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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Operator: – Luna Santin (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised.

Programming Language(s): Perl.

Function Summary: Archives old cases in the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser namespace.

Edit period(s): Manual start, probably every few days.

Already has a bot flag: Nope.

Function Details: The script will execute all of the steps listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures#Archival stage. In a nutshell, about three days after a checkuser response, a case subpage is summarized for listing at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case, the case subpage itself is then marked closed with ((subst:rfcu top)) and ((subst:rfcu bottom)), and the subpage's transclusion on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is removed.

After getting a "max date" from its user, the script will assemble a list of case pages currently transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. For each of those cases, the script will attempt to "date" the case by looking for "indicator/date pairs" (checkuser responses generally include one of the indicator templates, and end with a user signature which includes a timestamp). If a case cannot be dated, or if it is dated beyond the max date, it will be ignored. The script also skips any redirected pages, or pages which include the ((noarchive)) template.

If a given case subpage is ready to be archived, the script will build a list of sockpuppets (as judging from templates such as ((checkuser)), ((checkip)), and so on), and will compose a listing suitable for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case (either appending to an existing listing, or adding a new one). At the end of this run, the /Case page will be updated to include listings for each case the script has decided to archive.

More recently, I've been adding some new features. Soon, the script will be capable of editing pages: saving its output for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case, tagging case subpages with archival templates, and removing archived cases from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. These features are a bit newer, and not as extensively tested, but I'll be keeping a close eye on things.

I've actually been working on this thing, off and on, for some time -- see User:Luna Santin/RfcuParser -- but to date it's had read-only access. Since I had some spare time, here, I thought I might as well get it up to speed for write access, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU wants to run CU bot... speedy approve? BJ^Talk 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm Luna, can it work with Wikipedia:SSP2? Because I'd hate to break bad news :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the formats/procedures are remotely similar, it shouldn't be too hard to rework it. I figure I'll worry about that "later". :p Once I have a first bot up and running, more shouldn't be too hard. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a few tests, see how it goes and then lets rubber stamp :) -- Tawker (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, drat. Running into some issue with URL encoding (errors all cleaned up after, by now). Hadn't realized just how quickly the merger with Wikipedia:SPI had been looming, so it may be best if I put this on hold for now, unless I can figure it out in the very near future. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark this as withdrawn, feel free to unmark it (by undoing my next edit) and move it back to Wikipedia:BRFA if you get back to this later on. Anomie⚔ 19:14, 24 January 2009 (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.