Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 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 Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Qwerfjkl (bot) 15
Operator:

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): Village pump (proposals)/Archive 188, 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

 * Pinging @ProcrastinatingReader. — Qwerfjkl  talk  05:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @Novem Linguae, I'm fairly sure pywikibot already does this. — Qwerfjkl  talk  18:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation 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)
 * 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)

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) Primefac (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * @S0091, what's the template used? — Qwerfjkl  talk  18:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * @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)
 * Or db-negublp. — Qwerfjkl  talk  20:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader. — Qwerfjkl  talk  18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @Primefac, 1 day trial then? — Qwerfjkl  talk  14:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Primefac, . 91 edits, but close enough. — Qwerfjkl  talk  20:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And you stopped short of 100 because....? Primefac (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * BAG assistance needed— Qwerfjkl  talk  16:49, 21 February 2023 (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 Bots/Noticeboard.