Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 20


 * 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 20
Operator:

Time filed: 16:04, Friday, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Auto-assesses class of articles as requested by WikiProjects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
 * Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131
 * Specific project discussions are linked at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess

Edit period(s): As requested by projects

Estimated number of pages affected: For most projects, a couple thousand at most, but it depends entirely on the project.

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 and Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 15. I will only run this task at the request of WikiProject members after they obtain consensus (or a lack of opposition after several days, since many projects aren't all that active). I originally planned to submit individual BRFAs for each project, but I've received four requests in a very short period of time, so doing so would flood the approval system.

Discussion

 * I wouldn't say this needs another request for approval as it is basically the same as BU RoBOT tasks 12 and 15, only with a different WikiProject (am I right)? Therefore, if those tasks worked correctly, I don't really think a separate BRFA is required each time. So, I recommend a speedy approval.  Rcsprinter123    (drone)  16:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is essentially the same task, yes. ~ RobTalk 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a general task for this does seem OK - provided it is endorsed by the wikiprojects and perhaps with a maximum limit? Maybe tagging runs up to 5000 pages?  Any guidelines others would like to impose? —  xaosflux  Talk 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm completely ok with that. On a typical project, only around 1/3 of the unassessed pages are assessed by this task. For large projects, this is usually lower (WP:WikiProject Biography wound up being closer to 1/5). Very few projects have more than 15,000 unassessed pages, so a 5,000 edit limit per WikiProject is sensible and would either greatly reduce or possibly even eliminate the necessary BRFAs. If you want to formalize the guidelines I'm using myself, here they are:
 * Before any assessing can occur, the relevant WikiProject must have a discussion on their talk page for at least five days.
 * There must either be consensus for assessing at that discussion or no opposition over the five day period. (I'm a frequent closer of RfCs, TfDs, and CfDs, so I'm comfortable with double-checking consensus for this.)
 * I will auto-assess only according to the rules at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess unless specifically requested by a WikiProject. If their request is simply adding or removing a class to auto-assess to, I think that's fine to do under this approval (i.e. don't assess to B-class, if the project in question has their own criteria they want to use), but I wouldn't add anything more complicated without seeking additional approval (i.e. only inherit classes from a specific set of WikiProjects or something like that).
 * A WikiProject member must add the project to User:BU RoBOT/autoassess for me to start assessing. Clear consensus at the project without a specific action from a project member to opt-in isn't good enough. In other words, the project must determine amongst itself that they have consensus (although I'll double-check that before starting). I will be verifying that the person who lists a project didn't recently become a member, and if they did, I will verify they've worked in that topic area for a while.
 * ~ RobTalk 17:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ~ RobTalk 22:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK to trial using your new sign up process-edit limit is per project. — xaosflux  Talk 01:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, so if I understand correctly, the trial is 30 days with a potentially unlimited number of edits, but capped at 5,000 per project. Is that correct? Should I mark this as trial complete at some point before the 30 days if there's a sufficiently large number of edits to judge the trial? ~ RobTalk 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are getting a fairly wide lead on this - the long time line is mostly to work out any kinks in your enrollment system. — xaosflux  Talk 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the clarification. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the wide trial. No-one wants to get a message from another editor saying "what the hell" after 10k+ edits! ~ RobTalk 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I received no talk page messages related to this during the trial, nor was I pinged about it. Nothing controversial happened regarding the opt-in process or the edits themselves. It's not really feasible to link to the contributions because they're scattered among other tasks during the one month time period. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Task approved. — xaosflux  Talk 19:13, 28 July 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.