Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoxelBot 4

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.

VoxelBot 4

Operator: Fox Wilson (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 14:25, Sunday March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Upon request

Function overview: Notifies users whose articles have been tagged with {{notability}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 26#Template:Notability

Edit period(s): every ten minutes

Estimated number of pages affected: ~100-500 talk pages per month

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): With a comment:  Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Uses the API to fetch the Notability category of the current month. For each article in the category, uses prop=revisions to get the page creator. It then notifies the page creator with a template like User:Fox Wilson/notability-notice.

Discussion

Why can't you just use the standard exclusion system? Legoktm (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I certainly could, but I am already checking for in the template.~~ I wasn't thinking properly this morning, I will support the standard exclusion system. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you will support both {{nobots}} and <code></code> as exclusion templates? Vaca tion 9 00:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment, or a similar one, will be in the template that is substed during a notification, so yes. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm confused. You're going to include {{nobots}} in every notification you send out? I really don't think that's a good idea. What if users want to be notified each time their article is tagged? Can the notification group articles together like DPL bot does?

Additionally, I don't think there is a violation of WP:BOTMULTIOP happening here, but I would much rather see this task on a bot specifically owned by Fox, and keep tasks run by Vacation9 on another bot account. Legoktm (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely won't be putting {{nobots}} on user talk pages, I'll probably (I'm welcome to suggestions) use <code></code> whenever I notify someone. We could certainly move the bot over to another account, but there is a list of tasks and operators on the userpage which, in my opinion, is enough at the moment. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 11:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<code></code> would probably be better, as it's not name-specific. It's a Fox! (In an alternate universe!) 20:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} This request has not been edited by a BAG member, and has not been edited at all in the last six days. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 17:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Things happened, and the bot edited in article space when it was supposed to edit in my User talk space. Just noting that I rolled back the pages in question, and am fixing this issue. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 19:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you fix the issue, I'm ready to issue a trial. MBisanz ^talk 14:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was fixed last night :) just forgot to say so It's a Fox! (What did I break) 19:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Running now. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Alright, quite frankly, there were plenty of articles in this month's category to work with, so the trial is done already. The bot went through roughly fifty talk pages and posted messages like this, this is working perfectly and I can see no technical issues. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 23:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 12 March 2013 (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.