Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AbuseBot

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

Withdrawn by operator.

AbuseBot[edit]

Operator: Bsmithme

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): py-wikipedia (for now)

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Case management for Abuse Response at WP:ABUSE

Edit period(s): Continuous, hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: 500+

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

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

Function details:

~~1. House-cleaning on a temporary basis:~~

Move Abuse reports cases (pages) to /Archive subpage

Add/remove categories to cases based on case status/disposition, etc

~~Some other things I can't think of right now~~

Case management: * Auto archive cases (move to /Archive subpage) after closed for 7 days

Add text (template) to closed cases which will categorize the article and encapsulate the page in a table with a notification that the case has been archived.
~~Add/remove/move listings of cases based on status affecting the Abuse reports project page~~ Will link to category instead.

Discussion[edit]

Exclusion should not be applicable.

Please note that this bot is immediately intended to perform housecleaning that I will be running on-demand. The reason why I am requesting this is because of the intricacies of the project makes it much easier to just perform the tasks myself. In the future we may use this bot to do the case management, but that depends on how things work out. But immediately it is needed to cleanup the mess of cases there right now.

So basically, it will archive old, completed reports to the correct subpage (for example, Wikipedia:Abuse reports/CompletedArchive). And sort requests into the subcategories of Category:Abuse reports? What's the matter with the template you currently use ({{ARStatus}}), which categories the article according to the |Status= parameter? You will need to be more specific about the "other things", if you want those other things approved in this request (you can always open another request for this bot, to add additional tasks). If you're not sure about the future tasks, I'd suggest dealing with them in a second BRfA, in the future, when you can be more precise about what you want. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know I have to apologize, I threw this up very quickly without putting much thought into it. What I should have linked to before was Wikipedia:Abuse Reports/2009 Revamp. The results of those discussions will likely dictate what we expect the bot to do in the future. In the meantime, we really just need the bot to houseclean on the existing cases, which entails moving all cases to archive subpage and changing categories for most of the cases. bsmithme 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that page is much more informative! A couple of problems; you say you will leave no redirect behind when moving the pages to the new archive. But to do this the bot must be an admin, and adminbots only be run by admins. Is it important you leave no redirect behind? You need to sort out the wording of point five in archived cases. I presume you mean if it's about an IP address who has already been reported in the past?
So the bot will often check through the category for new, open requests, and list these in the right sections (i.e. the open, and new section on AbRep. And it will do the same thing for closed reports, listing them in the closed section, unless the case is older than seven days, in which case it archives it (removing it from the closed section, and moving the report page to the /Archive/ subpage, and adding the archive notice on the report page (by the way, could you create this template? You can borrow bit's from ours (Template:BT, Template:BB), or just use Template:Archive top). Most of this sounds pretty good. Let me know if I'm missing anything, or have something wrong. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, a few things you mentioned. The ARStatus template works great for that, but we have a multitude of old cases which are not using the template because they were before its time. So in actuality the bot would add the template to the pages. That being said, technically I don't suppose it matters what the old cases are categorized as, especially if we are moving them to an archive subpage, except that for consistency all cases should use the proper template that we have now. Now you mentioned about moving without leaving a redirect; well the idea here is when someone files a new report, we actually want it to create a new report rather than use the existing case page, but rename the page to (append "2nd report", for example) when it is a subsequent report (I'm not actually sure how that works with things like afd). The way it is orchestrated now, if a user reports an IP address that has already been reported, it is going to open up the existing case page and confuse the filer because they won't likely know what's going on. I don't know if I'm being very clear on this—in fact, the reality is the best thing would probably be to change how the entire thing works, which is why it's being discussed. We definitely could use input from anyone who knows more about setting this up. bsmithme 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also just a note, we already had a bot that was doing AR cases (it was originally created for it, I believe) but the user is now [semi?]retired and I'm just not sure if we'll be able to continue using it, which is why I am doing this. The bot was User:EBot (rfa).

Oh no, that should be fine, you could just tell the reporter to check for previous reports before hand (which would be best). Or, would it be possible to replace the <inputbox> type=create with "replace" or something? So that when creating a report page for a previously reported IP address, the redirect left behind from archiving is replaced? Or the bot could then go back to the report page after moving, and replace the text with "This IP address has already been reported, please go back to the abuse reports page, and enter the IP address followed by '(2nd case)'. Thanks". This would be the text that a user sees when trying to create the new report. I'm still having a little bit of trouble understanding all the tasks the bot will do, so to clarify; in the cleanup period, it will archive all cases, and add ARStatus (which will automatically add it to a category) to the report pages? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it for sure as far as the housecleaning is concerned. And I'm actually now thinking I might just want to find someone who runs an existing bot to do that since that part is fairly straightforward. Then amend this request (and put it on hold) for the case maintenance. bsmithme 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason you are considering doing this? Is the coding too difficult? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent} Mainly just for practical purposes. Seems to be impractical to go through all the motions of a bot approval for doing a one-time housecleaning when I it's plausible to just ask another operator to do it on an ad-hoc basis. bsmithme 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it's often a bot request is for a one time run, and I'll likely approve this for trial soon (that's what I've been planning to do, until your above note :D). If you're sure you'd rather just withdraw this, let me know straight out, and I will do so. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so there has been a major development. After having a conference with the other folks at the project, it was decided that the project would be moved to "Abuse Response" and it is being rebuilt from scratch. As a result, there is no longer a need for the housecleaning portion of this bot request, and I am amending it as such. bsmithme 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Approving the bot to archive cases, and add them to the right section on the main page should be okay. So let me know (at this page, or on my talk page) when you are ready for trial. It appears that (although those who have commented are happy with the change), you have not yet moved and rewritten the pages. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the request again. I am now simply requesting that the bot will add the archive template to all articles in the "Abuse response - Closed" category. The template will then properly categorize the page as archived. I am striking the request for moving the page to a subpage because this is non-standard and may cause future problems. I'd like to move forward with this bot request with this simple request, and then add future requests in the future as we determine those. bsmithme 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will it still be identifying which reports should be closed by the date (i.e. if it's older than seven days)? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I realized that there really is no rationale for waiting to archive the case. It seems pretty standard across most WP projects and seems to be perfectly appropriate to archive the case immediately rather than waiting. bsmithme 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be missing something, but in that case, I would struggle to see the point. Why can't the user who closed the case add the template them-self? Although I can see the point of keeping the cases with-in easy access for a short-while after closing, in-case anybody wants to add something which has been overlooked. You could consider (for a future task), having the bot maintain a list of recently closed cases. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, although I just wanted to get something simple running and then expand out from there. Anyway, this bot request has always been dubious, so you can consider it withdrawn for now (at least until we hammer things out completely). bsmithme 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. But only for now, as you said. Feel free to reopen this in the future, or start-up a second one. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (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.