Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DefconBot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:21, 15 May 2014

Revision as of 23:42, 15 May 2014

Line 84:

:::So would I. I'm in '''support''' of this new bot, as it'll hopefully return more accurate results than just how much vandalism is being reverted (the more vandalism reverted, the better. That doesn't really help much as it pretty much proves that the anti-vandalism team on duty is able to handle things or whatnot). I do have concerns for this template when [[User:ClueBot NG|ClueBot NG]] goes down, as it does often thanks to WMF Labs... what will this template display if CBNG data is not available? --'''[[:User:K6ka|k6ka]]''' ([[:User_talk:K6ka#|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/K6ka|contribs]]) 10:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

:I'd also like to see this get a trial run; this seems to be a better method of measuring vandalism than reverts per minute. I share K6ka's concerns about what happens when ClueBot goes offline. Some kind of fallback is needed, maybe even something as simple as setting the defcon to 1 with a note that CBNG is down. [[User:Novusuna|Novusuna]] ^{[[User_talk:Novusuna|talk]]} 17:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|K6ka}} It means you've been [[WP:Vada|promoted]] {{P|;)}}<br />

So I've made a separate script that will check if the CBNG feed is working and if not, [[Special:Diff/608755916|fail into a level 0 update]]. (Yes, level 0 exists.)

So, failure scenarios:

#CBNG goes down: No edit is made on the half hour, though one minute later, the failedit is made. When CBNG comes back up, the first edit may be based on old data.

#CBNG is up, but the feed is down: As #1

#CBNG or the feed messes up and slowly trickles partial information through: May give false (lesser) levels, but if less than 1/min, the failedit should fire.

#Main DefconBot script fails: No edits.

#Labs fails: No edits.

[[User:A930913|930913]]&nbsp;&#123;&#123;[[User_talk:A930913|ping]]&#125;&#125; 23:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)