Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 12

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.

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

Time filed: 12:37, Monday, October 23, 2023 (

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): TypeScript on Node.js

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Purges drafts so that Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions appears populated

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_45#Bot_running_required_to_take_over_from_User:Joe's_Null_Bot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NovemBot_5

Edit period(s): Hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: 874 on first run, variable after that

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Simple bot that precisely figures out the pages needing a purge (see quarry:query/77493) and only purges them.

It's not clear if the existing AfC purge bot operated by User:ProcrastinatingReader works. As of writing there are 874 pages that should have been in Category:AfC_G13_eligible_soon_submissions but are not. Approach used by the existing bot is to try purge all pages in AfC categories which are too many in number so has caused issues. The approach followed here is more scalable, and also avoids triggering a re-purge if ProcBot has already been through them. Purge pages which are listed on User:SDZeroBot/Purge list.

Discussion

Notified AfC project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#New_purge_bot_BRFA. – SD0001 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know much about bots and how they operate but I will add to this discussion that SDZeroBot's list for expiring drafts (CSD G13) turns up a great deal more drafts and user page drafts than those that appear in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. I don't know why there is this discrepancy but SDZeroBot's list is much more complete. Because admins handling CSD G13s stay on top of their expiration dates, the AFC G13 category isn't as important as it used to be. Previously, regular editors would use this category to tag expiring drafts for speedy deletion but this practice doesn't happen as frequently as in years past. But still, if this category is going to exist, then it's best that it's up-to-date. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I realise this has no tangible output, but I suppose that's kind of the point. As long as it's doing what it should be doing, and not what it shouldn't be doing, I have no issues with approving this at the end of the trial. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the code was written but the trial wasn't started. I came to know that the API supports a forcerecusivelinkupdate=1 param, which purges all pages transcluding {{AfC submission}} in one request. That makes the usefulness of this bot task rather questionable.
It might be better to have a more generic and user-controlled bot. I am thinking of having a bot task that listens to edits to User:SDZeroBot/Purge list and purges any pages that people put in it. The {{database report}} template can be used to feed any list instead of just quarry:query/77493.
The above can't be done with User:ProcBot/PurgeList as it doesn't support one-off purges (which from an implementation perspective is quite different from periodic purges). Even if it could be supported there, I'm seeing some scope here for a second purge bot given the generally troublesome nature of purge bots (they always seem to run into issues) – people can use one if the other doesn't work. Besides, I have quite a bit of the code written out ;)
@Primefac let me know if this is okay for trial with this revised functionality. – SD0001 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Started the trial – User:SDZeroBot/Purge list is now set up. – SD0001 (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Seems to work as far as the API calls made by the bot are successful. Many pages still get listed on the Purge list again the next day, which indicates they didn't actually get purged, but I can't see anything wrong being done from my end. It seems to be a general MediaWiki issue with mass purges which as I recall @Wbm1058 faced as well with Bot1058. – SD0001 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purging was broken in MediaWiki from September until earlier this month, but has mostly been fixed, and should be completely fixed soon. See T351729 and T354460. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2024 (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.