Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DpmukBOT

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

DpmukBOT

[edit]

Operator: Dpmuk (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 01:30, Tuesday February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic, currently in Manual test mode, hence the account's edits over the last few days.

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Upon e-mail request for now. I need to sort a few things out with User:MER-C (as it uses a slightly modified version of his Wiki.java) but once that's done it should be publicly available.

Function overview: Clerking at WP:CP.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Largely taking over from VWBot. Minor differences have been discussed at: User:DpmukBOT/tasks

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 3/day

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details: This is mostly taking over from VWBot so I list the BRFAs for that bot, what tasks I'm planning to take over and any differences.

The bot does not check for the {{bots}} template due to the small number of pages edited and for which there is no foreseeable reason to disallow the bot editing. Bot does check for edit conflicts and asserts that it is logged in.

Discussion

[edit]

Apologies for the delay; there's quite a lot of background material to read. I was going to lament that two people colluding on a user talkpage isn't really a consensus, but it appears that you've done what you can to bring it to other editor's attention; WP:CP doesn't seem overrun with editors. You might consider copying your planned tasks over to the talkpage at WP:CP. I'm still reading, but in the meantime if you would be so kind as to raise awareness of the BRfA at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, I think no one could claim you hadn't done all reasonable things to bring this bot to their attention. Josh Parris 09:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your recent adminship.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot task 4 is a pretty useful task; why are you skipping it out of that task list - too hard at this time? Josh Parris 10:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can appreciate from your own experience, having maintenance bot's code published makes life a lot easier when their operator disappears. I'm pleased you'll be publishing it for those who follow after you; any idea as to where? Josh Parris 10:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of using an opt-in template for admins to be co-opted into dealing with the Adminbacklog such as {{bots|allow=DpmukBOT}}, or something more easily searchable? Josh Parris 10:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ready for a trial? Josh Parris 10:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the delay - working at WP:CP I quite understand that these can occur, especially when there are not many active editors in the area. Thanks for the congratulations.
Yep, there is quite a lot of background material - this task or parts of it has been performed by many, many bots in the past. I had already posted at WT:CP here saying that I was intending to do a BRFA and asking for people to comment on the tasks page. Have now also explicitly said that there's a BRFA and said what the bot will do. Also I specifically notified User:MER-C here and they specifically say they have no objections there. Beyond that a stronger consensus is going to be hard to get - we're seriously lacking editors at WP:CP right now.
The issue with Task 4 is identifying who the relevant editor is, as it's quite common for it not to be the page creator who inserted the copyvio. There's been cases when the person listing hasn't been able to identify who inserted the material in question so getting a bot to do it is going to be very hard, especially as the bot won't know which bit of the wikipedia page is the problem.
I plan on talking to User:MER-C about hosting code - it may well end up in his google repository. My next task, for later today, is to write a longish message to him about this.
The opt-in idea is an interesting one, but probably one for a future version of the bot. I'll suggest it to those that work in the area and see what they think.
Yep, I'm ready for a trial. Don't have any where to host it at the moment (I'm trying to get my toolserver account re-activated without much success so far) but for a trial I'm happy enough running of it off my own computer if that's acceptable. Dpmuk (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it, I'm at day 18 of waiting for re-activation and I'm not even sure Dab's read my request. Apparently something blew up in a shower of molten silicon. Josh Parris 20:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

[edit]

Well defined functionality, small scope of operations, trusted op, previously approved functionality: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Josh Parris 20:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.
Known issues were:
  1. Linking to a section in an article when listing at WP:CP meant that the bot didn't pick up that it was already listed (e.g. [1]). Have now updated the regex so this shouldn't be a problem.
    In that same edit an & was removed, how come? Josh Parris 11:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A similar problem caused this edit. In this instant the editor didn't copy and paste the code from the template and instead used article-cv themselves. In doing so they didn't use the : in front of the page and so my bot missed their listing. Have now update the bot to detect this.
  3. Applying the copyviocore template directly can lead to the bot not detecting the source (often when the url parameter is not used). The documentation for copyviocore clearly states that it shouldn't be used directly. As such I'm not currently planning on doing anything about this one (from a bot point of view) - it still lists it just not as correctly as it could do. I am planning on updating copyviocore at some point so that it displays an error if it isn't passed all the parameters it should be (which would mean it's been applied directly).
  4. The bot didn't pick up any listings added to today's listing before it runs. Once the bot is running on toolserver and at midnight UTC this should no longer be a problem. In the instance this occurred I couldn't run the bot until 3am which gave plenty of opportunity for listings to be added to 'today'.
  5. A similar problem occurred when someone tagged before I ran the bot but only added the listing afterwards. There's obviously nothing I can do about this.
My toolserver account got reactivated yesterday, although I've not yet had a chance to run the bot on it.
I've started a discussion with User:MER-C which I've let go a lot stale - I've been doing too much work related coding to think about the comments he raised. Am planning to reply today. Dpmuk (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to carry on running it in manual mode while this is processed. Dpmuk (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every edit to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Date starts with a blank line; is this intentional?
I'm unclear as to the convention with CP, but the bot seems to be adding entries in the wrong (UTC) date: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_February_25&diff=prev&oldid=478868832 - is this point 4 above?
Nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_February_26&diff=prev&oldid=478868846
Josh Parris 11:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed the &amp issue. I've no idea at the moment. I'll look into when I get a chance and get back to you.
If you're referring to when I add the missing listings then yes, the blank line was intentional. I put it there to more clearly delineate the bot added entries, both for de-bugging and in case it would help anyone else. It would be easy enough to remove. The double blank line in [2] was a minor bug which I've just fixed.
If I'm reading your previous day question right, then yes, that's correct. When it runs on the 26th it adds listings to the 25th as that's the day they'd have been listed on if they'd been listed manually - i.e. it's the day they were tagged on. Point 4 is a little different. Using the 26th as an example when the bot run at 1:00am. If someone had tagged and added it to the 26th listing between midnight and 1am I don't think the bot would've picked up the listing and so thought it had been tagged on the 25th and added it to that listing. I've not looked into it too deeply as it it runs at midnight it's not a real problem.
I'm hoping to release code and set it up on toolserver this weekend. Dpmuk (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any great problems from the trial, operator is attentive and operating in a narrow area.  Approved. Josh Parris 02:06, 4 March 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DpmukBOT&oldid=480077905"