Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 15


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

BU RoBOT 15
Operator:

Time filed: 07:06, Thursday, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Auto-assess articles for WP:BIOGRAPHY

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
 * Village_pump_(proposals) - Consensus for this task on an opt-in basis.
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography - I proposed the task, as I regularly work within the scope of this project. No opposition, and some support.

Edit period(s): As requested by project (initial one-time run, may recur if requested again in the future)

Estimated number of pages affected: Up to 140,887, but likely much less

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Auto-assesses the class within WikiProject Biography using class parameters in other WikiProject templates. Only auto-assesses to "standard" classes (stub, start, C, B, GA, FA, FL). Skips articles that have multiple "standard" classes. Will not auto-assess any other project templates. Similar task has been approved and successfully run in the past at Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 12.

Discussion
— xaosflux  Talk 14:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The trial edits are here. The only odd-looking edit was here, which was caused by a misspelled class already being present. I consider the addition of the appropriate class a positive, because it draws editor attention to the fact that a malformed class is present. I could remove malformed classes automatically and replace them with the correct one, but I'm hesitant to do that because there could be some reason for the incorrect class to be there. Better to draw human attention to it.
 * As a side note, I predict that between 1/3 and 1/5 of the unassessed pages for this project will be auto-assessed based on the number of skipped pages in the trial run. So estimated edits are in the range of 28,000–47,000. ~ RobTalk 16:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * Because of the large number of pages, I'd recommend waiting a while longer and/or demonstrating slightly stronger consensus than just you and someone else.
 * Please consider adding a template parameter that indicates that the article was automatically assessed, as is alluded to in WP:AUTOASSESS.
 * Instead of advertising the bot in the edit summary, consider providing info as to what it's actually done (e.g., ).  This provides a centralized area to route people having any number of issues, questions, or desire to start discussion among their project for the subtask.
 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In response:
 * Happy to wait longer. I had hoped for a stronger consensus here as well, but I haven't been successful at getting people to comment, and I'm trying to abide by WP:CANVASS. This WikiProject is large enough that notification of all members is not feasible or desirable.
 * Done. will be added.
 * One of the limitations of AWB is that it's not trivial to adjust the edit summary based on which class is assessed, unfortunately. I can adjust the edit summary to link to WP:AUTOASSESS for a description of what auto-assessment is, but "as start class" isn't doable. How about "Auto-assessment of article class. Editors are encouraged to manually assess articles. See User:BU_RoBOT/autoassess for more information."? The encouragement to manually assess articles was asked for at the village pump, by the way, which is why it's there. I've expanded the page in my bot's userspace to provide more information about how the task works.
 * ~ RobTalk 21:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * After waiting around two weeks and prodding the project one more time, there have still been no further responses. It doesn't appear anyone cares to comment further. This task could be approved based on the consensus at the Village Pump supporting these sorts of tasks when WikiProjects request them as well as the lack of any opposition. Alternatively, I could mass-notify members of the project (around 700). That number is large enough that I don't see this as desirable. As an aside, an RfC isn't appropriate because it brings in editors outside of the project, and the past discussion at the Village Pump stated the projects themselves should choose whether to auto-assess. ~ RobTalk 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * with some special throttles:
 * Due to the large scale and topic, the following throttles should be used, after each edit period there is to be a short feedback period - should any significant concerns be raised by other editor, the hold period should continue until resolved. Lack of feedback should be treated as no problem.
 * 2500 edits, 2 day hold
 * 5000 edits, 2 day hold
 * 10000 edits, 2 day hold
 * Open throttle - follow standard issue resolution process
 * — xaosflux  Talk 21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.