The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: Soxred93 (u t)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP, using Cobi's wikibot.classes.php

Function Summary: Give information on requests at Wikipedia:CHU.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

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

Function Details: A few weeks back, MBisanz gave Cobi and I an idea to make bots for CHU and USURP. We both thought it was a good idea, and Cobi and I worked out a plan that he does USURP, and I do CHU. Currently, it processes each request, and checks:

1. If the username requested is taken

   If so, then checks if it has had any edits, and if not, points them to Wikipedia:USURP.

2. If the request was made by an IP.
3. If the request uses the default reason.
4. Skips if there is a ((done)) or ((not done)) tag for the request.
5. If the old username has less than 25 edits. (will probably remove in the future)
6. If the new username is just the old username in lowercase.
7. (I'm always open to more suggestions)

It reports in the format:

Here is an automated analysis of the request, done by [[User:SoxBot VI|]].
* ((User:SoxBot VI/CHU|ne))
* ((User:SoxBot VI/CHU|le|25))
* ((User:SoxBot VI/CHU|df))
* '''Final result:''' ((User:SoxBot VI/CHU|error)) ~~~~

resulting in:

Here is an automated analysis of the request, done by SoxBot VI.

• Final result:
• SoxBot has evaluated this request, and a problem(s) was found. Please see above notes. SoxBot VI (talk)

There have been some concerns about how it could steal possible future crats' job. I argue that claim with the fact that it is just giving information, and the crat should still do a last minute check.

See also the noticeboard for others' opinions.

Discussion[edit]

• I like the sound of this. Certainly, we shouldn't worry about "stealing future 'crat's jobs", since ideally a 'crat is someone reliable, not someone good at clerking CHU. That said, I'll need someone more knowledgeable to check the technical side. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Maxim_(talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This task may be better suited for a time trial. Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Maxim_(talk) 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is a good idea, in theory. However, for point 1, it is probably not best to point them to usurpation without checking if the requesting editor is eligible to usurp a username (several hundred edits) as pointing them to a page that they cannot use is pointless and time-wasting. For 3, there is generally not a required reason; they are not always denied if one is lacking. (However, there is inconsistency among the bureaucrats here.) 5 is irrelevant, since there is no edit requirement for renames. I suggest you check the blocklog of the requesting editor, since renaming a problematic editor is not always permitted (I believe). Finally, I strongly suggest that the bot make a much less obtrusive comments. Make only a small note if nothing is wrong, and if there is, make it small as well. The pictures are annoying IMO, and WjB has asked that the page be less cluttered. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 edits has been removed. Images have been removed, except for the error or no error images (I don't think those would clutter up the page much more than bureaucrat notes). Minimum of 200 edits for pointing to USURP. I'm a little uncertain about removing number 3, as that might remind the crats to look a little deeper, or something like that. I'll work on the block log now. Thanks for the comments. Soxred93 (u t) 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it turns out, I don't find a way to get the block log using the API. all the others have been implemented, though (except number 3). Soxred93 (u t) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should really only make a note when it detects something that could stop a username change, adding a "this has been oked by the bot" is just extra clutter. Also check out this diff, the user did sign. Apart from that it looks pretty good --Chris 11:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a few extra lines saying that it's an ok request is too much clutter (see WP:USURP), IMO. But that's just me. It also checks not is there is a newline or a space before the signature. Soxred93 (u t) 12:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris, but I think the bot should make a small note on ok requests, so that the bureaucrats know it has been checked. There are three lines per request on valid ones, and that is too much, in my mind. The only thing that would be necessary is one line saying that the request has nothing (that the bot can detect) wrong with it. A line saying that this is a summary by the bot, and line saying the account does not exist, and a line saying nothing is wrong with the request is just unnecessary. seresin ( ¡? ) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the bot is adding a lot of lines of text, often without pointing out anything wrong with the request. Given the number of request we get, that many lines is far too much clutter. I am grateful for any help a bot can provide, but hope it could be a little less intrusive. I have always asked human clerks not to list what is OK with requests, just to point out potential problems - it would be appreciated if the bot could do the same. As to a couple of specific issues:

• "Requester forgot to sign" isn't a very useful note - what's important is whether the request was made by the account to be renamed, not whether they remembered to sign.
• "Old username has less than 25 edits" isn't helpful either - there's no edit requirement for accounts to be renamed at Wikipedia:CHU.

If this is saving human clerks work, I'm all for it but I would like the opinion of those who clerk the page as to whether this is making their life any easier. WjBscribe 19:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're behind the game :). The 25 edits thing has been removed. I put the forgot to sign thing in because it indicates that the user might be an IP, or not the user who wants a rename. It also only lists what's ok if something's wrong. If you want, I can completely remove it. Also, I am putting in a note if the user has been blocked in the past 3 months. Is that OK? Soxred93 (u t) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the work this bot is doing for W:CHU is unnecessary and superfluous. I don't think we need it. I'm still going to check it manually. I don't see how a message such as renaming appears to be possible removes my responsiblity to check it manually. Kingturtle (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, the bot cannot discern what is and is not a promotional or offensive username. This bot saves no time and does very little. I really don't see its usefulness. Kingturtle (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object to the task, but I think the bot needs to leave more comprehensible messages. Reading the example message, I can't see in the "above notes" why there's a problem. The line with the X should just say what the problem is in plain English. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned that it's relying on the signature rather than the actual origin of the edit, e.g. "Requester forgot to sign, most likely an IP address." - it also does not appear to catch cases like WHEELSUK → BAROLD by User:WheelsUK where there is a typo in the "source name" - catching these would be useful, at least as "current name in request does not exist, likely typo" --Random832 (contribs) 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's a to do list:
    • Add nonexistent old username error
    • Modify messages to give 1 line problem.
    • Give notice for rename history.
    • Current block notice.
  • I'll work on it soon. Oh, the trial is done. Soxred93 (u t) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should check your signature regex, it still thinks I don't sign --Chris 10:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you don't link to your userpage, which is required for the regex. I'll fix that later. Soxred93 (u t) 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this bot as it was edit warring with me: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Could the bot be programmed to notice if its message is replaced by a more useful note by a human editor? At the very least could it treat ((cratnote)) (and perhaps ((clerknote)) as the same as ((done))/((not done)) and not comment on the request in question? WjBscribe 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Soxred93 (u t) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've unblocked the bot. We are however beyond it's 5 day trial period. I think we need a further trial to continue to iron out issues - and I note Kingturtle's concerns above about the overall utility of the bot. As far as changes I'd still like to see go:

• I would appreciate its message being shortened further - where it detects a problem, the message takes up at least 3 lines and I think that can be reduced
• Its error message about signatures is an issue - it seems to miss signatures separated by a line from the request and the lack of signature message tends to be a false alarm anyway (there seems to me to be no correlation between lack of sig and the requester being an IP). Ideally it could detect if the request was made by the account to be renamed and ignore sigs or lack of it. If this isn't possible it may be better to leave this check out.
• Detection of previous rename requests would be ideal - this is the one tasks that human editors can't perform at present.

As a general observation, I have a concern that requests flagged up as problematic are waiting longer for bureaucrat attention, even when these are requests that should be performed. I'm worried that Kingturtle as a bureaucrat coming recently to performing renames has issues with this bot. The Rambling Man's input may be useful. Given as I noted above that this bot has now completed its trial period, a further trial period seems in order if BAG are minded to give this bot a green light. My thanks again to Soxred for the time he is expending on this task. WjBscribe 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok, here's a NEW to do list:
    • Add nonexistent old username error  Done
    • Modify messages to give 1 line problem.  Done
    • Give notice for rename history.  Not done - Very hard to do with the API alone, I'd have to resort to screen scraping (which I hate to do)
    • Current block notice.  Done
    • Remove signature notice  Done
  • I would like for any BAG member to hold off on a trial, until these are fixed. Soxred93 (u t) 02:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 out of 5 done, working on the other two next. Soxred 93 04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All have been dealt with. I'm now ready for approval, or another trial, if necessary. Soxred 93 04:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the case of SimpsonsFan08 → StewieGriffin!, the bot said "SoxBot VI has analyzed this request, and renaming appears to be possible" - however, renaming was not possible. "Cannot rename user SimpsonsFan08 locally as this username has been migrated to the unified login system." Kingturtle (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes an editor's signature isn't lined up properly with their request. In such instances, SoxBot VI bisects the request. This needs fixing. Kingturtle (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have fixed the bisecting issue, and I am seeing if there is a way to check for global ownership using the API. Soxred 93 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, implemented from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ca.php. Soxred 93 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Approved. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.