The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Approved, not flagged

EssjayBot_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EssjayBot's little brother, EssjayBot II, would like approval to archive pages in the same fashion as Crypticbot did. This is not the Crypticbot code, but a pywikipedia version worked up by Misza13. It archives based on the last timestamp in a section, working in whole-number days; sections without timestamps will be untouched.

Since WerdnaBot is handling most of Crypticbot's old haunts, my intention is to set it up to do various other pages that are not regularly archived: Wikipedia:CHU, Wikipedia:BN, and the talk pages of each. My intent is to have anything older than 2 days archived off CHU, anything older than 7 days archived off BN, and anything older than 10 days archived off the talk pages. Anyone interested in using EssjayBot II for archiving should drop me a talk page message.

I've done a quick test in my sandbox and everything seems in order. Due to the nature of the bot (archiving pages) and the limited number of times it should be editing, I don't think a flag is needed or desirable. Approval requested for the pages mentioned and others as needed. Essjay (Talk) 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine just fine, fine just fine, fine. Recomend no flag. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for one week trial (or however long it will take to provide the diffs), post results when complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Will this bot be creating new archive pages, or just moving discussions? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It creates archive pages where necessary; the archive number is hard coded for now, so when it needs to move to a new archive, I just go in and increase it by one, and if the page doesn't exist, it will create it. (This makes it unsuitable for large pages like AN/ANI right now, but I hope to have an autoincrementer available before too long.) It's already done archiving of BN, & the talk pages of BN & CHU, as demonstrated in it's contribs. I've also offered the functionality to the Arbitration Committee for their talk page, and perhaps the Requests for Clarification section of RFAR. Due to the low volume of comments on BN and the talk pages of either page, CHU will probably be the only page it archives in the next few days. Essjay (Talk) 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like Werdnabot, please point out the differences, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology, I checked the user page and understand now, so I agree with the new bot —Minun ^Spiderman 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, I notice that Werdna648 (talk · contribs), who runs Werdnabot (talk · contribs), has not edited since July 20th (a week) and indicates he may not be back for several months. Given that Crypticbot, which did what WerdnaBot is doing now, was quickly blocked when Cryptic left, it looks like I may need to have EssjayBot II do some of the pages Crypticbot/WerdnaBot was doing, in particular, AN & ANI (I don't want to get into user talk page archiving as WerdnaBot did). I'm going to ask Misza13 to look into an auto-incrementing archive option (right now you have to hand-insert the archive number into the code) in case EssjayBot II is needed for AN/ANI. I would normally say that this would be included in the original authorization I requested ("the pages mentioned and others as needed") but I thought it best to bring it up anyway. Essjay (Talk) 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having several archive algorythm holding bots exist is fine by me (even VoABot has some build into the RfPP archive, though it is a bit more complex). I'd rather they be maintaned by active editors like Essjay.Voice-of-All 07:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten a request to put the bot on ANI, as Werdnabot is having difficult with sections that have === subsections. My intent is to have the bot archive anything older than 24 hours once a day at midnight; I would go with longer, but the page is hovering near 300KB with anything over 48 hours old being archived 4 times a day. I'm also going to put in a manual archive trigger, though I don't plan to publicize it highly since manual archiving shouldn't be needed. I've run a test in my sandbox and everything worked fine; can I get an approval to go ahead an put the bot on ANI on this schedule? Essjay (Talk) 06:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead with a 1 week trial. --pgk^(talk) 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been working fine elsewhere, so no need for more trials. --pgk^(talk) 09:53, 30 July 2006 (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.