Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot12

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 Denied.

HBC AIV helperbot12

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: TheEpTic

Time filed: 14:02, Sunday December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: Redundant copy of User:HBC AIV helperbot.

Function overview: The purpose of this bot is to monitor WP:AIV and check if reported users are blocked. If the user is blocked the bot will remove the entry with an edit summary explaining why, for how long, what type of block, and how many remaining reports are left.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continous

Estimated number of pages affected: 4

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: This is a clone of the User:HBC AIV helperbot, originally written by User:H. This bot monitors Wikipedia:AIV and Wikipedia:UAA to remove reports of blocked users with an appropriate edit summary, as well as various related tasks on those pages. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot3 for the approval of previous clones of this bot. The bot was designed to run with multiple redundant instances for best performance, and to reduce the chance of there being no bot to perform the task if one were to fail.

Discussion

•  Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody please look at this? Thank you. TheEpTic (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

TheEpTic I don't understand what benefit we gain by having annother clone when the AIV bot is already distributed to multiple clones/locations. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur There are currently 2 bots running, and I'm sure any of them could die at any time. It's best to have a few to keep the pages updated and ready for new reports. :) --TheEpTic (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

TheEpTic What benefit do we gain from having it distributed to yet annother site? If I read the configuration correctly one is already on Tool Labs which has only gone down when core WMF is in trouble. Have you asked Chillum or JamesR who appear to be some of the core operators if there's a need for more distribution of the checking? Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) — Earwig ^talk 03:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have not maintained these bots for some time now. My original code has been adopted by others long ago. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Might just chime in here also (my apologies for the delay as I have been in hospital) - there's currently three active copies of the helperbot running, two on Wikimedia infrastructure at Labs (USA) and another in Germany. Normally three copies will cover all bases for the required tasks. We currently have an issue with the source code (which is no longer maintained by anyone specifically) where SSL will cause the bots to no longer edit logged in any longer than a few hours, as such we currently also have extensive cron tasks to take care of this appropriately. Feel free to send me an e-mail should I not respond here further. — JamesR (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So JamesR, there's not really a reason for there to be annother clone of the HBC AIV helperbot? Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

While there is nothing against running another clone, the source code isn't up to scratch and requires extensive self maintenance to run. The pages are covered by the three active bots and there have been no issues with them missing any jobs. — JamesR (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Denied. Operator hasn't edited in three weeks, and there is no consensus that another clone is necessary, especially given the apparent difficulty of running one. I am open to a new request if the situation changes or new code is written for the bot. — Earwig ^talk 23:10, 10 June 2014 (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.