Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProgrammingBot
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
Request Expired.
ProgrammingBot
Operator: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:19, Wednesday, April 12, 2017 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Standard Pywikibot
Function overview: Removes {{adoptme}} tags from pages that meet certain criteria
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:Bot requests#Adoption Category Backlog
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 50-100
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The bot gets a list of pages in the category "Users seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user".
If the page is in any namespace other than User or User talk, it removes the {{adoptme}} tag
If the page is in the User or User talk namespace, and the user has not edited in a month, then it removes the tag and adds {{subst:Adoption notice expired for bots}} to the user's talk page
If the page is in the User or User talk namespace and the user has edited within a month, the page is skipped.
This bot will run once daily.
Discussion
- I understand the rationale and idea here, but I am not familiar with the Adopt-a-User program. Is there an existing policy or guideline that allows users to be removed from the seeking adoption category after 1 month? I have seen on WP:BOTREQ, the original requester saying that there is, but showed no link to this policy. Bots require consensus for any task, so if there is currently none, I would say that perhaps a RfC is needed. I for one would support this RfC, but removing users from a category could prove contentious. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- TheMagikCow, I honestly took for granted that there was one, however, I can't seem to find one. If no-one can find one, then I will open an RfC. ProgrammingGeek talktome 19:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I found a policy. On the top of Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, it says
 | This category is used for maintaining the adopt-a-user project. Users that are seeking to be adopted are placed in the category. New adoptees are instructed to add {{subst:Dated adopt me}} to their userpage to add themselves to this category. All offers are listed in order of the date of request, with the oldest offers listed first. However, if you find an adoptee who has not edited in a month, please remove {{Adopt me}} from their userpage and leave the template {{ANE}} on their user talk page. This program is designed to help new and inexperienced users, so if you find an adoptee who looks too experienced to need adoption, please discuss with them whether adoption is necessary. Please remember to change the {{Adopt me}} template to an {{Adopt offer}} template when you offer adoption.
|
- Jamesjpk (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Awsome! Yeah, I'm totally supportive of this task. The current is just calling for a bot; an easy tedious maintenance task. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 07:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Jamesjpk (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm supportive of this task. Based on the banner Jamesjpk found, this is already the maintenance instructions for use of the banner, which documents current "norms" of this process. That's enough consensus for me. That banner's been there since 2011. ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is fine by me, but I think to avoid stepping on toes you can up the time limit from one month to two months. It's conceivable that someone will disappear for a month and then return; setting it to two months gives them a bigger grace period.
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig talk 00:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ProgrammingGeek: Operator poke. — Earwig talk 20:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- @The Earwig: - sorry, IRL stuff has been something else for a few months. I'll be back at a computer in a week, I'll start the trial then. ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- @ProgrammingGeek: Operator poke. — Earwig talk 20:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Was this trial run, what are the results? — xaosflux Talk 03:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Request Expired. - may be reactivated in the future by operator. — xaosflux Talk 04:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.