Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: Kingpin13

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): C# .NET, using DotNetWikiBot

Function overview: Added to the current tasks. It will notify users that a prod which they added to a page has been removed.

Edit period(s): Continuous, but at irregular periods

Estimated number of pages affected: unknown, will be a variable. Probably small.

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

Function details: If a page has a prod removed from it. The prod remover has not edited the prodder's talk page recently, the article is not nominated for any kind of deletion, the prodder has not edited the article since the prod was removed, the prodder didn't remove the prod themselves, and there has been a reasonable amount of time since the prod being removed. SDPatrol bot will edit the prodder's talk page, notifying them of the prod removal. This will either be opt-out or -in.

Discussion

Per an idea I had a while ago, and fuelled by Excirial having the exact same idea. If anybody can think of more catches then the ones above, that would be welcome. I also need to come to a decision on if this will be opt-out or -in. I' leaning towards opt-out - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For stuff that notifies like this I'd will have to be opt-in. People get rather testy on enwp about spambots. Q ^{T C} 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, opt-in than. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although if there's any chance of it being opt-out, that's what I would prefer. I personally don't see th problem with getting one notice, and then having the choice to not get any after that. I'm not sure how many people would even know about it to opt-in - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Any other input for this request? :D - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., you can use dummy talk pages to make sure you pick up the prods and to test the opt-in and opt-out features. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start it up later today (hopefully) when I've coded it (I've got some RL stuff to do today, so I'm looking at this evening). The bot will put the results on it's own subpage, and will say if the user would have been warned or not. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Programmed it. Haven't added the opt in/out stuff yet. But after waiting a while for some one to remove a prod, I finally got this out of the bot:

Natalie Okri (singer)
82.36.17.10 ()
Wouldn't have notified Otterathome
Prodder edited =True
Prodder removed tag =false
Page up for AfD =False

Paul Walker (footballer born 1992)
Whatisthefrequencykenneth ()
Wouldn't have notified Jmorrison230582
Prodder edited =True
Prodder removed tag =false
Page up for AfD =True

The brackets after the user who removed it would contain their edit summary if they had provided one. From now on I'll have the bot add these results to a subpage, and see if I can weed out any errors which might exist. Here's an explantion of the results:

This is the name of the prodded page
the name of the prod remover (the edit summary they gave when removing)
if the bot would have notified the prodder or not
if the user who prodded has edited since the prod was removed
if it was actually the prodder who removed the prod
if the page is now up for deletion at AfD

I am also going to add in something for the bot to guess it someone has already told the prodder that it's been removed. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

results can now be found at User:SDPatrolBot/prodResults. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things are coming along pretty well. I'd like some more input on opt-in -out. Again, I can't see a massive problem with it being opt-out, users who don't want it will only get one message, before it stops. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will it respect {{NOBOTS}}, if it does, I would be willing to approve under the opt-out system. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to explain what you mean by "{{NOBOTS}}" - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, you redirected it to the wrong place, corrected now :). Sure, should be easy enough to make the bot not leave a message if the user is transcluding that template. Which ones should I include? Obviously {{bots|optout=all}} should stop it, but should I have any of the variants? Such as {{bots|optout=prod}}, I'm thinking maybe not include variatons, as this opt out is more for when an article you created is marked for deletion, rather than when an article you prodded has the prod removed. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should trigger for {{bots|optout=all}}, {{nobots}}, {{bots|deny=all}}, {{bots|deny=SDPatrolBot}}, {{bots|allow=none}}}}. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can add that should we decide to make this opt-out. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just proposed such a bot myself and heard it was already up for approval. Anyway, I have requested Special:AbuseFilter/200 before making my request to supplement this kind of bot. I would suggest that your bot checks this filter's logs instead of recent changes, thus saving a lot of pages to look through. Regards SoWhy 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the bot doesn't actually go through the RC. It just checks all the pages which used to be in Category:All articles proposed for deletion, and if any of them no longer contains a prod then it'll look into it further. But it only takes half a second to look at a page which it doesn't "look into further", and about 8 seconds to look into one further. If that makes sense :/ - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs to keep a list of the previous category content to compare to, doesn't it? On the other hand, the filter is applied by the MW software automatically and the bot would not have to make such compares but could just use the log which is generated anyway by the filter. Imho that sounds easier than your approach but then again, I am not really a skilled coder. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes it does have to remember which pages used to be prodded. But it doesn't have to compare (since it already knows that every single page which was in that category have at some time been prodded). Personally I think they are both pretty much as good as each other, except from I've already coded this one, and I'm not actually sure how to load from the AF (I'm sure it can be done, and I have an idea). Basically, for me, it's easier to use the category, and it should consume hardly any more resources than the filter, or take any more time. So I think that there's no need to change it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with using the filter log instead of the category would be that it would cause false positives with a PROD was removed as part of vandalism (such as blanking the page) and immediately re-added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It would also be a good idea not to notify the PRODer if the page was turned into a redirect, as there is no reason to pursue deletion in that case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, I would like to see an example of the template it will leave, as exact wording is probably best hammered out by consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs to distinguish between the person who actually added the tag & someone who was just reverting vandalism - see Multimatic:

Canadianhotrodz (no edit summary)
Would have notified ClueBot
Prodder notified    =False
Prodder edited      =False
Prodder removed tag =False
Page up for AfD     =False
Page speedied       =False

ClueBot obvious didn't really add the PROD here.

See also Greenpark Meadows --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've been planning to add something to check if it has become a redirect. For the warning I was thinking something like:

Hi there JohnDoe. This is an automated message from SDPatrolBot. I see you added a PROD to page, since you added it another user, ClueBot, has removed the PROD with the edit summary "rmv prod, sources added". If you still think the page should be deleted, then please pursue XfD. Thanks - SDPatrolBot learn how to opt out of these messages

(everything which can be linked to a page will be, including the optout notice). If the page is nominated for XfD then the last sentence would be changed to reflect this. And if the bot is giving the user >1 notification in one edit, it will change the format so as to include them both under one section. Also, about the warning ClueBot thing, yeah, thanks for pointing that out, I'll get onto it (the reason it happens is because the bot starts searching the history from the most recent edit, rather than the oldest, but it can be fixed). Cheers :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be preferable to use wording that encourages the PRODer to work with the dePRODer, rather than just telling to send it to AfD. After all, this is a collaborative project and assuming no COI the dePROD presumably had a good faith reason for removal. How about:

Hello JohnDoe, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to [[article]] has been removed. It was removed by [[User:dePRODthis|dePRODthis]] with the following edit summary "remove prod, subject is notable as evidenced by coverage in multiple sources; sources added." Please consider [[User_talk:dePRODthis|discussing your concerns]] with dePRODthis before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the "dePRODer," you may send the article to [[WP:AfD]] for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot <small>([[Learn how to opt out of these messages]])</small>

Hopefully this would help limit BITE and prevent AfDs that simply waste the communities time. In theory, only articles can be prodded but in practice people try to user it for other things. As such, the last sentence could be reworded "...you may nominate the article for community-wide [[WP:XFD|deletion discussion]]." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot can identify if it was main-space or not. Although we might as well just say XfD. After all, it might have been removed because the page is not an article, and then it would be right to use XfD afterward. I definitely prefer your message. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, per suggestions, SDPatrolBot now figures out if the page has been redirected, and it also finds the first user to prod it, rather than the most recent. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems the bot is at least non-controversial and won't break anything, so unless I see that people aren't satisfied with the changes by later tonight, I'll probably approve it. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.