Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VoABot II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

VoABot II reverts vandalism, and does a fine job of it.

However, on pages that are long term targets of banned users, it reverts edits made by newcomers, simply because they are new. For example, here VoABot II reverts a spelling correction made by a new user, and here it leaves that user a friendly message:

"You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted."

The bot operator justifies this functionality on the grounds that it is better than protecting the article. I do not accept that. Protection prevents edits rather than rejecting them after the fact. To allow editing, but then reject edits from newcomers, is needlessly insulting, and seems guaranteed to drive good faith editors away.

In fact, I do not accept that reverting new users just because they are new can ever be justifiable, even in the battle against long-term pests. We don't seem to have a policy on how many eggs you're allowed to break to make an omelette, but Jimbo's user page puts it rather well:

"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
"'Strict scrutiny' means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other."

The Bot Approvals Group have approved this bot, including this functionality.[1] My attempt at discussing this on the BAG talk page was met with a dismissive "bots make mistakes... show some good faith". My position is that the BAG do not have the authority to approve functionality that so clearly violates Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Furthermore, I don't think this issue should have been decided by the BAG in the first place. The BAG is supposed to be a group "which supervises and approves all bot-related activity from a technical and quality-control perspective",[2] whereas the question of whether it is sometimes acceptable to revert newbs simply because they are new, is a deep one, with implications for our mission and culture, and should be made by the community as a whole, or perhaps even at board level. There doesn't seem to be any way to appeal a BAG decision, nor any better place to undertake discussion on the philosophical points that this dispute raises, so I am bringing this here for discussion.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
  2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  3. Wikipedia:Bot policy

[edit] Desired outcome

Community consensus on whether it is ever appropriate to revert newcomers simply because they are new, and, if so, the general conditions under which it is acceptable.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. Hesperian 02:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Soxred93 (u t) 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(Blechnic started the discussion on this issue but is currently unavailable.)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

  1. I corrected the British Thermal Unit definition on the Energy, Thermal page to state 'pound' rather than the incorrect 'gallon' but this bot undid it, presumably because I am a newcomer. This bot's behaviour discourages newbies from improving Wikipedia and leaves Wikipedia pages with errors. Some new users will not notice their corrections are being undone, others will, but will not understand the reason and probably will give up improving Wikipedia. I think this in a fault in this bot's logic.Kigtod (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.


Q.

A.

[edit] Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

[edit] Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}


[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

[edit] Users endorsing this response

[edit] Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.


Q.

A.


[edit] Additional views

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

As the BAG member who originally approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoABot II, I did raise many concerns in the original request regarding WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Several updates were made during the review period, and there was little community feedback at the time. BAG has historically not only ensured for technically functional bots, but also for ensuring that they perform helpful tasks. If the community does not feel that this task is significantly helpful anymore (such as via this RFC) this task can be suspended, with the operator given an opportunity to make program modifications to meet community goals. With most automated remediation tasks, a balance between functionality and false positives must be carefully balanced, as these types of tasks are not helpful if constricted to be fail safe. — xaosflux Talk 03:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Rich Farmbrough, 13:20 5 May 2008 (GMT).
  2. Lemmey talk 14:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Clearly neither the BAG nor any committee can approve a task that violates WP:Pillars. While the BAG has the authority (right or wrong) to approve tasks it also has the right to take it away. That said, blocks should on be used to stop faulty blocks and not used by admins to stop bots they don't like. No one should indefinitely block that is performing a task in the manner approved without first requesting review from the BAG. --Lemmey talk 14:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 00:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

[edit] Reverts of newbies are disabled

1) VoABot II's approval to revert newcomers on particular articles regardless of their edits is withdrawn, and is subject to new request, which shouldn't be approved without a careful consideration and thorough discussion by the community at large.

Comment by parties:
Proposed. As a BAG member, I consider myself party here. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree On the condition that simply because they are newcomers is the only criterion used to decide to revert them. It would be highly inappropriate for a human to do that, and, not something that should be implemented by bot. This is supposed to be the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. (As MaxSem, I consider myself a party) SQLQuery me! 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment by others:
How will it determine what "newbie status" is exactly, or is that a finer point to iron out later? Kwsn (Ni!) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps via Special:Contributions/newbies? — xaosflux Talk 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The point of SQL's clarification is that newbie status should be irrelevant, whereas MaxSem's proposal could have been read as "VoABot II can never revert a newbie", which would have reversed the descrimination rather than eliminating it. Hesperian 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this cold be misread as NO newbie reverts, including vandalism. Soxred93 (u t) 12:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've clarified it by adding "regardless of their edits". MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, better to sparingly use semi-protection, instead of bot reverting new editors. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be subject to re-approval; I can't imagine a situation where reverting of newbies is favourable to semi-protection. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant articles are semi-protected

2) The articles on which Voice of All's bot was reverting all newbies are instead semi-protected. The bot's newbie-reverting function is subsequently disabled.

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.