Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kbdankbot

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.

Kbdankbot[edit]

Operator: Kbdank71

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Supervised automatic

Programming Language(s): C# dotnetwikibot

Function Summary: CFD tasks such as emptying categories of articles and moving articles from one category to another.

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

Edit rate requested: 6 edits per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function Details: This bot will check a to-do list (User:Kbdankbot/To-do) that will be populated by me with the results of CFD discussions I've closed. It will read each line in the to-do list and determine the following: if the line is a date line, it will parse the link and use it for the edit comment. if there is only one category, it will treat it as a delete, and will remove all of the articles and subcategories from that category. if there are two categories, it will treat it as a rename/merge, and will remove the articles and subcategories from the first category and add them to the second. Prior to the run, I will manually create the new category for any renames, and at the end of the run, I will delete the empty categories.

Discussion[edit]

What are your reasons for not using Wikipedia:CFD/W? β^_command 03:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do use CFD/W, daily, but there are times when there are no bots running to take care of the work. Having a bot I can run to do this will prevent a backup. --Kbdank71 14:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, instead of using your sandbox, why not use CFDW when listing, that way all the bots work from the same place. β^_command 14:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not understanding the problem. I will continue to use CFD/W for listings. So regardless of what I do, any other bots that are running will still be able to work from that. If there are no bots running, I would copy the results to the bot's userspace, keeping them at CFD/W (in case a bot came on-line while I was working). I chose to do this to make coding the bot easier for me. Would this be a problem? --Kbdank71 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its not a problem, I just wanted to see your logic for doing it that way. lets see a 50 edit trail. β^_command 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Don't get me wrong, I have a few "upgrades" I would like to work on, including having it read directly from CFD/W. I just wanted to keep to the KISS principle at first. --Kbdank71 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Any questions or concerns? --Kbdank71 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Did you find any areas you need to improve? Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed the edit summary to be more descriptive, but otherwise no, things look good. --Kbdank71 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this follow "nobot"? People might get fussy if categories in userspace start disappearing. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm not going to run this on user categories. If I ever do decide to use the bot for UCFD closings, which isn't likely, I will assuredly add functionality to respect nobot. --Kbdank71 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So will it stay out of userspace then? Sorry for the third degree, I just want to ascertain whether or not you are going to run into the same problem that BetaCommandBot dredged up. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. --Kbdank71 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 12:29, 8 March 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.