Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JVbot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

JVbot 2[edit]

Operator: John Vandenberg ^(chat)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: automatic

Programming Language(s): python

Function Summary: automatic patrolling of New pages based on a whitelist. The bot has been in operation on English Wikisource for months, without drama.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): continuous

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): n

Function Details: The bot periodically looks for unpatrolled pages, and approves any that meet the conditions on the Whitelist. See here for a sample of the whitelist. The whitelist page would need to be either protected, or carefully monitored by admins. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

From looking at the EnWS whitelist, it seems the bot will automatically mark as patrolled pages created by users listed on the whitelist. Am I correct? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what it does. The syntax for specifying which new pages are whitelisted is currently designed around enWS needs, such as the "Author" page support, however I have been told that simply whitelisting any new pages by certain prolific users will lower the workload of the New page patrol. I will improve the syntax for enWP needs when requirements are provided and agreed upon by the NPP team. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an ongoing discussion with NPP folks anywhere? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only informal communication. I have notified the project here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a semi-regular NPPer, this looks like a good idea in theory, that should cut down on a lot of manual work for us. How do you propose to initially populate the whitelist? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
How about we leave User:JVbot/patrol whitelist unprotected for the first week or so, so that NPP regulars can populate it? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The patrol list now has a few names, so let's see if it works. Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. If it's working perfectly you can go for a bit shorter, and if nobody on the list (please keep adding names) is creating we can go for longer. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've set it up, and here are the results. Note that the patrolling logic looks at all namespaces, and automatically whitelists users editing their user and user talk namespaces. Sorry I didnt point this out earlier, however I would like to point out that nobody appears to be patrolling new pages in namespaces other than the main namespace, so I dont think this is doing any harm. If it is, I will be happy to deactivate this aspect of the bot from the enWP logic. We already have one useful result: Dablara. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The autopatrolling of "User:" and "User talk:" pages created by the page owner has been disabled on enWP. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the possibility of abuse, I have full-protected the whitelist; non-admin users are encouraged to make their suggestions on the whitelist's talk page. DS (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial seems to be going OK. Any issues raised? giggy _(:O) 04:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There isnt a way to tell the bot to only patrol the main namespace, which makes the log a bit noisy. I have yet to address that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember someone wishing there was a bot like this a few weeks ago, to rid us of having to patrol Blofeld of SPECTRE's creations. This is awesome. Good work! Plrk (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it possible to make this bot mark pages tagged for speedy deletion as patrolled? Plrk (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The patroller who CSDs a page should be marking the page as patrolled if they think it no longer needs more eyes, and I wouldnt like a bot to second guess the patrollers intention. I often leave the page unpatrolled if I think another set of eyes are useful. That said, idea's like this are good, and if others think the bot should do this, then I am happy to add the functionality to the bot. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point of new pages patrol as I understand it is filtering out the rubbish. If an article is tagged for speedy deletion, it either means it is rubbish and will be gone soon and should so be patrolled as no more action is needed, or that an admin (or someone bold enough to remove speedy templates) will decide that it is NOT rubbish - whereas it should be patrolled as no more action is needed. Plrk (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the reason that many csd-tagged pages are not patrolled is because when an editor wants to edit the article (to add a speedy tag), the editor goes right ahead - and when you've edited the article, the "Mark as patrolled"-link is no longer there. Plrk (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - At the heart of this enhancement request is two issues: the patroller isnt hitting the "mark as patrolled" link, and the software isnt helping. See bugzilla:12570. I am happy to enhance the bot to address this problem if a few people agree it would ease the burden, but the right solution is to fix the mediawiki software, and to train users to hit the damn button! ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Approved. Mr.Z-man 03:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.