Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AssumptionBot

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

Withdrawn by operator.

AssumptionBot[edit]

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

Approval process – How this discussion works
Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon

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

Time filed: 11:34, Wednesday, February 16, 2022 (UTC)

Function overview: Adds AFC unsubmitted templates to drafts.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: I think this works?

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Bot proposal (AFC submission templates)

Edit period(s): Meant to be continuous.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~100 a day, judging by the new pages feed (about 250 today) and assuming that not many drafts are left without the afc template

Namespace(s): Draft

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (pywikibot)

Function details: Adds AFC unsubmitted templates ( {{afc submission/draft}} ) to drafts in draftspace that don't have them, the {{draft article}} template, or anything that currently redirects to those 2. See the examples in the VPR proposal listed above.

Discussion[edit]

I'm not going to decline this outright, if only to allow for feedback and other opinions, but not all drafts need to go through AFC, and so having a bot place the template on every draft is extremely problematic. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{BotOnHold}} until the RFC (which I have fixed the link to) has completed. In the future, get consensus before filing a request. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Not sure if this is a misunderstanding, but it's the unsubmitted template, not the submitted one (Template:afc submission/draft). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssumeGoodWraith (talk • contribs) 12:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and my point still stands - not every draft is meant to be sent for review at AFC, and so adding the template to every draft is problematic. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I thought you interpreted the proposal as "automatically submitting all new drafts for review". I'll wait for the RFC. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a BAG member, but I'd like to point out that your code won't work as you expect for multiple reasons.
First, Python will interpret "{{afc submission".lower(), "{{articles for creation".lower(), etc. as separate conditions that are always True, meaning the only condition that is actually considered is "{{draft article}}".lower() not in page.text.
Also, your time.sleep call is outside the loop, meaning it will never actually be run. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll figure it out when approved. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... Or now. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there are errors in the code, please sort them out sooner rather than later, as there is little point in further delaying a request because known bugs still need fixing. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that I've closed the RfC on this task. From the close: "There is consensus for such a bot, provided that it does not tag drafts created by experienced editors. The consensus on which users are experienced enough is less clear, but it looks like (auto)confirmed is a generally agreed upon threshold." Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits or 21 days, whichever happens first). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. This is based on the assumption that the bot will only be adding the template to non-AC creations. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may make another BRFA if I return to activity. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssumeGoodWraith, do you have any updates on this? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: I am on a break, and will probably finish this when I am back. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'll get this done soon due to loss of interest in Wikipedia. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. No issue with putting it on hold, but please let us know if you wish to simply withdraw. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith, I'm happy to write the code (running it is a different matter). ― Qwerfjkl talk 22:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith, Are you going to continue with this BRFA? As I said above, I'm willing to take it over. — Qwerfjkl talk 06:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've basically stopped editing. You can take it over if you want.

@Primefac, Is it okay if I do the trial? — Qwerfjkl talk 18:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}}— Qwerfjkl talk 20:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: Which account would be making these edits, just so we're clear. Still AssumptionBot? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor, I'd probably run it on my bot. — Qwerfjkl talk 06:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}}— Qwerfjkl talk 09:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest creating another BRFA, in the name of your own bot account. Link to this BRFA and the RfC approving of the task. I'm going to close this one, as the operator does not intend to pursue the task. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2022 (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.