Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RFC posting script

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.

RFC posting script edit

Operator: Messedrocker (harej)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Summary: This bot makes filing RFCs easier.

Edit period(s): Whenever someone uses the script.

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

Function Details: To make filing requests for comments easier, users can fill out this form, filling in all the necessary details. In order for someone to use it, they must be registered with a confirmed e-mail address. Once all the details are filled out and the form is submitted, the request is held in a database and a confirmation e-mail is sent to the user via Special:EmailUser. This is to help prevent abuse of the script. Once the user confirms the RFC by clicking on the URL in their email, the bot will proceed to post the RFC on the wiki.

Discussion edit

I am aware that the bot has already seen some action prior to the filing of this BRFA. I apologize for that. Upon the approval of this bot, the functions will become much more "advertised". —harej // change the rules 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is going to be advertised widely, I see no reason not to approve a trial and see how things go.

Approved for trial (10 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on? I was under the impression that the bot should only edit for 10 days (it has actually been editing for longer than that), unless we see further approval here. Brian Jason Drake 07:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has posted an RFC to a new page on behalf of the "new" (not autoconfirmed) user Bourning (talk, contribs). When I checked just now, they had no contributions on their list. The idea of a bot posting arbitrary content on behalf of users, without those edits appearing in those users' contributions lists, is worrying, as is the ability for users to create pages using this bot when they could not normally. Brian Jason Drake 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, checking for the page to exist before hand is a must. Asking for a page title and hoping they put Talk: etc is just asking for trouble, should just have them input the article name and the script figures the correct locale and/or make it dependent on the RFC type. Q ^{T C} 08:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if the user is autoconfirmed, then it shouldn't matter whether the page exists already? Brian Jason Drake 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no reason (that I can think of) for a non-existent page to require an RFC. Q ^{T C} 23:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the situation where the page that contains the RFC does not exist (as opposed to the page that the RFC is about). A relevant situation is where a non-talk page exists but the corresponding talk page does not. Then an RFC might be appropriate. As I understand it, a non-autoconfirmed user would not be able to create the talk page directly, but they could create it through this bot. Brian Jason Drake 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the script should ask the user which page to post the RFC to, but if it doesn't seem right (e.g. it's in article namespace), then suggest a different page and give the user the choice? That way, if the bot is wrong the user can override it, and if the user is wrong, then they can learn. After all, users shouldn't be using this script unless they already have a bit of experience with Wikipedia, right? Brian Jason Drake 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rectified these issues. If a person enters a non-talk page, the input will be converted to a talk page. But that will mean nought if it turns out the non-talk page does not even exist. For example, if someone entered "BLATANTLY NON-EXISTENT PAGE", it would not go through because the page does not exist. If someone entered "Talk:BLATANTLY NON-EXISTENT PAGE", it would not go through because "BLATANTLY NON-EXISTENT PAGE" does not exist. This works across all namespaces. —harej // change the rules 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Seeing as the issues with non-existent pages have been resolved and the trial went well otherwise, I see no reason not to approve. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 13:04, 13 February 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.