- 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.
Operator: Hasteur (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:26, Tuesday, October 8, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Pywikipbot + Custom scripts to
Function overview: Resume previously BRFA approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 9.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily run
Estimated number of pages affected: Anywhere from zero to a great many depending on how much backlog has stacked up and now many pages are eligible
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Successor programs Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 10 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 11 have ceaced to function as desired. Pleading at my talk page to resume this maintenance shows (along with grumbles at Administrators Noticeboard) that the maintenance has not been running.
Bot will uphold the most strict interpretation of the G13 rule in that Any pages that have not been edited
.
by a human in six months found in: Draft namespace,Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.
I further note that CSD:G13 does not have any exception written in regarding having been kept at the most recent XFD and as such will be disregarding any prohibitions stemming from that rule absent a consensus is established to write that rule in (which I will express my opinion on).
Finally I may consider making a new task to "modify" the existing G13 "reminder" process such that if there is a active "AFC review requested" template, to instead insert a {{AFC comment}} indicating that the submission was in danger of being G13 fodder
Discussion
[edit]- Submitted for approval. Also I will need to request a bot flag back should this be approved. Hasteur (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please start a conversation at WT:AFC before bringing this task back online. There has been a lot of discussion about G13 since this bot was last run, and we will need to check to make sure this still has consensus. I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but I would definitely want to see a conversation about the impact of this first. – bradv🍁 02:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Asking the question at the AFC Project talk. We'll see what shakes loose. Hasteur (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry just to clarify but if a review was submitted six months ago, the bot will add a comment noting this but will not apply G13. Is that correct? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: per above
Finally I may consider making a new task to "modify" the existing G13 "reminder" process such that if there is a active "AFC review requested" template, to instead insert a {{AFC comment}} indicating that the submission was in danger of being G13 fodder
. That's not currently in scope of this BRFA. I'm asking to resume the BRFAs previously listed. Of note the creator of a page will have at least 30 days before the bot actually does any CSD:G13 nominations to give the page creator a grace period. This is by design. Hasteur (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: per above
- There has been no two-year period in which neither HasteurBot nor its operator has made any edits. Therefore, HasteurBot never lost its approval and this BRFA is entirely unnecessary. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: When I decided to leave... permanantly I forgot the Hotel California clause. As such, the Bot was blocked and De-flagged from Bot. I can request the unblock relatively easily, but regaining a Bot flag requires an active authorized BRFA, so I'm doing it by the books because I have been maliciously pursued by editors who would tar and feather me at the drop of a hat. Hasteur (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances leading up to the block/retirement of this bot task, I agree (as both BAG and AFC "coordinator") that while it may not be strictly necessary, it is the prudent move and I suspect easily passed barring a large disagreement from the AFC members. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've unblocked the bot. I'd fully support it getting the flag back.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances leading up to the block/retirement of this bot task, I agree (as both BAG and AFC "coordinator") that while it may not be strictly necessary, it is the prudent move and I suspect easily passed barring a large disagreement from the AFC members. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: When I decided to leave... permanantly I forgot the Hotel California clause. As such, the Bot was blocked and De-flagged from Bot. I can request the unblock relatively easily, but regaining a Bot flag requires an active authorized BRFA, so I'm doing it by the books because I have been maliciously pursued by editors who would tar and feather me at the drop of a hat. Hasteur (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- About time! I requested the notification feature awhile ago, but it received no takers. Thanks @Hasteur for taking the time to get the bot back online. -FASTILY 07:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Citing discussion at WT:AFC, WP:AN, and WT:CSD suggests there is approval. As such I request approval to start a limited (no more than 50 pages) attended (with BotOp policing each edit) trial for at minimum the HasteurBot 2 and 9 tasks (notify users whose pages are at least 5 months unedited) to verify there are no unexpected issues. Hasteur (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: This is the same code as in the previous approvals, correct? --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: That is correct, however the underlying PyWikiBot code has changed (including a cutover to Python3) so I would like to re-run a test to re-certify that the scripts run correctly. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Pretty clear consensus to get this going again. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Trial complete. @Primefac: Trial I also included a single edit to confirm that if there will be no more eligible drafts in a category, to let me know so I can take that category out of the "driver list" to be a good steward of the wikipedia resources. Hasteur (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: That is correct, however the underlying PyWikiBot code has changed (including a cutover to Python3) so I would like to re-run a test to re-certify that the scripts run correctly. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Approved. If there are any changes needed (i.e. expanding the scope of the notifications etc) feel free to ping me on the talk page and we'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2019 (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.