Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AAlertBot

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.

AAlertBot

Operator: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs); may be run as stand-alone executable by Headbomb (talk · contribs) or others involved in project I entrust

Time filed: 15:15, Tuesday November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): C# .NET, WikiSharpAPI

Source code available: API as .dll, rest open-source at a later time

Function overview: Article alerts (see details)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Article alerts

Edit period(s): Several times a day at most

Estimated number of pages affected: Old bot had 700 subscribed projects, each having 1 edit

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): n/a (edits are per subscription basis); does not edit in 0 namespace

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

Function details:

Background: Wikipedia:Article alerts ("Page announcements" to be technically precise) maintains a bot that posts a list of page changes (AfD, FA, PROD, etc.) to relevant projects. Projects and task forces can individually subscribe to these change lists and choose what changes to receive. A list is then delivered to a sub-page of the project in one of requested formats (columns, size, etc.). Originally approved bot has been inactive since April 2010. It's revival version from September is on hold/withdrawn as of 30 Nov.

This is a ground-up replacement/implementation of the functions of the old bot. The purpose is to have an open/shareable code and temporary replacement asap. In case the old bot doesn't restart, this can/will serve as the main bot. The exact details are dependent on each alert and feature request, however the edit part boils down to a single edit per subscribed project. The bot would be mostly making read requests to gather page lists for subscribed projects, then cross-check these with applicable categories/templates/lists/links and finally read the matched pages for further details.

Any non-standard edits will have their own BRFAs if such appear. Otherwise, individual tasks/alerts have either been implemented before or are implemented from community suggestions/discussions.

Discussion

Please address WP:BOTPOL#Bots operated by multiple users. Anomie ⚔ 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is not truly "operated" by multiple users. I do exercise discretion; I alone program and maintain the source code for now. I was merely referring to Headbomb hosting the .exe when I am unavailable. The edits would not be different depending on the "operator". I will nevertheless address the points: operator disclosure – I will make a short note of whose PC the bot is making an edit from and what revision the executable is compiled as at any given moment. operator verification – the only other operators are those I personally provide with a bot executable copy and bot account password necessary to start the program. operator trust – I will inform Headbomb to post here that he is familiar with the purpose and worklow of the bot and does not intend to modify the source code. I will make sure any source code public availability will be first discussed with BAG and BRFAs or notices posted. I hope this fully addresses any "multi-operator" issues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what H3llkn0wnz just said. I couldn't program my way out of a paperbag if my life depended on it (although I can read code). The general idea would be that I host a backup in case H3llkn0wnz is unavailable. If this requires an alternate account (say User:AAlertBot-Alt), then I'm fine with that too, although it'd be simpler to have only one account. WP:AALERTS is pretty much my brainchild, so I'm pretty familiar with what the bot should be doing / not doing. And I'm also pretty familiar with the BAG and bots in general, considering the rather large number of bot requests I make. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"operator disclosure" sounds good. "operator verification", ok. "operator trust", no need to notify BAG about posting the source code. Running it by BAG before giving the bot account password to anyone else wouldn't hurt though. I see no remaining reason not to give it a trial, once you're ready. Anomie ⚔ 01:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the bot is ready for a trial. The majority of core functionality has now been implemented. Wikipedia:Article alerts/Workflows lists the workflows currently reported. [1] shows a sample report. There should not be significant deviations from the original bot's specification. For starters the trial will use a pre-selected list of projects, then expand to include all of the previously subscribed projects/taskforces. The actual messages will be tweaked and improved in time. The accuracy of reports is currently overseen by me and Headbomb and any bugs will hopefully be reported at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs. Care has been taken to review old bugs, discussions, and feature requests to not repeat the problems. Currently the final method of subscriptions has not been finalized, as previously restricting implementation circumstances are no longer relevant. For the time being, the bot will use the old system, i.e., already existing {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} templates producing "/Article Alerts" sub-page for report delivery. I think this covers the majority of important details. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anomie ⚔ 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We started trial on December 15 and it's scheduled to be finished on 29th. It would be nice that the bot is either put on extended trial or preferably approved before that, since we would like to make minimal interruption to the actual report deliveries.

In any case, the trial is ongoing nicely. You can see the reports delivered based on a centralized Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list. A couple of things were changed from the old implementation. Firstly, the deliveries are now centralized at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list, so we can keep it organized and easy to modify and the bot does not have to make 600 reads. Some more details are here along with a less user-friendly {{ArticleAlertSubscription}} template's documentation. Secondly, the bot no longer uses a /Header sub-page for when the projects want custom content on the page and instead delivers the report within constrained anchors. Features and details are being slowly implemented. These are mostly either from previous bot's specification or from feature requests.

We've received mostly positive feedback, and any bugs should be caught relatively swiftly, given the exposure each page (hopefully) receives. Comments and concerns arrive at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts and Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs and are generally being dealt with promptly. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ping, but it would be appreciated if we did not go on a delay too long between trial and approval (hopefully). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. I did a random sampling of the report edits, and looked through the comments at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts and Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs. Looks good, and I trust H3llkn0wz to respond to any new issues promptly. Anomie ⚔ 17:17, 28 December 2010 (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.