Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

ArchiveBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: FASTILY

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Archive closed discussions at Commons:Deletion requests. User:DRBot has also been assigned this task, but it does not archive properly closed multi-file DRs or non-file namespace DRs. The operator, Bryan, is inactive, and has not expressed any interest in fixing this.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic unsupervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Every 6 hours

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6-10

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Java

FASTILY 07:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


  • I support this, but it would be my second choice. First choice would be to create the DR archive automatically at the end of each day, so that the entries in the daily log could simply be deleted when closed. This would have minor advantage that the archive would have all of the entries in the original order, but, more important, it seems both simpler and better for the integrity of the archive to create it all at once rather than piecemeal, as DRs are closed.
As the number of DRs has steadily grown, it has become more and more time-consuming to page through closed DRs to find the open ones. It is essential that the daily log be cleared of closed DRs on a regular basis because Admin time for closing DRs is at a premium. If this is to be the way we go, I would prefer every three hours to every six, but I don't feel strongly about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support this, too. Bot should run at least every 2 hours IMO. When will it go live? Thank you. --Krd 16:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently enhancing the security and usability of my bot framework's login functions. I should be able to do a test run by the end of the week -FASTILY 21:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko Trial complete! -FASTILY 09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
ping for Jameslwoodward & Krd as well -FASTILY 09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Contributions seem to be slightly out of order. I'd prefer to first add to the archive and then remove from the source page only if the addition to the archive was successful. Is this possible? --Krd 10:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the way the script was written, I have no easy way to guarantee the contributions appearing in some sort of arbitrary order. As long as the bot works, I'm not convinced this is is an high priority problem. -FASTILY 18:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I still think that will be good idea to fix this problem. At least it'll be much easier to track potential problems. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, there is neither an easy solution (will require a partial rewrite) nor is there is there any outstanding benefit to doing so, given that the bot already works fine. -FASTILY 21:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why it's too hard to implement unless bot algorithm is asynchronous. But even in this case what preventing to make it synchronous? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Because it's using a multi-threaded producer/consumer scheme, where the timing is dependent on replies from the API. Unless there's an *extremely* good reason (i.e. it causes obvious harm to the project) for arbitrarily fixing the order (making the contribs look pretty is a rather poor reason), this is a total waste my time. -FASTILY 22:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not ruling this request out; I'll be happy to consider it for future iterations of the bot, but at the moment I don't have time to reliably revise my core libraries. -FASTILY 22:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2011 Comic-Con International isn't really closed. You have to look at the DR page content, for all occurences ignore everything between delh and the next following delf, and if the remaining is only whitespace, you are ready to archive. --Krd 10:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In all my time closing DRs (tens of thousands) and operating this bot (it used to run semi-automated out of my alternate account), I've never seen anything *that* careless. While it is possible to add this feature, it is extremely complicated to do so, and IMO it's not worth my time if this happens on such an infrequent basis. -FASTILY 18:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In some deletion requests related activities size of archived data doesn't match size of data on source page. See Commons:Deletion requests/2014/04/11, Commons:Deletion requests/2014/04/16 as example. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be caused by the presence of redirects to DRs being transcluded to the DR logs. I'll try to mitigate this and do another test run. -FASTILY 18:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
As long as we have a procedure to catch lost deletion requests that might appear once in a rare while, I support to approve this bot, as it will help a lot. Potential problems can be addressed later if they appear to be real problems. --Krd 08:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko, Krd, Jameslwoodward: All requested functionality (e.g. sequential contributions, parsing through & analyzing the strange things people put on DRs) has been implemented and tested. Please review the recent runs, thanks. -FASTILY 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't look much into detail, but what I've seen looks good to me. Please take online a soon as possible. --Krd 17:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Can this be approved soon? -FASTILY 22:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think task should be approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓  Approved as no concerns have been voiced. odder (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)