Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LuisBot01


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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

LuisBot01
Operator:

Time filed: 21:56, Monday, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: In user page of bot

Function overview: Removes templates from users without SPIs.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: A few

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Adminbot (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Every 5 minutes checks  and gives 5 minutes to add an SPI before the  template is removed.

Discussion

 * Quick note: you may want to fix the source code link, since the "L" in "LuisBot01.cs" should be capitalized. The link would then be https://github.com/luis140219/luisbot01/blob/master/LuisBot01.cs. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Already replaced link to link to repository. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The bot will be working in the day after the approval, at 18:00 UTC. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You mention here that it will remove the template 5 minutes after running and not detecting an SPI, on the bots userpage you say 24hours. Which one are you using? Amortias (T)(C) 22:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also would this not want to be exclusion compliant for cases where there's sockpupetry but no SPI, self admitted cases etc. What would be done to prevent either these templates being removed, would the onus be on the blocking or tagging CU or clerk to add a nobots template as well? Amortias (T)(C) 23:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed this period to 5 minutes. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 06:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * How will the bot handle cases where an SPI page doesn't exist, but the user is blocked for abusing multiple accounts. How will the bot handle cases where two or more SPI cases have been merged and the original SPI case no longer exists. How will the bot handle cases where an SPI page does exist but the block has been overturned, removed or expired. How will the bot cope with additional data present in the block log. Have you discussed this bot with SPI clerks, checkusers and administrators who are routinely active in the SPI area, to ensure this bot will not cause difficulties in tracking and labelling sockpuppets ? Do you think you have the requisite experience to run a bot of this nature ? Nick (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For the case where an SPI page does exist but the block has been overturned, removed or expired, the bot simply ignores the user page. For the first case, I'll try to check if the user is blocked. For the second case, it is technically impossible for that to occur. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 06:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet investigation should always exist when a template is put in place. The bot does not check the block log, instead it only reads and edits the user pages of users in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers that do not have a SPI. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure ? What would happen if the SPI was undertaken on a sister project, perhaps ? Is your bot going to check all other WMF projects ? And you've not answered my question, do you think you have the requisite knowledge to run this bot ? I think you should compile a list of 250 or so edits which you would expect the bot to handle, and explain each edit (remove template, ignore etc). Nick (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could I have 24 hours for testing the bot? Thanks. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This request is not listed at WP:BRFA. Is it still being drafted or do you with to post it? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:31, 15 February 2017 (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.