Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) →Addbot: comment |
|||
Line 400: | Line 400: | ||
== Addbot == |
== Addbot == |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is preserved as an [[Help:Archiving a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top--> |
|||
---- |
|||
:: Addbot has been stopped until the toolserver report is fixed, so the discussion here has served its purpose. |
|||
:: If you want to argue over whether and where {{tl|orphan}} should be used, take it to [[WP:VPR]] or [[WP:RFC]] and see if consensus exists to change the orphan tagging guidelines. Until then, Addbot may continue as approved at [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 16]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
OK, this needs to be shutdown. First, there is not consensus on what constitutes an orphan at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage]]. Secondly, [[Wikipedia:Orphan]] is not a policy nor a guideline. Thus it seems to fail the requirements for a bot. Along those lines, since there is not a policy/guideline, it should be up to human editors to decide if one, two, three, four incoming links are enough. But no, if you remove with only two the bot re-adds the tag. [[User:Aboutmovies|Aboutmovies]] ([[User talk:Aboutmovies|talk]]) 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
OK, this needs to be shutdown. First, there is not consensus on what constitutes an orphan at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage]]. Secondly, [[Wikipedia:Orphan]] is not a policy nor a guideline. Thus it seems to fail the requirements for a bot. Along those lines, since there is not a policy/guideline, it should be up to human editors to decide if one, two, three, four incoming links are enough. But no, if you remove with only two the bot re-adds the tag. [[User:Aboutmovies|Aboutmovies]] ([[User talk:Aboutmovies|talk]]) 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:The bot really shouldn't be adding the template to any article with a single incoming link. [[User:Bjweeks|BJ]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Bjweeks|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
:The bot really shouldn't be adding the template to any article with a single incoming link. [[User:Bjweeks|BJ]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Bjweeks|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 424: | Line 429: | ||
:::Be it noted I expressed my concern about this here, [[User_talk:Addshore/Archive_18#Orphan_tag_and_bot]]]. Bots shouldn't be using their automated power to uglify wikipedia. The ugly and distracting presence for the reader (who doesn't give a toss if no other wiki article connects to it) does not make up for the apparent usefulness to the editor, not to mention the fact that articles can theoretically be classified without big ugly tags. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
:::Be it noted I expressed my concern about this here, [[User_talk:Addshore/Archive_18#Orphan_tag_and_bot]]]. Bots shouldn't be using their automated power to uglify wikipedia. The ugly and distracting presence for the reader (who doesn't give a toss if no other wiki article connects to it) does not make up for the apparent usefulness to the editor, not to mention the fact that articles can theoretically be classified without big ugly tags. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an [[Help:Archiving a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> |
|||
== Cross posted from Bot Policy Noticeboard == |
== Cross posted from Bot Policy Noticeboard == |
Revision as of 02:47, 5 March 2009
Bots noticeboard |
---|
Here we coordinate and discuss Wikipedia issues related to bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our bot policy and know where to post your issue. Do not post here if you came to
|
Bot-related archives (v·t·) |
---|
INterwikis
I'm sure I remember reading that commented out interwikis aren't re-added. Is this correct? Rich Farmbrough, 20:20 7 September 2008 (GMT).
Archive bot doesn't like your stupid timestamp ST47 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No of transclusions
Is there a(n easier) way to get the number of transclusions a template has?
My php-based bot could load a webpage, so that's not out of the question if a suitable web page does exist. (I did ask on the WP help desk, but I think the people watching this page will be better/quicker at making suggestions.) If worst comes to worst, it could include links to the template as well; redirects should be included (if this is possible). At the moment, you see, I'm having to resort to loading a list of transclusions, and then counting them, which is pretty resource intensive. Cheers! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Counting the number of elements in a list isn't *that* resource intensive. How are you loading the list? Q T C 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot must fail-safe
SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) is an ambitious effort to make detailed corrections to tags and text of articles. It performs useful tasks well. However, in its current state, SmackBot fails the do-no-harm test. It needs testing on degenerate cases, and a more complete understanding of the grammar rules of the tags it edits.
The critical failure with SmackBot is that it doesn't fail-safe when it encounters an unexpected condition. Before SmackBot is reactivated, it must demonstrate that it does no harm in degenerate test cases. In the software development sense, SmackBot needs Verification and Validation quality control.
I've communicated my concern to SmackBot's developer/owner. He's working on a problem with damage to tags. The larger problem is fail-safe and do no harm.
--Mtd2006 (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Moved from Adins Noticeboard per author. Rich User talk:Rich Farmbrough, 09:07 18 February 2009 (UTC).
- It would greatly help if you gave links to the issues you see and (if it's on-wiki) the discussion you've had with Rich Farmbrough. Otherwise, this is just a vague rant with nothing to comment on. Anomie⚔ 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. The gory details are at SmackBot's talk history page. Some of them have been moved to User talk:Rich Farmbrough. That's where he answers questions and reports his fixes. We've been discussing the problem at Thank you for the message. He explained how SmackBot works. I've also e-mailed Rich.
- The problem that triggered this "rant" of mine is SmackBot damages tags. Some similar problems where SmackBot has tripped up are:
- SmackBot problem (fixed)
- SmackBot- Cybernetic revolt (fixed)
- SmackBot moved tags from within the article to the very top (fixed)
- SmackBot bug report (open, I think, but disabled)
- The problem that triggered this "rant" of mine is SmackBot damages tags. Some similar problems where SmackBot has tripped up are:
- SmackBot does well with problems that fit its view of reality (aside from some annoying habits, #1 and #2). It fails on degenerate cases. It's hard to catch SmackBot in the act. An alert editor can track a problem; others see errors, but mistake the damage for vandalism. We can't know how many pages are damaged before a problem is accurately reported.
- SmackBot is leveraging the capabilities of AWB. I'd like to give Rich time to investigate the problem before I say more. He's been very responsive to fixing bugs. Mtd2006 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Rich seems to be quite responsive to bug reports, and frankly you overreacted to the South Korea edit. I don't see anything that needs wider attention at the moment. Best would be to continue with the discussion at User talk:Rich Farmbrough. Anomie⚔ 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think SmackBot should bother making changes such as this. It's a wasteful edit. –xeno (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are quite correct, and genreally it won't make white space only edits. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51 18 February 2009 (UTC).
SmackBot overview
This overview explains how SmackBot works. The bot leverages AWB to edit articles. It combines WP templates with exception rules in a automated process to generate its ruleset, a list of edit rules for AWB. Rich has said, the ruleset is generated from "over a thousand templates, each of which can be formatted in hundreds of ways, it is necessary to canonicalise templates to make the problem tractable." This as another way to say that SmackBot is complex and it makes arbitrary assumptions to simplify its ruleset. Arbitrary choices in software design is the opposite of a deterministic algorithm. Arbitrary decision making implies unpredictable failure modes. SmackBot requires Verification and Validation too prove it does no harm, see WP:BOTPOL#Bot_requirements.
Because of SmackBot's complexity and the potential for damage to live articles caused by unpredictable failure modes, I propose some guidelines for its use.
Test and debug for SmackBot
A test standard should apply to all bots.
- No test runs on live articles. Testing should happen on local machine or in a WP:SANDBOX (same rule for human editors),
- Changes should be tested against a test suite that exercises all of SmackBot's edits (software design and testing) with known and degenerate test cases (that is, situations that SmackBot expects and those that are outside its assumptions about a normal article),
- Changes to SmackBot's ruleset (templates or bug fixes) must be regression tested before it's released on live articles.
This warning is found on complex templates. Templates are, in effect, complex software. {{intricate template}} As the template warning says, a flaw in the template can appear on a large number of articles. The nice thing about templates is that if a flaw is repaired, the errors are automatically reverted. This is not the case with SmackBot. Flaws in SmackBot are permanently applied until reverted. Because SmackBot's ruleset is generated from many templates, it's vulnerable to errors and conflicts in them. These problems are "fixed" in SmackBot with exception rules. However, when a problem is fixed in SmackBot, its incorrect edits are not automatically reverted. They remain until a human editor or an automated process repairs them.
Design pitfalls for SmackBot
While there are applications for non-deterministic algorithms, a bot should be strictly deterministic. That is, a bot must do what it's designed to do without side effects. The tasks that a bot performs are its design specification. SmackBot's design specification is User:SmackBot#Tasks. One of SmackBot's design specs (or tasks) is to add missing dates or repair incorrect dates in various tags, e.g., {{fact}} to {{fact|date=February 2009}}. However, when SmackBot fixes a date in an article, it also makes trivial changes. AWB users are cautioned not to make trivial edits.
SmackBot makes trivial edits because it does not conform to its own design specification. There is no SmackBot task that says "change the case of every tag to upper case". Human editors are not allowed to hide substantive changes in a long set of trivial edits (changing case, removing blanks or new lines, etc.) Humans are cautioned for not using a sandbox for experiments and tests. A bot must follow the same rules because it may perform these disruptive edits to thousands of articles. A bot can waste resources, be disruptive and cause damage much faster than the fastest human editor.
SmackBot problems:
- Failure to do no harm (SmackBot damages tags)
- Side effects of a non-deterministic algorithm
- Inverting upper/lower case of tags (dead link vs Dead link)
- Converting new-line to blank (SmackBot and templates)
- Page blanking (SmackBot- Cybernetic revolt)
- Unpredictable side effects
Summary
SmackBot's bugs can be fixed, up to a point. SmackBot's owner is responsive to trouble reports. But until a bug is reported, SmackBot has made changes that are difficult to find, because of trivial edits, and hard to revert, again because it makes too many trivial edits. Beyond this, the most critical flaw of SmackBot is its failure to be harmless.
Mtd2006 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Bot categories: Grand plan
In my opinion, Category: Wikipedia bots could do with some substantial re-organisation. Rather than doing it all bit-by-bit, I think it might be best to start with an adventurous design, which then gets modified until consensus is reached. To reiterate, feasibility was not considered when drawing up this design. At the moment, we have this:
The category system, as it is. "An effing mess."
|
---|
|
I would propose a system more like this:
My grand plan
|
---|
These may just have to be left as-is/renamed:
|
I know there are bots which rely on these categories, so it would be good to get everyone's view on this. Another obstacle may lie with the {{Bot}} template, which is compulsory for all bots, because it adds all bots to "Wikipedia bots". With some tweaking, however, it too could become a useful tool in the categorisation process - simply asking for a status and a purpose would help enormously. Also, that reminds me - if this were to be implemented, we'd need to work out what to do with bots with many different tasks (when it came down to "purpose") - multiple progress categories per bot, perhaps? Anyhow, let's see how far we can get.
- Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, it is a effing mess. As for multitasking bots, just slap 'em into each relavent category seems perfectly logical to me. Q T C 23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good to me (categories are long overdue an overhaul), although I would rename 'Failed Wikipedia bot requests for approval' to 'Denied Wikipedia bot requests for approval', as the template is {{BotDenied}}, and the requests are listed on the main BRFA page under 'Denied', not 'Failed'. Richard0612 23:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has any worries/criticisms - however minor - please shout; I'm about to contact some experts on category naming to check the exact wording of the categories and to see how we can move this along. (I'm sorry, that's just my way - I hate doing nothing when something can be done.) - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- This standardization looks great to me. Perhaps a group CFD to get more input from those who don't watch teh BON? –xeno (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Revised grand plan
|
---|
These may just have to be left as-is/renamed:
|
- I've removed the purpose categories and renamed perlwikipedia in line with the CfD discussion. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep / instate / reinstate the purpose categories. As far as users looking for bots are concerned, it would be so incredibly useful!.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 20#Category:Wikipedia bots for some rationale as to why they really wouldn't be that useful and why the current list approach is probably better. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've read this and this is why I'm here. These categories are good, at least from the POV of someone who routinely looks for and requests bot work. The only way I'd find the deletion of these categories justified, is if an equivalent listing of bots by purpose would be linked from BOTREQ, and even there it wouldn't hurt to have the cats. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- The listing of bots is already linked from BOTREQ & has been from ages. It's called out in the open paragraph. But I don't object if they're kept. I don't think they are going to turn out to be that helpful (especially with non-active bots included), but each to there own. Since it's not creating work for others, I don't care if people want to spend their own time of it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've read this and this is why I'm here. These categories are good, at least from the POV of someone who routinely looks for and requests bot work. The only way I'd find the deletion of these categories justified, is if an equivalent listing of bots by purpose would be linked from BOTREQ, and even there it wouldn't hurt to have the cats. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 20#Category:Wikipedia bots for some rationale as to why they really wouldn't be that useful and why the current list approach is probably better. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep / instate / reinstate the purpose categories. As far as users looking for bots are concerned, it would be so incredibly useful!.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm, I don't think we should delete the by-purpose categories without some further input (perhaps another CFD). Deleting them based on subthread between 2-3 people in a multi-CFD discussion doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. Lists and categories don't have to be mutually exclusive. –xeno (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Something that does need doing is generating a list of templates that categorize into these templates so if this ever passes they can be updated. Q T C 05:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Template that will need changing
- {{Bot}}
- {{Infobox Bot}}
- {{AWB bot}}
I'll check out the rest when I get the chance. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Would {{AWB bot}} need to be on this list? §hepTalk 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, so I've added it. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- With regard to the AWB bot template above, would it be a good idea to add 'Wikipedia bots using AutoWikiBrowser', as I'm sure it would be well populated? Richard0612 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think probably yes (no need to bother CfD with that though, as it's a new category). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've started an overhaul of {{bot}}, including a status (active/inactive) parameter and integrating the AWB bot template as an option, to fit in with the category restructuring. An in-situ example showing all the parameters can be seen here Comments, improvements? Richard0612 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Which of my 7 actively running approved BRFAs (or the additional 2 that can be run on demand) should I use for the
brfa
parameter? ;) Other than that, it looks ok to me. Anomie⚔ 02:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Which of my 7 actively running approved BRFAs (or the additional 2 that can be run on demand) should I use for the
- I've started an overhaul of {{bot}}, including a status (active/inactive) parameter and integrating the AWB bot template as an option, to fit in with the category restructuring. An in-situ example showing all the parameters can be seen here Comments, improvements? Richard0612 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think probably yes (no need to bother CfD with that though, as it's a new category). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- With regard to the AWB bot template above, would it be a good idea to add 'Wikipedia bots using AutoWikiBrowser', as I'm sure it would be well populated? Richard0612 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, so I've added it. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Squid Changes
Just an FYI for bot owners/writers. The recent squid rollout changed the behavior when encountering Expect headers. So either have to be sure to not send them, or correctly handle now recieving a 'HTTP/1.0 417 Expectation failed' response instead of the 100 Continue. Q T C 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thehelpfulbot - Deleting Broken Redirects Task (Admin bot) BRFA
Hi all,
I have put a request in at Bot Requests for Approval for my bot, Thehelpfulbot to be able to use pywikipedia's Python script of redirect.py to delete broken redirects. pywikipedia has been extensively tested and the bot has already been speedily approved for using the same script, but fixing double redirects. As far as I can tell, no other bot is running this task, as User:RedirectCleanupBot is no longer in use as WJBscribe left Wikipedia. This bot will require the admin flag to run this task, which is why I am posting on this board - to let you know about the bot.
If you wish to comment, please do so at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Thehelpfulbot 5.
Thanks,
The Helpful One 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thehelpfulbot - Deleting Local Images that are also on Commons Task (Admin bot) BRFA
Hi again all,
Thehelpfulbot now has another request, using pywikipedia's Python script nowcommons.py to delete local images that are also on Commons. You can have a look at the code if you wish, by seeing the pywikipedia library here.
This task will also require the admin flag to run, which is why I am posting on this board again, to let you know about the second admin bot task.
If you wish to comment, please do so at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Thehelpfulbot 6.
Thanks,
The Helpful One 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Notice re: proposal to give BAG the ability to (de)flag bots
Just a quick notice to inform you that I have posted a proposal at the Proposals Village Pump regarding giving BAG the bot-flagging right. Comments, questions, trouts, etc welcome there! Richard0612 11:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Erik9bot's editing speed
Could another bot operator voice an opinion here please?--Rockfang (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
New BAG member
Just to let everyone know that my BAG nomination was successful one - so yes, I am now a member of the BAG! Thanks to everyone who showed their support, I hope to now show that your trust was correctly placed. However, in the unlikely event that I do get something wrong - however small - I hope you all will put me right ASAP ;) - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good Good :) Now get to work! :P --·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Intricate templates
A template on this page (the header I think) is putting this page into the Intricate Templates category. Is there a way to fix this seeing as how this page itself isn't a template? :) Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia server change
Recently, a change to the Wikimedia servers has caused many bots to break. To fix it, you have to tell your bot not to expect a 100 continue code.
In PHP: curl_setopt($this->ch, CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER, array( 'Expect:' ) );
In VB.NET: ServicePointManager.Expect100Continue = False
Xclamation point 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Grand plan in action
I've started doing the most obvious changes to the category system. Apologies for any short-term inconvenience caused. Willing helpers (especially admins for the templates) are of course welcome to help. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am now Doing... some of this task with my bot. The Helpful One 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I humbly recommend that an admin change the {{bot}} template to something like my design here when the names for the 'active/inactive' categories have been finalised. Feel free to simply integrate the code, no need to merge histories or anything messy! Richard0612 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done BJTalk 03:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- {{Bot}} has an extra }. See User:ShepBot. (Change neeed) §hepTalk 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good work all so far. Might we split the status parameter into three rather than two: active, inactive and unapproved, so the latter two can be distinguished? Not too much of a jump, I think. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- And while I'm in the right mindset, might we make the default "holding category" for all bots "Wikipedia bots by name" perhaps? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've updated my sandbox template to add in the 'unapproved' parameter. As for a holding category, wouldn't it be more logical to simply put them in the top level category, and then periodically have someone categorise them appropriately? Richard0612 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I was drawing comparisons with the people categories. Are all biographies thrown into the top level category and then reclassified from there? No, they're either categorised or not - but as a compromise, and for the ability to easily get a list of all bots, I thought a by name category my be a good idea. Feel free to disagree though. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've updated my sandbox template to add in the 'unapproved' parameter. As for a holding category, wouldn't it be more logical to simply put them in the top level category, and then periodically have someone categorise them appropriately? Richard0612 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- {{Bot}} has an extra }. See User:ShepBot. (Change neeed) §hepTalk 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done BJTalk 03:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I humbly recommend that an admin change the {{bot}} template to something like my design here when the names for the 'active/inactive' categories have been finalised. Feel free to simply integrate the code, no need to merge histories or anything messy! Richard0612 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
anyone have a contact for Cobi (owner of ClueBot)
If someone has an off-wiki contact with Cobi, can you inform him that Cluebot's False Positive reporting page is off-line (and seems to have been offline, at least periodically, since last November). Not urgent, but worth noting. I'll leave a note on his talk page as well, but I assume if he'd been on-wiki he'd have noticed this already. --Ludwigs2 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- He knows about this already --Chris 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- ok, cool. --Ludwigs2 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Grand plan: Further proposals
While I have been trying to broadly use the comments interested parties have left over the past fortnight be be as bold as I can, there are a couple of outstanding proposals that will need some thought.
- Purpose categories: a hotly debated topic. Should we have them? Does anyone use them? How do we make them better filled?
- Unapproved in relation to {{Bot}}. After much messing around this morning, I managed to implement an "unapproved" status category, but it doesn't have any members yet. Anyhow, if you look at the doc for the template, you will see that the text that accompanies the unapproved message doesn't really reflect the fact that the bot shouldn't be making any edits at all. Can someone knowledgeable have a go at fixing that?
- Filling categories: So now we've got good parameters and categories, we need to make sure everybody uses them. Hopefully, this won't be too hard for bot operators around now, but we'll need to make the edits ourselves where there are bots that cam and went during 2005, or whatever. I propose the creation of bots to be that helping hand. However, what do you do when users have already manually added themselves to a contradictory cateogry? Filling methods might include:
- Wikipedia:Bots/Status - either:
- Fill just "inactive" (by adding the relevant parameter to {{Bot}}) from the "inactive" and "discontinued" sections. Should be reliable.
- Fill "active" as well. (Plus checks? See subpoint below.)
- Wikipedia:Registered bots - can anything be salvaged?
- Run through the "active" category checking for bots who have not made contributions in X months, then move them to "inactive".
- Wikipedia:Bots/Status - either:
- Improve status page - why don't we have a bot make automated edits to the page, filling in missing details (owner would be an obvious one), and making sure there is a listing - even without a listed purpose - for every newly approved bot? Your thoughts, please.
That's quite a long list, I know, but it demonstrates the possibilities that are starting to open up.
- Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've made an editprotected request pertaining to #2. As for bots to fill in the categories, I would go with having a bot run through all instances of {{bot}} and do the following (just a start, feel free to disagree):
Problem bot (CSDWarnBot)
- ST47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CSDWarnBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
One particular user, ST47, has a bot that has received several complaints about how it conducts speedy-delete warnings to page authors. For example, I placed a speedy delete on an article that had a clearly mis-spelled title: the newly created Zhao'an Country vs Zhao'an County the correctly spelled name where an article already existed.
After placing a speedy delete tag on the article, I went to the author's talk page (User talk:Isatcn) to notify him of the discrepancy and to request him to place a {{db-author}} tag in the article to avoid any confusion on why the article was tagged for speedy. Before I could finish typing my message, CSDWarnBot placed one of its own in his talk page. The user continued to edit the existing article, and attempted to place a {{hangon}} tag. This was likely because he failed to see my short, succinct message because due to the larger message by CSDWarnBot with all the bells and whistles (image graphic, bolding, 2 paragraphs, etc.) See here.
One administrator failed to see what the problem with the article was (not realizing the typo problem with the title) and left the article in tact, even fixing the malformed {{hangon}}.
I eventually left another message on the talk page of the article. The author finally realized what he had done and placed the appropriate {{db-author}} tag. However, a process that should have taken me less than 5 minutes ended up taking me 4-5 times that long.
I also filed a complaint on the ST47's talk page here. It was then that I learned there have been several other complaints about the very same behavior over the last few months, as well as other disruptive/problematic actions by the bot (see User_talk:CSDWarnBot). While I understand that bots can serve a beneficial purpose, the usefulness of a bot is negated by the extra effort and confusing communication to authors of pages who are tagged for speedy delete, many of whom are new users. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- In this particular case, just redirect them. I agree, the bot-message is way too large and obnoxious and should be refactored to use fifty words or fewer. Anything that needing further explanation can be found by following some of the links. I don't think the lightning-fast reflexes do the bot much good as in most cases the page will be deleted by the time anyone reads the message. — CharlotteWebb 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do like the speed--otherwise, one never knows if the bot is working at all. I too have run into problems with conflicts, but this is etter than it going too slowly. Asfor the length of the warning, yes, it definitely needs to be shortened. DGG (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well if the bot's reflexes are so instant as to infallibly cause an edit conflict for the user who would otherwise be leaving a similar, less patronizing message (and indeed, a visual conflict for the person expected to read all that crap) one could argue that it's doing more harm than good. — CharlotteWebb 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do like the speed--otherwise, one never knows if the bot is working at all. I too have run into problems with conflicts, but this is etter than it going too slowly. Asfor the length of the warning, yes, it definitely needs to be shortened. DGG (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. How does me opting out prevent the bot from placing the "notice" on someone else's talk page? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't you be able to optout of having the bot notify users for articles you've nommed? –xeno (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Stealth mode, you mean? That might be abusable, to the extent that somebody might be relying on the bot to tell them an article of theirs is going to be deleted (don't know how many or few this might apply to). — CharlotteWebb 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- From the bot's user page "To opt-out, add <!--User:CSDWarnBot--> to your talk page.". BJTalk 18:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that would prevent you from receiving notices, not prevent others from receiving notices about your actions. — CharlotteWebb 18:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some clarification on this would be necessary. Some users might not want the bot to warn on their behalf and might make long, hand-written notices to the users whose articles they nom and in the meantime the bot templates the target. –xeno (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, that's what I get for skimming. BJTalk 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that would prevent you from receiving notices, not prevent others from receiving notices about your actions. — CharlotteWebb 18:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't you be able to optout of having the bot notify users for articles you've nommed? –xeno (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the next steps should be now. In my opinion, a bot that interferes in the useful, correct, good-faith efforts of users is unacceptable. The activity of the bot is, for all intents and purposes, no different than someone doing the same thing manually: seeing a tag on an article and butting ahead of the user who placed the tag to essetially spam article's author. If the bot runs periodically, it should have a built-in grace period of 15 mins to allow users to type their own explanations. There is no reason for a speedy to have an immediate follow up. The combination of a user tagging + an admin should be safety enough to ensure the article indeed meets WP:CSP. In the unlikely event a "rogue admin" starts speedily deleting articles that shoudn't be, there are other ways to deal with that. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- "There is no reason for a speedy to have an immediate follow up" - well there is. Speedies, when I used to patrol them, rarely lasted more than a few minutes - often I would spend time ascertaining that an article should not be speedied, to find that it already had. Therefore unless an immediate notificationis made there wil be no time for a "hangon". Rich Farmbrough, 13:10 3 March 2009 (UTC).
- I would agree with this, I think immediate notification is necessary as speedies rarely last more than 5 minutes. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Which, I would argue, is as it should be. The vast majority of articles that are speedied should be speedied. Further, an impersonal, unspecific notification can prove more confusing and less constructive to a good-faith author than a specific one provided by the CSD nominator (as is evidenced in my example). In my limited experience, most of the good-faith attempts at articles that meet WP:CSD are articles written by novice users. A canned speedy notification from a bot is of limited use to them and (also as evidenced in my example) creates confusion. A user with a good-faith effort who receives a specific, detailed notice about an article is less likely to create the same article again, thus abating frustration and a {{db-repost}} or two. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with this, I think immediate notification is necessary as speedies rarely last more than 5 minutes. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- "There is no reason for a speedy to have an immediate follow up" - well there is. Speedies, when I used to patrol them, rarely lasted more than a few minutes - often I would spend time ascertaining that an article should not be speedied, to find that it already had. Therefore unless an immediate notificationis made there wil be no time for a "hangon". Rich Farmbrough, 13:10 3 March 2009 (UTC).
- I've run into this as well. When using Twinkle, very rarely I tag a CSD and uncheck the "notify user" box. Then I go to the user's page only to discover they've got the giant CSD bot message already. I usually only do this if they've repeatedly recreated the exact same article, or if there is a situation where the standard tempates don't really apply. If an editor specifically does not wish to leave one of the "normal" CSD messages, I don't think an automated process should be contradicting them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Beeblebrox, for example, if a user wishes to post a uw-create4 warning then the bot is contradicting this, and even if they delete the bot message and replace it with their own, it will leave the user receiving the message confused, as well as making the bots edits redundant, cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- ST47 made a comment on their talk page, I asked that further comments be left here, so if you have any opinion on what they said, please leave them below, cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 05:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Beeblebrox, for example, if a user wishes to post a uw-create4 warning then the bot is contradicting this, and even if they delete the bot message and replace it with their own, it will leave the user receiving the message confused, as well as making the bots edits redundant, cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will continue to place my comments here, where they belong, in this proper forum. I must say I find ST47's attitude about this entire thing very disconcerting. He actually expects the affected users to fix the bot themselves.
- This is not an isolated incident. He apparently hasn't been reading his own talk page. There are several different users complaining about the very same issue at different times: here, here, here, here plus the two separate complaints here (Spitfire's and mine). It doesn't matter how often the bot runs. If there is no grace-period programmed into the bot, there will always be the potential that the bot will run at the same time someone is in the process of working on a CSD tag.
- Given ST47's clear belligerence in this matter, I would like to make a formal request that BOT Policy be enforced, to wit: "Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval (for example, by editing too quickly). (WP:BOT#Dealing_with_issues) ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that is one nasty attitude. So, his position seems to be that he won't comment here, because it is an "idiotic notice board" and he won't fix it or even think about it because we are all "people who do stupid things." I'm sorry he feels that way, but given his stunning refusal to even discuss this with affected users, I have to agree, shut it down pending fixes to these problems. We shouldn't have automated processes being run by users who think anyone that has a problem with them are "stupid." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Quoted bot policy refers to violations of edit rate restrictions. I see no issue with the bot's placement of warnings on its runs, which occur only every 15 minutes. If you disagree, then fix it yourself, such is the wiki model. ST47 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think perhaps we need comment from another BAG member due to the circularity of this; CSDWarnBot was approved as a clone of another bot, which ST47 themself approved. The lack of an opt-out ability or true delay for users who wish to leave their own warnings is sub-optimal. –xeno (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I edit articles and don't know a damn thing about programming a bot. You don't see an issue, even though numerous users have pointed it out. Frankly, I don't think this bot really accomplishes very much, as most CSD taggers do leave talk page messages via Twinkle or manually, and it is obviously upsetting users who are trying to leave their own messages. As I said before, there are some instances where a message of this type is inappropriate, and your bot is contradicting the wishes of human editors. Bots are supposed to assist editors, not hinder them and create more work. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- ST47...I'm not sure what your issue is, but perhaps you simply want people to kowtow to you. OK. Here it goes....
- I do not know how to fix the bot.
- I don't know how to edit a bot.
- If I did, I would fix it myself - but I don't.
- I bow to your mental superiority and technical prowess.
- I am a lowly edit-by-hand, non-script-jockey editor.
- I am but one of the peons - barely worthy of contributing to Wikipedia in your eyes.
- There....now will you please fix the bot?
- What you are failing to see is that it does not matter how often the bot runs. Whether it's every 15 minutes or every 30, there will always be potential that the bot will step on users who are in the process of working a CSD tag so long as there is not a grace period written. This is counter-productive. Example: A user places a CSD tag in an article at 2:59 and then goes to the author's page to comment. At 3:00, CSDWarnBot places its own canned warning. Effectively usurping the efforts of the live, human editor. This is editing too quickly - period. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- No. You see, the issue isn't that I'm an evil malicious bot overlord. The issue is that I really just don't feel like it. I suppose if there are any botops around who agree with you, then someone will get around to writing a patch. After all, surely all the bot ops are reading this, since I'm now being forced to communicate on this pointless noticeboard. (If you need anything further from me, let me know on my talk page, I'm not watchlisting this.) ST47 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- ST47...I'm not sure what your issue is, but perhaps you simply want people to kowtow to you. OK. Here it goes....
ST47, can you stop being so awkward, this is the place to resolve this, not your talkpage, as for you refusing to fix your bot, in light of that I have to agree with others that the bot should just be blocked intill such a time as you are ready to fix it (or someone else), to be honest, I really couldn't care less if you end up not seeing this because you couldn't be bothered to watchlist this page, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I stumbled upon this discussion when responding to a different thread (regarding another bot-related problem) on ST47's talk page (in which ST47 just referred to me as "whiny," "stalker-esque," "petty" and "irritating"), and I'm stunned by ST47's attitude. "I really just don't feel like it" is not a valid rationale for refusing to alter behavior deemed disruptive by the community, regardless of whether the edits in question are performed manually or via a bot.
- So yes, shut down the bot until ST47 agrees to fix it.
- Incidentally, while I lack the coding ability to implement such an idea, I suspect that the simplest solution would be for the bot to run once every ten minutes and post talk page messages pertaining to deletion warnings discovered during the previous run. That would ensure a delay of 10–20 minutes (instead of the current range of 0–15 minutes). —David Levy 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not when properly labeled and maintained. —David Levy 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Addbot
Cross posted from Bot Policy Noticeboard
Pillar – a new PHP bot framework
When I submitted a BRFA last week, Anomie looked over my code and made a good number of helpful suggestions that I implemented before the code went live. It then set me off on a code-writing spree and I have written a new PHP bot framework from scratch. I think the code is clearer and easier to use than most of the others that are currently available, and I have made an effort to document the code in phpdoc format.
Obviously it is not finished yet and doubtless there is significant functionality that could be added. If you want to contribute to it or give me ideas that I could implement, I'd be delighted.
The Google code site is http://pillar.googlecode.com/
Generated code documentation (along with highlighted and cross-referenced code) is available at http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/pillar/doc/index.html
I have converted my cricket bot (BRFA) to this code: the converted version (20% smaller than the original!) is available at http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/pillar/example/
Comments/flames/trouts welcomed!
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)