 2016
 * I do not plan this bot to edit outside of mainspace. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 06:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please let's progress. Comments have given no reasons to refuse this request, so it looks like we can move it along.  Rcsprinter123    (inform)  00:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you going to optimize your checks with filter 29 (recent changes view), or are you going to be doing text compares of every edit? — xaosflux  Talk 03:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: filter 29 only tags on "new" users (<50 edits). — xaosflux  Talk 03:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just a tad bit busy right now, and probably won't be able to look at this for the week. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 16:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, filter 29 doesn't always trigger when someone removes a CSD. I think I'd just see if a page, that previously was in CAT:CSD but no longer is, doesn't transclude db-meta. Then I'd go through the previous revisions until I find a revision that had a {{db-[arg][0-9]{1,2} tag and stick that back on the page. Maybe I'd also have checks to skip A1/A3 and G7 if they contain more than 100 bytes. → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 16:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How are you getting your input? Are you going to periodically scrape CAT:CSD, or are you going to be processing the entire recent changes feed (or something else)? — xaosflux  Talk 14:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * — xaosflux  Talk 16:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. And yes, it will check CAT:CSD every 30 seconds or every 60 seconds, depending on how things look when I can test the script. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 05:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most "antivandalism" type bots don't use the  specifically so that the the changes will not be edited - what types of edits did you plan on asserting this for, if any? —  xaosflux  Talk 02:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mark CSD tags as a bot edit, if that's what you mean? → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 04:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please include a link to Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lowercase_sigmabot_IV_1 in your edit summaries (along with whatever else you are going to use). — xaosflux  Talk 19:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! Please allow me six weeks before starting to work on the trial. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 02:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you ready to begin trials? — xaosflux  Talk 18:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Trial 1
Please place feedback and results from initial trial run here. — xaosflux  Talk 19:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Request has expired due to non-response. This may be reactivated at a later time by the operator. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:10, 16 October 2016 (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.