Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4

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

Denied.

KuduBot 4

Operator: KuduIO (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:40, Wednesday September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python and regular expressions

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia - regular expression will be released

Function overview: It would search for the {{Requested move}} tag in user talk space, usually on a subpage, and remove it, appending a notice which will be written by Cliff.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#is there a bot that can do this easily?

Edit period(s): One-time run, then daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ?

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Discussion

I oppose this. RM often handles move requests of userpage drafts into mainspace; I see no need to make users go to yet another bureaucratic process. Ucucha (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors at RM are often not as familiar with notability requirements as AFC editors. Naming conventions and dispute resolution are the main working points of RM. I believe that this is why the RM process states that page moves from userspace to mainspace are beyond the scope of the process (see here). I am currently trying to edit the {{userspace draft}} page so that new users are not given the runaround. Cliff (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also: This discussion where editors at RM chose to start handling userspace drafts in this way. Cliff (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. It's clearly stated at the top of RM that userspace drafts are not what RM is for (see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Processes beyond the scope of this page). AfC is far better suited and equipped to deal with these new articles. The problem with these drafts being nominated at RM is: (1) few, if any, RM regulars comment on userspace drafts, so they are often left to languish indefinitely, (2) few admins, or non-admins, want to close these RMs because doing so means that you are endorsing that the article is notable, verified to reliable sources, not a copyvio, etc. and if the article is later found to be have one of these issues, it is effectively 'on the head' of whoever moved it to mainspace, (3) in the rare event that these RMs do get comments (often by IPs – why that is I don't know), they are often pretty bite-y, e.g. "Oppose – non-notable" or "Oppose – incorrectly referenced", then if the new user tries to follow up on this, asking what they should do, they rarely get replied to. In all, AfC would be a far better option for all editors involved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than simply removing the requested move template, could the bot replace it with a more appropriate template, perhaps listing the page at AFC? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will the bot be able to identify when an RM request is actually a {{db-move}} and when it should have been submitted to AfC? Monty₈₄₅ 22:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in reviewing this request, it should be considered that AfC reviewers will reject articles that would survive an AfD nomination. By diverting people through the AfC system, content that would have survived in article space may be rejected. For example Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/_Al-Ghabat would likely have been stubbed in article space (villages are not usually deleted even if unsourced), but was rejected at AfC. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I could add such a feature. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 14:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should consider having the bot ignore templates that are placed on non-talk pages, and on talk pages where the corresponding user page is empty (if possible). This would allow a more gentle correction from a real user and provide a learning tool for new users. Also, it would avoid having excess misplaced material. Not sure it's needed. thoughts? Cliff (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, instead of ignoring the template in userspace, perhaps the bot could list those in a different place from other move requests, so they are brought to the attention of someone who can help users with those pages. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two short ideas/questions: If the bot move the pages to AFC-space, will it remove the userspace template and notify the user? (similar to User:Petan-Bot) mabdul 09:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the bot move pages? That was not in the original design and might place undue burden on the editors of AFC. Many of the drafts from which I remove the requested move template do not end up going to AFC, either because the editor doesn't care that much, or the editor gains autoconfirmed status and moves the article themselves. Not all will end up at AFC, so having a bot put all of them there doesn't seem to make sense. Cliff (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm proposing that the bot moves pages which are in userspace and having the userspace-template on it. Most of these pages need much more work and the contributor is getting a feedback of an AFC reviewer by such a move. Mostly we help in wikifying and doing small cleanups. Sometimes we only tagging pages with (these) maintain tags. If the author gained autoconfirmed status then she/he will move the page without a review and this will result in more (unnecessary) work for either NPP-patrollers or admin userfying such articles again. (and IRC volunteers workload will also shrink with my proposal) As described above: many requested moves end up in the situation that the user is disappointed and the page won't get moved. Petr-Bot is doing nearly the same: If a page has a AFC-submission template on it, the bot moves the page and removes the userspace draft-template. I will tweak this week the page WP:SYMUD as described here. mabdul 23:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your changes to WP:SYMUD, you should change {{userspace draft}}. It currently says, "finished? Move the page." I think it should say something like "submit the page" where the submit link opens an edit window with the appropriate submission template, or links to the appropriate section of SYMUD. I tried, but cannot figure out the formatting on the template and don't want to mess it up. Cliff (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(A little bit off-topic)

Done After ~100 edits I finally get it working. (see talkpage and sandbox) mabdul 10:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: would modifying the {{Requested move}} template to handle use in wrong namespaces be easier/better? Several templates, like {{prod}}, work like that. --slakr^\ talk / 04:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While a good idea, and probably helpful, I don't suspect that it would be sufficient alone. For instance, when the template is placed on an article page (whether in main, or userspace) an announcement that the template is incorrectly placed is prominently displayed. This does not convince many of the users in question to move the template. I think this is because many of the users who request moves rather than simply moving the article themselves are newer users who don't really understand the idea of the discussion page. Such an announcement of a template placed in userspace would not deter such users. Cliff (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the capacities that we are talking about be incorporated in RMbot rather than creating a new bot? Cliff (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wonder if I should just add a check in RM bot to replace notices on user talk pages.

That said, I'm conscious of overextending RM bot. If Kudu has already coded this, perhaps it is easier for Kudubot to replace these move requests. I note the proposed frequency is daily - RM bot runs several times every hour, so a user space move may show up on the current discussions list for several hours before Kudubot removes the requested moves notice. Once removed, it should disappear from the current discussions list on the next pass.

We might have to watch the bots for a few days to see if there are any race condition / edit conflict issues, and I don't know if anyone will do a multiple-move on a user talk page (which might cause confusion), but otherwise I don't know of anything problematic with the two co-existing. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 03:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold On: After the changes that Mabdul made to {{userspace draft}}, this bot may no longer be necessary. Let's watch WP:RM for a while to see if a large number of users continue to request moves from their userspace. Cliff (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Status? --Chris 06:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Please respond with a status report soon, otherwise this request will be marked as expired. --Chris 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After watching RM for several days, it is clear that the changes made to {{userspace draft}} have accomplished the mission that this bot was designed to do. No users have requested moves from their userspace since that change was made. I think the bot is no longer necessary. Anybody disagree? Cliff (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wonder what a huge change in the backlogs this small change produced:

the AFC backlog increased, nearly doubled (of submissions a day)
the NPP backlog is decreasing, see that image
the WP:FEED backlog is halfed (of submissions a day)
and finally the WP:RM backlog is also decreased. mabdul 14:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably many article creators who used to simply click the "move" link in the template rather than in the normal location. I've noticed that there has been confusion among some about why they are submitting through AFC instead of being able to move pages like they used to (see here). This would explain both the increase at AFC, and the reduction at NPP, since people are no longer moving articles into mainspace themselves but submitting to AFC instead. I think this might be a problem.

Is it possible to have a "smart link" that behaves one way if clicked by someone who is autoconfirmed, and behaves another way for others? Can we somehow continue to allow (we haven't disallowed anything) autoconfirmed users to "move" the page (barring problems with destination), and yet still direct IP or non-autoconfirmed users through AFC? I don't think that "submit or move" on the template is a good idea, because people will always click the wrong one. it should be as automated as possible I think. Cliff (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is the wrong page to discuss this here: where is the problem? if the article(draft) they are submitting good, then it won't get declined. If the article is bad, hence then we will decline it because of a reason. the original move botton was on that template only for autoconfirmed users... and I don't think that would be a good idea to reinstall it. Every experienced user is known of the move tab in the head bar and should use that one... mabdul 10:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. (also Expired) Per above, this request has been made redundant by changes made to {{userspace draft}}. Any additional tasks relating to the above changes (and side effects from them) should be filed as separate request(s) for approval --Chris 05:53, 28 October 2011 (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.