Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 17

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.

MadmanBot 17 edit

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

Time filed: 02:28, Friday March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic.

Programming language(s): Perl.

Source code available: Yes.

Function overview: Expanding the scope of task 11 to include AFC submissions.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Reviewers: Please check for copyright violations!

Edit period(s): Continuous.

Estimated number of pages affected: Three edits per suspected copyright violation.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.

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

Function details: I'm not sure if BAG approval is needed to expand the scope of this task, but personally I think it should be as this doesn't quite fall within the approval to mirror CorenSearchBot's functions. This has been a common request for MadmanBot; the only reason I haven't implemented it before now is that I thought EarwigBot was doing it. Cheers!

Discussion edit

Can we get a speedy approval on this? It might not specifically be in the scope of the original request, but it's so needed and a well tested bot. Legoktm (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe once I transpose it

. I was waiting until the weekend so I'd be able to field questions if necessary. Cheers, — madman 14:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's skip the speedy until someone can write the function down. You send me to an RFBA that says it is a copy of another bot's task. Please, just say what the bot does. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the task is that obscure if you actually read the references. The bot identifies suspected copyright violations. The same code has been doing so for almost five and a half years now. It has always done so in the main space, and now AFC reviewers would like it assisting them in their project space due to the proliferation of copyright violations there. Cheers, — madman 08:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it, the other link doesn't say that either. And, you have to send me to search for it, you couldn't just write, "The bot identifies suspected copyright violations?" I will bring this up in the policy board. A one sentence comment about what the bot does should not be beyond the scope of an RFBA. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about including/not including function overview. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should speedy this, I agree with Legoktm. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Given this looks like a clean-cut expansion of an existing task, it should be fine, but I'd like to run a brief trial, say five days (you can keep it running at the end), before granting final approval. MBisanz ^talk 14:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logical; programming in Perl's not my strong suit. The trial has begun. Cheers, — madman 01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Results have started to come in as of a couple hours ago, and they look good. (They weren't coming in before now because the bot includes page titles in its search queries, and as it turns out, searching with "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/" just results in a lot of unrelated nonsense. Who knew?

) — madman 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been six days and results look good. Of 46 reports, 21 led to speedy deletion per CSD g12, 1 led to speedy deletion per CSD g3, and 3 led to denial/blanked submissions. 21 have not been investigated yet, but based on those that have been investigated, I expect them to be mostly true positives. (I hope to tackle some of the SCV backlog this weekend; I've been pulling all-nighters this week for work). Cheers, — madman 13:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Bot has been performing as designed with no concerns for 20+ days; can we get approval on this? —Theopolisme (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Maxim_(talk) 16:37, 6 April 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.