Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 21 July 2010

Δbot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Δ (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): core is pywiki based but custom coded

Source code available: Available upon request

Function overview: WP:SPI clerk bot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User:MuZemike/SPIwishlist is a wishlist from the SPI clerks. And I have discussed issues and ideas in depth on their IRC channel

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: All active WP:SPI cases

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No, there is no reason for it to be

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: Basic SPI clerk bot, Nixeagle was running the old version of this but he went MIA at the end of last year and has not been heard from since. (his bot has gone offline and they want a replacement). Right now I am manually copy/pasting User:Δ/Sandbox from a file to the wiki, as one feature that they have requested.

Discussion

Based on your prior history and conduct of running bots, what actions will you be undertaking to ensure they do not cause issues due to how it preforms it's approved duties due to your prior history which resulted in the many heated community discussions and arbitration? Peachey88 08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that the SPI clerks (I am one) will be able to keep an eye on the bot and make sure it stays within its mandate. In any case, such a bot would be very helpful, though I would prefer a different name if possible (maybe we should set up User:DeltaBot as a doppelganger?). NW (Talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm worried that a User:DeltaBot would get mixed up with User:DeltaQuadBot (run by User:DeltaQuad). It's common for bot ops to pick usernames for bots that are essentially their own username with the second word substituted by "bot", which would cause problems as above. — The Earwig  16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of this task, I don't see much opportunity for the sort of problems Δ was sanctioned for in the past. Anomie⚔ 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a wise man once said, We must learn from history.... and I have done that. As for NuclearWarfare's request I was wondering about creating/redirecting both User:Delta and User:Deltabot to their respective targets, but was unsure of policy/procedures for that. ΔT 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Doppelgänger is the relevant policy: basically, you just create the account, stick {{doppelganger}} or something similar on it, and then more or less forget about it. The stumbling block here is that User:Delta exists and has an edit (6 years ago), so it may not be able to be usurped. User:Deltabot is unregistered. Anomie⚔ 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I think that the exceedingly minor edit from 2004 can be probably be overlooked as an exception. –xeno 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this request moving. Please create the bot's userpage with the information "suggested" in WP:BOTPOL#Bot requirements. The function details here are a bit unclear; I take it that an SPI clerk bot will only be editing Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations and subpages, doing bottable things SPI clerks are responsible for according to WP:SPICLERK and subject to the approval and supervision of the human clerks and the checkusers? Anomie⚔ 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, The two things that I know that it will be doing is maintaining SPI queue's and updating my sandbox (which will be moved to the template namespace) status page. There will be more features added once I get this operational and the clerks and I discuss what they have on their wishlists and what is actually practical and bo-table. But this will be solely editing SPI pages and the status template. If at a later date the clerks/CUs want to add a method for tagging users as socks Ill file a new/addon BRFA for that. ΔT 19:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds straightforward and uncontroversial. I see you also created the Deltabot doppelgänger. Approved for trial (3 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anomie⚔ 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Three day trial done at worked well, ran across one issue that I have not decided how to handle, I will talk with the SPI team to see exactly how they want it handled. (previously open SPI case was deleted). but other than that it went without any issues. ΔT 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Rename concerning the renaming of and unsatisfactory communication from Δ, and Peachey88 suggested that the BAG be notified of it. I would have concern about any bot owner with unsatisfactory communication skills.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the request made there actually had any policy backing it, rather than a political move (basically their goal is to force me to wear a Scarlet A about my past), and not let me move on, I would abide by policy. I wont go into the issues that have been highlighted in Jeff G.'s recent contributions that would have landed most users on ANI, (but me trying to handle it lower key I refrained from doing so). I don't want the political games that users are trying to play to affect this request because it has no bearings on either this request nor are the pressures that they are attempting to place backed by any policy. ΔT 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The username issue has been addressed via ArbCom clarification , and I do not see it as a barrier to this BRFA. –xeno 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. But I do note that, before this bot request can be usefully approved, Δ must:

• Successfully appeal for the restriction #1 of the provisional unban to be amened to allow bot accounts, or at least the User:Δbot account in addition to User:Δ.
• Obtain a statement from ArbCom or the community that the restrictions detailed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions are no longer in effect, or have those restrictions modified such that the second bullet point is excepted for approved bot edits (I doubt the third bullet will affect this task).

Anomie⚔ 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Re #1: Yes, and I've noted this to them. I'm not sure if they want to see this actually approved first, or maybe just a nod that it will likely be approved would be enough. Of course, even in this trial phase, there are be edits from another username.
• Re the community-imposed restrictions: Indeed it may make sense to ping arbCom or WP:AN; the community-imposed restrictions were replaced with a ban, which was provisionally suspended later. It's unclear whether they are still in effect and at a brief glance, some people disputed whether they were ever properly carried in the first instance. –xeno 15:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Re #1: I suspect that they'd want it explicitly requested at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for amendment. What terms they might impose I don't know, but I do note that at this point I as a BAG member see no reason outside of the editing restrictions on Δ not to approve this request.
• Re the community-imposed restrictions: I base my comment on Kirill's response that the Betacommand 2 restrictions are still in effect. While that could be referring to just the ArbCom remedies and not the community-imposed restrictions, I don't believe we should proceed without having that clarified.

Anomie⚔ 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Open Misplaced Pages bot requests for approval