Forum:Bot request for approval: SigmaBot

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Bot request for approval: SigmaBot
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 April 2012 by Ajraddatz.


Operator: [[::User:Σ|Σ]] ([[::User talk:Σ|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Σ|contribs]])

Time filed: 01:35, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python, using my own classes

Source code available: No.

Function overview: Archive discussion pages.

Edit period(s): Daily.

Estimated number of pages affected: [0, ∞).

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

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

Function details:

  • Archive discussion pages that transclude {{SigmaBot archiver}} to a specified page.
  • May do numbered, dated, or static archives.
  • Will not edit the Exchange: or article namespaces.
  • Will not archive unstamped discussion threads.

The bot examines backlinks (Special:WhatLinksHere) to {{SigmaBot archiver}}. It then goes through all pages that transclude the template and archives old discussions. This is done by breaking a page into threads, then scanning each thread for timestamps. Threads older than a specified threshold are then moved to another page (the archive), which can be named either basing on time or then name can contain a counter which will be incremented when the archive reaches a certain size.

The template can contain the following parameters:

{{SigmaBot archiver
|archivetype=Three values: 'static', 'size' or 'time'.
|prefix=Subdirectory under the page that is being archived.
|format=Valid argument to the format parameter in Python's time.strftime() (see the table), or {counter} for numbered archives.
|counter=Default value for {counter} in the format parameter above.
|archiveage=Number of hours to wait for a thread to be archived.
|archiveheader=All new archives will have this text at the top of the page.


Support - Sounds good. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:37, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Will come in handy. Smithing (talk | contribs) 01:39, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Not yet Neutral - Fix the vulernabilities you mentioned in chat and make it open source first. Hofmic Talk 01:40, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Also, more information. All I know is that it can archive pages. I don't know how it does this, when it decides to archive, etc. Hofmic Talk 01:44, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the vulnerability is gone, then, but I still ask why it can't be open source. I suppose that being opt in, there's no reason to oppose the use of it for user pages, but I'm really not sure about using it on pages such as administrator requests and other non-userspace pages that contain archives. Hofmic Talk 02:12, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Not yet - Per Hofmic.

 a proofreader ▸ 

01:59, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Slight support after documentation was provided. (The vulnerability may still be around.)  a proofreader ▸  02:40, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
Changed to Support after the vulnerability was removed to my satisfaction. (The vulnerability was in string parsing, which consisted of just passing user input to Python's eval() for time intervals, but is now string splitting.)  a proofreader ▸  07:26, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

OpposeChanged to stronger oppose below - Specifications are quite nebulous; users have highly individualized methodology for archiving. For example, both Sentra and I use the numbered archive list, but I put {{Archive}} and {{User:Liquidhelium/Templates/Archives}} at the top of all of my archives and then protect it. Unless there is more details about how the bot functions, I will not support. --LiquidTalk 02:03, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see why we would need a bot to do this? It seems that it could be simpler to just manually copy/paste it over if it the discussion page is to full, which is usually isn't, instead of having to find the discussion page, decide what the bot should archive and what it shouldn't, etc... Easier to do it manually. Hair 03:11, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty of manual archival is your opinion, and is likely shared by only a few others. And on top of that, it is an opt in bot, so you have the choice to not use it if "[you think it is] easier to do it manually". Σ (talk) 04:58, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
Well, if someone thinks it is hard to copy and paste information, I am quite sure if it won't be easier use a template. It would be better for us to use the ArchiveTool which is just a "click what you want to archive" thing. Hair 01:14, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Question - The bot would do article talk pages too, yes? Matt (t) 05:06, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

If the template is placed on the top of the page, and the page is not Exchange: or an article, of course. Σ (talk) 06:57, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Support for user talk - Assuming I read this right, and this "service" is provided on an entirely voluntary basis, I don't see why not. It's a bit like high scores updates but for user talk pages. 222 talk 07:18, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Support - It's opt-in, so I can't see how there would be any problem. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:39, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I was trying to talk to you before in IRC, but you never responded. Anyways, I suggest in the the template that you actually explain what the parameters do and not just link to Python docs that don't explain anything in context. Reading over your proposal raised a few red flags in my mind, but I'm not sure if my concerns are actually valid or not because those parameters might resolve them. Cheers. Matt (t) 09:29, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the parameters accepted are in the table at that link. For instance, %Y/%B would be formatted as August/2021. Σ (talk) 03:30, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't explain anything. What does that actually affect in this context? Matt (t) 05:10, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
The format parameter is the name of the archive page. If the archive type is "date", then the archive title will be formatted according to Python's time.strftime() function. Σ (talk) 07:14, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
I think it would help more if you'd just put an example input at the bottom of the proposal, and then explain what that would do. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:37, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - "Estimated number of pages affected: At least 200." Could you please list as many pages as you can on a paste site and link me to it? I couldn't think of a single page that would really benefit of having the contents archived automatically. Also, why does this bot need the bot right? I don't think it will spam that much at all (not more than archiving currently, and people who archive now don't need to be marked as bot either) and I think it would be useful to be able to check what the bot does. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:27, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

It is an opt-in bot. Σ (talk) 03:30, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
You didn't answer any questions.. bad_fetustalk 14:50, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
The bot needs the flag because it will be editing talk pages, so the flag will allow it to not give the "you has new pies" message whenever it archives. It also gives the bot full access to API, which is what it might need depending on how many pages need to be archived. It also clearly identifies it as a bot, on the lists 'n' stuff. ajr 16:59, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's opt-in, so the opposers don't have a good argument. Rather than force our views on everyone else, let's give people the option to use this. ajr 16:53, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I really don't see how there is a need for this. cqm talk 00:24, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

But why should you not thinking it will be useful stop someone else, who might think it's useful, from being able to use it? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:14, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
This isn't me being selfish, more that I really don't understand how a bot makes this task simpler. Per Hair, if you will. cqm talk 15:05, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Who would actually want to use this bot? Some users are supporting it because then people can choose to do it, but if nobody is actually going to use it, I don't really see the point. Note that this bot will archive your talk page to a subpage that has a timestamp (example: /Archive_March_2012), so it will not allow archive pages like /Archive_1 or something. Also, it will archive even if there is a certain amount of hours old, even if the subject is still being talked about (it will get the timestamp from the first comment) (correct me if I'm wrong). So, if you do plan to use this bot, please comment below, because so far I only see Smithing say it will be handy, and none of the other supporters say they actually think it's useful for themselves (and I don't think we should really get a bot for only two users). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:28, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it, personally, as not only do I like the ability to create the archives myself, on my own schedule, but my list of archives is stored on a separate page, using a customized table. I also don't want auto archiving to break the header on the top of my talk page, and I also prefer to leave the one most recent header on my talk page (to elude those darn "first" messages). I'm also unconvinced that the kinds of users who actually need to archive their talk page would use this bot (there's only maybe 20 active users whos talk pages get big enough to archive, all being very experienced users who are more than capable of handling the task). Hofmic Talk 20:37, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
I would not use it as I like to protect my archives, so I'd have to go tinker with them myself anyways. I wouldn't support giving this bot administrator tools just for protecting pages for maybe three people. --LiquidTalk 20:56, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
Please read the documentation and use common sense before making unfounded assumptions on how the bot operates. Σ (talk) 05:08, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, what documentation? There's a paragraph at the top of the page which basically sums up available attributes but not how to properly use them. In effect, there is no documentation. I don't even know what unfound assumptions you refer to. If Joey is wrong, then I need to know how so. You've still never explained these well enough (examples, etc). Hofmic Talk 07:53, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - It looks like the proposer doesn't care enough to make proper documentation, and in the replies to further comments/questions it doesn't look like he cares much there either. If the bot is made with as much care as this thread is, it would really suck and I don't think it's a good idea to have that. Also, I don't see anyone that really wants to use the bot anywhere, so I don't really see the point having a bot for one or two users. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:21, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to stronger oppose - Aside from the fact that I find this bot completely useless, I see what Joey means above. Furthermore, given the canvassing in the IRC, I'm changing to a stronger oppose. --LiquidTalk 06:07, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious - why is that page not in your own subpages? More to the point, why is very little of the page's contributions yours? I would guess you asked the other contributors to give you a hand, but if you can't (be bothered to) do it yourself it just adds to the impression that "it doesn't look like he cares much" as Joey has said above. You wrote the program, surely you would be best placed to explain it? cqm talk 14:15, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
Sigma had asked me to help him write documentation, because as he put it, he simply sucked at it. I knew I wouldn't be much help, so I asked Elune if he'd be willing to help. I had also mentioned it to Proof and told Elune to try pestering her for help. That's the reason why Elune wrote most of the documentation for the bot rather than Sigma. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:16, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Unnecessary, like other people said. "But it's [email protected]#[email protected]" Yeah, and only like 2 people are going to use it? The number of people who have said they will not use it is greater than those who will. The supporters are supporting with the overly-used "it won't hurt anything" stance. I can understand that, but, why do we need to go through this if no one will use it?! sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:09, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - As Urbancowgurl777 stated. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 12:40, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure - Consensus is clear, and the discussion is slow. Hair 00:44, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Closed. The bot will not be implemented, per consensus above that there is not sufficient interest in it. ajr 00:53, April 8, 2012 (UTC)