Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SvickBOT 4

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

Speedily Approved.

SvickBOT 4

Operator: Svick (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 00:44, Wednesday November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python, C#, possibly others

Source code available: Sometimes.

Function overview: Generate various reports.

Edit period(s): Weekly and monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: At most tens of pages (in the future), currently two.

Exclusion compliant: No, not necessary.

Already has a bot flag: Yes.

Function details:

At times, I'd like to create various reports about Wikipedia using the API, database dumps, or most recently the toolserver, and update them regularly. When this happens, sometimes I do a bot approval request (task 2 and 3), sometimes I use a user subpage (User:SvickBOT/Edit filter effectiveness) and sometimes I use an external server ([1] or just starting [2]). Because of this, I'd like to be able to create new reports without the need of approval for every one of them.

Currently, I have used MZMcBride's code to create two reports regarding the popularity of WikiProjects (request, results in my Sandbox: [3] and [4]) and I would like run them monthly in subpages of Wikipedia:Database reports. The source codes for them are at [5] and [6].

Would it be possible to give me such blanket approval to generate reports in the Wikipedia namespace? Thanks. Svick (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Sounds straightforward. Would you be willing to clarify as to maximum update rate (e.g. daily or less often), and whether the bot will or will not make an edit if the only change is to the report date? Anomie ⚔ 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum update rate is weekly. I think doing daily updates is needlessly frequent.

I don't have any safeguards against such “almost-null” edits, but such situations shouldn't happen often. Even if it does happen, it means I should probably lower the frequency of that report.

Svick (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Approved. Sounds acceptable. Anomie ⚔ 00:32, 13 November 2010 (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.