Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PikminBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Denied.

[edit] PikminBot

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: Pikminlover

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Semi-Automatic and Supervised.

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Summary: To revert edits to a userpage not made by the user his/herself.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Edit rate requested: unknown edits per day. The amount depends on how many people's userpages are "guarded", one edit per userpage per day.

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

Function Details: This bot will patrol all pages in the category "Userpages guarded by PikminBot" (Place Template:PikminBotGuard on top of userpage). If somebody other than the owner makes an edit to a userpage, the bot will automatically revert the edit to the last version by the user. This would also be good, because then users wouldn't have to worry about vandals messing their page up, and, they wouldn't have to ask to protect their userpage, unless there really was vandalism on it.

[edit] Discussion

• Question: I don't really understand what this bot provides that simply adding your user page to your watchlist (which i would presume is near-universal practice) doesn't achieve?? Perhaps if this bot was intended to be used by people who didn't wish to allow anyone to edit their userpage, it could use the same opt-in category system and instead of leaving a message just immediately revert any edits to a user's page other than by the user? - PocklingtonDan 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, how could it deal with robots or people making WP:UM-related edits? —Mets501 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it would be less tedious for the user if the bot could be programmed to automatically revert the edits to the last version by the user. I can do that instead of giving the edits. I don't know if I should make it leave a message containing all the reverts (if any), though. Pikminlover ^Meep!↑ 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question if an editor adds Template:PikminBotGuard to an article would the bot automatically revert changes made to the article? Gwernol 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the bot author but I would doubt that would be the case, the bot should be intelligent enough to only operate on User page namespace. - PocklingtonDan 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear that from the bot owner. Gwernol 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol has a point. Right now, the bot would do such a thing as he described. However, this is easy to change in the script and I shall do so (it is a key thing that I forgot). Pikminlover ^Meep!↑ 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question doesn't a bot that only allows the user to edit a userpage violate WP:OWN? Gwernol 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That policy only covers categories, templates, articles, images or portals, and not userpages. As per the {{userpage}} template, the statement "This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article" exempts it from guidelines for articles. Whether there is an official policy or not, most people would feel that they own their own userpage since it contains metadata about themselves. I'm not sure that there are many genuine reasons for editing another person's userpage, whereas userpage vandalism is widespread. I don't see this bot as essential but if we can establish that users have the right to opt-in to refuse to alow others to edit their userpages (which seems reasonable to me at this moment until someone persuades me otherwise) then this bot would seem an effective way of allowing people to opt-in to that. This discussion might be bigger than a bot approval - if no guideline on ownership of userpages exists, it should do! - PocklingtonDan 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Info: Wikipedia:User_page states "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community... Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others...Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests...When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing". Although officially community-owned it seems cleat that community consensus and precedence is to allow ownership of one's own userpage so long as it is not malicious, and for user pages even to be protected against edits. Given this, i can see no reason why this bot should not be allowed to operated on this basis - PocklingtonDan 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several valid reasons to edit a user's page: 1) removing vandalism 2) Removing inappropriate content (e.g. copyrighted or fair use images) 3) As noted above, complying with WP:UM 4) Changing or removing categories or other content per a CfD or equivalent discussion 5) Placing legitimate sockpuppet or indefblock notices on the page. I'm sure that more. Although more leeway is given to users about the content of their userpage it is still a GFDL document and any other user may edit it. Just above the section of WP:USER that you quote is the list of content that is not appropriate to have on a userpage. It is entirely appropriate for an editor to remove such content from a userpage and having that reverted by a bot would be inappropriate Gwernol 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol is right. Also a few things I can see that would need fixed (and may not even be possible) is the following:

1. How will it tell if someone is changing a userbox to a new version of said box?
2. How will the bot tell if someone is simply changing a category, per a CFD, or similar process.
3. How will this bot tell if there are legitimate uses (these 3 mentioned above). A possible exploit here would be for a banned user to create a bunch of socks, and have the bot create a small mess on the admin trying to put the notice up.
4. Also on that note, what is to stop vandals from removing the template from the top of the user page?

Cheers —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. This is very much against WP:OWN. What's to stop putting garbage, hate speech, personal attacks etc on their user page, and then this helpful bot will revert any attempts to remove them? People do not own their userpages. Proto::► 11:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have come up with a small solution. Not only can the user edit his/her page, but I can (bot owner), all admins, oversights, and developers (I don't know why), as well as AntiVandalBot will be able to edit the page without the edits being reverted. However, I don't have a solution to stop vandals from removing the template yet. Pikminlover ^Meep!↑ 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to vandals removing the template, it seems obvious that the bot could keep a master list of its own of pages to protect. It could trawl the category once a day, add in any new pages it finds have been addded to its protect list and, where it finds any have been removed, it checks the page for edits. If the user has removed the template, fine. If someone else has, that's vandalism, roll back to the last edit by the user (owner) of the page. - PocklingtonDan 08:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep! Pikminlover^Meep!|| 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Proto, did you even read the discussion above? I have quoted several passage from that policy including the convention "Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests". So long as the bot doesn't revert admin edits etc, convention states a user is within his rights to ask others not to edit his user pages. Pikmin, think this is a great idea, wish you luck with it and hope it gets the go ahead - PocklingtonDan 10:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy. Anyone (not just sysops) is free, and encouraged, to remove hate speech, personal attacks, unfree images and so on - irrespective of a request not to edit a page. This bot is designed to revert such removals. Admins have enough to do without having to deal with removal of every little bit of unsuitable or illegal content because some stupid bot is preventing a user from doing so. We already have antivandal bots that revert the blatant vandalism edits, and all this bot seems to designed to do is enforce a 'nobody can edit my page!' rule, which is wrong. There is no policy stating this, just a gentle reccomendation to refrain if asked, that doesn't need to be enforced by a bot. Proto::► 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I still really hate that state of mind. As someone who did a lot of work with WP:UM, this would have been a real pain in the arse. You do not own your userpage, and cannot do anything with it. We as sysops don't have enough time now to do everything else, let alone check to see if a bot is reverting good faith edits. If your page is being really hit hard, then we can get User:VoABot II to watch it and revert any vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing is, how do bots already get a flag. And when will most bots (like mine) get a flag themselves. Are they falgged before or after the trial? Pikminlover^Meep!|| 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Already has a flag" is for bots requesting additional tasks. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Denied.. I'm moving this to denied due to multiple policy reasons:

1. Users do not own their userpages.
2. Everyone is encouraged to contribute to the wiki.
3. Pages are not arbitraily protected against premetive vandalism without a good reason (e.g. hprot, mprot)
4. This feature would be much better introduced via the interface (i.e. Preferences:Lock my userpage), if there were community consensus for this it could be developed, rather then by introducing more edits.

• — xaosflux ^Talk 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.