Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 3

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

Speedily Approved.

DeltaQuadBot 3

Operator: DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 03:46, Friday November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, batch process

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: SVN Toolserver

Function overview: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RSElectionBot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RSElectionBot, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#Replacement_for_RSElectionBot

Edit period(s): Every Hour during voting in Arbcom Elections.

Estimated number of pages affected: 1, will be an official Wikipedia page, like the commented out page in the code.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N, (one page, doesn't need to be)

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

Function details: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RSElectionBot

Discussion

This bot has already been approved. Updated to manage with current pywikipedia code, and modify some errors. Test on last years votes already done in userspace. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment from the requester of the bot: ideally, we would like the bot approved before November 26, when voting begins in the ArbCom elections. I'm not sure if that is doable under the standard timeframe, but as this bot will only be useful for a ten-day period, time is an issue here. Thanks, Skomorokh 03:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how will the bot react to users making comments on usernames? Is this going to be the same as last year? I don't suppose there's anyway to test that particular part of the bot before the elections start? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note the code is basically identical to that in r9 (December 6, 2009) at [1], the setup at the top of editing.py is slightly different but not significantly so. It would appear then that the bot will behave the same as last year's bot.

BTW, in voterlist.py you might want to change the user agent to something more specific than "Wget/1.11.4", per m:User-Agent policy. Anomie ⚔ 12:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that the bot would tolerate/ignore anything that is indented/not a username; that's how it worked last year iirc. Skomorokh 12:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The bot could be testable before the election time, but it wouldn't produce results, and that's only if the who has voted list is up before the actual elections start. User-Agent:

Fixed. Skomorokh, if your talking about leaving out blocked users, no it won't do that as that would be too much of a resourse load. If your talking about funky foreign charecters, it puts them out exactly as they appear. You can see that on the test. Otherwise could you clarify your question please. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the ambiguity DQ. The point of the list is that editors can leave comments under some of the usernames (i.e. the sockpuppets). It would be good if the bot did not overwrite these while updating. For an example, see the comment under voter 89 here. Best, Skomorokh 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes. That would be a bad thing. I will test that this afternoon when I get home and post the result here. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tested It works. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} BAG, we need this up and running within three days or it is useless. The code is simple, any potential damage is restricted to one project page, and the task isn't controversial. Could someone look into this please? Thanks, Skomorokh 12:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Approved. Since it's the same code, I see no problem. I was just waiting for the discussion above to conclude, then I forgot to come back. Anomie ⚔ 18:04, 22 November 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.