Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xphoisbot

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

Approved.

Xphoisbot[edit]

Operator: Samtar (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:13, Wednesday, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Not as of yet

Function overview: Checks Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues for usernames which have already been blocked indef

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: A low % of the editors listed in the category will have their userpages edited.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot, when manually run, scans ~~100~~ all of the editors listed at Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues and checks to see if they have an active indef block. If they do, the bot will remove the category from their user page.

Discussion[edit]

Is there a reason why "bot" isn't in the username of this bot? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: No reason, I'll request a username change and update the above - would that be sufficient? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a username change -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Username has been changed from Xphois to Xphoisbot -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the concern and yes, that's sufficient. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate why a bot with this function is necessary or link to a discussion where a need such a bot has been expressed? It is my concern that editors whom this bot identifies could be blocked for a different reason (e.g. 36 hours for vandalism), but the username issue has yet to be dealt with - and now may not be because the bot has taken them out of the category. Also, the bot's username does need to reflect the automated nature of the account, per policy. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If the bot checked only for indefinite blocks, I would consider it uncontroversial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bot does indeed only act upon indef blocks, which I assumed would be uncontroversial as BU Rob13 says above from the notice at the category page which states "Accounts should be removed from this category when they have been indefinitely blocked [...]". The username concern should hopefully be addressed above -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category currently has ~800 entries in it, would you not be able to handle checking all the users instead of only 100 of them per run? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Execution time would be a little above what I would like, but yes it could definitely be modified to do so - would this be preferable? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the update settings, this seems fine to trial:

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under the new name that is (User:Xphoisbot). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. last 25 edits show the result of the trial - I've had to tweak the edit summary as it was missing a wikilink for the blocking admin and a couple of spaces, but the test ran as expected and removed the categories from the user pages -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user page changes looked fine, would you tweak your summary a little, e.g.

From

‎(Removing category from blocked editor - user was blocked by BethNaught( {{uw-spamublock}} ))

To

(Removing CAT:UAA - user was indefinitely blocked by BethNaught ({{uw-spamublock}} ))

I think that would make it more clear in the summary exactly what occurred, and why. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} — xaosflux ^Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Will do - gimme a mo to make the changes (template deactivated) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. To verify changes are stable. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Trial looked fine, low impact, low edit runs - this is good to do. You may want to look at adding a second task after this is running in production, to remove old WP:COIN notices from indef'ed users, you may be able to reuse most of your existing code. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.