Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 40

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.

AnomieBOT 40

Operator: Anomie ⚔

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): Perl

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

Function overview: Replacement for User:The wubbot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BON#Who wants more work?

Edit period(s): A few times per day

Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on how many AfDs are sorted and closed.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Periodically check the AfDs transcluded on the various deletion sorting subpages listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact. First, the templates {{at}}, {{afd top}}, {{afd bottom}}, and {{afd-privacy}} are substed in the AfD if necessary. Then the bot checks for <div class="boilerplate metadata (just as The wubbot did), and if found it removes the transclusion from the deletion sorting page and adds it to the corresponding archive page.

Discussion

Additional AfD templates may be added to the subst list as needed. In addition to the standard bot exclusion, if {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT/DeletionSortingCleaner}} is found on a deletion sorting subpage then the bot will stay off that page. Anomie ⚔ 01:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it (since you're using different programming languages) that you've rewritten the function from scratch? If so, were you able to doing anything about some of the issues listed at User:The_wubbot? Also, the_wub had to personally check those where the result of the discussion was unclear (at least according to the old BRFA, it may have changed since) - is that going to remain the case? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I rewrote it to use my AnomieBOT framework. I see that the "informboss" function in User:The wubbot/source is currently commented out, so I would guess that changed.

The issue about adding pages to the archive multiple times should be fixed, as should {{afd-privacy}} (at least if the problem was people not substing that template). I'm not sure in what manner it was failing when pages are redlinked, or even which pages specifically that that is referring to. I should look at sortable tables for the archiving (which would involve writing a conversion script) and imposing a maximum archive page size.

As for other types of XfDs, only MfD uses the same subpage format as AfD. For section-based types, it would depend on two factors: whether the closure header is placed before or after the section header, and whether a standard template is used for linking the discussions rather than whatever arbitrarily-formatted wikitext someone feels like using. Anomie ⚔ 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the proposed operator: When you say that this bot is a replacement for User:The_wubbot, do you mean that you are going to pass this to The_wub to use in place of that bot, or that The_wubbot is no longer in use and you as operator are intending to replace the bot with one which will carry out the functions performed by that bot? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 01:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. The wub posted a request at WP:BON#Who wants more work? for someone to take on the task, as he lacks both the time and the internet access to do it anymore. Anomie ⚔ 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the rapid response, Anomie, and for clearing that up. Much appreciated :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 01:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for this Anomie, I obviously support this. If you let me know via email when my bot can be shut off, that's probably best. the wub "?!" 09:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the task has operated under a different bot before there shouldn't be problems with it. The trial should be given to iron out any bugs in the code itself. FinalRapture - † ☪ 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. The edit summaries for this trial begin with "Archiving closed XfDs"; no AfD substitutions were needed during the trial period (I expect they will be quite rare). 198 edits were made: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198] Anomie ⚔ 12:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 6 July 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.