Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 4

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.

DASHBot 4

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Tim1357

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python, Automator, and Applescript (im pretty lazy :) )

Source code available: Nope.

Function overview: Mark pages that are tagged for deletion as patrolled.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Discussion at New Pages Patroll

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 1 in 25 new pages.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N (but it needs one to function better)

Function details:

1. Get large amount of new pages. (Using query)
2. Get list of articles that are that are marked with AFD, CSD, or PROD tag. (Using cat-scan because I was getting mad at the API)
3. Get RCID for pages that are in the intersect of new pages and tagged articles, using query.
4. Patroll pages (using index.php instead of api.php)
5. Wait 5 minutes
6. Go again.

Note: I was going to do this all in python but I could not figure out how to configure cookies, so I interface the python script to the API with automator (its messy but it gets it done). Then, to loop it: I have to use Applescipt (Automator does not have an infinite loop option).

Discussion

I need the ability to patrol pages and a bot flag. (This is because currently the API limits me to 500 of the most recent pages, and I want to do more.) Tim1357 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the proposed function of this bot, but I am not competent to comment on the method. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like the idea because it proposes a solution to a vexing problem - if you mark a new page with one of those you can't mark it patrolled.--otherlleft 12:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you are using index.php instead of api.php, I am not highly competent in that area, but I was under the impression the API was preferred. MBisanz ^talk 06:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The simple reason is that index.php requires a title and an rcid (with cookies automatically taken care of). Api.php requires title, rcid, and a token. Plus, there is no prebuilt function in any of the python packages (pywikipedia or wikitools) to do this. If there were a lot of pages that were to be affected by this I would build my own API function. However, because of the limited number, I figured it would be ok to use index.php. Tim1357 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, okey, seems reasonable. Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 08:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, one question: Do I stop after whatever comes first? Tim1357 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You can stop whenever you think you have a good sample of what the bot will do when approved. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...--Tim1357 (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few so far. Stop me any time. Otherwise I will stop in 3 more days. Tim1357 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done The weather has been a bit troublesome here, and my internets have been down alot. This is the reason for the on off performance of the bot. Anyways, take a look at the log here Tim1357 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Approved. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 1 January 2010 (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.