Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:BRFA
WT:RFBA
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4



Contents

[edit] Process

Should we have another section for when a trial is concluded and awaiting BAG feedback? Rich Farmbrough, 13:19 27 April 2007 (GMT).

[edit] BJBot

I'd appreciate input here. Dorftrottel (talk) 09:04, March 28, 2008

[edit] A new bot

Hi, I was just wondering, is there a bot that automatically migrates images that have the "move to commons" tag on them (once checking for valid licensing etc) and would such a bot be rejected if put against the BAG? Because if the answer to both questions is no, then AtyndallBot is going to take that pathway as a bot (if no one has any objections).  Atyndall93 | talk  10:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this task would require a fair bit of human judgement. Categorisation on Commons is fairly backlogged and a mass bot transfer wouldn't help. Not to mention the album covers tagged as {{PD-self}} that the bot would accidentally transfer. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, do you have any suggestions for a niche that my bot could fill?  Atyndall93 | talk  10:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There's plenty out there (not necessarily on Commons stuff though)... keeping WP:BOTREQ watchlisted always helps. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:MTC βcommand 2 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The redirection of a Wikipedia page to a user page seems intentionally misleading to readers and a the worst possible violation of wp:own I've ever seen. ("I am the State Wikipedia Guideline") --Lemmey talk 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
its fairly common practice. βcommand 2 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions to improve communication with the non-bot community

Effective communication is important to running a bot. I've just experienced a bad bot episode where a series of communication failures summed to greater than the parts. The bot owner was surly and introverted - understanding things in his mind but unable to effectively communicate them. The complainer (me) wasn't looking at the same playing field as the bot owner, it took several hours to catch up. The bot's edit summaries were misleading or wrong. The tags the bot placed on image pages were sub-optimal or just plain wrong. The notes the bot placed on user talk pages were so misleading or wrong that they did more harm than good. It took a very long time for the non-bot person (me) to locate the bot's approvals and figure out exactly what this bot was supposed to be doing. I've done some automated tasks myself in the past and am sympathetic to bot owners, particularly to the regular abuse they reap. So please accept these suggestions in the positive light they are offered:

  1. All bot userpages should link to all approvals, so non-bot people can quickly figure out exactly what the bot is supposed to be doing.
  2. The Bot Requests for approval should include a review of the bot/editor interface.
    • Are the bot's edit summaries correct, do they communicate effectively? Or are they misleading or just plain wrong?
    • Is the bot placing the correct tags, or is it using tags that are kinda close, difficult to understand and classic tldr's?
    • Is the bot communicating effectively on the users talk pages, or is it placing a generic template that doesn't explain exactly what the problem is, for example; your image lacks a fair use rationale when it should read your fair use rationale needs an article link specifying the image usage.
  3. Counseling - I didn't know this until a few minutes ago, but you have some very young bot owners. While these people might be technically proficient, it's perhaps unfair to expect them to be emotionally mature enough to run a project wide bot that makes controversial edits. The BAG group should aid these editors to communicate and resolve conflicts.

--Duk 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, Good behavior is the remedy for bad behavior, not more policies, suggestions, approval boards, rules, and mediation groups. Furthermore I'm not immature, you're immature :). --Lemmey talk 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I hear you - and good communication is the remedy for bad communication. Can you agree that bots should have accurate edit summaries and use accurate tags? Can you agree that a bot that taggs a user's page with; your image lacks a fair use rationale, when it should read your fair use rationale needs an article link specifying the image usage will cause trouble, is vague and misleading; and a bot owner who refuses to fix it is lazy? --Duk 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Without seeing the image I can't say what the tag should have said. What I can say is that messages sent to users are generally preformatted catch all messages but still should be as appropriate as possible. Perhaps Bots that are intended to interact (tag user pages) with high volumes of users should have their message formats specifically posted in task approvals so others can review. These bots should probally also have their edit summaries formats reviewed for accuracy. --Lemmey talk 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit count bot

Is it against the rules to create a bot that, kind of like what StatusBot did, reads a category of users (lets say for this example Category:Autoeditcount), creates subpages on its userpage for all its users, and instead of editing those pages with an Online/Offline thing, put an edit count on the page, updated every 3 hours or so? It would work by querying api.php or query.php at 3 hour intervals per user at about 30 second intervals.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you can really justify it. StatusBot had a use (just) in helping people to write/collaborate on wikipedia. I'm not sure how this helps writing an encyclopedia. -- maelgwn - talk 09:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Since when do bots have to be justified? --Lemmey talk 10:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:BOT#Bot requirements: "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: [...] is useful". MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Useful is in the eye of the beholder. How useful is yet another archive bot? How does the Signpost help writing an encyclopedia? I contend that it and the bots that distribute it are largely useless. Why useful as opposed to just not harmful, were not worried about WP:Perf here. --Lemmey talk 10:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You could probably write something up in javascript to do this. --Chris 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So whats the final verdict? Should I try to make such a bot and but it before the BAG? And Chris G, how could this be implemented in javascript?  Atyndall93 | talk  10:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to consider all the flack Betacommand has gotten recently over the edit count list he has generated. Dbiel (Talk) 12:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't head about that. Were did this happen? sounds like an interesting read. In all truth, I want to make a bot. I don't care what it does (as long as it is within the realms of PHP, possibility and my ability), I just want to have the satisfaction of thinking "I made this, and it is helping Wikipedia". But everything a have thought of so far is either impossible, not allowed or already done, its very annoying.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STBotI

Copied from User talk:Werdna

Hi Werdna, it seems my breath is no longer being wasted and the conversation is moving forward. Let me repeat that the reason I'm bothering you is that I saw your name at the approval checkmark for STBotl, and the bot's owner was uncooperative. I don't know the hierarchy or workings of the Bot Approval Group, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree, let me know, please.

First, here are some quotes from WP:B;

  • In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users.
  • Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.

So here are just a few small things (to start) that STBotl could do better:

  1. STBotI failed to identify a fair use rationale here. That is a mistake. Compare it with this image, also a written rationale instead of the template rationale, where the bot succeeded. The bot should have left the same set of templates on both examples, but it didn't. Please note clearly, I'm not saying that the rationale in the first example is sufficient, it isn't, it lacks an article link, even though the copyright tag has a rationale and article link. I'm merely saying that the bot missed the rationale all together and that is a mistake. Also, regarding the prior section on your user page, please note that this bot does seem able to identify non-templated rationales (usually).
  2. STBotI at this image
    a) bloated tags: Between the edit summaries and the image page and user talk tags, the editor has to read over 3,000 characters - that's 500 words - to uncover a single small WP:NFCC#10c link. That's more that twice the size allowed for Wikimedia board candidate statements! [1] Even experienced users will have trouble deciphering that they merely need to add an article link to the rationale. Fewer words, more clarity, let the actual problem, WP:NFCC#10c, stand out and be visible.
    b) misleading edit summaries.Instead of "This image has no valid rationale", which will trip up and slow down most users, the edit summary could read something like "This fair use rational needs an article link to be valid".
    c) poorly written tags: the template on the user page in particular should have a section heading that clearly identifies the problem instead of mindlessly shouting "Disputed". How about something like "An image you uploaded needs its rationale updated"

Please note that in addition to cooperative bot owner behavior, the Bot Policy places a high emphasis on accurate edit summaries and good communication. STBotl currently fails all three of these requirements. --Duk 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my discussion page for wider input. Without having done extensive investigation, it seems to be that Duk is right on all but the first point. — Werdna talk 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with the first point? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion as to how this relates to actual NFCC policy, I would say that the lack-of-article-link here would be what Werdna refers to. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source Code

Are there any bots about that I can view their coding? Just out of curiosity, to see if I can decifer (sp?) it and see how it works? ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The source code for pywikipediabot and the DotNetWikiBot are both available, and form that basis for most of the bots used here. There is other bot source code out there as well--T-rex 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I assume your first link is meant to be: pywikipediabot instead of this: [2] ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Also: User:ClueBot/Source, User:ClueBot II/Source, User:ClueBot III/Source, User:ClueBot IV/Source, and User:ClueBot VI/Source -- Cobi(t|c|b) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're interested in Perl, the code for my bots is available variously at User:OrphanBot/libPearle2.pl, User:OrphanBot/libBot.pl, User:OrphanBot/orphanbot.pl, User:OrphanBot/tagbot.pl, User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm, User:FairuseBot/libBot.pm, User:FairuseBot/10c-removal.pl, and User:FairuseBot/10c-removal.pl. The code's mostly out-of-date and sometimes non-functional, but it's a good starting point for figuring things out. --Carnildo (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DinoBot2

Could one of you BAG admin types please block this bot? The user is failing to observe approval procedure ... -- maelgwn - talk 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section blanking bot

Please, please, please can we have a bot that detects, flags, and ideally reverts sectional blanking of an article. It is highly disruptive and flies under the radar until someone familiar with the article happens along and/or checks their watchlist. - RoyBoy 12:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If its not already picked up by the anti-vandal bots, there's probably too many issues with false positives. Mr.Z-man 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
While that may be true, it shouldn't be difficult to at least flag an anon who deletes multiple sections in a row. - RoyBoy 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)