Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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  Approved.

Bot0612 11

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

Time filed: 18:14, Friday, June 8, 2018 (

UTC
)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://github.com/rwjuk/g13bot_tools_new

Function overview: This task is split out from BRFA 10 (below) and will cover purely the notifying of users when drafts approach G13 eligibility that HasteurBot used to do.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Bot0612_10

Edit period(s): Every 4 hours

Estimated number of pages affected: ~100 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This task is split out from BRFA 10 (below) and will cover purely the notifying of users when drafts approach G13 eligibility that HasteurBot used to do.

Given my decision based on the discussion at BRFA 10 to postpone the main nominating task until the policy around G13 has crystallised Primefac wisely advised me to try to get the (hopefully) less controversial task of letting users know that their drafts are approaching the six month cut-off working again.

The notifications are more important than the tagging, as they may encourage people to either work on their draft or make a dummy edit to save it from G13. I apologise for having two tasks open at once!

Discussion

  • Specifically, this is the owners of drafts located in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed - is there a reason the bot shouldn't notify the creators of all drafts however? They are all, after all, G13 eligible eventually. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only because it isn't relevant until you hit that 5-6mo range. That, and the notice itself says "it's been more than 5 months". Primefac (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant notifying the creators of any Draft: space page once 5 months of inactivity has elapsed, not just those that have been submitted to AfC. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, sure, I suppose since all drafts are now G13-eligible, there's no issue with notifying non-AFC-draft creators. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Will do (with a database query, which actually makes the whole job that little bit easier). ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few questions below:
    How large will the "initial" notification run be?
    Can you point to the specific message that will be sent to the users? (Is it/can it be an on-wiki page?)
    Will you be sending notifications to users with indefinite blocks?
Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 13:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: answers to each point below :)
  1. This query (which is the one I'll be using) puts the least upper bound as of this moment at 421. That will increase as the days pass, obviously.
  2. Indeed it is, it's
    here
    . Feel free to edit as you see fit.
  3. No, the bot will check for this and skip such users. There is no point cluttering up the talk pages of indef'd users with notices they'll never be able to act on. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note re #3 from a random passer-by. I agree with the reasoning in principle, but I believe it might be more complicated in practice: 1) indef blocks can (and sometimes do) get successfully appealed; 2) even if it's presumed the blocked user will never be able to take any action, this is not the case for people who watch their talk page (and the talk pages of blocked established editors have watchers who often try to tie up loose ends of that editor's work); 3) Hasteurbot (who used to be in charge of this task until a week ago) didn't appear to mind the block status of a user before posting. – Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: Thanks for your comment :) I understand where you're coming from, but given that the draft process is mainly(?)[citation needed] used by less experienced editors, it's less likely that they'll have talk page watchers who can clear up their work. Is it worth notifying all indef-blocked users for the one or two occasions where this could happen? (genuine question - I have no idea!). You're right that Hasteurbot didn't do this check, and I'm entirely happy to continue not doing so if the community wishes. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many new users do have more experienced talk page watchers, especially if they've been welcomed or warned by an editor using Twinkle with the "Add user talk page to watchlist when notifying" option selected. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux Talk 00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do this tomorrow. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 00:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. - this error was caused by me stupidly forgetting to escape { } in my Python string formatting. I fixed that one manually. The other edits (only 19 of them owing to an off-by-one error in the limiter) went off as planned. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly: in looking at the notifications I'm seeing two items for follow up. (1)For the most part the pages are being deleted within hours of your notices being put out - if the point of this to give the editors time to do something to avoid this deletion, the timing may be off. (2) This seems to be a duplication of another manual process, for example on many of these pages there is an almost identical notice left by other editors, such as @Shadowowl:. — xaosflux Talk 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: - the reason for the short time between notification and deletion is that many of the pages are over the six-month threshold and therefore immediately eligible for CSD G13. Unfortunately there's no way around this really, we can't stop editors nominating eligible pages. As the backlog clears this will stop being an issue very quickly. The notices that you saw on the pages, as posted by Shadowowl, are the automatic Twinkle messages posted when a page is actually nominated under G13. As I said, once the backlog is cleared the 'nudge' messages will arrive a month beforehand. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly: are you able to check if they have already been notified about the same file? — xaosflux Talk 00:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I don't see why not! Coding... ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 08:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not exclude blocked editors from notification. I agree with the reasons given above, and i feel strongly enough about this that if they are excluded, i would at least consider a companion bot just to notify such editors. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, given there seems to be more support for notifying rather than excluding, I'll include them. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Code updated to skip pages where the user has already been notified of G13 tagging. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux Talk 23:27, 25 June 2018 (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
WT:BRFA
.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Bot0612_11&oldid=847521733"