Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 10

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

Withdrawn by operator.

RileyBot 10[edit]

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

Time filed: 16:23, Friday March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: ~~Automatic~~ Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: N/A

Function overview: Place tags ({{Proposed deletion}} or {{Notability}}) on pages by request of users.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Non-notable_diplomat_stub_articles

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: N/A

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Use a list created by a user (in this case, by User:Kleinzach and the list will be at User:Kleinzach/Dips) and place either {{Proposed deletion}} or {{Notability}} (specified by user at the top of the list for each batch of pages) at the top of the articles. If said template is already on the top of the article or the article has already been ~~CSD/~~PROD'd, the bot skips the page. The bot will then notify the page author.-- Cheers, Riley 17:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Bot gets the lists of pages from a certain page, in this case: User:Kleinzach/Dips. The bot then checks User:RileyBot/Stop/10 to see if the task is allowed to run. If the page is a redirect, protected, doesn't exist or already has a PROD tag (or if the notability tag is to be added, it checks for the notability tag) on it; log and skip. The bot then adds the PROD (or notability ) template, saves and logs the edit. The following part is if the pages are tagged with the PROD template; Next the bot finds out the page creator and then notifies the creator. If the talk page is a redirect, it gets the redirect target and notifies the user. (if the redirect target isn't a talk page, it will log and skip the page). Once all the articles on the list have been edited or skipped, the bot uploads the log to User:RileyBot/Log/10. -- Cheers, Riley 23:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Suggestion - if adding {{Notability}} to a list of articles about people, I suggest you add {{Notability|bio|date=March 2013}} so the tag will link to the proper guideline. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I forgot about that! -- Cheers, Riley 17:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I was concerned about a bot indiscriminately adding PROD and notability tags to articles, but am convinced of its usefulness after reading through the linked discussion. I do have one question, though: does the bot determine whether there are external links/a reference section on the page before tagging? I see that it's mentioned in the discussion, but I'm just looking for confirmation that you've incorporated it into the bot's code. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not incorporated it into the bot's code nor do I plan on implementing it and personally, I think it is a bad idea. My main reasoning is because if we add them to the articles, with all the stub tags (I saw a ton with two stub tags), a reference tag and then the notability tag. There will be three times as many tags on the article than text (considering how most are only one sentence long). :) Besides, the notability tags ask "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic" so it basically has the same effect as Template:Unreferenced. -- Cheers, Riley 21:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread the comment on the discussion. I'm referring to the (perhaps) rare exception in which the article is adequately sourced and with external links but still listed on the to-do list, but not necessarily tagging them. Allow me to rephrase my question: is there some sort of litmus test incorporated into the code that will cancel the tagging operation if a well-sourced (but short) article has been inadvertently added to the list? I ask this because it seems to me that these articles are added to the queue en-bloc without prior checking (and understandably so). Apologies if I've misunderstood and thanks for your reply. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't such a test incorporated into the code. That is mainly because there is prior checking to the articles by the user requesting them to be deleted. (I thought that was clear in the discussion; sorry) I also changed this from automatic to supervised. -- Cheers, Riley 22:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Riley. Yeah, that's fine—and good call making it supervised. Everything else looks good to me. I certainly think it's worth a trial, barring any concerns from a BAG member of course. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 06:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I forgot that the bot also needs to notify the user. Please also notice the change in the second to last sentence of "Function details"; there are just too many CSD templates [and redirects] to program in. -- Cheers, Riley 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Feel free to go ahead with the test. I'm slightly concerned with people abusing the notability tag, but that's more of an enforcement issue than a programming concern. MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - The only thing is that the ten pages I randomly chose were all written by the same person. So as you can imagine, the user was notified 10 times. So I don't know if the separate notifications are good or if I need to make the bot compile the pages into one big notification. Opinions? -- Cheers, Riley 23:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that condensing all of the notifications into one is definitely a good plan; no need for ten separate ones...as long as this is within your technical prowess, of course. I can help if necessary. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I just rescued one of the articles (Norman Berlis) PRODded by this bot. I strongly oppose this feature. This allows articles to be deleted with no supervision. Nominators should follow certain steps WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. This tool, by design, circumvents that. (WP:BEFORE is technically for WP:AFD, but PROD is for articles which would be non-controversial if taken to AFD, so presumably the same diligence is expected.) Pburka (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another rescue: Pierre-André Bissonnette. A simple Google search brings up dozens of references which show that he easily satisfies notability guidelines (he was, e.g., an Officer of the Order of Canada). Pburka (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I 'supervised' this short 10-article bot run. There are a hundreds, if not thousands of minimal stub articles on unelected officials. We have been looking at a way of processing them. In the case of these Canadian diplomats, the articles date back to 2007 and were never expanded. In general, they clearly don’t meet the Wikipedia standard for notability which is WP:DIPLOMAT: "Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required." This is a strict definition in line with those for people in other fields. In my view neither Norman Berlis nor Pierre-André Bissonnette meet that standard, though of course Pburka is perfectly entitled to remove the prods and have a go at bringing the articles up to Wikipedia standard. (In these particular cases I have put notability tags on the articles). --Klein zach 05:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if you followed the steps for WP:BEFORE for each of the nominated articles? Did you search for references, or did you just bulk nominate them based on a heuristic? I also believe that you've misinterpreted the notability guidelines. WP:DIPLOMAT does not preempt WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Ambassadors are "politicians…who have held international…office". Additionally, the subjects of both of the articles I rescued received "significant coverage in reliable sources" per WP:GNG. I believe that most of these articles would survive an AfD, but giving users the ability to PROD hundred or thousands of articles at once will guarantee that the articles don't receive appropriate review. If we do go ahead with this, will the bot provide an equivalent undo for another editor to bulk contest all of the prods? Pburka (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE applies to Afds not prods. The terms of reference of WP:POLITICIAN are also clear. It doesn't apply to unelected officials like diplomats. Moreover government sources do not meet notability standards. But having said all that, I am happy to withdraw all the Canadian diplomat stubs from the bot run list if you wish to work on them — as you have indicated here. Good luck indeed! Klein zach 06:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take three things on board here. First, notability guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are not strict rules. They merely present a guideline as to possible notability or lack of. "This is a strict definition", you say. No, it is not. Second, stubs are perfectly acceptable. Third, prodding is only for uncontroversial deletions (i.e. articles which a reasonably experienced, neutral WP editor would reasonably consider to be not worthy of notability). Articles on senior diplomats certainly do not fall into this category and should be taken to AfD, not prodded. I would categorically oppose the use of a bot for prodding articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:STUB says is this: "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." It doesn't tell us "stubs are perfectly acceptable". In fact the words 'perfectly' and 'acceptable' don't even appear on the page. What it goes on to explain is that "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." --Klein zach 15:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the phrase "no apparent notability"! If stubs weren't acceptable then we wouldn't have a long article on them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you believe that ambassadors are automatically notable [1] so a discussion about stubs on WP is maybe not that relevant. Klein zach 01:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree that deleting ambassadors is controversial? Pburka (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO deleting ambassadors is no more controversial than deleting postmen. To put this another way, all deletions will be controversial with some or other interested parties, but there is no reason why ambassador deletions should be more controversial than those of other biographies. (I could give you WP chapter and verse but I don't think it's really necessary.) --Klein zach 10:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the deletion of articles on senior figures is more controversial than deleting articles on other people. An article on a postman would be pure genealogy cruft unless he's done something else notable. An article on a senior official who is likely to appear in reliable biographical directories and will likely have an obit in a major newspaper after his death is far more than that. You can quote your interpretation of WP policy (which is clearly not my interpretation or the interpretation of others) until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't take away from the fact that deletion of articles on senior figures is not uncontroversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret having allowed myself to be drawn into a debate about the notability of these particular articles here, as it's irrelevant to this discussion. Let me enumerate my concerns about this bot being used to bulk PROD articles:

PROD is "a shortcut to the normal deletion review process (AfD)", so the same or greater diligence is required. For example, editors PRODding articles are obliged to perform the steps in WP:BEFORE. This takes at least a few minutes. Once an editor has put in this effort, the incremental effort to PROD the article manually is trivial, especially if a tool like WP:TW is used. Therefore this feature has no real benefit for editors using the PROD process in the intended manner.
On a typical day, only a couple of hundred articles are PRODded. For example, as of now, there are 136 PROD tags remaining from yesterday. (Presumably some were dePRODded already.) This is small enough that a handful of editors can review the PRODded topics to provide some oversight. If a thousand articles were suddenly PRODded, it's unlikely that they'll be subject to the same level of oversight.
Wikipedia already has a bulk deletion mechanism: WP:BUNDLE. There's no need to invent something new. If an editor wishes to nominate 100 articles with common deletion criteria, she can create a single WP:AFD discussion for the lot. Pburka (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This feature serves no legitimate purpose and invites abuse. Pburka (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include my fourth objection:

This tool is highly asymmetrical. It makes it much easier to PROD articles than to dePROD them. Wikipedia errs on the side of caution, keeping articles when there is not consensus to delete. This tool dangerously reverses that balance of power by making it trivial to PROD 1000+ articles, but providing no equivalent tool to dePROD them. Pburka (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random thought, we want to make sure that these notifications show up in people's watchlist's right? Maybe the bot should run without marking it's edits as bot...? Legoktm (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This requires a community wide discussion as the intention is to circumvent in-place procedures. Please do not run this bot. -150.135.133.2 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Bot operator has retired. -- Cheers, Riley 23:15, 29 April 2013 (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.