Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 66

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 Approved.

Operator: Anomie (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:01, Wednesday August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/DRVClerk.pm

Function overview: Clerking at WP:DRV

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WT:DRV#DRV bot request

Edit period(s): Hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: WP:DRV and its subpages only

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will perform various clerking tasks at WP:DRV:

• Create the daily DRV log subpage.
• Create the monthly DRV log subpage.
• Fix the headers on the daily DRV log subpages, if they get removed or damaged.
• Remove section headers from DRV log subpages when all discussions on the page are closed (per the instructions) and the page has not been edited for 24 hours.
• Update Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active to contain the current day's log page and any non-empty log pages less than 8 days old.
• Update Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent to contain any non-empty log pages less than 15 days old and any older log pages with unclosed discussions.

Discussion

Adjustments may be made (e.g. changing the 24-hour wait) or additional clerking tasks affecting only WP:DRV and subpages may be added in the future based on consensus at WT:DRV. Anomie⚔ 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Seems straightforward. Five days may be a bit much or too little; allow enough time to test all components of the bot reasonably thoroughly. — Earwig ^talk 19:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only bit that might not be hit is the section header removal; there are two header fixes that will run immediately, as will the updating of the Active and Recent pages, and it should get to create a new daily page soon too. So I've set it up as "5 days and all functions run at least once". Actually, it's set for slightly over 5 days so it won't stop 10 minutes before it would create the August 9 log page.

Edits for this trial should be the only edits by the bot to Wikipedia:Deletion review and subpages. Anomie⚔ 23:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anomie and The Earwig! One small thing: when removing headers, any L5 or L6 ones will need to be replaced - maybe with simple bolded text like this - so that the TOC doesn't look really odd. I don't think that's in the code yet. T. Canens (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, a simpler solution might be to add a TOC template to Template:Deletion review log header which is not listing L5 or L6 headlines at the DR page. Just an idea, Might be a simpler solution... mabdul 07:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. BTW, it seems the bot is going to have a hard time getting to remove headers, because the humans are used to doing it right away after they close the last open discussion. Anomie⚔ 17:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to get people to stop doing it... T. Canens (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I just realized that we missed one subtask: can we have the bot create the monthly logs like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July as well? I'd imagine that it would be uncontroversial, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August is a redlink right now so we can even create a page during the trial. T. Canens (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Added Seems a sensible and uncontroversial addition. Anomie⚔ 14:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And...it seems like people are too used to clicking "recent" in the TOC and scrolling up. Can we always have the 7th day's log in /Active regardless of whether it is empty? T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, yes. But is it the best idea? It seems it might be confusing to have e.g. 2 August visible on 2 August, then disappear, then reappear (still empty) on 9 August, and then disappear again the next day. It might be more straightforward for people to close the first day under Recent rather than the first day above it. Anomie⚔ 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Good point. Let's keep it the way it is for now; we can always change this later if needed. T. Canens (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Anomie⚔ 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Can we get this wrapped up? T. Canens (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. — Earwig ^talk 23:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.