Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 6

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.

TedderBot 6 edit

Operator: Tedder (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:22, Saturday May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Yes!

Function overview: Fetch ~150 rule pages, fetch all new pages in a time period (1-N days), do magic, output search results on ~150 search result pages in userspace and wikipedia space.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The previous bot, User:AlexNewArtBot, was approved. I'm replacing the bot and trying not to make a big deal until it successfully runs. AlexNewArtBot BRFA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AlexNewArtBot

Edit period(s): Probably every day, some interval so the previous run finishes.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~150, reading perhaps ~3500 pages per day.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes (it will)

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

Function details: Let me know if functionality is desired. It's taking the regex scoring patterns that exist in User:AlexNewArtBot and simply reinventing the wheel.

I'll probably be testing this in a sandbox tomorrow, it should be ready for primetime late tomorrow. tedder (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Approved for trial (5 runs). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ~~Make sure the edits/changes do not break AlexNewArtBot.~~ — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure it doesn't break AlexNewArtBot, if it comes back. At some point I'll migrate the searches to my own userspace. By "5 runs", can you confirm if you mean "5 edits" or "5 loops through all of the searches"? tedder (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take responsibility and say 5 loops. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Thanks. Just wanted to make sure before I did something inadvisable. tedder (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update- I've run two partial passes (still learning to deal with large numbers of page fetches and page edits gracefully). I made a Wrong Decision by letting users override where search results go. After a batch of wikiproject pages and even WP:COIN got overwritten by the bot, I rolled back the pages affected, removed the code that let that happen, and realized Alex came to the same realization in 2007. Oops.

I'm on the third pass, hopefully it will update all search pages instead of stopping at the letter 'R' like the previous pass did. Here's a permalinked version of discussions on my userpage, showing both the problem, the fix, and some thanks that have begun trickling in. Here's the non-permanent version: User_talk:Tedder#New_Article_Bot_archive_pages that will show newer comments than this date (until it gets archived, at least).

I'm going to continue making changes, both for stability and to maintain state (so it will archive search pages, remembers the last run date on a given search, etc), and to also process the rules individually rather than processing all of them and THEN posting the results very suddenly after a dozen or more hours of running. tedder (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I'm done with about five passes. Counting "passes" is a little difficult, but it's approximately five, depending on where/how you count. (I don't always process ALL searches or start at the beginning).

Anyhow, there was some early drama as I alluded to above, and since then the feedback has been positive. I've added checks for the bot flag and to make sure I don't run a search too soon. I'll still be making changes, but the bot is an order of magnitude more reliable than when I began five days ago, so I'm asking for the task to be approved. tedder (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (10 runs). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's just keep it running and see if any new issues come up before approving. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I'm somewhere around 10 runs, no issues except feature requests. So, approval? tedder (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Seems good. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:21, 6 June 2011 (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.