Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EBot 2
- 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.
Operator: JamesR
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, monitored by operator.
Programming language(s): Perl or AutoWikiBrowser.
Function overview: Appending archived template to all cases within Wikipedia:Abuse reports/*.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Discussion has been present via mailing lists.
Edit period(s): One-time run.
Estimated number of pages affected: Approximately 800 pages are affected by this task.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes.
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes.
Function details: Per the discussion on the mailing list and the revamp process of WP:ABUSE, all previous cases in the space of Wikipedia:Abuse reports/* need to have the {{abuse archived}} template appended to the page.
Discussion
[edit]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Trial complete. 50 edits performed. — JamesR (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What caused this pageto be edited twice? Also, would it be possible to see the discussion regarding this? Or at least have a confirmation from the users at abuse response that this is wanted? - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- AWB may have had a little hiccup, the page was only listed once, so maybe a network issue somewhere? I'll notify the relevant people to contribute their confirmation to the BRFA. — JamesR (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Great, I'd suggest placing a skip if contains "{{abuse archived}}" to avoid it in future. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I have added it to the syntax file for future edits. Thank you for informing me of this issue. — JamesR (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Great, I'd suggest placing a skip if contains "{{abuse archived}}" to avoid it in future. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- AWB may have had a little hiccup, the page was only listed once, so maybe a network issue somewhere? I'll notify the relevant people to contribute their confirmation to the BRFA. — JamesR (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What caused this pageto be edited twice? Also, would it be possible to see the discussion regarding this? Or at least have a confirmation from the users at abuse response that this is wanted? - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
<-- As one of the coordinators I just wanted to pop in and vouch for the necessity of this over at WP:ABUSE. The vast amount of old, and very stale, reports we had from the previous system have been rotting for a while now and while the original idea was to delete them we are thinking that archiving them (with the template) would be the best move at least for now. James (T|C) 04:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Im not a co-ordinator, but one of the longer standing active WP:ABUSE volunters (and im also on the mailing list). The neccesity of the bot is paramount to enable consistent archiving of old cases, much like mediation or SPI. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Approved. MBisanz talk 06:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)- 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.
