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

Approved.

Qwerfjkl (bot) 15[edit]

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

Time filed: 05:15, Friday, December 30, 2022 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Based off User:AssumptionBot/code + code to check if the creator is autoconfirmed

Function overview: Add AFC unsubmitted templates to drafts.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 188#Bot proposal (AFC submission templates), Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AssumptionBot

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: ~100 a.day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Adds AFC unsubmitted templates ( ((afc submission/draft)) ) to drafts in draftspace that don't have the relevant templates already i.e. another AFC template.

Discussion[edit]

Pinging @ProcrastinatingReader. — Qwerfjkl talk 05:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader, this will probably affect far more than 100 the first time it is run (probably more than 10,000 pages, at least 9000). This trial might need to be edit-based. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the logic is quite simple, I was aiming to have it running for a little while, while the bot is in trial, in case anything crops up and people from watchlists/reviewers have anything to add. Can you make sure the edit summary has a link to this BRFA?

Regarding edit-based, feel free to do 50 edits first and let me know once those are done, but I'd still keep it in a 14-day trial assuming the first 50 look good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader, I've started running this. (Special:Contributions/Qwerfjkl (bot)). To prevent a large number of edits, it will only edit one page per minute at most. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I'll probably just ignore drafts created a long time ago, i.e. a month or longer. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support this BRFA. From a side effects standpoint, I wonder if... 1) Are these 9,000 untagged drafts normally subject to G13? That is, will adding this template cause a bunch of drafts to enter the G13 queue? 2) If these drafts ARE normally subject to G13 even without the template, adding this template will likely reset the G13 timer for 9,000 drafts. Not a show stopper, but figured I'd mention these possible "side effects" in case we need to consider them or discuss them. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything in the draft space is (in theory) subject to G13. Since it is a bot adding the AFC templates, it will not reset the G13 timer (as bot edits are explicitly excluded pretty much because of this exact circumstance). Primefac (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it doesn't already, might be good to make sure the bot respects the ((Nobots)) tag with and without parameters, so that experienced users have a way to create exceptions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Novem Linguae, I'm fairly sure pywikibot already does this. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Tagging drafts with Template:afc submission/draft where the bot edit wars with a new user six times, so might want to give some thought to the bot's re-application strategy and how aggressive or not aggressive we want it to be. Maybe it's good that the bot re-applies the tag? Maybe it's not? I'm not sure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually going to transclude the section below to save some clicks, though obviously folks are welcome to comment there if necessary. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LST from WT:WikiProject Articles for creation § Tagging drafts with Template:afc submission/draft
I've started the trial of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 15, for tagging untagged drafts with ((afc submission/draft)). You can see the edits at Special:Contributions/Qwerfjkl (bot). — Qwerfjkl talk 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] This is great, I'm glad someone will be adding the tag to pages missing it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Qwerfjkl one change I would make is not to add to completely blank pages such as with this. That just seems odd to me :/ KylieTastic (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] I agree, but will note that the redlink was blanked by the creator (no other edits other than Kylie's decline) so I G7'd it. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] @KylieTastic, I've updated the code accordingly. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] One thing to consider is not re-adding the template when it is removed. For example, at Draft:List of LaRusso cast, the bot added the template six times after being reverted. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Is there ever a good reason not to have the submission template in the draft space? The only situation I can think of is experienced users who are using draft space to work on something but plan on moving it when ready instead of submitting via AfC. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] It could just be someone preference, but often it indicates to me an editor who may need to be watched or is trying to use draft-space as a webhost. They are removing declines as well on this and others and generally not looking constructive. KylieTastic (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Ingenuity, I'm fairly sure if you add `((bots\|deny=Qwerfjkl (bot)))` the bot won't edit; I'm unwilling to check the history if the editor is just being disruptive. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] I believe the point is that the bot is doing it in the first place. Sure, that will fix this draft, but what about the next one? And the next? Primefac (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Primefac, I can't think of a valid reason that a non-autoconfirmed editor would have to get rid of this template. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] If you want what will actually happen, the bot will keep on adding the template until the editor gives up. It doesn't seem that problematic. If this is a major problem, however, I can change the code so it doesn't reëdit pages. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] I understand the point of why this bot exists: people create drafts and don't realise they have to submit them in order for them to be moved out of draft space, so they linger and then the creator wonders why their draft got deleted six months later. However, if someone is removing the /draft template, then (much like user talk warnings) we should probably assume that they know about this aspect, and therefore should not edit war with them and force the /draft template to be on the page. In other words, there is no requirement for the /draft tag to be on there, so a user doesn't need a "valid reason" to remove it. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Primefac, fair enough. The bot should no longer add the template more than once (counting only drafts tagged since now). — Qwerfjkl talk 15:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] See, for example, Draft:Império Alviverde (history). — Qwerfjkl talk 10:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LST from WT:WikiProject Articles for creation § Tagging drafts with Template:afc submission/draft

I've started the trial of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 15, for tagging untagged drafts with ((afc submission/draft)). You can see the edits at Special:Contributions/Qwerfjkl (bot). — Qwerfjkl talk 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is great, I'm glad someone will be adding the tag to pages missing it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qwerfjkl one change I would make is not to add to completely blank pages such as with this. That just seems odd to me :/ KylieTastic (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, but will note that the redlink was blanked by the creator (no other edits other than Kylie's decline) so I G7'd it. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KylieTastic, I've updated the code accordingly. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One thing to consider is not re-adding the template when it is removed. For example, at Draft:List of LaRusso cast, the bot added the template six times after being reverted. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there ever a good reason not to have the submission template in the draft space? The only situation I can think of is experienced users who are using draft space to work on something but plan on moving it when ready instead of submitting via AfC. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could just be someone preference, but often it indicates to me an editor who may need to be watched or is trying to use draft-space as a webhost. They are removing declines as well on this and others and generally not looking constructive. KylieTastic (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ingenuity, I'm fairly sure if you add ((bots|deny=Qwerfjkl (bot))) the bot won't edit; I'm unwilling to check the history if the editor is just being disruptive. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the point is that the bot is doing it in the first place. Sure, that will fix this draft, but what about the next one? And the next? Primefac (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Primefac, I can't think of a valid reason that a non-autoconfirmed editor would have to get rid of this template. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want what will actually happen, the bot will keep on adding the template until the editor gives up. It doesn't seem that problematic.
If this is a major problem, however, I can change the code so it doesn't reëdit pages. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the point of why this bot exists: people create drafts and don't realise they have to submit them in order for them to be moved out of draft space, so they linger and then the creator wonders why their draft got deleted six months later. However, if someone is removing the /draft template, then (much like user talk warnings) we should probably assume that they know about this aspect, and therefore should not edit war with them and force the /draft template to be on the page. In other words, there is no requirement for the /draft tag to be on there, so a user doesn't need a "valid reason" to remove it. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Primefac, fair enough. The bot should no longer add the template more than once (counting only drafts tagged since now). — Qwerfjkl talk 15:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See, for example, Draft:Império Alviverde (history). — Qwerfjkl talk 10:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafts that are nominated for CSD For those with admin goggles, see Draft:Greg Romaguera which was deleted as an BLP attack page. Within seconds of the nomination, the bot added the draft template but I am not sure it is a good idea to encourage re-submission of drafts that are actively nominated for deletion. Can the bot be coded somehow to skip actively nominated drafts then do a "catch-up" at some point later in case the nomination is declined? S0091 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@S0091, I suppose I could, but I don't see the problem. Either it's deleted, so the page content doesn't matter, or it's not, and submitting it is fine. — Qwerfjkl talk 07:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the issue in this particular scenario may because the draft is blanked automatically for G10s so the bot comes along adds the draft template. It seems odd to encourage re-submission of a potential attack page. However, G10s are usually handled quickly so probably rare that would occur so agree this is likely a non-issue. S0091 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@S0091, what's the template used? — Qwerfjkl talk 18:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qwerfjkl, ((db-g10)) and its' many redirects ask the user to blank the page the template is applied to, which some tools (I don't know which ones off the top of my head) do automatically. casualdejekyll 20:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Casualdejekyll, @S0091, it won't add the draft template if ((db-attack)) is applied, which is what Twinkle adds. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or ((db-negublp)). — Qwerfjkl talk 20:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trial complete. @ProcrastinatingReader. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ((BAG assistance needed)) I think I've got Toolforge working. If this is approved, I'll do one sweep of the whole NPP feed to clear any missed drafts, then leave it to run every 5 minutes. — Qwerfjkl talk 11:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. There have been a few changes made since the trial started, I'd like to make sure nothing else is problematic as a result. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - @Primefac, 1 day trial then? — Qwerfjkl talk 14:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - @Primefac, Trial complete.. 91 edits, but close enough. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - And you stopped short of 100 because....? Primefac (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Primefac, I need my computer to stop the Toolforge task, which would mean it would have to wait until tomorrow, so I figured 91 was better than ~150. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        ((BAG assistance needed))— Qwerfjkl talk 16:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approved. Primefac (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.