Meta:Requests for bot status/ArchiverBot

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

ArchiverBot

• ArchiverBot (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

I would like to request bot flag for ArchiverBot for automatic archiving of talk pages. I plan to start running it to take over MiszaBot (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)'s job. MiszaBot has stopped for about three weeks, and no replacement or fix seems to be made so far. The transition should be seamless, because both bots (as far as I know) use the same code base - Pywikibot framework and archivebot.py, except for a possible version difference. User:MiszaBot/config will stay - no configuration change on talk pages will be needed because of the transition. I'm a contributor to the script on Gerrit, and ready to fix it if there is any problem. I tried running it in the read-only mode, and it showed that more than 30 pages currently are left to be archived. whym (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable request if we are unable to get MiszaBot fixed, Whym's other bot seems to do an effective job and he's involved in maintenance of the script so is more than qualified to run this bot. Has anyone tried to contact Misza13 (or whoever the current bot operator of MiszaBot is)? Thehelpfulone 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to get fixed. See the header on en:User talk:Misza13 which states that "The actual MiszaBots are neither functioning nor expected to become functional." Also it appears that the bot has stopped at other wikis as well since 8 April. This has already been replaced by another bot at Commons; c:Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. --Glaisher [talk] 13:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case I'm happy to approve a test run of the transition, Whym please can you run ArchiverBot to do the tasks MiszaBot would have done in the last 3 weeks? Thehelpfulone 14:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thehelpfulone: All right, I am starting it, but the bot will need the flag even if temporarily, otherwise it will create many unnecessary watchlist updates and more visible notifications for user talk pages. whym (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, just to add, I plan to set an automatic trigger to run the bot once a day on an instance in Wikimedia Labs, maybe with minimal supervision to check the log once a week or so. I'll initially operate manually to make sure, though. whym (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure thanks, I've gone ahead and flagged the bot. Thehelpfulone 14:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thehelpfulone: Thanks for taking care of this. Is it possible for the bot to avoid Special:AbuseFilter/36, maybe with a modification to pass bot edits? An edit has just been rejected by this filter (and I have suspended the run). --whym (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I have an idea what to do but I'm not sure it'd work - I was just thinking of appending (user_name != "ArchiverBot") & to the first line of the filter, @Billinghurst: would that work? Thehelpfulone 15:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/history/36/diff/prev/704 --Glaisher [talk] 15:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Glaisher: Thanks, but the first "|" should be "&", I guess. (Special:AbuseLog/35641) whym (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: Sorry, should be fine now: Special:AbuseFilter/history/36/diff/prev/705. If others agree, we could implement the suggestion below by sDrewth. --Glaisher [talk] 16:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it still blocks. Using "irlike" instead of "rlike" will do. whym (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: Could you try again? I missed a !. Sorry for the mess. --Glaisher [talk] 04:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We could !(user_groups rlike "bot") if we want all bots to be ignored @Thehelpfulone:  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps it'd be best to leave it so that we can review if other bots also need an exception? The abuse filter log seems to suggest very few bots were hit by the filter in the past, so if there is an issue with a particular bot, someone could bring it up. Thehelpfulone 20:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

After the AbuseFilter issue is resolved (well, for the particular bot with temporary exemption added by Glaisher above), the bot is on the test run now. whym (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday's test run was finished without problem as far as I can see. Should I continue running it daily? --whym (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick skim over the edits and everything looks good to me, please keep running it (and perhaps watch over it for the next couple of days). Thehelpfulone 02:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I'll continue supervised operation of the bot for a few days (I try to do it daily, but don't blame me if I forget one or twice :) ) before I switch to unsupervised operation. whym (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thehelpfulone: or other 'crats. Can this one be put to bed now?  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Bot flag granted - Tiptoety ^talk 17:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)