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: Legoktm (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:32, Tuesday July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Pywikipedia rewrite branch

Source code available: here

Function overview: Creates a list of incorrectly moved pages for WP:AFC

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): request on my talk page

Edit period(s): Hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

• Grabs the latest 100 page moves
• Checks if page move matches the set of rules

• new page matches 'Articles for creation/*'
• old page matches 'Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/' and new page matches 'Wikipedia talk:'
• old page matches 'Wikipedia:Articles for creation/' and new page matches 'Wikipedia:'

• If any moves matched those rules, update Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wrongly moved submissions

Discussion[edit]

It looks good. I have just a couple of thoughts:

• If there are fewer than 100 moves in the past hour, the bot might add the same move to the list twice.
• If there are more than 100 moves in the past hour, the bot might skip an incorrect move.

Is this correct, or am I missing something? Perhaps you can set a higher lelimit and set lestart to the last time the bot was run. — The Earwig ^(talk) 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That jumped out at me as well reading through the request. I don't know anything about bot request so I don't know if that's usual. Why can't it check every page moves since last ran up to a set time length? KTC (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KTC above, why can't it check every page move? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a great idea. I've updated the code so that it will check every move of the past hour and then log based on those. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 10:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((BAG assistance needed)) - No action taken on the request by the BAG for almost a week now. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a "duh" task, but let's go for a Approved for trial (3 days) Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. just to make sure. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D)) - The bot hasn't turned on and begun processing the list yet. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, the bot wasn't logged in. I've fixed that now. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 17:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. (for a while now, sorry!) [1][2][3][4]. As the timestamps show, the first 3 edits were manually run by me since my cron jobs were having issues on the toolserver. Since then I've switched it over to my local machine which is working fine (the last edit). LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 20:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be tagging moves like this one. The latter two rules should only match if the new title does not match what you tested the old title against. I did a bit of a code review; see that here. — Earwig ^talk 21:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And thanks for the review, I've merged in your pull request. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) Can I get an approval now? I've left the bot running right now (so nothing is missed) and it's doing fine [5][6][7]. Thanks, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 20:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Sure; nice work. — Earwig ^talk 21:03, 28 July 2012 (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.