304:
as they could easily well be comments by different people - especially in
Mboverload's case, the extra indentation appears as if somebody else added the comment in response to the original one. As for someone like TBC who writes a lot on one RfA, it's unlikely that they will accidentally vote again on the same one. (Yes yes, these are poor excuses ;)) An "unsure but possibility of duplicate vote" flag might be in order.
303:
Thanks for all your comments. Srikeit, thank you for your continued interest in RfA Analysis :) I've fixed
Admrboltz's signature handling issue. I'm well aware of the other two errors - they're caused by the user inserting a newline before their signature. I am not sure whether to deal with this
82:
I had the same thought, but unfortunately I'm using PHP. I'm wondering whether it's possible for my bot to fill in the extra columns (Possible duplicate voters and
Details) after your bot's done its work. In any case, the code for my RfA Analysis library (which the toolserver tool and the bot share)
156:
I must say you have done a wonderful job creating this tool. There must be a bunch of relieved bureaucrats sitting now that they don't need to go over every RFA with a magnifying glass. Anyway there are still a few places the tools goes haywire, although I don't think there can be much you can do
198:
Anyway I hope you don't mind me nitpicking here, but I feel you have made a fine tool here & I really want to help you make it better. The bot is an excellent development. I've already added a link of that to my page. Although does the orignal tool also have a replication lag? Because I wall
510:
It sometimes helps to manually archive (if a topic is completely inactive, but someone might add something 5 days later that doesn't really contribute anything) or refactor (if several threads are talking about the same thing - move them to subheadings of a super-thread).
489:
Most of the handful of commenters said the bot would be fine, but a couple thought the archiving should be done manually; then a month passed and no one did any. I don't feel strongly either way but certainly bot archiving is better than no archiving.
538:
Just to make clear, I support the idea of having either one of those bots archiving this page. Does anyone have any objections to contacting Essjay again and asking him to set one of his
Essjaybots to archive this page with a 7-day threshold? Thanks!
55:, or watchlisting by users interested in weeding out duplicate votes. I also hope it will be useful for bureaucrats. The bot isn't automatically triggered at the moment - may I have some feedback before embarking on that? Cheers,
115:
But if you do that, the bot that runs at the bottom of each hour and that at the top of the following hour will be way too close together (except for the top of the very first hour). I don't suppose we need so many updates..
413:
Reports are now being updated every 28 minutes past the hour. (Because
Dragons flight's summary seems to be updated at 58 past). I'll also be working on some of the remaining kinks with the signature detection. Cheers,
123:
New RfAs (in their first day of listing) pick up votes very quickly, and one never knows just when one wants to check the current status of RfAs. So why not have frequent updates? It's not a big strain on the servers.
224:
So, this has all been a plot to fool us into thinking we don't need bureaucrats anymore. Aha! It won't work, a bot can never take over the job of a bureaucrat. This evil plot will never succeed ;-).
309:
As for the lag
Srikeit cites, there is no replication lag with the toolserver tool. (it doesn't use the toolserver database) I'm not sure what caused the issue - if it happens again, please let me know.
51:. It doesn't make any edits elsewhere, and all the nominations are downloaded in a single export operation, so server load shouldn't be too high. I have two uses for the report in mind: transclusion in
497:
Threads can always be resurrected if the bot screws up; I say use it on a long-ish timespan (5-7 days without a comment in that thread), and we can archive more severely if needed. --
102:
If you don't merge, then run your bots at different times (one at the top of the hour, one at the bottom of the hour, for example) so we can always get up to date info :-).
314:
NoSeptember: A historical version of all RfAs sounds interesting. But, as you say, I'll need to fix up the signature handling before doing that. P.S. I've moved the source to
613:
7 or even 10 days feels right to me, and auto archiving is fine by me. Now if someone could write a bot that indexed the archives so we could find things again... :) ++
469:
457:
No reason not to have one of them do the archiving. What should the time-before-archiving be? I suggest 7 days as this isn't as busy a page as, say, the noticeboards.
439:
40:
32:
43:) in a bot. Basically, it uses the same functions as the tool to analyze all current RfAs at specific intervals (once every 3 hours or so), and posts the results at
446:
Can we get
Werdnabot or Essjaybot to archive this page? I've just cleared all the stuff from 2006, which has significantly reduced the size of this page. –
337:
247:
71:
Depending on your code base, it might make sense to merge our two products and do everything at once? I am presently doing everything in Python.
200:
189:'s vote (124th Support) gives the dreaded "Sig not found" as he didn't sign his initial comment but indented another comment & then signed it.
390:
44:
172:
341:
251:
182:
162:
242:
Once you get the format perfect and all the bugs out, why not create a historical page of all past RfAs? You can get a list from
48:
288:
622:
21:
179:'s sig (12th Support) just doesn't register. I guess this is because of his sig having some formatting problems.
418:
401:
372:
321:
91:
59:
576:
Given this talk page is pretty slow in comparison with some others, 7 days (or even longer) is appropriate.
348:
212:
262:
233:
132:
110:
52:
503:
545:
478:
423:
406:
377:
326:
267:
Who do you guys think would win in a fight? Tango's bot or
Dragons' bot? I say Superman! Wait...
203:& as of now (17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)) it says that I'm the only neutral voter, whereas actually
96:
64:
393:
will now use shades of colours to represent the various percentages. A list of colours is available
291:
72:
435:
169:'s (3rd) oppose vote gets a "Sig not found" as he has written out a list of reasons to oppose.
368:
Source retrieval function changed to use
Special:Export. The lag should be fixed. (I hope) —
499:
491:
458:
450:
255:
226:
125:
103:
586:
540:
512:
473:
415:
398:
369:
318:
186:
88:
56:
176:
315:
618:
431:
394:
84:
353:
345:
275:
217:
209:
17:
447:
340:. The tool has not yet registered my vote as of now (05:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC))
577:
279:
268:
204:
148:
117:
614:
166:
468:
Seven days sounds fine, but note that this topic was brought up
287:
317:- live versions of the source will appear there now --
243:
278:
They have a fight, Triangle wins
Triangle man." --
274:"Triangle Man, Triangle Man Triangle Man hates
343:. Check it out quick you may catch it! ;)
207:has also voted neutral. Anyway thanks again.
8:
285:Tango? Rhymes with mango. Sounds yummy.
39:I've wrapped up my RfA Analysis tool (see
438:related) - can we get a bot set up? (
7:
45:User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report
28:
286:
49:User:Dragons flight/RFA summary
31:Duplicate voter reporting bot (
246:, and we can link the page to
1:
625:16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
507:05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
494:04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
486:04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
453:02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
592:16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
553:02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
515:01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
461:02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
147:Make it live. I like it! --
648:
47:, in a similar fashion to
426:15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
271:20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
264:18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
221:17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
120:17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
112:16:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
99:16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
67:15:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
409:15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
380:06:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
357:05:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
329:05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
294:22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
282:20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
235:18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
151:17:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
134:17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
75:15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
165:in Zappa.jake's RFA
53:Knowledge:RFA summary
185:in Bookofjude's RFA
175:in Compuerjoe's RFA
336:I've just voted in
338:Brendenhull2's RFA
591:
552:
485:
639:
589:
585:
580:
549:
543:
482:
476:
421:
404:
375:
351:
324:
290:
260:
231:
215:
130:
108:
94:
62:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
638:
637:
636:
587:
578:
547:
480:
444:
419:
402:
373:
349:
322:
256:
227:
213:
187:User:Mboverload
126:
104:
92:
60:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
645:
643:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
463:
462:
443:
428:
411:
410:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
361:
360:
359:
358:
331:
330:
311:
310:
306:
305:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
292:Dragons flight
283:
239:
238:
237:
236:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
180:
177:User:Admrboltz
170:
153:
152:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
77:
76:
73:Dragons flight
36:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
644:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
590:
584:
581:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
550:
542:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
514:
509:
508:
506:
505:
501:
496:
495:
493:
488:
487:
483:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
452:
449:
441:
437:
434:related (but
433:
429:
427:
425:
422:
417:
408:
405:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
379:
376:
371:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
356:
355:
352:
347:
342:
339:
335:
334:
333:
332:
328:
325:
320:
316:
313:
312:
308:
307:
302:
301:
293:
289:
284:
281:
277:
273:
272:
270:
266:
265:
263:
261:
259:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
234:
232:
230:
223:
222:
220:
219:
216:
211:
206:
202:
197:
196:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
154:
150:
146:
145:
133:
131:
129:
122:
121:
119:
114:
113:
111:
109:
107:
101:
100:
98:
95:
90:
86:
83:is available
81:
80:
79:
78:
74:
70:
69:
68:
66:
63:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
34:
30:
23:
19:
582:
498:
445:
412:
344:
276:Particle Man
257:
228:
208:
201:Axiomm's RFA
127:
105:
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
492:Newyorkbrad
459:Newyorkbrad
258:NoSeptember
229:NoSeptember
128:NoSeptember
106:NoSeptember
41:the archive
541:Flcelloguy
513:Carcharoth
474:Flcelloguy
472:. Thanks!
440:Archive 77
205:User:Gurch
199:analysing
157:about it.
87:. Cheers,
33:Archive 58
470:recently
167:User:TBC
20: |
391:reports
436:WT:RFA
432:WP:RFA
416:Tangot
399:Tangot
370:Tangot
319:Tangot
89:Tangot
57:Tangot
579:Proto
548:note?
481:note?
280:Durin
269:Redux
149:Durin
118:Redux
16:<
504:blis
451:acor
430:Non-
397:. -
395:here
389:New
346:Srik
252:this
250:and
248:this
244:here
210:Srik
183:Here
173:Here
163:Here
85:here
615:Lar
500:nae
424:ngo
407:ngo
378:ngo
327:ngo
97:ngo
65:ngo
617::
583:::
546:A
479:A
448:Ch
354:it
254:.
218:it
623:c
621:/
619:t
588:►
551:)
544:(
502:'
484:)
477:(
442:)
420:a
403:a
374:a
350:e
323:a
214:e
93:a
61:a
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.