Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Shortcuts:
WP:BRFA
WP:RBA
WP:B/RFA
WP:RFBOT
WP:RFBA
Overview of bots  · How to create a bot · Bot Approvals Group · Bot policy · Bot status page · BAG tools
Requests for work to be done by a bot · Bot owners' noticeboard · Requests for bot approval
Please remember that all editors are encouraged to participate in the requests listed below. Just chip in - your comments are appreciated more than you may think!

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
I Before applying for approval
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Ensure that you have read the bot policy and that your bot is compliant with it, and that your idea isn't listed as a frequently denied bot.
  • It is also generally a good idea to create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage, describing its functions and including an 'emergency shutoff button' (template here) just in case anything goes wrong.
II Filing the application
  • Replace BotName with your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
  • Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.


  • Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page:
    • For new bots: Click here and add {{BRFA|YOUR_BOT_ACCOUNT_NAME_GOES_HERE||Open}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
    • For new tasks for existing bots: Click here and add {{BRFA|YOUR_BOT_ACCOUNT_NAME_GOES_HERE|TASK_NUMBER_GOES_HERE|Open}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
III During the approvals process
  • After a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input, an approvals group member will most likely approve a trial for your bot and move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{BotTrialComplete}} to the request page and move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot (it helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred).
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
  • At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IV After the approvals process
  • After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
    • For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
    • For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
  • It is also good practice to list your bot on the bot status page to let other Wikipedians know about your bot and what it is doing.



Archives

Old Format
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4
New Format
Categorized Archive all subpages of this page

Contents


Bot Name Status Last edit Date/Time Last BAG edit Date/Time
Deonbot (T|C|B|F) Open 69.226.103.13 2009-07-16, 16:39:55 Never edited by BAG 2009-07-16, 04:19:23
XeBot (T|C|B|F) Open ClickRick 2009-07-15, 18:17:41 Mr.Z-man 2009-07-15, 18:09:36
CSDify (T|C|B|F) Open Kingpin13 2009-07-16, 10:29:04 Never edited by BAG 2009-07-10, 21:19:19
TedderBot (T|C|B|F) Open 69.226.103.13 2009-07-16, 16:32:54 OverlordQ 2009-07-16, 06:25:29
IrcamBot (T|C|B|F) Open LeMiklos 2009-07-10, 10:14:37 Jarry1250 2009-07-09, 13:16:15
EarwigBot I 4 (T|C|B|F) Open The Earwig 2009-07-16, 18:11:24 Never edited by BAG 2009-07-16, 18:11:24
Xenobot 6.1 (T|C|B|F) Open Xeno 2009-07-13, 15:29:15 Jarry1250 2009-07-08, 18:27:18
Botryoidal (T|C|B|F) Open William Allen Simpson 2009-07-10, 11:58:43 Quadell 2009-07-02, 16:52:22
SDPatrolBot 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial Kingpin13 2009-07-15, 01:03:38 MBisanz 2009-07-10, 19:21:09
Coreva-Bot 2 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 69.226.103.13 2009-07-04, 07:11:01 Quadell 2009-06-22, 22:38:46
SPCUClerkbot 3 (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! BAGBot 2009-06-22, 22:40:10 Quadell 2009-06-22, 22:35:34
CSDCheckBot (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! Mr.Z-man 2009-07-16, 04:55:39 Mr.Z-man 2009-07-16, 04:55:39
UnitBot (T|C|B|F) In trial Hyperdeath 2009-07-03, 16:01:29 Quadell 2009-06-25, 13:16:52
NNBot II (T|C|B|F) In trial Nn123645 2009-07-13, 20:33:45 Quadell 2009-06-25, 13:16:21
Erwin85Bot 8 (T|C|B|F) In trial Erwin 2009-07-05, 11:17:50 Quadell 2009-06-25, 13:08:11

[edit] Current requests for approval

[edit]

[edit] Deonbot

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: Deon

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic (supervised)

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: N/A

Function overview: Works for Spotlight to deliver notices/newsletter etc to members.

Edit period(s): Weekly.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~20 User_talk pages per week. Possibly go up as membership goes up.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No, as this will impede the ability of the member to receive updates from the group. If the user does not want to receive the notices, then they should consider not placing their name on the Newsletter list.

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

Function details: The bot user account will be used by me (User:Deon) to leave membership notices and deliver newsletters to the talk pages of the users involved in the project. The user account will edit automatically with AWB, under full supervision of Deon. Diffs look like this [1], [2], [3], etc.

[edit] Discussion

Personally I think there should be some way to be part of the project, but not receive the message, especially since it seems you have a user who doesn't want the messages. Would it be possible to create a bot subpage, where users can add their names, and the bot won't send messages to those users? Other than that, this looks good to me - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That was the small exception, to 'advertise' the project. There are pages for subscriptions ([4]) and in future we won't contact anyone else. This was a one-of 'test run' to see how the notifications would work. Thanks for the reply, — DeontalkI'm BACK! 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This is confusing on the project page, to me as someone stopping by, "Please add your name to the list below. Users will be notified of upcoming projects and successful work, on their talk page." I think people want to list their names as members of a project, but may not want to be notified by bot. I understand you've considered this and designed the bot to operate that way, so no problem with the bot, but how the project works and the bot relationship should be consistently stated everywhere. For that reason this is more a project point than a comment about the bot. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit] XeBot

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: Orango

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikipedia page in metawiki

Function overview: Add Interwiki Links.

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details:

[edit] Discussion

Hello. What exactly does this bot do? Thanks. AHRtbA== Talk 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It add Interwiki Links using Interwiki.py script. Thankyou --Orango talk! 01:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm still unclear.
  1. Which articles will it link?
  2. Which interwiki languages will get linked?
  3. If it is running automated, how will it verify that the articles are in fact related? i.e. How will it recognise the case where an article exists on two wiki projects with the same name but about different subjects?
  4. How would it cope with an article existing on another wiki project under a different name from the one on here?
—ClickRick (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Pywikipedia's interwiki.py is a pretty standard script for doing interwikis, used by probably 90% of all interwiki bots. Does the bot have a flag on any other wikis? Mr.Z-man 22:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

interwiki.py requests are generally speedily approved. Not sure why there's an exception being made here (echoing Mr.Z-man). --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, since Wikinews seems to be okay with it, and it's hasn't broken anything yet, a speedy approval may be okay. Although some one may want to check that the added interwiki links are going to the right place. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The post looks like an attempt to understand the bot rather than stop its approval. ClickRick did not mention an exception to speedy approval and isn't a member of BAG anyway. Could someone in the know answer the questions, regardless of approval? A link to prior approvals of the same type of bot, or anything might help. I'm curious also.

I think discussion is allowed in the RFAB stage. Running this board as if discussion is the norm could help prevent future messes like anybot creating 6000 articles that need deleted. Part of discussion in a community like wikipedia might be knowing that newcomers may stop by anytime. Answering their questions is a good way to establish that outsider input is a welcome part of the process. If the bot impacts someone's community, they may want to discuss it first. That's my opinion about discussion at RFAB. As to the bot, curious, but no opinion on its approval. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, probably 90% or more of interwiki bots running on Wikimedia projects use this script. Its probably the most-used bot script on Wikipedia. Some other recently approved interwiki bots using interwiki.py
According to this tool, the account has a bot flag on 10 other wikis. As for details of operation, there's a summary in the in-code documentation for the script. Mr.Z-man 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you—those links help a lot. —ClickRick (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit] CSDify

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: AHRtbA==

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, sometimes supervised

Programming language(s): C#, DotNetWikiBot

Function overview: If a article get's tagged for Speedy Deletion and the Creator of the Page is not notified after 20 minutes, CSDify will notify the Creator on their talk page.

Edit period(s): Semi-Continuous. When I decide to run it.

Estimated number of pages affected: About 15 per hour. Depending on how many pages are nominated for Speedy. (when the user isn't tagged)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No

Function details: The Bot patrols Candidates for speedy deletion for Pages not already in the Bot's ToDo list (excluding User, User Talk and Talk pages). If a new Page is found, then it checks for one of the CSDify compliant DB templates on the page. (all DB templates excluding G5-G8 and G12. Also A2-A5, A9, F1-F11, C1-C2, T2-T3 and P2, because they have no talk page template)

If one of those is found, the Bot periodically checks the Page Creator's talk page to see if they have a notice about the SD. (The bot checks to see if the title of the SD article is anywhere on the talk page. It also looks for "user-block" and "uw-create")

After 20 minutes, if they don't have a message following the above criteria, the Bot will place a corresponding message template about the SD page on the Creator's talk page.

[edit] Discussion

Firstly, do you have a different warning for different CSD? The bot should use a different warning from the standard one (e.g. Something like "Another user has added a..."). Secondly, I think it should only warn the user if their talk page is a redlink/they are a newbie. And it shouldn't warn blocked users. Thirdly, is there a reason the bot doesn't have "bot" in it's name? Also, a note: This task used to be done by User:CSDWarnBot, but it was shut down because it didn't wait long enough before warning users. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the template that is suggested for the specific DB template (eg. {{subst:etc...}}~~~~)
I was going to add "Bot" to the name, but I read:

Your username must not:

  • contain words like "bot" or "script" that refer to automated editing processes

Concerning the blocked users, as I stated above, "It also looks for user-block and uw-create [templates on the talk page]"
I believe CSDify should notify all users.
No matter how experienced I am, I would appreciate it if a article I created was nominated for SD, that I was notified about it.
I also am aware about the Bot that used to do this task. CSDify will wait until 20 minutes are passed until it notifies the user.

Thanks. AHRtbA== Talk 13:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
the thing for not including words like bot in the usernae is for non-bots :). I don't think this should use the standard templates, you can find out what he message that User:CSDWarnBot left by looking through its contributions, personally I think these are much better for this task. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I see. I'll add "Bot" to the end of the name after this process (get it renamed). I'll also start making my own templates for the notifying. (it would be weird for a bot to say "Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.", since I didn't nominate it). BTW you can see the results on this log of what it would do. Thanks. AHRtbA== Talk 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you look at the history of the log, you can see a sample edit summary it would leave. Thanks. AHRtbA== Talk 18:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the usefulness of this bot, it does seem appropriate to notify all users if an article they created is up for speedy deletion, but I don't know the ins and outs of CSD. I do appreciate that you are trying to make accurate edit summaries for the actions your bot takes. Good job on this point, in my opinion. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Is 20 minutes too long? CSD's can be deleted in <20 minutes, sometimes. Besides, the user who tags it is meant to leave a comment with the author. It says so in the template. — DeontalkI'm BACK! 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the time that this bot leaves a message would be when the user forgets to leave a message. So that the creator gets a message even if the csd-tagger didn't leave one. I think the consensus was 15 minutes for the old User:CSDWarnBot (it didn't keep to this) - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit] TedderBot

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: Tedder

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic, low-volume

Programming language(s): perl

Source code available: will be available in github

Function overview: request UserContribs through API, score and find intersection between two users. Post to user talk page.

Edit period(s): on request by users

Estimated number of pages affected: writes: only expecting a few user talk pages per day.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No. Don't see a need (yet).

Already has a bot flag No, new bot. Want the flag.

Function details:

The task name is "WikiBacon". The goal of the specific task may be found at: http://wiki.cs.pdx.edu/oss2009/index/projects/wikibacon.html

Basically, the goal is to help users understand how they "met". This should be mostly harmless; I'm requesting approval because (a) I want to write to the user's talk page after a calculation is complete, (b) it's my first Wiki bot, and (c) it would be nice to have a bot flag so I can request larger chunks of usercontribs through the API.

This bot will not explore links on its own- it will only do so upon request from someone. Therefore I expect the volume to be very low, especially on edits/posts. I'll be ready to run some oneoff tests of the bot in a week or so, and will start splatting to my own user talk space in 2-3 weeks. It'll run on my own server, for now at least.

I can justify my competence on Wikipedia if necessary, though my notes and hopes towards an eventual RfA should suffice. Basically, I'm over 10k edits, no blocks, ~4 years here.

I have some other tasks in mind- but this BRFA is for this specific task.

Thanks, tedder (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I fail to see how this is helpful, it's just something which some users may find interesting. That said, it's not exactly harmful, or particularly resource consuming, as it's very rarely doing anything. On whose talk page would it post the results? And how does a user request? - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as usefulness, it seems especially useful when trying to evaluate a user- for instance, in an RfA situation. One more tool in the arsenal.
I'll take the input via CGI and perhaps via request on something like User:TedderBot/Relationship Requests, and post the results on the requestor's talk page. Certainly the idea isn't to go posting it on both user's pages, that's a little too social networkish for me. tedder (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, if a purpose is evaluating for a wikipedia process that implementation should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship From some reading and scanning at the board it appears parts of the wikipedia community may feel the arsenal at RfA is overloaded already. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I see it as a tool that people can use, that may be used by someone in an RfA. As it's completely optional if someone chooses to use it or not, I wouldn't really see it as a task that requires a huge amount of discussion, especially seeing as it doesn't really do much. Ale_Jrbtalk 12:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In what way is this a "bot", doing repeated tasks automatically, rather than just a "tool", performing one or two queries and presenting results to a user on an ad-hoc basis? ClickRick (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If the purpose is to offer "one more tool in the arsenal" then expanding the arsenal is within the scope of the community's discussion. It's hard to discuss this, Ale_jrb, from the point of why you wouldn't discuss the creation of another "tool in the arsenal" with the community that operates the arsenal, so not much to say. When creating tools for the community, ask them if they want the tool. Let them decide how much, if any, discussion is necessary. It's simple: ask the community what they want, if they want it, then work with their support. That's my opinion about creating "tools for the arsenal." --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent, to answer a few). CR, calling it a "tool" is probably much better. Still, it needs to exist under an account of some sort, and it'd be nice to have bot rights so I can request greater volumes of usercontribs, rather than making 10x as many requests for the same amount of data. Ale, I agree, it doesn't do much (and I know what you mean by that). I wouldn't be going to this level of formality for making a request except, as I said, it's (a) my first, and (b) I'd like the bot flag if possible.

IP 103.13, my opinion about "discussing first" is that many open-source projects are created to scratch an itch of the author, rather than being designed by committee and then being built. It may prove useful, or maybe I'm the only one that likes it. Either way, I don't see that the bot's approval should center around that issue. tedder (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't address the arguments you bring up, as they don't have much to do with bot approval that I can see. So, back to the target: it's a community encyclopedia, part of the bot approval process is community consensus, get it is my opinion.
Anyway, it seems there's resistance to discussing the bot/script with the community, and, to me, this is a poor way to start running a bot because the bot owner, according to bag rules and regs, is 100% for what the bot does. If there's a problem with the bot, and it's reported to you, you have to address the community you aren't willing to chat with. Learn to chat with them politely first, then position yourself to operate a bot.

"This page in a nutshell: Automated or partially automated editing processes, known as "bots", must be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly."

Useful to you doesn't require a bot and approval. Useful to the community requires consensus before approval, in my opinion, to guarantee the first: harmless.
"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:"
  • "is harmless"
  • "is useful"
  • "does not consume resources unnecessarily"
  • "performs only tasks for which there is consensus"
  • "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"
  • "uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users"
In spite of low resource usage, your lack of interest in community consensus says to me that your running a bot on wikipedia might be problematic, even if it is really only a script. With a bot flag you could run at a higher rate than without a flag, and, this means your readiness and willingness to respond to community concerns should be higher and faster, in my opinion. Your current response doesn't cut it, to me. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh? IP 103.13, you are suggesting that Tedder is unwilling to discuss. I don't see that at all. I'm not too familiar with bot approval procedures, but to me, this looks like Tedder has created a tool that does not precisely fit within the scope of a bot request-for-approval. Innovative projects often don't! I don't see any unwillingness to discuss, just a little ambivalence on several people's parts about exactly what needs to be discussed, and what are the standards for evaluating the request. Maybe Tedder's response doesn't cut it yet -- that seems like a reasonable conclusion at this stage -- but why not just let the discussion progress before leaping to conclusions? He's obviously willing to have a discussion, that's why he posted here several times. -Pete (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm with 69.226 on this one at the moment - tedder has not shown that there is a need for the bot/tool, and he has not shown that he has reached out to any particular community to determine whether there is a consensus for it. Also, has this tool been run previously and, if it has, where is the output? ClickRick (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pete. If he didn't want to discuss things, he could have easily made the tool entirely web-based, or written it to use email, in either case he wouldn't need to come here for approval. Non-bot "tools" typically aren't discussed at all. The fact that he came here at all means that he's doing more than most. Mr.Z-man 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't intend to turn this into a referendum on Tedder's behavior -- quite the opposite, actually. I'm just suggesting that to the extent anybody can clarify what Tedder ought to do, I suspect he will do it. Obviously I'm not in a position to do that myself, as bots just ain't my bag around here. But it's hard for me to imagine that a swift denial is the best answer, when so many interesting questions have been raised here. Why not just discuss the specific points a little more, and then see where the request stands? That is, resolve whether there's a need for a request at all...resolve whether user page or email is the best output...descibe in greater detail (perhaps with some sample screenshots) what the utility of the tool is...etc. -Pete (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Pete, I'm not jumping to conclusions, that's what Tedder says in his post. This board is to approve the bot, community consensus comes before approval. Tedder offered seeming off topic excuses about "design by committee" about why the bot shouldn't be discussed, now you give "innovation" as a possible reason for denial, wikipedia is an innovative community, so it's unclear to me where those remarks are intended to go.
Adding more reasons not to discuss it doesn't change my mind that community consensus means discussing it beforehand. If it's not a bot, Pete, Tedder doesn't need approval here; if it is, he does. If he does, there are established rules or regulations that include gaining community consensus for the task. Why the aversion to community discussion before offering a tool for the "arsenal?" I sure don't understand it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting and EC) Hi all, and thanks. I'm more than happy to discuss further, and/or to provide examples of the output. The reason I came here was to discuss it and make sure it was an acceptable thing to do before running it. So I haven't run it yet. I'm more than happy to leave the output off wiki at first so you can all see it in action; it seems like I'm both being asked "where's the output?" and "why won't you discuss it first?", which are mutually exclusive.

ClickRick (and IP 103.13), do you see a need for me to discuss a proposal with other groups, or just to show the output with people once it is available? And in any case, the people who will use it might be vague- for instance, who looks at edit counters and page creation tools? RfA, curious individuals, stalkers. So I could discuss it at WT:RfA, but it seems premature and bordering on self-serving advertising. I'd rather not say "hey, look at my great idea!". If there's no great forum, I'd love to discuss it more here, or finish it and show the output.

IP 103.13, do you consider it a bot? Either way, where would you suggest discussing it? I'm more than happy to discuss it first- I can see how my "design by committee" comment could be taken wrong, but my intent was that it is probably easier to implement and show how it works, rather than making a huge process out of it. This isn't date delinking; a discussion is still great, but the scope of the discussion is more what I'm questioning.

In all honesty, thanks for this discussion. It's been nice to see some input, and to see how other people see things, versus how I might see them. tedder (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, you suggested an implementation, using unusual language (to me), "one more tool for the arsenal." I went through histories and discussion at RfA and read up about how community members feel about that process and its existing arsenal. There's heated debate about the process itself, giving the impression discussion first might be polite. I made a small post here, and now I'm fighting off comments protecting (what appears to be) your resistance to discussing it with the community.
This is a lot of discussion for something you keep suggesting might be small in scope.
I stated my opinion, and no one has offered anything to address the issue I raised, just reasons that Tedder should not have to follow the rules for the bot approval process. Maybe I'm missing something about Tedder's standing in the community? That's OK, but, if you don't clue me in, I can't do anything about it.
I've stated my opinion: I feel the sometimes contentious atmosphere and the opinions of community members at RfA indicate that adding tools to that arsenal requires community input first. The response to my original comment is bordering on .... Anyway, it confirms my original post: community input first. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot/tool is not designed solely for RFA, just because they might not want it is no reason to deny this request. (Though as I noted, if he changes it so it doesn't edit, it wouldn't need approval, and he could just create it anyway). Mr.Z-man 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man: that's a very good point and is actually part of my confusion. If he were simply to run it and generate a web page elsewhere (e.g. directly served from the server where he will be running it) then there is no need for the bot request, so perhaps I've been looking too deeply.
Tedder: I think I'm right in saying that you don't need the bot flag in order to run the tool as a web app, so why don't you give it a run, show us the results here, and also use those results in an RfA discussion (e.g. "Oppose per these results which show..." or whatever inference you could draw from them which might influence your support or otherwise for a particular candidate). I think that would show the potential value of the tool. —ClickRick (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
CR, I think that's exactly what I'll do- implement it solely as a tool, then it'll be easier to demo and see if anyone's interested. tedder (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, the tool is not designed solely for RFA. That was just one possible application, I don't see why its usefulness at RFA should be so critical to this request. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it was critical. Tedder offered a "tool for the arsenal at RFA;" strong words made me curious about RFA and its "arsenal." Reading RFA it seems the last thing wanted there is "another tool for the arsenal." Curiosity + strong phrasing by Tedder + RFA discussions = my thinking discussing the tool there before adding it to "the arsenal" there might be good.
I said this: "In my opinion, if a purpose is evaluating for a wikipedia process that implementation should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship From some reading and scanning at the board it appears parts of the wikipedia community may feel the arsenal at RfA is overloaded already." and seem to now be facing hyperbole. "A purpose" does not mean "solely for RFA."
Maybe you're talking to someone else, Mr.Z-man, who said it was designed solely for or is critical for RFA. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My point is that you and ClickRick seem to be saying that if RFA regulars don't want it or its not very useful at RFA that it shouldn't be done, which makes no sense at all. While asking for input from potential users may be useful for development, I don't see why it needs to be mandatory or why its usefulness at RFA should have any bearing on approval. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I certainly didn't intend to say that, and I didn't read 69.220 as saying it either. However, it was Tedder who introduced the notion that anyone discussing an RfA might want this tool, and no other possible use has yet been floated, which is why I suggested that Tedder show some sample output - it may well be that someone else will then be able to see other uses for this tool, uses which could very well be compelling. ClickRick (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if RFA regulars want this. It's the specific application regarding a community that Tedder offered. To repeat: Tedder suggested it, using strong language, I suggested he discuss it there first. No one here, until you, Mr.Z-man, said that if it "(isn't wanted) at RFA it shouldn't be done." I can't discuss the sense or nonsense. If Tedder isn't going to offer it to that community, discussing it there doesn't matter. But since that's the target community he mentioned, it does have bearing, in spite of the serious resistance to community input at this board. That's the consensus this board reached: the consensus from the community is part of the bot process. -69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I was referring to comments like:
  • should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship
  • When creating tools for the community, ask them if they want the tool.
  • Useful to the community requires consensus
  • tedder has not shown that there is a need for the bot/tool, and he has not shown that he has reached out to any particular community to determine whether there is a consensus for it
  • the sometimes contentious atmosphere and the opinions of community members at RfA indicate that adding tools to that arsenal requires community input
  • use those results in an RfA discussion ... I think that would show the potential value of the tool.
Unlike an automatic bot, there does not need to be a demonstrated, consensus-backed use for tools before they are written, as a tool won't do anything if people don't use it. Mr.Z-man 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This is my first post about this: "In my opinion, if a purpose is evaluating for a wikipedia process that implementation should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship From some reading and scanning at the board it appears parts of the wikipedia community may feel the arsenal at RfA is overloaded already. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"
Don't piecemeal it out of context into something else.
It's in response to Tedder's comment that this tool could be an additional weapon for the RFA arsenal. It's based upon going to RFA and reading community comments there. My response is an appropriate reply to Tedder's post based on the requirements for bot approval on the BAG page.
If it's a tool that doesn't require consensus, someone could have given me a link supporting that-you don't. No one likes to be told that not only community input isn't wanted, their input is wrong. I can't believe the fight put into not discussing Tedder's proposal at the community he proposed might use it.
The BAG board does not say some bots require approval and consensus others don't. But you say that's the case, so just give me a link. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, has there been a clear final decision on if this is going to be taking requests and outputting to a page, output to a page automatically, be a web tool? Q T C 06:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) [edit]

[edit] IrcamBot

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: LeMiklos

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic (supervised)

Programming language(s): PHP, w/ botclasses

Source code available: soon on the bot's userpage

Function overview: adding templates on pages of contemporary classical music composers, linking to bios and music contents on several databases held by Ircam, French Research Institute in acoustics and music.

Edit period(s): once every few months.

Estimated number of pages affected: Between 200 and 800.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

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

Function details: Harvests links (composers' pages) from category pages (only few of them, we manually decide which) and compares them to the list of resources on our databases (mainly Brahms and ContemporaryMusic). When needed, it adds a template (Template:CMOnline and Template:BrahmsOnline) to the External Links section - in the appropriate subsection (Listening, Recordings, etc.) if it exists. If the section does not exist, it is created.

Not exclusion-compliant : don't think it's a necessary feature, but I can implement it if needed. This is professional work from Ircam, guaranteed. I started adding templates (Template:ContemporaryMusicOnline) one by one, but we've got several hundreds of them. It's the kind of task that suits perfectly to a very simple bot. It has already been tested on our internal wiki.

As an example, I've applied it to a very small category : Spectral music. And it added two external links to Claude Vivier's and Hugues Dufourt's pages.

[edit] Discussion

Okay, this may seem like a stupid point to bring up, but have you tried using the BasicBot framework? When I tried it, it didn't work. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha you're right man ;) I tried to make it work for hours, but that stuff's just awful! Actually, sorry I didn't update that, but a few days ago I switched to the botclasses. Do you want me to put my source code on the botpage? bye --LeMiklos (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay onto the more serious concerns. First oof, the text of at least one of the templates is not ideal. "(in French) Get a complete biography and more information about Claude Vivier on Ircam's Brahms contemporary music database." is too promotional for example, but that's kind of a sideshow to the main attraction here: experience. I'm sure you know your stuff, LeMiklos, but you're likely to come across difficult scenarios which require an intimate knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Bot trials, for example, should be handed out, rather than presented as faits accomplis, for example. The minutia involved will bring you down I fear. Possible solutions: semi-automate, possibly using AWB; wait, gain experience for a few weeks and come back; hand over the code to a more experienced bot operator and let them fine tune the details. It's tough, I know, but really it's in everyone's best interests. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I had been asked to try it out on small categories on French and Spanish wikis, so as I wasn't getting replies here I assumed it was because I hadn' shown anything. Also, I've just changed the text in the template. --LeMiklos (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot

[edit]

[edit] EarwigBot I 4

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: The Earwig

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python, Pywikipedia

Source code available: User:EarwigBot I/Source#Task 6

Function overview: The bot puts time and reviewer information in the {{WPAFC}} template on every accepted AfC article in Category:Accepted AfC submissions.

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 4,750

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes (per standard Pywikipedia distribution), even though it is irrelevant for this task.

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

Function details: This task is essentially a duplicate of EarwigBot I's fourth task (BRFA). While Task 4 dealed with declined submissions that were missing a timestamp, this will deal with accepted submissions that are missing a timestamp and information about who accepted the submission. It will add the information to the end to {{WPAFC}} on the article's talk page, just as Task 4 added information to the end of {{AFC submission}}. The source code is also very similar. See a quick discussion about this at User talk:MSGJ#Your attempt to change formatting of Template:AFC statistics. Because of the similarity between tasks, would a speedy approval be possible?

[edit] Discussion

[edit]

[edit] Xenobot 6.1

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: –xenotalk

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python and/or AWB

Source code available: m:replace.py + User:Xenobot/user-fixes.py

Function overview: Add |alt=Stub icon (or a more descriptive alternate text - to be determined) to images on stub templates for greater web accessibility. May be done by converting stub templates to use {{asbox}}.

Edit period(s): One time run (initially), periodically (if necessary)

Estimated number of pages affected: 2500+

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: When an image is the only content in a link, a screen reader will output the filename of the image [5]. For example, on encountering {{album-stub}}, the screen reader will output "Gnome-dev-cdrom-audio.svg This album-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". This is suboptimal, as the filename of the image is irrelevant. It has been proposed (permlink) to provide alternate text (eg. "Stub icon") for these stub templates.

Please note Xenobot is already approved for find/replace jobs of this nature; this BRFA is to ensure community consensus exists for this particular run.

Further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Straw poll on standardizing with a meta-template, this task may involve converting the stub templates to use Template:Asbox which can then provide "Stub icon" as a default alt text.

[edit] Discussion

  • As suggested at the VPM thread, it may be worthwhile to expand this task to other images of this nature, such as those used on portals, wikiproject templates, and the like. However, in those cases it will likely be difficult to find a suitable generic alternative text. –xenotalk 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a plan. I do note however that this is an endless job, because stubs are simply not standardized. As such it is likely in the future the same problem will spread again. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping we could encourage the stub project to ensure newly created stubs have alt text, but I could run the bot again periodically if that endeavour proves unsuccessful. –xenotalk 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
While you're editing all those stub, there's a bit of standardisation of classes/ids you could be doing. Best to ask TheDJ about that though. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Maximizing the utility of the edits is A Good Thing™. –xenotalk 18:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit] Botryoidal

tasks • contribs • count • SUL • logs • page moves • block user • block log • rights log • flag

Operator: William Allen Simpson

Automatic or Manually assisted: supervised

Programming language(s): Python Wikipediabot Framework

Function overview: CfD, TfD, orphaning, fixing templates that include categories

Edit period(s): infrequently

Estimated number of pages affected: 2,000+ over the next few days

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

Function details: It's been several years since I've run this old bot. The approval process is more involved now. Much the same task as before: maintenance functions that require individualized replace functions.

As an example, over the next few days, I'm planning on removing the nocat parameter from {{Surname}} (as I've been doing by hand on complicated names for several days), but have a long simple series that could better be done with the standard replace.py function.

Presumably I don't have to ask approval for every new edit. The bot is already listed as approved (but inactive), so I'm trying out the process again.

[edit] Discussion

  • Why are you removing the nocat parameter from {{Surname}}? – Quadell (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bots in a trial period

[edit] Bots that have completed the trial period

[edit] 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 (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.

</noinclude>

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval"
Personal tools