Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 10

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

TheSandBot 10

Operator: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 05:08, Wednesday, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python, pywikibot

Source code available: [1] [2]

Function overview: Remove blocked (and locked) users from Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 6

Edit period(s): as needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Functionally identical to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 6, just acting on a different category.

Discussion

I am reasonably confident that per TSB 6 and 7, this qualifies for speedy approval/meets the requirements. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why a blocked user warrants removal from a COI category.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: Per the source code of Template:Uw-coi-username (for future proofing, as of Special:Diff/923967359) "THE FOLLOWING TWO CATEGORIES (down to ***) SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THE NAME DOES NOT APPEAR TO VIOLATE POLICY, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION.". After that, it then lists the COI category I am proposing as one of the two. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. alright, let's do a quick test.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: I forgot to mention that I modified the description a few minutes ago to include locked users. Their exclusion was an oversight on my part last night. Still good to proceed with the trial? (Just want to clarify as I forgot to mention and the change is subtle). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, I've raised the trial to 50 edits. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. @Cyberpower678: Accidentally made 51 edits, my apologies. contribs. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, You violated the terms of the trial. BOT DENIED. ;p —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also linked the wrong diff section. :P [3] is the correct one. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Approved.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to include notified talk pages where the last edit on the page is at least 1-2 years old (approval by Cyberpower678) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.