User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Bots
Duplicate voter reporting bot (Archive 58)
[edit]I've wrapped up my RfA Analysis tool (see the archive) in a bot. Basically, it uses the same functions as the tool to analyze all current RfAs at specific intervals (once every 3 hours or so), and posts the results at User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report, in a similar fashion to User:Dragons flight/RFA summary. It doesn't make any edits elsewhere, and all the nominations are downloaded in a single export operation, so server load shouldn't be too high. I have two uses for the report in mind: transclusion in Wikipedia:RFA summary, or watchlisting by users interested in weeding out duplicate votes. I also hope it will be useful for bureaucrats. The bot isn't automatically triggered at the moment - may I have some feedback before embarking on that? Cheers, Tangotango 15:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Depending on your code base, it might make sense to merge our two products and do everything at once? I am presently doing everything in Python. Dragons flight 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I had the same thought, but unfortunately I'm using PHP. I'm wondering whether it's possible for my bot to fill in the extra columns (Possible duplicate voters and Details) after your bot's done its work. In any case, the code for my RfA Analysis library (which the toolserver tool and the bot share) is available here. Cheers, Tangotango 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't merge, then run your bots at different times (one at the top of the hour, one at the bottom of the hour, for example) so we can always get up to date info :-). NoSeptember talk 16:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- But if you do that, the bot that runs at the bottom of each hour and that at the top of the following hour will be way too close together (except for the top of the very first hour). I don't suppose we need so many updates.. Redux 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- New RfAs (in their first day of listing) pick up votes very quickly, and one never knows just when one wants to check the current status of RfAs. So why not have frequent updates? It's not a big strain on the servers. NoSeptember talk 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- But if you do that, the bot that runs at the bottom of each hour and that at the top of the following hour will be way too close together (except for the top of the very first hour). I don't suppose we need so many updates.. Redux 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't merge, then run your bots at different times (one at the top of the hour, one at the bottom of the hour, for example) so we can always get up to date info :-). NoSeptember talk 16:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I had the same thought, but unfortunately I'm using PHP. I'm wondering whether it's possible for my bot to fill in the extra columns (Possible duplicate voters and Details) after your bot's done its work. In any case, the code for my RfA Analysis library (which the toolserver tool and the bot share) is available here. Cheers, Tangotango 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Make it live. I like it! --Durin 17:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I must say you have done a wonderful job creating this tool. There must be a bunch of relieved bureaucrats sitting now that they don't need to go over every RFA with a magnifying glass. Anyway there are still a few places the tools goes haywire, although I don't think there can be much you can do about it.
- Here in Zappa.jake's RFA User:TBC's (3rd) oppose vote gets a "Sig not found" as he has written out a list of reasons to oppose.
- Here in Compuerjoe's RFA User:Admrboltz's sig (12th Support) just doesn't register. I guess this is because of his sig having some formatting problems.
- Here in Bookofjude's RFA User:Mboverload's vote (124th Support) gives the dreaded "Sig not found" as he didn't sign his initial comment but indented another comment & then signed it.
- Anyway I hope you don't mind me nitpicking here, but I feel you have made a fine tool here & I really want to help you make it better. The bot is an excellent development. I've already added a link of that to my page. Although does the orignal tool also have a replication lag? Because I wall analysing Axiomm's RFA & as of now (17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)) it says that I'm the only neutral voter, whereas actually User:Gurch has also voted neutral. Anyway thanks again. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, this has all been a plot to fool us into thinking we don't need bureaucrats anymore. Aha! It won't work, a bot can never take over the job of a bureaucrat. This evil plot will never succeed ;-). NoSeptember talk 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Once you get the format perfect and all the bugs out, why not create a historical page of all past RfAs? You can get a list from here, and we can link the page to this and this. NoSeptember talk 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Who do you guys think would win in a fight? Tango's bot or Dragons' bot? I say Superman! Wait... Redux 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Triangle Man, Triangle Man Triangle Man hates Particle Man They have a fight, Triangle wins Triangle man." --Durin 20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Tango? Rhymes with mango. Sounds yummy.
Dragons flight 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Who do you guys think would win in a fight? Tango's bot or Dragons' bot? I say Superman! Wait... Redux 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your comments. Srikeit, thank you for your continued interest in RfA Analysis :) I've fixed Admrboltz's signature handling issue. I'm well aware of the other two errors - they're caused by the user inserting a newline before their signature. I am not sure whether to deal with this as they could easily well be comments by different people - especially in Mboverload's case, the extra indentation appears as if somebody else added the comment in response to the original one. As for someone like TBC who writes a lot on one RfA, it's unlikely that they will accidentally vote again on the same one. (Yes yes, these are poor excuses ;)) An "unsure but possibility of duplicate vote" flag might be in order.
- As for the lag Srikeit cites, there is no replication lag with the toolserver tool. (it doesn't use the toolserver database) I'm not sure what caused the issue - if it happens again, please let me know.
- NoSeptember: A historical version of all RfAs sounds interesting. But, as you say, I'll need to fix up the signature handling before doing that. P.S. I've moved the source to [1] - live versions of the source will appear there now -- Tangotango 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- New reports will now use shades of colours to represent the various percentages. A list of colours is available here. - Tangotango 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Reports are now being updated every 28 minutes past the hour. (Because Dragons flight's summary seems to be updated at 58 past). I'll also be working on some of the remaining kinks with the signature detection. Cheers, Tangotango 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Non-WP:RFA related (but WT:RFA related) - can we get a bot set up? (Archive 77)
[edit]Can we get Werdnabot or Essjaybot to archive this page? I've just cleared all the stuff from 2006, which has significantly reduced the size of this page. – Chacor 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- No reason not to have one of them do the archiving. What should the time-before-archiving be? I suggest 7 days as this isn't as busy a page as, say, the noticeboards. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seven days sounds fine, but note that this topic was brought up recently. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the handful of commenters said the bot would be fine, but a couple thought the archiving should be done manually; then a month passed and no one did any. I don't feel strongly either way but certainly bot archiving is better than no archiving. Newyorkbrad 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Threads can always be resurrected if the bot screws up; I say use it on a long-ish timespan (5-7 days without a comment in that thread), and we can archive more severely if needed. -- nae'blis 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- It sometimes helps to manually archive (if a topic is completely inactive, but someone might add something 5 days later that doesn't really contribute anything) or refactor (if several threads are talking about the same thing - move them to subheadings of a super-thread). Carcharoth 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Threads can always be resurrected if the bot screws up; I say use it on a long-ish timespan (5-7 days without a comment in that thread), and we can archive more severely if needed. -- nae'blis 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the handful of commenters said the bot would be fine, but a couple thought the archiving should be done manually; then a month passed and no one did any. I don't feel strongly either way but certainly bot archiving is better than no archiving. Newyorkbrad 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seven days sounds fine, but note that this topic was brought up recently. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just to make clear, I support the idea of having either one of those bots archiving this page. Does anyone have any objections to contacting Essjay again and asking him to set one of his Essjaybots to archive this page with a 7-day threshold? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)