Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SPCUClerkbot 2

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.

SPCUClerkbot 2

Operator: —— nix eagle^{email me}

Function Overview: This is another user talk page request. This time the bot will be notifying accounts mentioned in an SPI case.

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

Function Details: On SPI case creation or when a new account is added to a case the bot will notify that account that they have been mentioned. The bot has several criteria for doing the notifications, this request is for making sure that I have thought of all the edge cases.

The reporter of the case must have more then X edits where X is some value between 50 and 250 (I've not made my mind up on what value is most appropriate).
The suspected sock(s)/master must not already have a mention of the casename on their talk page (if there is the bot will assume that they have already been notified). (Also if one of the two templates above are on the page referencing the case name it will not post for the same reason). -- gah copied and pasted this from a conversation we had, the two templates {{Socksuspectnotice}} and {{Uw-socksuspect}}.
The suspected sock(s)/master must not be blocked for longer then 1 month. If they are, the bot presumes that they have merely been referenced as an example of the case behavior (it happens) and therefor the bot does not leave a notice. They can't reply to it anyway.

The template the bot will use for notifying users is at User:SPCUClerkbot/spinotify-UserNotice. It will subst the template.

As far as demonstrating support for doing notifications, this is already instructed for requesters in the instructions for SPI to notify users and is a frequently requested feature. The feature is ready to go as soon as we have a reasonable discussion here and double check the listed criteria above. I will probably do a few tests on our test case but that is independent of this request. —— nix eagle^{email me} 03:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Sounds ok, let's let this percolate for a few days. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 21 March 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.