Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval/MABot

  • Operator: MarcoAurelio.
  • Automatic or Manually Assisted: automatic for the tasks requested.
  • Programming Language(s): Python (pywikibot).
  • Function Summary: double and broken redirect fixing, archival of pages.
  • Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): daily.
  • Edit rate requested: not sure but PWB has a built-in option to limit one edit per 10 seconds, which I can increase or decrease as required.
  • Already has a bot flag (Y/N): not here, yes on other projects.
  • Function Details: As suggested by Dan Koehl on Wikispecies:Village Pump#Bot, I'd like to request approval for my bot so I can work on double and broken redirect fixing as well as running (on demand) an archive bot on those pages where requested. As for the redirect jobs, my bot operates the standard script, while the archiving bot operates the script. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. Thank you, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


[Any questions, answers and conference here, please.]

Im very positive to this Bot, but suggest a trial period, so we can see the consequences for templates with errors, like the ones that loop. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: I'm certainly willing to perform a trial for the tasks I requested, but only if such trial is approved beforehand. As for the Special:BrokenRedirects, my bot can't directly fix them without removing the #REDIRECT tag from the pages that have also content too. I mean, Indocalamus nanunicus seems like a valid page, but for some reason has a redirect tag. If the 900+ articles that have this are good, then I think I can mass-remove that redirect tag from them, but as that's a content-related thing, I think it needs prior discussion before I can run the broken redirects bot properly. No concerns for double redirects as far as I can see and as for the archiving bot, if you want to test it I'll need approval to operate on some pages that have archivable threads so I can show you the working. Regards, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indocalamus nanunicus is a good example for a page, that should not be deleted, nor the redirect tag. It contains the information, that the nomenclature has changed, and the name is invalid now, but the target page isn't created yet. --Murma174 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's why I'd prefer to defer the broken redirects script until such matter is sorted out, and focus only on fixing double redirects and archiving talk pages of those users which have opted-in or community pages that wish to. Willing to do a test run when trial is approved. Regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, what would you yourself suggest, @MarcoAurelio: as a test? I guess a number of edits would be best, so the outcome can be evaluated? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Special:DoubleRedirects does not contain any fixable double redirect now as they've been handled already. I can wait until the next refresh to see if there's anything to fix there and have the bot work on them. The archivalbot I can certainly run it now (=when I get back from bed ;-) if desired. Tell me some pages where archiving would be desired and how you'd like to get them archived and I can run a demonstration. Regards, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Special:DoubleRedirects has been refreshed and there are some to fix. I'll run my bot on those so you can see the outcome. I've set a delay of 30 seconds between edits so it doesn't flood recent changes. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the test run I did on fixing double redirects can be found at Special:Contributions/MABot and User:MABot/Log. Regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, @MarcoAurelio:. Please have some patience, it would just be good if we had a couple of more votes here, so we can call it consenus. Just a couple of days... Dan Koehl (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a week should be enough time to await support for this Bot? If no strong objections are submitted during the next days, I think we have an acceptance and support for the Bot, and can grant it green light and a Bot flag on sunday? Any other opinions? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, sounds good to me. Granting bot status at 14:00 (UTC) on Sunday March 12 would mean the poll has been running for a full week, which seems both fair and enough. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]



style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes  Ballot is now closed. The bot is approved for trial (see below). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bots in a trial period

  Approved for trial (7 days). Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll cron the bot for the double redirects task today. As for the thread-archival service, if you indicate to me a page where regular archive of level 2 threads would be required, I'll gladly set it up as well. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I've archived Dan's and Pigsonthewing talk pages using the configuration template they both had on their talk pages. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. I have a suggestion regarding the layout of the actual archives, but I've placed it on the bot's talk page, where it is better suited. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Trial is now complete. —MarcoAurelio (☎ talk) 15:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────   Approved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]