Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TFA Protector Bot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Trial: thanks, cmt |
m Fix Linter errors. |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<noinclude>[[Category:
#A0FFA0; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at [[WT:BRFA]].'' The result of the discussion was [[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] '''Approved'''{{#ifeq:yes|yes|.}}<!-- from Template:Bot Top-->
==[[User:TFA Protector Bot]]==
{{Newbot|TFA Protector Bot|}}
Line 58 ⟶ 60:
*:Alternatively, [[WP:FAP]] could be revived, cascade protected and the bot could transclude all the templates from TFA onto that page, instead of protecting each template. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 22:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
*::That sounds like a better idea to me. I think that we should stick to just move protection for this task, and look into using [[WP:FAP]] in another BRFA. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 04:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
*I'm hopeless at python, and I still am not used to legoktm being highlighted blue now. but I don't see any issues with this bot.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower</span>]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat</sup>]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 03:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed the code, and I have the following comments/questions:
Line 64 ⟶ 66:
# I see the bot is supposed to run at 5 minutes before midnight. If this is somehow delayed, it looks like the bot will skip today and go protect tomorrow's FA instead.
# What happens if the listed FA title happens to be a redirect? Will it move-protect the page or the redirect? For that matter, what makes sense for it to do there? Off the top of my head, it seems that move-protecting the page and both move- and edit-protecting the redirect would make the most sense.
# I note the query you are performing will set the protections to just move protection, removing any other protection (e.g. edit protection). This is obviously not right. <small>While {{
# I wonder if the bot should try to restore the old move semi-protection after the page is off the main page.
Item #4 is a blocking problem. HTH. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Line 105 ⟶ 107:
@[[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] any progress on #3 and 4? Apart from those I'm happy to approve the bot for a trial. --[[User_talk:Chris G|<span style="color:Green; font-weight: bold;">Chris</span>]] 13:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
:Responded above. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 08:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
*Ooh, this new (to me me at least :P) notification feature is cool. I uploaded the source code for my old bot [[user:east718/tfabot|here]], maybe you can crib some ideas like IRC notifications or move vandalism done shortly before the protection cronjob. I know for sure that questions #3 and #4 are accounted for in my bot, I learned those mistakes the hard way. Be aware that my code is uncommented, messy (and that's being charitable), and was built on top of a fork of a now five year old version of pywikipedia. Good luck with your bot. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[user:east718|<
**Thanks! If the bot protects as soon as the page is selected, it should reduce the chance of page-move vandalism, but a separate IRC bot notifying that it was recently moved is a good idea. I'll try and write a bot to do that soon. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 08:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{tlx|OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Is this still an active bot request or has this gone stale? [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 18:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Line 118 ⟶ 120:
{{BotTrial|days=5}} Naturally, report mishaps. Complain if trial parameters are unsuitable. [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]] 06:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]], when you queue up the next set of TFA's could you not protect them and ping me so I can run the script? [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
::Will do. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I note that according to [[Special:Log/TFA_Protector_Bot]] nothing has happened in the past week. What's the cause? [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]] 22:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::::The bot doesn't have admin powers (yet) so I'm not surprised that log is empty - I assume that {{u|Legoktm}} will be protecting the couple of TFAs I've scheduled in the last couple of days by running the script through his own account before he seeks +bot+sysop for the bot. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
{{BotTrialComplete}}...or close enough. [[Operation Crossroads]] and [[Ambohimanga]] were protected. Some things I noticed and had to accommodate for:
*Template:TFA title/ subpages are created by AnomieBOT II and may not exist even if the TFA has been scheduled. The bot now falls back upon WP:TFA/ subpages and uses the same regexes as AnomieBOT to determine the page title.
*If a TFA is missing, the bot will look at least 35 days in the future from today before stopping.
[[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 17:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A trusted operator, with a useful and uncontroversial task. {{BotApproved}} Seriously. [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]] 20:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at [[WT:BRFA]].''<!-- from Template:Bot Bottom --></div>
| |||