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.

SDZeroBot 5[edit]

Operator: SD0001 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 11:07, Friday, August 28, 2020 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Node.js

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Populate Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace using User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications/monthly

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:BD2412#Content_moved_to_draftspace

Edit period(s): One time run (can be made continuous if needed)

Estimated number of pages affected: 1000-3000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Uses the historical data of pages moved from mainspace to draftspace (from page history of User:JJMC89_bot/report/Draftifications/monthly to populate the monthly subcategories of Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace. This helps editors to keep track of when the pages will become G13-eligible, and helps organize reviewing. The template ((Drafts moved from mainspace)) is used to populate the category.

Many pages have already been categorize by BD2412 but with the placeholder "August 2020" date. In such cases, the bot will correct the date parameter.

If needed, this task can be extended to categorize future draftications as well.

Discussion[edit]

cc BD2412, JJMC89. SD0001 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, have you received any thoughts or input from WP:NPR and/or WP:AFC about this task? Primefac (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The template and category setup already exists (recently created by BD2412 / JJMC89) and I don't really see this task as being much relevant to either NPR or AFC. There is a small set of people who review bad draftications, G13 nominations etc but there isn't any organized project. – SD0001 (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001 Isn't this now overlapping with task 21 submitted for approval above? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That one is for future draftifications whereas this one is for past draftifications. – SD0001 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I made a similar comment at JJMC89 bot 21's task request, but who is going to be removing these templates if/when the page is moved to the article space? Should we wait for AFCH to automatically remove it from accepted drafts, thereby minimizing the amount of other edits needed by JJMC89's bot? Primefac (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) |16:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. See edits Edits which added a tag are the ones with +53 bytecount change and the ones that fixed an existing tag are the ones with -2 bytecount change. – SD0001 (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 19 October 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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

Blocked

the destruction caused this bot task. can apparently not be undone; I will unblock when I am assured that future operations will be as they should be.
((Primefac)),[1] when you approved the task, you apparently were relying upon SD0001 statement that they "don't really see this task as being much relevant to either NPR or AFC." When he said "There is a small set of people who review bad draftications, G13 nominations etc but there isn't any organized project", that's not a reason for not notifying the people who do use it, such as me or Liz and making sure we understood. The jump from a test of 50 to a production run of 3000 can be too large a jump to see problems . AFCH is problematic enough when it works as it is supposed to. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC) �[reply]
Assuming you meant to ping @Primefac:. Sidenote, do you have diffs of the faulty edits? Or a link to contribs with a list of them? I don't see them in recent contribs, assuming it will make it easier for people to review. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Followup, with the caveat I know minimal about AfC, if the issue is that a bot made an edit, thus it's not going to go into the category, it feels like a category issue for not checking for human (excl bot) editors? At the same time, this bot only works on past draftifications (JJMC89 bot is for future), and this bot's one-time run is already done, whatever harm it may or may not have done, so keeping it blocked doesn't seem to be resolving anything. It may be appropriate to unblock it to allow its regular tasks to keep running. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Followup #2: Is the only check we have to populate Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions based off the REVISIONTIMESTAMP code in Template:AFC submission/draft? If that's the issue here, then yes, can't be fixed in this way, and also seems like a weak way to do G13 given it won't work on draftspace articles without the template. Is there not a bot that goes around tagging upcoming-G13-deletions? If so, that bot should be able to filter out bot edits, and so this bot task shouldn't affect it. If not, a bot could always be coded up to do just that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I'll give you the opportunity to unblock the bot before I do so myself, but as has been mentioned in multiple places now, the bot run is long over, damage done; the bot has other (more important and less "disruptive") tasks that it needs to be doing. It's something to keep in mind for future draft-space edits, that's for sure, but that's about all to be done here. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, and I unblocked. I would have done so a few hours earlier, but I needed to have dinner. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG and Liz: Here you go. Not a perfect list, and needs to exclude all the "Missing encyclopaedic articles" entries, but filters out likely bot / totally routine maintenance edits. Some on the list don't qualify, but at a flick the majority do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this, but it is not really a satisfactory replacement in the logner run. For every item, I need to paste the title into a WP search box. With what we had before, I could hover over the titles, which is at least twice as fast, and, as about 9/10 of them aren't worth working on further once they been looked at by hovering, this now give me 20 times the work. . It's difficult enough to keep up , using what we had 2 weeks ago, as there are just 2 or 3 people responsible for checking the hundreds of articles a day. It's impossible with this if this is the way it will continue.

I hope this is intended just as a temporary fix for this months problem, and everything in the future will still return to the old way of listing. for everything reaching 5 months from today onwards. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Originally listed as ((Primefac)), commenting out to avoid call to nonexistent template. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Category