If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. To do so, follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming it may be a good idea to ask someone else to run a bot for you, rather than running your own.
Instructions for bot operators | |
---|---|
Instructions for approvals group members | |
---|---|
![]() Archives |
---|
Old Format |
Contents |
Current requests for approval
MadmanBot
Operator: Madman (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 00:27, Friday September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic.
Programming language(s): PHP.
Source code available: No.
Function overview: E-mail activation codes to contributors who signed up for free 1-year Questia accounts.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A. (I was asked to do this via e-mail.)
Edit period(s): Once a month or so.
Estimated number of pages affected: ~400 per run.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes.
Function details: Basically the same task as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 15, which has run without any issue at any point, but for Questia accounts instead of HighBeam accounts. Maybe this should be extended to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library in general?
Discussion
Cheers! — madman 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I asked Madman to do this and I just want to say that having codes be emailed by a bot has literally enabled The Wikipedia Library to flourish. Manually emailing hundreds of codes would be soul-crushing. So I obviously support the need for this, and I believe the editors who receive their account information by email are also appreciative of the work Madman and MadmanBot have done. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlike stub creation, a speedy approve is appropriate, similar task, technically competent proven bot operator, responsive to input about bot and task. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey Bot 3
Operator: Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:19, Wednesday September 5, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual followed by automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB source code
Function overview: Add {{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania}} to a large number of articles (2218)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Discussion took place at User talk:Dthomsen8#UPenn. Discussion only took between the two most active members of the five in the WikiProject; however, all members were invited and none responded within 1 week. None of them have been active (more than 5 edits) within the past month. The task is uncontroversial as it only affects internal categorization
Edit period(s): One time run, may possibly take in chunks
Estimated number of pages affected: 2218
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will add {{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania|class=|importance=}} to all of the articles listed at User:Ryan Vesey/University of Pennsylvania. The bot will not fill the empty parameters. I currently have no intention of placing the template within {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} if the shell exists on the page; however, if someone has an idea as to how that can be done, I would be more than happy to do it that way. My initial few edits will be done manually to ensure there are no bugs and then I will switch to bot mode.
Discussion
Adding the WikiProject banner to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} if it exists may not be difficult, and I'd vastly prefer it if the bot did this rather than leaving an outlying WikiProject banner for a human contributor to clean up. You could try the Perl-compatible regular expression here; it's five years old but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't still work. Cheers, — madman 03:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think AWB will add a new project, other than WP Biography, inside WPBS. But, if you process the list twice, it should make sure
- WikiProject University of Pennsylvania is inside WPBS.... first pass adding WP Pennsylvania, second pass moving Pennsylvania inside WPBS. User:Magioladitis would know for sure. Bgwhite (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It's easy. I bet you try to append the text in the talk page, right? you should load this script to the custom module: User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects to normalise the WikiProject names and AWB's general fixes will add the template in WPBS automatically. You only need a single run for each page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying the custom module will need to be used with genfixes? I was planning to append the text in the talk page; however, is it advisable to use genfixes in bot mode? Ryan Vesey 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Running genfixes is generally fine as long as you're also doing something else, which you are; there's no possibility of purely cosmetic edits. — madman 02:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea someone will try to add this with AWB. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Dasschaefchenbot
Operator: Das Schäfchen (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 16:12, Thursday August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual:
Python (uses Pywikipedia)
Source code available: [1]
Function overview: Interwiki-Bot
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): most daily
Estimated number of pages affected: ca. 10 to 30 a day, perhaps more
Already has a bot flag yes, on bar.wikipedia
Function details: Fixes interwikis, not more
Discussion
Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- a) why was the bot already running? b) can you tell us the interwiki parameters that will be used? Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 09:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I use interwiki.py -new -autonomous and interwiki.py -start:xyz -autonomous. Sometimes I use the force-tag, but then I check every edit, but normally I don't use it.--Das Schäfchen (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Generally we would prefer that you not use it at all when also running with -autonomous. Sure, any errors can be cleaned up later but it's better not to make the errors at all. Also, you haven't answered Rcsprinter's first question. Why was your bot running without approval? — madman 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the user has seen this message and replied, please remove this tag. (user notified)
-
-
- I hate strong rules, why is everything so complicated ... I did some (many) test edits, in the German Wikipedia is that allowed. Greetings --Das Schäfchen (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
-
StubSyncBot
Operator: Jesse V. (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 07:12, Monday July 30, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Combination of automatic and manual Mainly manual, it may be possible to make some portions automatic.
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: "AWB"
Function overview: Synchronizes stub classification between an article and its Talk page. If an article is a stub, then this bot will ensure that any WikiProject tag on its Talk page will also indicate that it's a stub.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): One at the Village Pump and another on my Talk page
Edit period(s): Mainly one time run, possible rerun in several months or so
Estimated number of pages affected: From ~1.6 million article stubs, most likely over 9,000 article Talk pages, but a maximum of ~90,000 depending on the outcome of the discussions over the functionality of the bot. Reruns of this bot should only affect less than a hundred Talk pages.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: This bot inserts the stub classification into a WikiProject tag on the Talk page if and only if the article is currently a stub and WikiProject templates in the Talk page do not already indicate stub status. Some portions of this task can be done completely automatically, while others will be manually assisted unless I can figure out how to automate a text insertion. Although it would affect any WikiProject, using WikiProject Computer Science as an example to illustrate the four types of edits the bot would make:
- If a stub's Talk page contained the {{WikiProject Computer Science}} tag, the bot would change it to {{WikiProject Computer Science|class=Stub|importance= }}
- {{WikiProject Computer Science|importance=}} becomes {{WikiProject Computer Science|class=Stub|importance=}}
- {{WikiProject Computer Science|class=}} becomes {{WikiProject Computer Science|class=Stub|importance=}}
- {{WikiProject Computer Science|class=|importance=}} becomes {{WikiProject Computer Science|class=Stub|importance=}}
A full description of the bot's function is purpose, function, and the regular expressions behind it is listed on User:StubSyncBot.
Note: some details of this bot's functionality are being discussed in the Village Pump, (link above) including a debate over whether the bot should replace |class=Start with |class=Stub if the article is a stub. It is becoming more clear to me that this bot should be manually operated, although I'm still hoping that I can reliably fully automate certain find-replace aspects.
Discussion
I am very unsure this is desired by all Wikiprojects, mostly because I would expect their talk page rating to be more up to date than the presence (or lack thereof) or a stub template. Typically a stub is created, then expanded. After expansion, the talk page is updated, but people either leave the stub template behind to encourage more expansion, or forget about it. The case that a stub template in the article should overrule a |class=C
on the talk page is very flimsy.
However, if this is only for the cases where |class= is empty, then there should be no problem of making that |class=Stub
|auto=yes
, on an opt-in basis [i.e. the Wikiproject has the final word on whether they want to do this or not]. Also some projects don't use |importance=
and it should not add that one needlessly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. I can see how people can update things manually, the problem is when tools like AWB and others start auto-tagging new pages as Stubs, or when someone uses AWB to automatically create Talk pages and add certain WikiProject templates to them. The two get out of sync. I can see that if someone cared a lot about the article they would also update the Talk page. Your "The case that a stub template in the article should overrule a
|class=C
on the talk page is very flimsy" statement is very similar to the one I raised in the Village Pump discussion, (link above) and there is also much debate about that, so unless I see a lot of support for it, I don't think I'll have the bot do that at this time. I think it would be very rare to see a |class=C when the article was a stub, if it's not a |class=Stub, it's more likely to be a |class=Start. Jesse V. (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC) - I found User:STTWbot, which has a similar functionality: "Stub class is added based on already existing stub templates." Clearly mine is going to do this too, except that it's not limited to just one or two WikiProjects. Jesse V. (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is with STTWbot, that was how those Wikiprojects wanted things to happen (WP:FR and WP:GER), and it didn't overrule existing assessments. You can't assume all Wikiprojects desire the same handling of their templates. Some prefer to do it by hand, others are fine doing it by bots, and others don't use the assessment schemes at all. Hence why the projects get to decide how bots should handle their banners. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Per the above, this task will not be approved under any circumstances unless it is on an opt-in basis (per WikiProject) instead of an opt-out basis (excluding WikiProject banners without class or importance parameters). If it is on an opt-in basis, then the bot can overrule a Start-class rating or any other rating if that's what the WikiProject wants. But there is no consensus for project-wide enforcement of this task's parameters or anything like them. Thanks, — madman 04:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- What if I blacklist all Wikiprojects except the ones that are listed in both Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment and which use Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Quality_scale? I have thought about the impact that this bot would have, and I've come to really agree with the objections that have been stated against it. Some WikiProjects handle stubs differently than others. With them in mind, if I focus on the ones in both aformetioned categories, I don't think there should be a problem. How would you feel if the bot were to skip over a Talk page that contained any templates of blacklisted WikiProjects? • Jesse V.(talk) 02:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would feel that not all WikiProjects within Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment will have opted in. I understand the rationale behind this task and I think that WikiProjects should find it useful. But they still have to be asked, because there are human contributors to those WikiProjects. And you'll find they have differing opinions as to what constitutes a Stub-class article, as to how stub templates are currently being used, and even as to how bots are being used and whether they should be touching "their" banners at all. There's no indication at this time of any sort of cross-project consensus for this task. So unfortunately it can't be approved except in the circumstances I describe. — madman 08:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I very much like the idea of this task and I think it will be a great benefit but I do have a couple recommendations. Make it option and let the projects that want too and those that don't want too won't. I also don't think that it should replace
|class=start
with stub unless the project wants that which I suspect most won't. The problem is the classification of adding stub templates and how a project determines stub class could be different. Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I very much like the idea of this task and I think it will be a great benefit but I do have a couple recommendations. Make it option and let the projects that want too and those that don't want too won't. I also don't think that it should replace
- I would feel that not all WikiProjects within Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment will have opted in. I understand the rationale behind this task and I think that WikiProjects should find it useful. But they still have to be asked, because there are human contributors to those WikiProjects. And you'll find they have differing opinions as to what constitutes a Stub-class article, as to how stub templates are currently being used, and even as to how bots are being used and whether they should be touching "their" banners at all. There's no indication at this time of any sort of cross-project consensus for this task. So unfortunately it can't be approved except in the circumstances I describe. — madman 08:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- What if I blacklist all Wikiprojects except the ones that are listed in both Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment and which use Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Quality_scale? I have thought about the impact that this bot would have, and I've come to really agree with the objections that have been stated against it. Some WikiProjects handle stubs differently than others. With them in mind, if I focus on the ones in both aformetioned categories, I don't think there should be a problem. How would you feel if the bot were to skip over a Talk page that contained any templates of blacklisted WikiProjects? • Jesse V.(talk) 02:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Per the above, this task will not be approved under any circumstances unless it is on an opt-in basis (per WikiProject) instead of an opt-out basis (excluding WikiProject banners without class or importance parameters). If it is on an opt-in basis, then the bot can overrule a Start-class rating or any other rating if that's what the WikiProject wants. But there is no consensus for project-wide enforcement of this task's parameters or anything like them. Thanks, — madman 04:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is with STTWbot, that was how those Wikiprojects wanted things to happen (WP:FR and WP:GER), and it didn't overrule existing assessments. You can't assume all Wikiprojects desire the same handling of their templates. Some prefer to do it by hand, others are fine doing it by bots, and others don't use the assessment schemes at all. Hence why the projects get to decide how bots should handle their banners. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} It seems pretty clear that the bot needs to operate on an opt-in basis. If that is fine with you, we could go to trial. If not, then I don't think this BRFA can go foward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the decision then I guess we can proceed from there. I can use AWB to notify all the WikiProjects. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to devote to this bot since my studies resumed at USU, but I'll see what I can do. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to look into using User:EdwardsBot, it's probably faster than using AWB. LegoKontribsTalkM 03:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's actually a few bots that can do that for you, such as User:Project Messenger Bot. However, for the trial, that's not really necessary, just find yourself a project that's willing to be the guinea pig, and let us know when you're ready for trial. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would volunteer WPUS but I have already done them manually so you wouldn't get much. Try asking at WikiProject Biography. They have a massive amount of unnassessed articles. Even if the bot were 90% right it would be a massive improvement. Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page appears essentially abandoned, and the WikiProject itself is semi-active. How about WikiProject Computing? Per this thread it looks like they have a lot of unassessed articles too. I'll write a note on their Talk page. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} – Looks like WikiProject Computing hasn't replied. Is there another WikiProject we could try? — madman 20:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The operator has been watchlisting this page, so I'm staying on top of this discussion. I think this lack of response is going to be common. I really believe that since I'm targeting all the ones that use Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Quality_scale and Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment, they all should agree on what a Stub is. Honestly, the stub classification is fairly simple and I believe to be fairly uncontroversial. As one moves up towards GA, A, and FA, things become more tricky and require experts from the respective WikiProjects. There was controversy with replacing |class=Start with |class=Stub and when I wanted to affect all WikiProjects, not just the ones using 1.0's quality scale. WP:MILHIST was specifically brought up, and this bot won't be affecting it because MILHIST doesn't use 1.0's quality scale. I've adjusted what I'm going after, and I really didn't expect this resistance. I don't know what other WikiProjects need attention. Please advise. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what other WikiProjects need attention either, unfortunately, as I'm not a member of any at all. Maybe another post at WP:VPP asking what WikiProjects would be interested in the trial may help? The Stub criteria may be completely self-explanatory and self-evident. Personally, I agree with you that this request is fairly common-sensical. The problem (though I'm not sure I should say it's a problem) is that we can only approve bot requests which have evidence of consensus, and so far there is no consensus that all or even most of the WikiProjects using the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's quality scale are at all interested in having a bot do assessments for them. There would probably be no problem at all with a human contributor performing this task. But bots may make many edits in a small amount of time and their scope in requests such as this is very broad. Therefore, they're more restricted in what they may do. I hope this makes sense. Thanks, — madman 01:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- The operator has been watchlisting this page, so I'm staying on top of this discussion. I think this lack of response is going to be common. I really believe that since I'm targeting all the ones that use Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Quality_scale and Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment, they all should agree on what a Stub is. Honestly, the stub classification is fairly simple and I believe to be fairly uncontroversial. As one moves up towards GA, A, and FA, things become more tricky and require experts from the respective WikiProjects. There was controversy with replacing |class=Start with |class=Stub and when I wanted to affect all WikiProjects, not just the ones using 1.0's quality scale. WP:MILHIST was specifically brought up, and this bot won't be affecting it because MILHIST doesn't use 1.0's quality scale. I've adjusted what I'm going after, and I really didn't expect this resistance. I don't know what other WikiProjects need attention. Please advise. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} – Looks like WikiProject Computing hasn't replied. Is there another WikiProject we could try? — madman 20:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page appears essentially abandoned, and the WikiProject itself is semi-active. How about WikiProject Computing? Per this thread it looks like they have a lot of unassessed articles too. I'll write a note on their Talk page. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would volunteer WPUS but I have already done them manually so you wouldn't get much. Try asking at WikiProject Biography. They have a massive amount of unnassessed articles. Even if the bot were 90% right it would be a massive improvement. Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's actually a few bots that can do that for you, such as User:Project Messenger Bot. However, for the trial, that's not really necessary, just find yourself a project that's willing to be the guinea pig, and let us know when you're ready for trial. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to look into using User:EdwardsBot, it's probably faster than using AWB. LegoKontribsTalkM 03:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Cyberbot II
Operator: Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 07:19, Thursday May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic (will be monitored at first for any glitches)
Programming language(s): PHP
Source code available: No
Function overview: Notifies subscribed users in this list to vandalism levels when a set threshold is reached.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit#Task_Force
Edit period(s): Reads the {{Vandalism information}} template every minute. Edit period depends on Vandalism levels.
Estimated number of pages affected: Number of users subscribed in the list
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: During my Wikibreak, I was summoned to the task force to create a notifications bot for users so they don't have to proactively check the vandalism information template. This is what this task does. It reads {{Vandalism information}} and notifies the users who signed up with the minimum DefCon setting met. It only notifies people in this list.
Discussion
There is still question about how often the bot should notify a user. It checks it every minute and sends notifications out every minute which is very annoying. Some suggestions would be appreciated.—cyberpower ChatOffline 07:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't really see the point. Personally, I just check the vandal info template before I start vandal fighting, then maybe again half an hour later. It never gets updated very often anyway. Who wants to be disturbed just to have a bot tell them the defcon has changed? Does it tell them even if it hasn't changed? I think a better thing would be just to tell them when it does change, rather than every minute or whatever. But maybe set it so it only does it when the user's status is set to 'online', so their talkpage isn't nothing but these reports. This is all totally pointless, somebody could just put the template on their watchlist and see when it changes then! I object to the bot. Rcsprinter (converse) 16:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am doing this because it was asked of me to make a bot. Only users who subscribe to notifications will receive them and they set the minimum DefCon that they would like to receive notifications for. No it will not warn them repeatedly for the same level.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Given his history, this user should be required to submit the source code along with any bot requests until he has a trustworthy track record of running and maintaining a bot. As for the bot itself, not only is this a pointless task (the template was created so interested editors could easily monitor the levels), but the whole idea of a vandalism task force is waste of Wikipedia time. If you want to "fight" vandalism, you just open up your watchlist or recent changes and start checking edits. So I'd be against wasting server resources on up-to-the-minute vandalism level checks from a bot, a) for something already handled in a by-request template and b) for the purpose of turning Wikipedia into a video game. — Bility (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- What? Have I proven to not be able to run bots? I am running approved tasks across several wikis including this one and have maintained and updated when needed. I fail to see where you are trying to go with this.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm referring to Cyberbot I and the events surrounding it. Do you currently run a bot on en.wikipedia? What is the bot's name? Where I am going with this is that concerns were brought to light in the Cyberbot I request that you hadn't fully understood the code you were modifying and/or weren't taking the time to make sure it was correct. I would be more comfortable with a second pair of eyes on your code until you have a bit of history running/maintaining a bot. We do not need to prove you are unable to run a bot, you must prove you're able to run a bot. As far as other wikis go, they all have their own guidelines and standards for giving out bot flags, so I'm only interested in your actions on this wiki. — Bility (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. User:Cyberbot I runs on several wikis including this one.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- To add on, so that we all understand the purpose of this bot, let me try and get to the benefits this bot will provide. First, because it isn't clearly stated on this request or the instructions at the subscriber list, I am assuming this bot will "send notifications" by posting to users' talk pages. Okay. Users will either be online or offline. In the latter case, when they log in they will have a message of the last time the vandalism level passed their threshold, in which case they need to look at the template to get the most current information. Or will the bot rewrite messages to update the latest time or add messages for when the level falls back under the threshold? If so, will there be a series of messages on someone's talk page when the level flips back and forth between 2 and 3 for instance?
- Now let's say the user is online and actively doing something so they would see a talk page notification. If they are currently "fighting" vandalism, then they check their talk page and go right back to what they were doing, correct? In which case it was a pointless notification. If instead they are just browsing or doing some other type of editing, they will check their talk page and decide whether to stop what they were doing to go handle increased vandalism. I think that covers all the scenarios?
- So in conclusion, this bot will make requests to the server every minute so that users who are online and not currently fighting vandalism are aware of the elevated levels and can then maybe go deal with it. And how many people will this potentially be supporting? There are under 100 on this list and currently just three on the subscriber list. Is this a good use for a bot? — Bility (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The list was just created and nobody yet knows about it. It takes time for something to gain popularity. There are other methods of getting the users attention. A template that is changed by the bot for instance is another method and will trigger the new messages bar. The point of this bot is to let dedicated vandal fighters know when vandalism levels are elevated and should join in fighting. It's not mandatory and it allows each user to set their own minimum DefCon level.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- How will changing a template trigger the new messages bar? My point about there being less than 100 people in the Task Force is that is the theoretical limit even at full popularity, yes? The existing vandalism information template already "let['s] dedicated vandal fighters know when vandalism levels are elevated", so my question is whether it's worthwhile to let a bot ping the server 1,440 times a day for the additional benefit of giving a small number of people the new messages bar. I can't speak to Wikipedia's server load, so if once-a-minute requests won't affect things then I don't have a real objection, I just think this task isn't important enough to allow impacting the server. I do think small bot tasks like this can eventually add up to a material difference though, so we should limit approvals to tasks with high benefit for the project. — Bility (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may be a small task, but pulling page content from Wikipedia takes less resources than making an edit. There is practically no resource gobble up when it reads the DefCon. The thing is, if dedicated vandal fighters respond more promptly by getting a notification and thereby increasing vandalism control, it is thereby an effective task in a way that it keeps Wikipedia clean. Again the list may be small, but the benefits can be big. I recommend having this bot approved for trial. If it turns out it's not worth the effort, the task can still be killed. There is a shutoff switch for easy control.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're recommending it for trial by submitting the BRFA and should wait until some BAG members have had their say before pushing it. There are probably another load of things they'd like to say. And also, how can you get some people to subscribe just for a trial? Rcsprinter (converse) 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what I meant. I meant that putting it through a trial to see if it makes noticeable change by alerting those who respond to notifications better than by proactively checking the template. It's BAG's choice if and when to approve it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're recommending it for trial by submitting the BRFA and should wait until some BAG members have had their say before pushing it. There are probably another load of things they'd like to say. And also, how can you get some people to subscribe just for a trial? Rcsprinter (converse) 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may be a small task, but pulling page content from Wikipedia takes less resources than making an edit. There is practically no resource gobble up when it reads the DefCon. The thing is, if dedicated vandal fighters respond more promptly by getting a notification and thereby increasing vandalism control, it is thereby an effective task in a way that it keeps Wikipedia clean. Again the list may be small, but the benefits can be big. I recommend having this bot approved for trial. If it turns out it's not worth the effort, the task can still be killed. There is a shutoff switch for easy control.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- How will changing a template trigger the new messages bar? My point about there being less than 100 people in the Task Force is that is the theoretical limit even at full popularity, yes? The existing vandalism information template already "let['s] dedicated vandal fighters know when vandalism levels are elevated", so my question is whether it's worthwhile to let a bot ping the server 1,440 times a day for the additional benefit of giving a small number of people the new messages bar. I can't speak to Wikipedia's server load, so if once-a-minute requests won't affect things then I don't have a real objection, I just think this task isn't important enough to allow impacting the server. I do think small bot tasks like this can eventually add up to a material difference though, so we should limit approvals to tasks with high benefit for the project. — Bility (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The list was just created and nobody yet knows about it. It takes time for something to gain popularity. There are other methods of getting the users attention. A template that is changed by the bot for instance is another method and will trigger the new messages bar. The point of this bot is to let dedicated vandal fighters know when vandalism levels are elevated and should join in fighting. It's not mandatory and it allows each user to set their own minimum DefCon level.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- What? Have I proven to not be able to run bots? I am running approved tasks across several wikis including this one and have maintained and updated when needed. I fail to see where you are trying to go with this.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can I please see/review the source code?
- There needs to be some kind of rate limiting to avoid spamming the crap out of people
- It'd like to see more discussion about this. Three comment on Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit isn't nearly enough (particuarly as one of the comment is "I think it would be impractical to send a message to each user's talk page each time vandalism is abnormally high")
To be clear, if you can show us, that users acutally want this bot, and that it will be useful; then we can probably go ahead with it. However at the moment, I don't think that is the case. --Chris 03:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
-
- People would have to first know that this exists. In that case it would need to be advertised.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Please advertise it (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is probably the best place, although any widely read page/noticeboard will do). What about my other two questions? --Chris 09:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I've been incredibly busy. To answer your other two questions, I'm not really willing to post my source publicly yet but can e-Mail you the script that will run the bot. I've run simulations and the bot performs normally however, I'm not ready to give you the code yet because until I have the rate limiter installed to avoid spamming it's not ready for testing yet. I was hoping to get input here but I just came up with the idea that every user should choose for themselves by setting that when signing up. Does that sound like a good idea?—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 10:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Please advertise it (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is probably the best place, although any widely read page/noticeboard will do). What about my other two questions? --Chris 09:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- People would have to first know that this exists. In that case it would need to be advertised.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Rcsprinter's concerns over the usefulness (or rather, lack thereof) of this bot. I'm not entirely sure why this needs to be a bot—at all. I mean, if the goal is to spawn the "you've got messages" box (or something equally intrusive) whenever the vandalism level is high, wouldn't this be better as a javascript-based user script? Or a gadget? All it takes is an API query for the current content of {{Vandalism information}}, then a regex to see what it is, and then making a fluorescent notification DIV. You can even cache the result using a cookie so that it only asks the API every 'x' minutes. --slakr\ talk / 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- You may be right, I've gotten back to working on this. I have added a few parameters to code and will start to find out if the community will support this.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Surely you should have got consensus before you requested approval? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am preparing an RfC at WP:CVU to attract primarily those involved in CVU to comment as it primarily concerns them. Other editors will also be invited to comment and support. It should be up by tomorrow.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the excruciatingly long delay. I have started up the RfC here.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am preparing an RfC at WP:CVU to attract primarily those involved in CVU to comment as it primarily concerns them. Other editors will also be invited to comment and support. It should be up by tomorrow.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Surely you should have got consensus before you requested approval? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- You may be right, I've gotten back to working on this. I have added a few parameters to code and will start to find out if the community will support this.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is the source code unable to be released? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- At this point I can't release it yet as it's not fully complete yet with all the implementations. I will release it when I am certain is ready for testing on Wikipedia.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Questions I have a few questions about this bot:
- If the bot notifies a user while they are offline, does it provide them subsequent notifications when the level changes or does it stop after the first?
- The purpose of this bot is to notify them of elevated vandalism. This can be while they're offline or online. The goal being it triggers the orange bar and as a result sends an email notification about new messages. This will lure currently offline users into potentially vandal fighting. As per popular request, a schedule will be added to allow the user to set notification times. When vandalism levels change it will only notify them when the notification rate is set to 0.
- What is the point of a notification when the user is offline?
- Talk page pings trigger email notifications. An offline user is more likely to see that.
- How does the bot know when a user comes online and sees the message? Have you considered making some sort of status system a requirement for users who wish to use the bot?
- The bot will have a rate limiter and schedule service installed. User can then freely tell the bot when to notify them.
- What will happen if someone breaks the formatting of your notifications list? Will the bot auto-shutoff or recognize the error?
- The bot will most likely auto-shutoff if the list can't be read. If it's and entry error, it will ignore the entry. If the parameters are not in the order specified though, the bot may screw up.
- What will happen if a vandal adds 1000+ names randomly to the notifications list? What will prevent users from getting spammed who do not wish to use it? Would a better approach be to use a template on the user's userpage that puts them in a specific category for each level? ie {{vandal notes|2}}?
- I have considered this and I believe a better approach will be to make it a template to optin with. Either way, the bot is {{bots}} compliant so if users get spammed, they can deny further notifications using that.
Thanks.--v/r - TP 14:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have answered the questions above. I am making the requested modifications and am letting you know that I haven't forgotten about this.—cyberpower ChatOffline 14:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} – How are the modifications going? When they are complete, I, like Chris G, would like a copy of the source code. I understand you not wanting to post it publicly; I myself hate to release anything until it's "perfect". But given that this may be a contentious task, it would be desirable to iron out any technical problem before it is approved for trial, if it is approved for trial. Thanks, — madman 04:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I got sucked into real life sooner than I thought I would. There is so much going on right now that I barely have time to come up with the mods. Rest assured though, I am working on it.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} – How are the modifications going? When they are complete, I, like Chris G, would like a copy of the source code. I understand you not wanting to post it publicly; I myself hate to release anything until it's "perfect". But given that this may be a contentious task, it would be desirable to iron out any technical problem before it is approved for trial, if it is approved for trial. Thanks, — madman 04:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Bots in a trial period
Legobot 20
Operator: Legoktm (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:42, Thursday September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: standard pywikipedia with modifications
Function overview: Marks broken redirects for speedy deletion
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): botreq
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: ~25-50/day
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
- Gets a list of pages from Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects
- Checks that each page exists, and is a redirect page
- Verifies that the target page does not exist
- Mark for deletion using {{db-redirnonebot|bot=Legobot}}
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). MBisanz talk 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Commons fair use upload bot
Operator: Dcoetzee (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 01:56, Monday August 27, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Unsupervised and automatic, runs on Toolserver (however, its actions are triggered by administrators on Commons)
Programming language(s): Python, mwclient
Source code available: Yes, from https://github.com/wikigit/Commons-fair-use-upload-bot
Function overview: Cross-wiki bot. If an image currently in use at En is going to be deleted on Commons, a Commons administrator may choose to tag it with {{Fair use delete}}, and the image is automatically reuploaded here with a {{di-no fair use rationale}} tag (see example). Any articles where the image is in use receive talk page notices, reminding them to complete a fair-use rationale if they wish to continue using the image (example).
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This is a request to renew authorization after the expiration of the bot's 7-day trial in April 2011 (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot). The bot ran for about 15 months after that without authorization (I forgot to renew - my fault), and was recently blocked. See recent ANI discussion, which was archived prematurely and so inconclusive. I've added to the bot's user page to clarify its precise function and link to requests for approval as a result of that discussion.
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: Roughly 2-5 per day
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, not needed
Function details: Most details of operation already described above. Full page and file history is included for license compliance. The bot runs once an hour. The bot also sometimes uploads images that are PD in the US but not in their source country, which are permitted here but not on Commons. Such works are tagged with the {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} tag on Commons, and then transferred here with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tags.
I should note that, due to a bug in User:CommonsDelinker, images will still be removed from articles when they are deleted from Commons even if they have been reuploaded here using Commons fair use upload bot. I just looked up the old thread in which I contacted the bot manager and they said "I cannot fix that. Patches for CommonsDelinker are appreciated. The code is in pywikipediabot's svn.". So there is a possibility they might accept a patch for this.
Discussion
- As one that commented before, I think the assurances (particularly tagging for rationale) is appropriate. I wonder if we also need to tag {{Di-no license}} if the reasoning that the image can't be used at Commons is unclear. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that would probably depend on the image. Usually the author/source/license information is accurate, but sometimes (when the claimed license is invalidated during the deletion request on Commons), the false license tag should really be removed before tagging it with Fair use delete. In such a case Di-no license seems like a good idea, and it may be possible for the bot to detect that no license tag is present. Dcoetzee 02:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Correction on the timeline: The bot was approved for trial in April 2011, and performed the trial then. Then there was some discussion about an alternative implementation, and then the operator did not respond to requests for a status update, and the request was closed as expired on 2 July 2011. Then the bot started operating again on 15 July 2011, and apparently no one who noticed it running noticed that it was never approved until recently. Anomie⚔ 02:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oops thank you for the update, my mistake. I don't remember what happened before as it was a very long time ago, but I think I just wasn't checking on the request page and was under the misapprehension that it was already approved. The bot seems to work fine in its current condition and I'm not planning an alternative implementation any longer. Dcoetzee 03:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Question about a different issue: I once reported that there was a problem with transfers preserving template codes in image description pages that have incompatible meanings on Commons and on en-wp, especially the {{copyvio}} template. Has this been fixed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, these are removed in the current version. Not all such templates have yet been discovered but I can add them easily at a moment's notice. Dcoetzee 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- How about {{PD-release}}? That's a rather scary template. The Commons template says that the file has been released to the public domain by the uploader. The Wikipedia template also says that the file has been released to the public domain, but does not tell by whom it was released to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- That one seems pretty rare and I think it can be handled manually after re-upload for now. Dcoetzee 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- How about {{PD-release}}? That's a rather scary template. The Commons template says that the file has been released to the public domain by the uploader. The Wikipedia template also says that the file has been released to the public domain, but does not tell by whom it was released to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, these are removed in the current version. Not all such templates have yet been discovered but I can add them easily at a moment's notice. Dcoetzee 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you should be using regex to parse templates, for reasons vaguely outlined here. A Python package for template parsing exists at http://pypi.python.org/pypi/mwparserfromhell/ . →Σσς. 07:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree - I was not aware of this package and it looks excellent and I'll use it, although for the moment I think the regex parsing is sufficient. Dcoetzee 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is another common "free in USA only" tag, {{FoP-USonly|France}}, for photos of recent French buildings. Replace "France" with "Belgium", "Russia" or some other country name for buildings in other countries. Wouldn't it be a good idea to add support for that tag too? I see FOP-related deletion requests on Commons all of the time. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that would be another good one to add. Another one is for works that meet the threshold of originality in their source country but not the US. However, I need to work on the support for multiple kinds of reupload tags, which is currently ad hoc, so this would be a feature to add later. Dcoetzee 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can we please expedite this request? It is a necessary function, and having it blocked at this end is problematic for the wider functioning of xwiki issues, and will more likely result in the loss of viable images. The functionality is required, it has the base requirements, user is trusted and competent, so that leaves the requirement around the bot edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that would be another good one to add. Another one is for works that meet the threshold of originality in their source country but not the US. However, I need to work on the support for multiple kinds of reupload tags, which is currently ad hoc, so this would be a feature to add later. Dcoetzee 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Approved for trial (7 days). MBisanz talk 00:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked User:J Milburn to unblock the bot so that it can function during its trial, at User_talk:J_Milburn#Please_unblock_User:Commons_fair_use_upload_bot. Dcoetzee 13:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Tom's Tagging Bot
Operator: Tom Morris (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 09:15, Wednesday August 22, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python (using mwclient)
Source code available: Not yet, but I'm happy to do so within the next few weeks.
Function overview: Bulk creation of talk pages with WikiProject banners
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 20,000+ in the course of a few months. I have just under 4,000 tasks sitting in the queue at the moment already.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: There are currently 250,000+ article pages on English Wikipedia that do not have a talk page and are thus not part of a WikiProject. I have been manually tagging hundreds of these from my personal account. Tom's Tagging Bot should be able to make a severe dent in this and help bring to the attention of WikiProjects pages that they didn't even know where part of their remit.
The bot consists of a simple message queue, namely Beanstalk'd. I have 'reader' processes that locate tasks that need to be done by scanning through categories and inspecting pages to see if they don't have talk pages. When it finds pages that don't have talk pages, it adds a task to the queue, which is basically a mapping of page name to WikiProjects. When I set the reader tasks going, I specify what the WikiProjects are based on context. So, for instance, Beanstalk'd has a binlog, so if the power goes out, I can restore the queue to a recent version. The 'reader' process checks to make sure the page isn't a redirect.
The page creator process simply pops jobs off the queue and handles them. Both the page creator process and the reader process use mwclient for Python which automatically handles replag. The page creator process checks immediately before page creation to ensure that the page hasn't been created already. I'm planning to add a log of these cases for later human review too.
A very simple example of this might be: the reader process might iterate through every page on Category:History of Roman Catholicism, finding any that do not have a talk page. It would then add a job to the queue with the page name and the tag {{WikiProject Catholicism}}. The writer process would then pick the job up and create the talk page with the banner from WikiProject Catholicism.
The code currently isn't exclusion compliant. I see no need to add exclusion compliance to bot code for page creation since pages which do not exist are highly unlikely to contain a bot exclusion template. If the BAG feels it necessary, I am happy to check to ensure that the main article page does not have an exclusion template before creating the talk page.
Discussion
Name fails WP:BOTACC. Rcsprinter (post) @ 10:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can set up a new account that's less fabulous and more literal... —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Done —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. How are the categories mapped to WikiProjects? Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I look at the category in question and take a rough stab at it. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like you to add tags to all articles in category:algae and all its subcategories. Can you also make them class:stub if the article is in a stub category? And, could you then provide a list of articles you tagged so I can rate their importance? I thought I saw a bot already that did this, but could not find it again. Eau (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)- Yep, although the first iteration of the bot won't handle subcategories. I may write a function that recursively walks the category tree and does so. I handle the stub thing manually. In fact, I can specify any WikiProject banner text I want when setting the jobs going and add custom functionality for specific types of article when necessary. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Approved for trial. Well, with the caveat that you notify Wikiprojects before doing a run when the bot is approved, I don't see any reason to not go forward with trial with this. So since I'm part of WP:PHYS, and that we do stuff like this all the time, I'm going to approve the bot for a run on Category:Physicists and it's sub-categories.
- Tag with {{WikiProject Physics|class=|importance=|bio=yes}}
- Inherit assessments from other projects
- If no assessments from other projects, add |class=stub if a stub template is found in the article
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not all articles in that category are biographies. We couldn't have done a trial run with an algae category? Eau (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Done The bot has run through Physicists and made 50 edits. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- "wikiprojects" isn't a very good edit summary. A better one would be something like: "Bot: Taggging with {{WikiProject Physics|class=GA|importance=top|bio=yes}}". Or something to that effect. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Will write a function to do just that. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... right, you're only tagging new pages, so no need for inheriting class from other banners. However, it would be good if you could assess articles as stubs based on length, much like AWB does. An article with 300 readable prose characters (i.e. excluding infoboxes, navboxes references, categories, etc..., see [2] for a neat script that calculates this) can safely be assessed as a stub, but that length could be double/tripled/etc. by project upon request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. Added a prose size calculator to the todo list. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... right, you're only tagging new pages, so no need for inheriting class from other banners. However, it would be good if you could assess articles as stubs based on length, much like AWB does. An article with 300 readable prose characters (i.e. excluding infoboxes, navboxes references, categories, etc..., see [2] for a neat script that calculates this) can safely be assessed as a stub, but that length could be double/tripled/etc. by project upon request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Will write a function to do just that. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- "wikiprojects" isn't a very good edit summary. A better one would be something like: "Bot: Taggging with {{WikiProject Physics|class=GA|importance=top|bio=yes}}". Or something to that effect. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
HostBot
Operator: Jtmorgan (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 01:02, Saturday July 7, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python, uses WikiTools
Source code available: Source code available here: [3]
Function overview: A proposed extension of HostBot's duties to include inviting selected new editors to participate in WP:Teahouse by posting an invite template on their talk pages.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge#New_bot_proposal:_automated_invites._Input_requested.21
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 70 - 100 pages per day
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): N/A
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Teahouse relies on direct outreach to new editors for a great deal of its traffic. But manually inviting people via talk page templates is time-consuming. Since many invites need to be sent each day, invites are sent to a subset of new editors in a pre-filtered list, and the task is fairly tedious and without much personal interaction at present, we feel it is a good candidate to experiment with automation.
HostBot currently publishes a daily invitee report which consists of a list of ~50-100 new editors who meet a set of baseline criteria for invitation. These criteria are intended to screen out both account creators who don’t intend to edit seriously, and blatant vandals.
Currently, Teahouse hosts manually invite this set of editors using a standardized talk page invite template. Because of hosts’ other time commitments, many days no invitations are sent out at all, and so many of the promising new editors that the Teahouse could serve don’t hear about it. We would like to try automating the invite process in order to see if it increases good-faith only traffic to Teahouse and allows volunteers to spend time on more personal tasks, such as answering questions and welcoming new editors who do visit Teahouse.
We’re aware that automatic welcoming is one of the perennially rejected bot proposals, and that some might think automated invitations are similar. The reasons generally given for rejecting welcome bot proposal are:
- If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal, and the bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.
- The bot would make thousands of pointless edits welcoming vandals and accounts that never make an edit.
These are valid concerns for welcoming on Wikipedia, as welcome templates are delivered to a majority of new editors each day, but they don’t apply to the situation of Teahouse invites.
- “If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal...” - The bot-delivered template will be similar to the current hand-pasted or Twinkle-assisted template that is currently used for invitations. Although these are delivered by humans, they aren’t very personalized, but they do direct editors to a place where they can receive highly personalized help. Bot delivery would serve the same function.
- “The bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.” - Although HostBot itself isn't capable of mentoring or assisting newcomers, it will link people to Teahouse, where rapid assistance is available from real people 24 hours a day via the Q&A board and IRC. We intend to adjust the language of the invite template so that new users are aware that it was delivered by a bot, not a human.
- “The bot would make thousands of ...edits” We have no intention of inviting more than 100 new editors per day through this automated process, a relatively small number of edits.
- “...welcoming vandals...” All potential invitees will be checked against the block log and any editors who are or have been blocked will be excluded. Furthermore, we have found that only a small percentage (around 10%) of the editors who meet our invitation criteria are subsequently blocked. In fact, we saw no significant difference between the percentage of subsequently blocked users in a group of manually invited new editors and a control group of new editors who fit our basic invitation criteria, suggesting that--in this situation at least--humans are not necessarily better at predicting which new editors are likely to vandalize than a bot would be.
- “welcoming... accounts that never make an edit.” We will only invite new editors who have already made several edits during their first 24 hours; we will not invite all new account creators. The current 10 edit/24 hour threshold was established based on research that showed account creators who make 10+ edits in their first 24 hours are significantly more likely to continue editing than those who show less initial activity.[4]
We invite your feedback on how to make the automated invite process compliant with existing bot policies and best practices; we want to do this right. If approved, we intend to implement automatic Teahouse invitations via HostBot on a trial basis, for a period of 2 weeks. Bot behavior will be monitored daily by Teahouse hosts during this period, who will perform spot checks to make sure the bot is performing as designed. After the trial, we will assess whether this invitation process has led to an increase in vandalism, and/or whether the bot has had any other unforeseen impact.
Discussion
{{BAG assistance needed}} - No action taken on the request by the BAG for almost a week now. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I personally think this is fine. It seems to have been given more thought than your average "welcome bot" and it's for a good purpose. I'm inclined to go along with the two-week trial; does anyone else have thoughts on this before we give it the go-ahead? — The Earwig (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just for the record, a mock BRFA on this was held at the Teahouse host lounge prior to this BRFA. Just thought I would mention it for the record. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just for your information: it is already linked above at the standard questions... mabdul 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm - Must have missed that. Anyway, there's the link. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just for your information: it is already linked above at the standard questions... mabdul 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just for the record, a mock BRFA on this was held at the Teahouse host lounge prior to this BRFA. Just thought I would mention it for the record. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Approved for trial (14 days). — The Earwig (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Has the source code been published? It looks like it has some quirks in it. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
When I first joined Wikipedia, I was welcomed by a person. I still remember that. I'm not sold on the idea that having a welcome bot, even if limited by specific parameters (edit count, block status, etc.), is a good idea. Hasn't a good amount of the relevant research (by both your team and other groups) indicated that new users—in particular—value human interaction, not botspam? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could clearly define what problems you're attempting to address with this bot. Fundamentally, using a welcome bot is a bad idea. I say so, the community has said so on countless occasions, and nothing in this request makes it clear that anything has changed that requires a re-evaluation of this position. You're certainly not the first bot operators to suggest adding filters/constraints to the input list. This is a perennially denied request for a reason.
If you can begin to define the problems you're trying to address, it might be helpful in developing actual solutions to those problems. What you've currently created is a wall of text to obfuscate the fact that you're simply re-proposing what has been previously (and rightly) rejected countless times. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think some of this has already been answered. First off, no one disagrees that getting a personalized message from a specific user (e.g. "thanks for doing [[x]]") is the best kind of welcome. Currently, this is quite rare, with the majority being automatic through Twinkle, etc. Even though these are left manually or semi-manually by actual users, the message itself is mass-produced and not any more friendly than the message the bot will leave.
- Re "what problems are we trying to address?", my understanding is this: "One of the big items [...] is to increase the number of invitations sent to new editors every day. To make sure that Teahouse hews closely to its mission of active outreach to very new editors, we need to invite more of them. But we know that manually inviting people is time-consuming and tedious. During the pilot period, Sarah and RosieStep took on the lion's share of invites, and the rest of us invited a little, a lot, or not at all depending on our availability and inclination. I don't think that model is sustainable." The bot does not seem significantly more impersonal than the "personal" welcomes currently being left and there is no more "human" interaction in that than this. Actual interaction comes from discussion after the welcome, which in this case is facilitated by the teahouse, and in the standard case, is facilitated by the welcomer's talk page. Are you challenging the mass-welcoming of users with boilerplate messages or the use of a bot to do so? I can understand the former, but that is a process that has been going on for years and extends far beyond this single request. The latter (the purpose of this request) is just to make that easier on the teahouse itself so they can spend more time on mentoring than inviting. — The Earwig (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Earwig hit my point exactly. This could be considered more of an "invite-bot" than a welcome-bot. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can I bring to the table that the WMF is known to make bots that invite people to their projects based on their editing habits (I don't mean that the TH is just another WMF project, I'm talking in general about projects such as WP:NPT)? This really could simply be considered a large-scale invite bot, just as Earwig said. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- - Sorry about the double post, but the bot hasn't been turned on yet. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can I bring to the table that the WMF is known to make bots that invite people to their projects based on their editing habits (I don't mean that the TH is just another WMF project, I'm talking in general about projects such as WP:NPT)? This really could simply be considered a large-scale invite bot, just as Earwig said. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Earwig: I'm challenging the use of a bot here. As I said, I don't see anything said above that negates the reasonable conclusion that many previous discussions about this topic have come to: a welcome bot is a poor idea.
- The Teahouse seems to have plenty of active volunteers. Perhaps better tools are needed for these volunteers to be able to do outreach? I completely agree with you that a personalized welcome message would be best. Why is that so difficult? What can be done to make it simpler? Focusing on that problem might actually work toward resolving the underlying issue, rather than throwing a spambot at the problem. (The idea presented on this page that this is not a welcome bot and is instead an invite bot is simply absurd. They're all particular types of spambots. I think I would know, I run one of the most obnoxious ones.)
- If people are going to devote resources to working on this problem, I'd like to see it done by actually working toward a sustainable solution. I don't believe there's any distinction here between what has been previously rejected and what is being proposed. Automated welcoming should be avoided. While users can certainly engage in welcoming by hand (just as they can fix wikimarkup by hand or do spell-checking by hand or do whatever else by hand), that is not a reason to condone the use of bots here (just as we perennially ban spell-checking bots and bots to fix wikimarkup and whatever else). --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The real problem being solved is that it takes freaking forever to invite the same people "by hand" that the bot would invite. I still say that if the people who disagree with using a bot (to show people the friendly and peopled place we are waiting to welcome them to) want to spend a few hours a week inviting people then yes, awesome! we don't need it. But we do. Because it makes very little sense not to. It makes a lot more sense to spend all of that time and energy with people who need help or greeting people who want to interact. Basically I am saying the same thing as J-Mo, but repetition for emphasis or something I guess. heather walls (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have to second that: as I already mentioned in the 'pre BFRA' at the Teahouse page, I'm strictly against to welcoming bots. I see the need of welcoming users for the TH and that (especially) new users should get the attention and the information that there are helping boards like the TH or the HD are out there; this is the actual reason I had nothing against to implement the (additional checkbox for the) automatic TH invitation welcoming into the AFC helper tool. I believe there are more tools out there which could also get such a invitation addition. mabdul 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
-
A few brief points (wouldn't want to be a textwaller!): first, the trial will need to be postponed a week anyway as I crawl my way out of Wikimania backlog/coma and get the new code written, tested and made available in an online repository, which I will then provide a link to (no arguments with you there, MZ). Second, I think that many people involved in this discussion and elsewhere will agree with me that the Teahouse itself is an attempt to address the "underlying issue" of new editors not getting sufficiently personalized welcomes. The invite template is simply the most expedient mechanism for directing new editors to a place where they can feel welcome and be welcomed by a person. If we can save hours of volunteer time by automating that process, we create more opportunities for friendly interaction on the Teahouse, which is a lot more satisfying for both guests and hosts. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- MZ, I'd like to understand more about why you think it's simply absurd to distinguish between invites and welcomes here. Just because a message is delivered by similar means doesn't mean the content, intent, or impact is necessarily the same. The Teahouse invitation is just that - an invitation to visit the Teahouse. It doesn't preclude someone from also receiving a welcome message (templated, handwritten, or otherwise). I've seen no evidence demonstrating that TH invites are serving as a replacement to other talk page welcomes, though I would be interested to learn if anyone else has. TH has demonstrated positive impact on new editors who hear about it, and the way that they currently hear about it is not sustainable. There are probably a lot of ways the TH invite method and message could be improved. One way that TH would like to experiment with is via bot delivery. Because the project team intends to measure the outcomes of a 2 week trial, we'll all learn whether or not bot delivery is more or less effective than the current method (ie, whether or not more or less people in the sample feel motivated to ask for editing help at the Teahouse and whether or not more or less people continue to edit the encyclopedia after receiving the bot-delivered invite), and that should help resolve the issue of whether or not bot delivery is a good or bad thing for this particular message. If you've got other amazing ideas for sustainable solutions to inviting people to the Teahouse too, though (and I bet you do!), I'd love to hear about them, because it would be great to see the project team experiment with several things in addition to this in order to see what works best. Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Some of the comments above try to make a distinction between "invite bots" and "welcome bots" as a means of attempting to bypass the longstanding prohibition on welcome bots. That is, people feel that if this particular bot (HostBot) can be re-labeled, its behavior becomes acceptable. My point was that any such distinction is absurd; both invite and welcome bots are forms of spam bots.
- I'll try to diagram what I see here:
- Problem: users should be welcomed to project and invited to contribute further
- Past proposed solutions:
- Use a bot!
-
- bots are impersonal; prefer (personalized!) human messages to users when possible
- Current proposed solution:
- Use a bot!
-
- nothing has changed
- As I said above, we can't (and we won't) stop users from dropping awful welcome templates on user talk pages (e.g., this monster: Template:Anonwelcomeg). However, as a community, the English Wikipedia has said that we do not want a welcome bot. There's an existing MediaWiki extension (NewUserMessage) deployed to over 20 Wikimedia wikis that automatically welcomes new users. The English Wikipedia is not one of those wikis. As far as I know, there's been no shift in consensus on this issue.
- The comments above by Jtmorgan are along the lines of "oh, of course, we'll just filter the list better to a certain edit count and block status!", as though none of the previous bot operators had considered such a thought. As Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots#Welcome bot makes clear, "Several variations have been proposed, such as only welcoming users who have made an edit, or a certain number of edits, but these requests are still denied."
- So I'm left wondering: what has changed that makes the Teahouse feel that this bot request is appropriate? If there's such active interest in welcoming new users and participating in the Teahouse, why can't human editors be used here? If people want to devote resources to improving this situation (by writing scripts, e.g.), why can't those resources be put toward a non-bot solution? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing has changed to make the Teahouse feel that a welcome bot is appropriate. You can say it is a welcome-bot all you want; however, this bot is different. The purpose of this bot is to direct new editors to the Teahouse where they can receive assistance and guidance. Why do you feel that there is any difference between me placing {{Teahouse invitation}} than a bot placing the template? The only difference I see is that the bot frees me to do other things, like interact with the editors or write some articles. Honestly, I don't send out the invitations because I don't have the time. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Add the line: 'Welcome to wikipedia!' and you has a very similar welcome template to {{welcome-short}}... mabdul 20:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing has changed to make the Teahouse feel that a welcome bot is appropriate. You can say it is a welcome-bot all you want; however, this bot is different. The purpose of this bot is to direct new editors to the Teahouse where they can receive assistance and guidance. Why do you feel that there is any difference between me placing {{Teahouse invitation}} than a bot placing the template? The only difference I see is that the bot frees me to do other things, like interact with the editors or write some articles. Honestly, I don't send out the invitations because I don't have the time. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the number of posts I've made here (and the posts' lengths) make it seem as I though I care about this issue more than I actually do. I really don't care very much. I posted here because Jtmorgan asked me to take a look and I did. What I found was a proposal (a message delivery bot for new users) that the community has specifically rejected previously (to the point that people wrote documentation about it) and that I personally don't consider to be an appropriate use for a bot. There are appropriate and inappropriate times to use automation; for me, this is an inappropriate time (much like automatic spell-checking or automatic image de-linking). I think that leaving personalized messages is better and that working toward that goal would be a better use of time and resources. I also don't think there's much community consensus for adding a welcome bot (outside of Teahouse-related folks), but it's not my call. And maybe the community has finally changed its mind and doesn't mind. I'm not a member of the bot approvals group. One of those people (and a bureaucrat, I guess) will decide whether to approve or deny this bot. I'm hoping this is my last post here, but I'm making no promises. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've checked the code for automatic invites into a subversion repository with Google Code (link above). Other HostBot scripts will live there as well, including the code that generates the list of new editors who are to be invited (the same script that runs the daily Invitee reports). I intend to run my first small-scale test tonight, on 10 new editors' pages, and monitor the outcome closely, reverting any errors that may occur. If nothing breaks, I'll set up a cron job to run the automatic invite script daily for the duration of the 2-week trial, through 8/5/2012. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 23:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- One of the issues with human notification over bot notification is that humans can see the (top) in their contributions list letting them know they had the last edit on a user talk page. That way, if the user doesn't follow the link to the teahouse, and instead posts a question on their own talk page, a human can see it. So my question is this: in addition to the bot's task, could it also create and maintain a list of user's it has left a notification for who have replied in the same section as the notification on their user page? For example: A) Bot posts teahouse invitation with header "Teahouse". User replies in that thread, bot adds their name to a list that actual users can monitor. B) Bot posts teahouse invitation with header "Teahouse", another user comes by and leaves another template/section/message and the bot will not add the user to the list. Doable? If it's not worth it, not a big deal. Just an idea.--v/r - TP 14:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Mabdul has suggested this too. This is a good idea, and could be implemented without a huge amount of extra work, but it's a big enough task that I want to hold off until after the trial is over to evaluate it. Once the trial is over, I can retroactively analyze how often this kind of thing has occurred. If it happens frequently, I will create a regularly-updated report (or look into setting up an external watchlist with one of the available tools--suggestions welcome!) that will allow hosts to see when a new editor has edited the Teahouse invites' section on their own talk page. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why doesn't it substitute the invite template or the {{BASEPAGENAME}}? Rcsprinter (warn) @ 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Good call. I just changed the code so that it now substitutes the invite template. What do you mean about {{BASEPAGENAME}} here? I don't quite understand what you were suggesting with that. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 19:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Hey J-Mo, I thought we argued that it wasn't subst. because of metrics? Maybe that changed or I misunderstood. LOVEBOT. love. it. heather walls (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the section title. Make it {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}} so it seems more personal. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 19:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- I agree. Looking at User talk:Juyorican the template seems nice. Then you look at the code and it says {{PAGENAME}}, You are.... That doesn't seem like the best solution, especially when the editors might not understand templates yet. I'm also curious as to why there aren't different categories for the two forms of the templates. Shouldn't one be Wikipedians who received Teahouse template A and Wikipedians who received Teahouse template B? Is there another system for doing the measuring for the A/B testing? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- That makes sense too :) Since it was an easy fix, I've just changed the section header to post {{subst:PAGENAME}}. Regarding tracking the different templates: I'm keeping track of who got which version in a database table, so there's no need for the categories to be different. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Some minor notes; there's a rather large gap in between section title and invitation. Only cosmetic, but might as well be addressed.
And it's been 14 days - so please stop the bot for the trial to be assessed.Rcsprinter (warn) @ 13:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)- Note that due to Wikimania, the trial didn't start as soon as it was approved. The trial started on the 22nd so 14 days will be the 5th. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, good catch. Struck above. Rcsprinter (message) @ 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- @RC: Thanks! I looked into this, and the answer seems to be buried somewhere in the WikiTools code. If I find it, I'll fix it, but it may not happen right away. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 04:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note that due to Wikimania, the trial didn't start as soon as it was approved. The trial started on the 22nd so 14 days will be the 5th. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
-
Trial complete. You can view relevant contribs: here. Will link to a couple examples of minor (fixed) errors tomorrow. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 03:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, results are in. Between July 23rd and August 5th (inclusive), HostBot sent out 630 invitations to new editors, for an average of 48 invitations per day. 34 of these editors (5%) were subsequently blocked from editing, roughly same 'error rate' as manual inviting (5%-6%). 18 of these new editors have visited Teahouse so far (asked a question, created an intro, or both), for an initial return rate of approximately 3%, within the range of responses from manual invites and likely to rise a bit over time as people trickle in. I could only find one user (searching by revision comment string) who appears to have responded to the template like it was a person, a concern that TP and Mabdul voice above.
- Here are the major fixes I made to the bot code during the trial. I thank everyone who provided feedback!
- on 7/29, set invite template to substitute rather than transclude, per this feedback
- substituted {{PAGENAME}} in section title, rather than transclude. From Rcsprinter's feedback above.
- check for existing invite (or any link to Teahouse) on user's talk page; skip user if invite already exists. From this feedback
- Let me know if there's any more info you need from me in order to proceed with the evaluation. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- User_talk edits made by HostBot during the trial can be found here. Does the approvals group need any additional information from me before they proceed with the evaluation? - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
not trying to nag, just looking for confirmation that you're not waiting on anything else from me :) - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 20:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag.
Discussion break
Just a headsup related to possibility for the watchlist: Let the bot watchlist all pages which got an invitation (a standard preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist --> Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist) and publish the RSS token as described at Wikipedia:WATCHLIST#RSS feed. This is the easiest solution at the moment (without any tools) to following the new contributing user talk pages. BTW: What does the bot if somebody redirected (by accident, or wanted, e.g. by moving his talk page to mainspace; original used as sandbox) his own talk page to another page? mabdul 07:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for saying that. I may have mentioned it before but if I didn't I meant to. Is it possible to create a public RSS feed or would each person interested in watching it need to create their own? Ryan Vesey 23:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you release the RSS token of the bot, then hence, the RSS feed is public for everyone. mabdul 04:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- That, I understand. What I mean is that I can create a personal RSS feed using something like google reader. As far as I know, I'm the only person who can read that RSS feed. I'm wondering if there are RSS feeds out there where anyone who follows the link can view the feed. That way it would only need to be set up once. Sorry if my terminology is incorrect, I hope you understand what I mean. Ryan Vesey 04:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The easiest thing you can do is get the token, access the feed URL, and then publish it using Google Feedburner. That would make a public watchlist that anyone can access. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- That, I understand. What I mean is that I can create a personal RSS feed using something like google reader. As far as I know, I'm the only person who can read that RSS feed. I'm wondering if there are RSS feeds out there where anyone who follows the link can view the feed. That way it would only need to be set up once. Sorry if my terminology is incorrect, I hope you understand what I mean. Ryan Vesey 04:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you release the RSS token of the bot, then hence, the RSS feed is public for everyone. mabdul 04:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) Sorry, no: you don't understand: if you release the URL of atom-link, then everybody is able to follow:
- On the left at the Watchlist, logged in with the bot account, rightclick in atom (under Toolbox), "copy link address" (or similar, so you get something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=feedwatchlist&allrev=allrev&wlowner=HostBot&wltoken=234567898765de45678edd67e&feedformat=atom key/token unpublished until now)
- If you publish that link, then everybody would be able to follow the watchlist of the bot's account by using a feed reader. (Oh dunno if that changes something in the atom feed, but give it a try: hide "your own edits".
- That's the reason why nobody should release his own personal URL. mabdul 18:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
BAG Comment: As the overturning of a long-standing consensus, this should really be advertised on WP:CENT or somesuch. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I feel like we're going around in circles here. The Teahouse template is not a welcome template, it's an invitation to participate in the Teahouse. No consensus, long-standing or otherwise, has been overturned. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 21:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with this again. It isn't a welcome bot. In fact, it doesn't even welcome the editor. It thanks them and informs them of the Teahouse, two very clear things. No consensus is being overturned. Ryan Vesey 21:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree - I will not repeat what has already been said, but as for welcoming, we're trying to push a link to the Teahouse into the existing welcoming templates. I don't see why this bot is coming under so much scrutiny, it's clear what it's designed to do and for what reason - there's no problem when a user performs these edits. Osarius - Want a chat? 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well okay then, I'll strike the first half of my comment if you take issue with it. But it should still receive more input; mass unsolicited mailings have proven intensely controversial in the past and this is likely to be viewed as a welcome template, even if it isn't, adding to the potential for controversy. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Question for J-Mo. Aside from this trial, doesn't the Teahouse have an expected shutoff date for research analysis to be done? If that is the case, could the bot continue to run through that date. That would also leave more time to see if there are any external complaints. I have seen none except those that have appeared in this BRfA so far. Ryan Vesey 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I still support this. I've read a bit more about this sub-project and it is nothing like a welcome bot. I don't believe this has anything to do with the welcome bot discussion. Somewhere here I have links to the official research report on Meta...here it is. That shows the kind of invites that we will be submitting in the tests. Any thoughts? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Since the raison d'etre of Teahouse is to increase editor retention, we've committed to doing analysis for at least nine months after the end of the pilot period to see if we can detect a shift in the numbers needle. Realistically, analysis will likely continue as long as I have breath in my lungs and a Toolserver account. :) - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that this is technically not a welcoming bot, it does perform a closely-related function, so I'm not sure how fair it is to consider it as a wholly-separate issue. In light of the fact that the Teahouse emphasizes more personal interaction with new editors, it deserves careful consideration.
On the other hand, it's important to consider factors besides the fact that this is an automated process which can lead to it being perceived as impersonal—in particular, the template message. Currently, we are using what is essentially one template (regular one, plus the AFC variant) to invite users. It is the same template, usually with the same message, every time. As far as having a bot do this goes, it's really no worse than what we already have, except instead of a lot of people plastering the same message everywhere, it'll be a few people and a program plastering the same message everywhere. As I mentioned over at Meta (in the discussion of various Teahouse pages by all the hosts), we could really benefit from having a large variety of templates, message wordings, etc. to choose from. Hell, perhaps I'll start making some to use myself, and we'll see if they catch on. If the bot could cycle through various messages / template styles or randomly select one for each user, I would certainly support that. dalahäst (let's talk!) 23:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion break and review
- Hi everyone. So to review, here's where I think things stand: we established that an invite bot is not a welcome bot; for thoroughness' sake, we also addressed each of the specific, listed points of concern for avoiding the use of welcome bots (my first post, above); we demonstrated in a two week trial that automated Teahouse invitations work, and cause no harm.
- We've also demonstrated that our process is cautious, well-supported, closely supervised (by folks like me, Rcsprinter, Ryan Vesey, Nathan2055, Writ Keeper, Mabdul, others) and responsive to feedback. It will continue to be that way.
- Finally, many other editors have articulated the exigence for automated Teahouse invitations better than I ever could, in this forum and in others. What's the next step? - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- We seem to be in a deadlock here. While I, J-Mo, and the others have shown that this bot doesn't seem to be related to the welcome bot issue, several people still persist in saying "OBJECTION!". I believe the only way to solve this is to directly address each person's complaints. I feel like we've already done that, but apparently there still needs to be more consensus here. We have two options. We can either continue this discussion, perhaps with another trial, or we can close this as deadlocked and try again in a month or so. I personally opt for the former, but let's let the BAG decide. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- {{RFC}}? Has that ever been done before? Possibly {{BotExtendedTrial}}? Ryan Vesey 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't seem deadlocked to me, in fact weighing in the direction of 'go'. I don't think we should or can afford to wait, the invites made a big difference. heather walls (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A deadlock in a BRFA has never happened before. Then again, such a controversial bot never made it to BRFA before. If the BAG moves for an extended trial, I will advertise this at CENT. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- {{RFC}}? Has that ever been done before? Possibly {{BotExtendedTrial}}? Ryan Vesey 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- We seem to be in a deadlock here. While I, J-Mo, and the others have shown that this bot doesn't seem to be related to the welcome bot issue, several people still persist in saying "OBJECTION!". I believe the only way to solve this is to directly address each person's complaints. I feel like we've already done that, but apparently there still needs to be more consensus here. We have two options. We can either continue this discussion, perhaps with another trial, or we can close this as deadlocked and try again in a month or so. I personally opt for the former, but let's let the BAG decide. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why this hasn't been enacted yet. Count me among those that thing that the objections involve making mountains out of molehills. As what Ryan Vessey says above, having a bot do this enables me to not have to do it, and instead do something more useful: Isn't that what bots are for? --Jayron32 16:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Approved for extended trial. Approved for an ongoing trial, such that the bot can prove its efficacy and thus gain a more established consensus, whilst not missing opportunities to entice new editors. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There is now one day left until the month of extended trial is up. The bot has been running and appears to be fine, but tomorrow the operator will call in and tell us any findings/bugs. After that, we seem to have general consensus for "yes, start writing invitations." Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 16:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- Question Where does it say "one month" or is that a standard somewhere? heather walls (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- Jtmorgan said he would report back in one month above. LegoKontribsTalkM 22:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- LOL. Thanks! heather walls (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Jtmorgan said he would report back in one month above. LegoKontribsTalkM 22:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for monitoring, Rc. Today I'm incorporating the suggestions that have been made on my talk page, and gathering data together. I'll publish findings from our A/B testing so far, as well as how many invitees visited in general, over the weekend. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Bots that have completed the trial period
VIAFbot
Operator: Maximilianklein (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:19, Friday August 17, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: The bot is technically automatic, but logs cases for humans to check where it found conflicts between dewp and enwp.
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: https://github.com/notconfusing/VIAFbot
Function overview: This bot takes a list of links from viaf.org to Wikipedia and reciprocates those links by way of the {{Authority control}} template after checking to see if the reciprocal link would agree with dewp's Normdaten template. Full details: Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Passed RfC: Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal/RFC and before that at the village pump
Edit period(s): It will be run one-time. A maintenance script could be developed later to refresh content when VIAF is refreshed.
Estimated number of pages affected: ~250,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No, this bot takes the list of articles from a file that's generated by viaf.org they are virtually all WP:BLPs.
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Takes this list Run's this switch:
Key nd - normdaten; ac - authority control; vl - viaf->wikipedia link number (xx) - template does not exist; |xx| - has template but no viaf parameter; |(xx)| -> (xx) or |xx| 1 - |(nd)|, (ac) AC template added VIAF parameter written. 2 - |(nd)|, |ac| VIAF parameter written. 3 - |(nd)|, ac == vl No writing necessary. 4 - |(nd)|, ac != vl Requires human attention. Nothing written. 5 - nd , (ac), nd == vl. AC template added VIAF parameter written. 6 - nd, (ac), nd != vl. Requires human attention. Nothing Written. 7 - nd, |ac|, nd == vl. VIAF parameter written. 8 - nd, |ac|, nd != vl. Requires human attention. 9 - nd, ac , nd == ac == vl. No writing necessary. 10- nd, ac, nd == ac != vl. Requires human attention. Nothing written. 11- nd, ac, nd != ac, nd == vl. Requires human attention. Nothing written. 12- nd, ac, nd != ac, ac == vl. Requires human attention. Nothing written. 13- nd, ac, nd != ac != vl. Requires human attention. Nothing written.
Discussion
Please review Wikipedia:Bot policy. In particular, note:
- Please update the bot's userpage per WP:Bot policy#Bot requirements.
- Pay particular attention to the third paragraph in WP:Bot policy#Bot accounts.
Code comments:
- Why does it try to write Template:Db-meta? Just to test the error?
- Right, that was just to test the error handling for locked pages. It was cruft, and is removed now.
- Why does pageValidate follow 10 levels of redirects, when only 1 is valid?
- I know sometimes that double redirects exist before they are cleaned, and some of these pages jumped around a bit, so I just set the maximum number of redirects to follow to 10, to make sure we're not in a loop. I can reduce it to 5 or even 4.
- The bot does not need to be editing its status pages (via calls to logOnWiki and from exception handling all over the place) for every edit it tries to make. Log them locally if at all possible. If it is really necessary to write them to the wiki, batch them to make one edit every few hours.
- The reason I am logging onWiki is that this information is useful to those other editors, also on German Wikipedia who are attempting to improve VIAF representation. Each time a dewp/enwp conflict is detected I believe that information needs to be reviewed - likewise where dewp disagreed with enwp & viaf.org. I refactored the code to batch the edits and write once there are 100 errors or conflicts of every variety. The plan is for humans to be able to follow along and look at conflicts as the bot is running, so I feel that every 100 is a good compromise.
- Similarly, the bot writes its stats far too often. Rather than posting to the wiki every 100 edits (which probably works out to once every few minutes), write the stats after a reasonable period of time has elapsed.
- OK, switched to 1,000 Maximilianklein (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave any comments on whether there are more efficient ways to use pywikipedia to others, as I'm not very familiar with that framework. Anomie⚔ 14:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Some more code review:
- I don't think it's a safe idea to do
from wikipedia import *
, though I don't see any conflicts.- Done
- Why are you using the replace.py class? Isn't it simpler (and faster) to just call wikipedia.replaceExcept() directly?
- Done.
Same with add_text.py(using add_text allows for text to be put before interwiki links as Max explained on IRC)- Correct add_text.py is nice because it puts the text after the article and before the interwiki and category links, which is very nice.
- I'm not sure what the point of pageValidate is. Couldn't you just use:
if page.isRedirectPage(): return page.getRedirectTarget() else: return page
-
- 2 reasons. The list of links that I'm getting from viaf.org is about 6 months out of date so:
- I'm also checking for multiple redirects, which do sometimes exists - especially within WP:BLPs. For instance sometimes a page title can go from John Smith -> John Smith (Footballer) -> John Smith (Goalkeeper). This is a full list of all redirects I found from the links creation date to last week.
- And secondly some pages don't exist any more because of the out of date nature of the list. This is a full list of all does not exist errors I found from the links creation date to last week. Maximilianklein (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a clear consensus for this task, and it appears all questions regarding the code have been answered. Let's see a trial to evaluate results and iron out any bugs. Approved for trial (35 edits). — madman 04:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the trial. I am busy but I hope to have the trial completed by Oct 1st. Maximilianklein (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Trial complete. See [[5]]. Here's the log from the run:
Articles with VIAF numbers already on DEWP
- 15:53, 13 September 2012 . A.C. Reed added VIAF number 76504615
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abel Decaux added VIAF number 34650276
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abel Ferrara added VIAF number 12486003
- 15:57, 13 September 2012 . Abram Ioffe added VIAF number 10024694
- 15:58, 13 September 2012 . Adalbert Krüger added VIAF number 30290947
Articles with VIAF numbers not already on DEWP
- 15:53, 13 September 2012 . A. A. Long added VIAF number 108651772
- 15:53, 13 September 2012 . A. Craig Copetas added VIAF number 112277389
- 15:54, 13 September 2012 . A. Hays Town added VIAF number 93635604
- 15:54, 13 September 2012 . A. Owen Aldridge added VIAF number 108208332
- 15:54, 13 September 2012 . AM (musician) added VIAF number 170151494
- 15:54, 13 September 2012 . Aaron Glantz added VIAF number 70794690
- 15:54, 13 September 2012 . Aaron Hobart added VIAF number 59872150
- 15:54, 13 September 2012 . Aaron Krach added VIAF number 43671720
- 15:55, 13 September 2012 . Aasmund Nordstoga added VIAF number 226360175
- 15:55, 13 September 2012 . Aatish Taseer added VIAF number 83517573
- 15:55, 13 September 2012 . Ab Jenkins added VIAF number 29425332
- 15:55, 13 September 2012 . Abbas Ibn al-Ahnaf added VIAF number 90047960
- 15:55, 13 September 2012 . Abby May added VIAF number 67278497
- 15:55, 13 September 2012 . Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani added VIAF number 9918029
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abdolhossein Zarrinkoob added VIAF number 188571388
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abdul Hamid Lahori added VIAF number 77040323
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah added VIAF number 46460912
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abo El Seoud El Ebiary added VIAF number 124854473
- 15:57, 13 September 2012 . Abraham B. Hasbrouck added VIAF number 63891746
- 15:57, 13 September 2012 . Abraham Kaplan added VIAF number 122218121
- 15:57, 13 September 2012 . Abraham Raimbach added VIAF number 12578323
- 15:57, 13 September 2012 . Abrahm Lustgarten added VIAF number 4398109
- 15:57, 13 September 2012 . Abu Mansur Maturidi added VIAF number 89281707
- 15:58, 13 September 2012 . Abyale added VIAF number 19869978
- 15:58, 13 September 2012 . Achille Compagnoni added VIAF number 88403827
- 15:58, 13 September 2012 . Adam Bernstein added VIAF number 120262993
- 15:58, 13 September 2012 . Adam Dutkiewicz added VIAF number 181992364
Conflicts of Type 6
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abdoulaye Mamani requires human attention: nd != vl . VIAF number: 56613360
- 15:56, 13 September 2012 . Abdülaziz requires human attention: nd != vl . VIAF number: 122114473
This will be reviewed when possible. You really need to make sure you're never editing under the bot's account when you're not performing an automated task, though. Making human edits under a bot account is an excellent way to get the account blocked. — madman 00:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm very sorry for doing that. There may want to be better guidlines about how to prototype in the pre-trial period. Or a note on not protoyping in the pre-trail period. Maximilianklein (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by prototyping, but the Wikipedia:Bot policy clearly states "Bot accounts should not be used for contributions that do not fall within the scope of the bot's designated tasks. In particular, bot operators should not use a bot account to respond to messages related to the bot. Bot operators may wish to redirect a bot account's discussion page to their own." — madman 15:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Stefan2bot
Operator: Stefan2 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 00:59, Monday September 10, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic.
Programming language(s): Python.
Source code available:
Function overview: Adding {{ShadowsCommons}} to Wikipedia files shadowing a Commons file.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Database reports#Used file names
Edit period(s): One-time run.
Estimated number of pages affected: ≈6-7000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes.
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No.
Function details: At WT:DBR, there was a request for a database report for Commons "shadows". A Commons shadow is a local file on Wikipedia which hides a Commons file because the files have different file names. For example, File:Moonrise.jpg is a typical shadow: there is a local file which prevents Wikipedia pages from using the Commons file Commons:File:Moonrise.jpg.
I have a text file listing a few thousand file name conflicts, and I have been looking at the file manually in the past few months, trying to resolve conflicts. The request at WT:DBR suggests that other users may be interested in the contents of the file.
The idea is to let a bot read that file and add {{ShadowsCommons}} if needed. The bot will read the text file and confirm that there is indeed a file with the same name on both Wikipedia and Commons. If the files are different, the bot will add {{ShadowsCommons}} to the Wikipedia file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
Do you intend to tag only files where the file contents are different or do you intend to tag all files where there is naming overlap? How will you generate such a list? (Would it help to have a database report for you to work off of?) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Database report: Someone posted a list of overlapping file names somewhere (Commons Village pump?) about half a year ago, and I downloaded that file. Most files in the list are still present on both projects. An updated list would be convenient, but it would still be possible to tag several thousand files without a new list.
- What to tag: It would be very stupid to tag {{ShadowsCommons}} everywhere if the same file name exists on both projects. For example, lots of {{keep local}} files exist in identical copies on both projects and should not be tagged with {{ShadowsCommons}}. Also, a file should not be tagged with a second {{ShadowsCommons}} tag if it already has one. The idea is to check the MD5 hash of the files and confirm that the value differs. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). MBisanz talk 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Trial complete. See Special:Contributions/Stefan2bot. Only 48 edits, though. Some comments about specific files:
- File:ITV4 HD.svg: Note that the files really are different. The file on Wikipedia is 67 bytes, but the one on Commons is 66 bytes.
- File:Full Circle.jpg: The bot code contained a typo, so files were tagged with {{ShadowsCommons}} even if they already had a tag. This has now been corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you publish your source code? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Italic title bot
Operator: Riley Huntley (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:22, Thursday August 23, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, Manual: Supervised/Manual
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: User:Italic title bot would add {{Italic title}} to the top of species/films/albums/books articles that do not have the template. Many articles do not have it because it was forgotten or the articles were created before the template was created.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): None
Edit period(s): Weekly or daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Anywhere from 1,000 pages to 20,000 articles
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot would go through several queues (what transcludes Template:Taxonomy, species categories, Book/Album/Film categories) skipping any page that includes {{italic title}} and prepending {{italic title}} to any articles that does not have it. Extra care would have to be given to make sure the template would not be added to titles that are the common name, instead of the scientific name or to articles that were mistakenly added to a film/album/book category.
An exact example of what the bot would do; [6] -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 23:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- Should the bot ignore articles with {{DISPLAYTITLE}}? GoingBatty (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The template mentioned above is not used in the article namespace, so it won't be a problem. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What about the DISPLAYTITLE magic word? Possibly used via another template? Anomie⚔ 21:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have no experience with DISPLAYTITLE and do not know if they is a way I can make AWB skip it like {{nobots}}. I wonder if a plugin could be made to do that? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not encouraging that you don't know anything about the very feature that your bot is intended to deal with. Anomie⚔ 01:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say "Don't know anything", I said "have no experience." I am reading about it now and should have it figured out tomorrow. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 01:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I meant instances such as {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Lost'' characters}} on the List of Lost characters article. In AWB, you could set up the Skip tab so AWB will skip articles that contain "DISPLAYTITLE". GoingBatty (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That can and will be done. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Riley, could you have the bot add
{{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Foo'' bar}}
where the article "Foo" has {{italic title}} on it? For articles like List of The New Yorker contributors, List of The Andy Griffith Show characters, and List of The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo episodes. David1217 What I've done 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Riley, could you have the bot add
- That can and will be done. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I meant instances such as {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Lost'' characters}} on the List of Lost characters article. In AWB, you could set up the Skip tab so AWB will skip articles that contain "DISPLAYTITLE". GoingBatty (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say "Don't know anything", I said "have no experience." I am reading about it now and should have it figured out tomorrow. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 01:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not encouraging that you don't know anything about the very feature that your bot is intended to deal with. Anomie⚔ 01:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have no experience with DISPLAYTITLE and do not know if they is a way I can make AWB skip it like {{nobots}}. I wonder if a plugin could be made to do that? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What about the DISPLAYTITLE magic word? Possibly used via another template? Anomie⚔ 21:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I completely understand what you are asking but I don't think AWB can do what you are asking. An alternative to what you are asking is searching through novel/film categories, have {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of '''' bar}}</code> prepended and then manually add in the novel/episode name and press save. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk
23:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. It seems like a task that could be done by a bot—it would be a large undertaking to do manually. I wonder if someone else could do it... David1217 What I've done 23:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- A bot could easily do it.. Just not one that runs off AWB :P Sorry. I am willing to do the manual work though. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 23:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Could the bot also be used to add {{italic title}} to articles about albums/books/films that don't have an infobox? GoingBatty (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it could and will be used on albums/books/films too. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 07:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- An infobox would not be required as the bot could always run through the film categories on the page. For example: Category:American films. -- Riley Huntley (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with films is that the italic is built into the template so when processing these film articles I would have to make the bot skip the template and have me manually make sure {{italic title}} is not already in the wikicode. (AKA slower) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 01:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} -
Please also note that the bot operator will not be able to run the bot until August 31 as the user will not be at their default computer until then.- I have installed AWB on my laptop now (might be slower tho). -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)- If processing Category:American films, I suggest you skip any articles that contain "infobox", so you wouldn't be adding {{italic title}} to an article that has an infobox that already italicizes the article title. GoingBatty (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you look above, you will notice that I have already mentioned that. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- If processing Category:American films, I suggest you skip any articles that contain "infobox", so you wouldn't be adding {{italic title}} to an article that has an infobox that already italicizes the article title. GoingBatty (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} -
- The problem with films is that the italic is built into the template so when processing these film articles I would have to make the bot skip the template and have me manually make sure {{italic title}} is not already in the wikicode. (AKA slower) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 01:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- An infobox would not be required as the bot could always run through the film categories on the page. For example: Category:American films. -- Riley Huntley (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think of this to be more of a task done without automated assistance. There are many various templates such as {{speciesbox}} which include {{italic title}} in articles. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is true but most species articles use {{Taxonomy}} instead of {{speciesbox}}. If you look here, you will notice that {{Taxonomy}} is used on 216,348 articles while {{speciesbox}} is only found on 2,940 articles [7]. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are other various boxes such as {{infraspeciesbox}} and {{subspeciesbox}}, along with many more. I don't think that the bot would be able to check if any of these various templates are on the page. I believe that manual editing is required. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that there are several species taxoboxs that include {{italic title}} but the truth is that it has to be done with AWB or another program. I once tried to do this manually and 300 articles took a whole night. Now, I am okay if I have to press save each time with AWB but it can not be done by hand, not with the amount of pages involved. The good thing about AWB is that it can skip several different templates though. As anyone with a bot, I am willing to take the responsibility for any false positives and will revert them. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- MediaWiki (and therefore AWB) knows if any template used on the page uses {{Italic title}} in turn. Look at the bottom of the edit page on one of the articles that uses these templates and see. — madman 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know whether AWB supports it or how many pages are still affected by bug 27480 , but it's possible to directly ask the API whether the DISPLAYTITLE magic word is used in a page (e.g. [8]). I suppose the bot could work around bug 27480 by null-editing any page it's testing that hasn't been edited since February 2011. Anomie⚔ 00:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- MediaWiki (and therefore AWB) knows if any template used on the page uses {{Italic title}} in turn. Look at the bottom of the edit page on one of the articles that uses these templates and see. — madman 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that there are several species taxoboxs that include {{italic title}} but the truth is that it has to be done with AWB or another program. I once tried to do this manually and 300 articles took a whole night. Now, I am okay if I have to press save each time with AWB but it can not be done by hand, not with the amount of pages involved. The good thing about AWB is that it can skip several different templates though. As anyone with a bot, I am willing to take the responsibility for any false positives and will revert them. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are other various boxes such as {{infraspeciesbox}} and {{subspeciesbox}}, along with many more. I don't think that the bot would be able to check if any of these various templates are on the page. I believe that manual editing is required. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is true but most species articles use {{Taxonomy}} instead of {{speciesbox}}. If you look here, you will notice that {{Taxonomy}} is used on 216,348 articles while {{speciesbox}} is only found on 2,940 articles [7]. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- If an article includes a template that includes {{Italic title}}, it wouldn't be processed, would it? Riley, you're excluding pages that transclude {{Italic title}} through AWB rather than just searching for it in the wikitext, right? — madman 02:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- No it would not be processed and no, I would not be searching through wikitext. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). – Let's see what the criteria turn up. — madman 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will run the trial as soon as the bot is approved for AWB. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 15:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Trial complete. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 04:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't already have AWB general fixes turned on, you may want to do so, so that other minor fixes can be made at the same time. Also, the "tl|" and the bot name in the edit summary seem redundant. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion: remove "Italic title bot" from the edit summary, it seems redundant with the bots name next to the edit summary. Also, I agree with GoingBatty not to use {{tl}}, and maybe use {{[[template:italic title|italic title]]}}. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't already have AWB general fixes turned on, you may want to do so, so that other minor fixes can be made at the same time. Also, the "tl|" and the bot name in the edit summary seem redundant. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will run the trial as soon as the bot is approved for AWB. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 15:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- No it would not be processed and no, I would not be searching through wikitext. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, the chances will be made! I based the edit summary off of ClueBot NG, which is why the bot name was included. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Another question: will it add {{italic title}} to articles on radio programs? If not, can it be programmed to do so? David1217 What I've done 03:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Have you fully read the function details? "The bot would go through several queues (what transcludes Template:Taxonomy, species categories, Book/Album/Film categories)" It searches through any categories and transcludes through any templates that are chosen. Thus, the answer to your question is yes. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 05:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The function details don't mention radio programs (or many other works that should be italicized per WP:ITALIC). I'd imagine that the AWB options would be the same for each run - it's just how you generate the list of articles and exclude false positives that would be different. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Have you fully read the function details? "The bot would go through several queues (what transcludes Template:Taxonomy, species categories, Book/Album/Film categories)" It searches through any categories and transcludes through any templates that are chosen. Thus, the answer to your question is yes. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 05:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- This shouldn't have happened; {{Taxobox}} had already transcluded {{Italic title}} per Template:Taxobox#Italic page titles. It's only one edit out of fifty but considering this bot's scope that could be a lot of unnecessary cosmetic edits after approval. Can you figure out how that happened? Thanks! — madman 18:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted the edit to confirm that the article title is already italicized. To prevent this from happening in the future, you could install the NoLimits plugin, and then use AWB's List Comparer tool to compare your list of articles with those articles where "What transcludes page (NL, Admin, & Bot)" is Template:Taxobox. Then have your bot only process those articles that are unique in your list (i.e. those that don't have {{Taxobox}}). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think, looking at the trial, that Riley wants to hit at least some articles with {{Taxobox}}; also, that template does not transclude {{Italic title}} in all cases, only when there is no name value and the species value is the same as the page name. Can't he simply skip pages that transclude {{Italic title}}, directly or indirectly? The API exposes that information. — madman 18:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're right - my apologies. Riley may have a way to take advantage of the API when making a list outside of AWB, or use AWB to skip all articles that meet some Regex criteria. GoingBatty (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies too. That is is (obviously) my fault, I remembered (if scanning articles that transclude taxonomy/taxobox) to make it skip articles that didn't contain name = because then the title is automatically italicized but I forgot to make it skip name = . -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 20:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think using a regular expression would be prone to false positives too. I think the most accurate way to do it (even if it'll take a while to make the lists) would be to install the NoLimits plugin, make a list with source "What transcludes page (all NS): Template:Italic title", save that list, make a list of whatever kind of articles you want to work with, and then take the difference of the two lists. Is that feasible? I don't use AWB myself but I'm reasonably familiar with it. — madman 19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, this is basically the same as your solution except excluding pages that transclude {{Italic title}}. And the list comparer would be easier than filtering in the way I described. Cheers, — madman 20:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That would require fetching a list of 459876 pages, and then comparing against it. Wouldn't it be easier to just check his current list and eliminate those which use {{italic title}} using an API query? (I'm not familiar with AWB, so I'm not sure if it's possible.) LegoKontribsTalkM 20:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that that seems excessive, but do you agree that searching the wikitext using a regular expression to determine whether {{Italic title}} is used will be prone to errors, due to the variations in how it may be indirectly transcluded? I think the list wouldn't change enough that it'd have to be retrieved often, maybe only once. I haven't found any way to tell AWB to skip pages that transclude a given page; it looks like the skip options are only those that wouldn't require an API query. GoingBatty would probably know better than I would. A custom module or some such may be necessary? — madman 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- FYI - AWB's List Comparer tool can compare two large lists in a very short amount of time. GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're right - my apologies. Riley may have a way to take advantage of the API when making a list outside of AWB, or use AWB to skip all articles that meet some Regex criteria. GoingBatty (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think, looking at the trial, that Riley wants to hit at least some articles with {{Taxobox}}; also, that template does not transclude {{Italic title}} in all cases, only when there is no name value and the species value is the same as the page name. Can't he simply skip pages that transclude {{Italic title}}, directly or indirectly? The API exposes that information. — madman 18:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted the edit to confirm that the article title is already italicized. To prevent this from happening in the future, you could install the NoLimits plugin, and then use AWB's List Comparer tool to compare your list of articles with those articles where "What transcludes page (NL, Admin, & Bot)" is Template:Taxobox. Then have your bot only process those articles that are unique in your list (i.e. those that don't have {{Taxobox}}). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have downloaded NoLimits plugin and but I think it will be best for me to create a list once everyone has decided what I should do (that way I won't be wasting time). Legoktm, I have a good knowledge of AWB, but API is beyond my knowledge, which is why I am using AWB for this. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 20:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I wasn't sure if you could make an API query with AWB, but it doesn't seem like it's possible. It looks like CatScan would work for this, however since GoingBatty said the list comparer is fast, that might be easier. LegoKontribsTalkM 20:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- AWB's list comparer provided with version 5.4.0.0 is much faster. Don't try comparing lists of this size with previous versions. Of course another solution would be to create a custom module and add the desired skip conditions. for instance you could check if a certain parameter of Taxobox has length > 0 and skip accordingly. If this task is one off I would recommend the list comparing. It will take a while but it will save you from the skip conditions and the custom module. I hope I helped. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Approved requests
Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (), while old requests can be found in the archives.
- BG19bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 17:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 19) Approved 23:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Joe's Olympic Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 21:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BG19bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AvocatoBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 16:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Ganeshbot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- SteenthIWbot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 00:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BG19bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 01:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Cyberbot I (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 19:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnomieBOT (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 67) Approved 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- RMCD bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 01:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 18) Approved 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Approved 18:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- SuggestBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- SuggestBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Approved 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 17) Approved 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnomieBOT (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 66) Approved 23:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MahdiBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- JBradley Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- EarwigBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 19) Approved 01:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 16) Approved 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- OKBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Approved 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DarafshBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Hmainsbot1 (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 02:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Svenbot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Svenbot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Robert SkyBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 15:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- TowBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 06:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Denied requests
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.
- ThundaBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 15:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- DipankanBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 04:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- RjwilmsiBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Bot denied 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Legobot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Bot denied 08:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- VibhijainBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- SimeonBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- SimeonBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Helpful Pixie Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 48) Bot denied 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Helpful Pixie Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 50) Bot denied 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Helpful Pixie Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 53) Bot denied 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- MahdiBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 13:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- タチコマ robot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: (13)) Bot denied 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- DarafshBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 23:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Colourful Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- DarafshBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Expired/withdrawn requests
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at anytime. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.
- Italic title bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 03:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- CeraBot2 (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 00:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- UnitBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: (reopen)) Expired 04:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- TronBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Knedlik-Pod (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 04:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hazard-Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Expired 04:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bulwersator: bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 04:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- BotMultichill (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Expired 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ryan Vesey Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 05:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hazard-Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Withdrawn by operator 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hazard-Bot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Withdrawn by operator 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- VedeBOT (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 09:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Snotbot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Withdrawn by operator 23:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mcarling (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 15:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- BlevintronBot (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 03:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- JordanJamiesonKyserBOT (tasks · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Withdrawn by operator 21:56, 21 March 21 2012 (UTC)