Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot 5

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

Withdrawn by operator.

SDPatrolBot 5[edit]

Operator: Kingpin13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:58, Thursday January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: On request.

Function overview: Replace removed AfD templates.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Request

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Varies depending on the number of templates removed, I shouldn't think more than a handful each day.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

The bot will keep track of the pages in Category:Articles for deletion.
When a page is removed from the category, and:
- The page is not deleted,
- The debate is still open (determined by if it is still in Category:AfD debates).
The bot will identify who removed the template.
The bot will re-add the template to the top of the page, surrounded by the standard comments (e.g. ) while also removing any comments which were left behind when the page was removed.
The bot will warn the user who removed the template.

Discussion[edit]

A few questions for clarity:
1. "while also removing any comments which were left behind when the page was removed" - I'm kind of confused. What page?
2. Will the bot automatically report the user for repeated violations and will the bot warn more than nice with the standard escalated warnings?

—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 01:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by comments that are left behind, are the notes inside comments () which can be left behind even when the template itself is removed (e.g. as shown in this edit).
No real plans for this at the moment, so I'm open to suggestions. I've only thought as far as avoiding 3RR. Perhaps a system where the bot only reverts once and then simply leaves a notice on the AfD page if the offence is repeated (I've found with SDPatrolBot in the past that it's pretty futile to keep replacing deletion templates, as if the editor doesn't stop the first time they are warned, they are unlikely to stop at all). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked Kingpin for this function, I didn't have reporting or warnings in mind, although a friendly notice would be helpful. AFD closers may occasionally remove a tag immediately before closing an AFD as "keep"; it wouldn't do to have the bot reporting them for vandalism. I was imagining that the act of edit-warring with the bot to remove a tag wrongly would be noticed by a human before long and reported. If you're about to close the discussion, you'll know from the message to close the AFD before removing the template a second time; I can't imagine a good reason for someone to remove the message a second time without closing the discussion, let alone doing more. As a result, I'd guess that we should assume an edit-war over this tag to be vandalism, and since vandalism is an exception to 3RR, couldn't the bot keep restoring it? Meanwhile, if you go to the "Request" link, you'll see that Kingpin suggested that the bot ignore removals when they're performed by administrators, since admins are very unlikely to remove tags maliciously, and an admin who does that has problems far bigger than removing AFD tags. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my testing, it appears that User:Snotbot#Task 10 might cover this, although it's not entirely clear to me if the task only applies to new nominations where the nominator forgot to add the template when nominating, or if the task also covers users removing the template while the debate is in progress. Certainly the bot seems to miss some, such as the example linked to on my talk page (King Janno). I'll ask Scottywong to comment. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Snotbot already does this exact task. See, for instance, [1][2] from earlier today. If it's missing some, please let me know, but also note that it might take the bot anywhere from 0 to 60+ minutes to address the issue, depending on where it is in its cycle of checks when the template is removed. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a side note for future reference: I've found that it's generally not sufficient to only check for membership in Category:AfD debates to determine if an AfD is still open. Closers often forget the remove the aptly named {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, and therefore leave the AfD in the category after it is closed (this is also something that Snotbot attempts to correct). I generally double-check the AfD for strings like "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below" or "This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below." or "This page is no longer live." to determine if an AfD has actually been closed. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the longest time before the template was replaced at King Janno was 2hrs 3mins after this edit. As far as this BRfA goes, I'm thinking of either withdrawing it and reopening it if it's needed in the future, or getting it approved now and then just having it in stand-by mode for Snotbot. I'm leaning towards withdrawing, as I don't see it as a particularly urgent task and Snotbot seems to be handling it very well, but I'd like to hear if that suits Nyttend first. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no clue that anything else did this. You're the operator, so I'll defer to your judgement. Thanks for the work! Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2013 (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.