Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2016-01/User:RileyBot

• Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:RileyBot for the following purposes:

  Cleaning of the Wiktionary:Sandbox - e.g.

  Cleaning of Template:Sandbox - e.g.

And while I'm asking.. Cleaning of broken and double redirects. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Vote starts: 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Support as BO. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote struck due to user not being eligible to vote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Support this isn't a very exciting vote :P it certainly won't hurt to have a bot for that. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

   Support as although I'm actually active at the English Wikipedia, and not here at Wiktionary, this seems beneficial. Cheers, SwisterTwister (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

   Vote struck due to user not being eligible to vote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

3. Support -- I don't have a problem with this and Riley has very graciously answered my questions. I do think some consensus should be sought on how often to clean the sandbox since that was an issue last time around. Benwing2 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose Ambiguous nomination, per the Comments below.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

   I apologize for being ambiguous, I assumed I wouldn't have to go into depth about a script that has already been previously approved for other bots to run on this wiki. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose See also Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2013-02/User:RileyBot. We don't know how often the bot is going to clean the page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

   If you're opposing simply based on frequency of how often the bot would clean the page, you're more than welcome to join in on the specific discussion in the comment section. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 20:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

   Above all, I don't think SANDBOX needs cleaning by an automaton. But if it should be cleaned, the frequency would have to be specified in the vote as part of the proposal voted on, and the frequency would have to be much lower than every 1 hour since, in Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2013-02/User:RileyBot, Stephen said 6 hours, SemperBlotto said once per day, and Michael Z. said "a couple of hours". From the previous vote, you could have known that the frequency was an issue. From looking at the recenty history at WT:SAND, I get a glimpse of RileyBot test activity, and this confirms to me my opposition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

   Why does RileyBot's test activity confirm your opposition? Wiktionary:Bots#Process specifically states that test edits are a part of the process. There have been 27 edits (33 total, but let's not count my bot) since I opened this bot trial, I think that is backing enough for the need for automation. I agree, there isn't consensus for how often it should be cleaned, but for a proposal to be opened for such a minor thing seems unneeded. I will open a proposal at a 'crats request, but otherwise I'd prefer to establish consensus in the comment section. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 02:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Abstain I just don't think these bot tasks are particularly important or worthwhile. Equinox ◑ 00:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Riley ... I see there was a failed bot vote a few years ago for doing the same thing. The issue there seemed to be how often to clean the sandbox ... you had proposed once an hour, some people thought that was too often. Any ideas how often you're planning on cleaning it? You might want to seek a consensus on the Beer Parlour about how often to do that; if you're willing to do that, you might want to state above that you won't start actually cleaning the sandbox until the issue of how often to clean it is resolved. Doing that might help others be willing to vote for the bot. I think the reason you aren't getting more votes is people don't recognize you here, since you haven't contributed that much; for this reason, you might want to state what your background is (e.g. it looks like you work on maintenance of small wikis).

Standard procedure for all wikimedia projects is one hour, it can be adjusted for longer. I don't see any reason why to extend that time, but it can be modified as desired. A someone who has opened dozens of bot task requests, generally consensus is only taken to a page like above if it is having a major effect, which this is not. In most cases, it'd just be discussed in this very section. Whichever your preference, I am happy to accommodate. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 20:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the timing from hourly to when the page has been stale for an hour. If someone is actually working on something and happen to run into the cleaning that would be a bummer for them. - TheDaveRoss 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree here. Benwing2 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, the script will run hourly, but it will delay reverting until the page has been stale for an hour. :) -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It is still cleaning hourly regardless of the most recent revision timestamp. - TheDaveRoss 14:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Riley Huntley Also, how will your bot operate when cleaning broken and double redirects? Double redirects should be straightforward to fix, but I'm not quite sure what "broken redirects" refers to. Benwing2 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My bot would operate using the very script that is used globally by most pywikipediabots. It's a bit difficult to explain if you're not familiar with what broken redirects are, but heres my best attempt: Broken redirects would attempt to be fixed, and if they cannot, they'd be tagged for deletion as they are pages redirecting to a non-existent page. If they are indeed fixable, but the bot cannot detect them as so, they're still being tagged for an admin to manually fix. The broken redirects script only operates in the main and talk namespaces, therefore not interfering with userpages. Double redirects, are as said, straight forward. It will fix any double redirects, but leaves redirect loops/triple redirects to be handled by a human. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 20:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I know what broken redirects are, what I meant is, how do you automatically fix them? Benwing2 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see, that makes more sense. I run the double redirects automatic, and then broken redirects I run manually supervised. As aforementioned, this script has been previously approved on this wiki, the bots just aren't actively running the program anymore. If you wish to read more in depth, I recommend mw:Manual:Pywikibot/redirect.py. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• As requested, my bot's background: I operate RileyBot, which has 72,000+ global contributions/edits and eleven bot flags running dozens of tasks. The above three tasks I already perform on at least five other wikimedia projects. My background: I work primarily with the CVN and SWMT teams to monitor contributions globally and assist with small wikis that are struggling. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 20:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No consensus at 3-2-2 (60% support). @Riley Huntley, please stop operating your bot. You may, of course, create a new vote that factors in people's objections if you wish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)