Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 3

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Withdrawn by operator.

7SeriesBOT 3

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

Time filed: 10:37, Sunday May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python/Pywikipedia

Source code available: Yes (original to be modified)

Function overview: To delete CSD#G13 pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: First run will be hundreds (based on backlog), typically more in the range of a few per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): I believe so

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

Function details: CSD#G13 is becoming a reality - articles will only be tagged by a different process as G13 if they meet specific criteria. This would be an amendment to my existing adminbot that should a) check that it was indeed that process that tagged it, and if yes, delete the page.

Discussion

I feel we should hold off on this for a bit until Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13_-_The_discussion_for_the_official_criterion is finished. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even when that RfC is finished, it only sets the criteria for deletion, it is not community approval for mass deletion without review. In fact, such an idea has already been rejected by the community at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48#Proposal: mass deletion of all articles at WP:AfC. Spinning Spark 10:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is mass deletion - it's deletion based on specific matching criteria. The intent of this BFRA is clearly not to circumvent the process - it's to allow the bot - which already has the role of deleting compliant pages - to delete additional compliant pages (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages that have not been edited in a while is a completely different case to deleting pages requested by the author. At least one person (the author) has reviewed it and decided it does not warrant keeping. It is claimed in the linked discussion that this proposal will result in 60-70,000 deletions. If that is done blind (ie without review) how can that be anything but mass deletion. In any case, there is still a need to obtain community approval for this task independent of the RfC. Spinning Spark 16:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to post the new code? How are you identifying articles that meet the criteria? Legoktm (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that someone else (Scottywong, IIRC) is proposing the code to identify based on the criteria and tag it appropriately. This bot would merely a) check that it's tagged right, and b) check that the tag was added by the right bot, and then delete if they are both met (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this going forward without community approval. It should be emphasized these articles are not in article.space and are not being edited. I would like to see them deleted, but this requires a community consensus broader than RFBA. -166.137.209.143 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 22:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

another idea

The AfC Helper tool adds since ages (over a year, maybe 1.5) the |declinets= and |decliner=. To solved a problem I had today: a "submitter" corrects a draft, rerequests a review by placing a note to the reviewer's talk page and didn't submit it "correctly": so the bot check if the last non-bot edit was the one adding that parameter and delete only these pages? mabdul 23:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion on this would be good. I see that the original discussion has suggested that a bot not be the deleter ... which makes my original request somewhat irrelevant. However, there are perhaps some good things to come from the process (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has gone very stale. Was a consensus ever secured for a bot to be the G13 Deleter? Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last I saw, "no bots acting on G13" was the consensus. This was rendered moot, for the time being - I thought I had withdrawn it earlier (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just checking, also in self interest due to my proposing pre-G13 notifying and G13-nominating bot tasks. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. on behalf of Bwilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves. Hasteur (talk) 16:03, 4 August 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.