Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT

ContentCreationBOT

Operator: ThaddeusB

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: here

Function overview: fill in tables with data on prehistoric creatures

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 13

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A - this only applies to user & talk pages, correct?

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

Function details: Using a large database of information downloaded from http://paleodb.org and http://strata.geology.wisc.edu/jack/ the first function of this bot will be to fill in the tables found in various "list of" articles. A sample entry has been filled in here. Any data that is missing from the database will simply to left blank.

Only a tiny number of pages will be affected, but the amount of bot filled in content will be immense. As such, I am suggesting the bot trial be something along the lines of "the first 10 entries on each page" rather than a number of edits.

A copy of the database is available here (425k). The database is organized as follows:
Genus--Valid?--Naming Scientist--Year named--Time period it lived during--Approx dates lived--locations

A "1" in the valid column means it is currently listed as a valid genus, "NoData" means it couldn't be determined - most likely because there are two genus with the same name, and "No-{explanation}" means it is not currently listed as a valid genus.
Data proceed by a "*" means it was derived from Sepkoski's data, using the dates found here (compiled by User:Abyssal). All other data came from paleodb, using their fossil collection data for more precise dates (when available.)
Spot checking of my data is encouraged, although I'm confident no novel errors have been introduced. If anyone knows of additional sources to derive similar data, let me know and I'll incorporate those sources into the database.

List of pages to to affected: (might be expanded slightly if others are found)

Discussion

Source code will be published shortly, although the code itself is a quite simple "read from db publish to Wikipedia" operation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now available here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have ~~spammed~~ asked the relevant projects for input: [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#BOT notice.
List of genera of Monoplacophora would be fine. (Uncertain Monoplacophora/Gastropoda should be on separate list. See Monoplacophora#Fossil species.) --Snek01 (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets?

Maybe the countries should be a bulleted list to save horizontal space. IE:

Poland

Switzerland

as opposed to "Switzerland, Poland". Abyssal (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is preferable: Option 1

Genus	Authors	Year	Status	Age	Location(s)	Notes
Advenaster	Hess	1955	Valid	Late Bajocian to Late Callovian	Switzerland, Poland
SampleEntry	Hess	1955	Valid	Early Cretaceous to present	Switzerland, Poland, United States, France
Bad Genus			Invalid			rank changed to subgenus, name to Genus (Sub genus)

Option 2

Genus	Authors	Year	Status	Age	Location(s)	Notes
Advenaster	Hess	1955	Valid	Late Bajocian to Late Callovian	Switzerland Poland
SampleEntry	Hess	1955	Valid	Early Cretaceous to present	Switzerland Poland United States France
Bad Genus			Invalid			rank changed to subgenus, name to Genus (Sub genus)

or Option 3

Genus	Authors	Year	Status	Age	Location(s)	Notes
Advenaster	Hess	1955	Valid	Late Bajocian to Late Callovian	Switzerland Poland
SampleEntry	Hess	1955	Valid	Early Cretaceous to present	Switzerland Poland United States France
Bad Genus			Invalid			rank changed to subgenus, name to Genus (Sub genus)

Any is fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely 2 or 3, although I don't care which. I love that you're using the sort template. <3 Also, could you have the year link to the "year in paleontology" article? And link to the countries? Abyssal (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will link the date & countries. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, WP:Context and all that - re countries. Surprise links to "year in" are not that great either. Rich Farmbrough, 09:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Invalid genera should be in separate table, because it is better for general public. If there is any reason to have them together, then it could be also OK. Such tables will be also useful. --Snek01 (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on linking the countries, although I will point out that such links would allow someone to easily figure out where in the world the fossil was found. I view the "year in" links as completely appropriate as naming of new genus is something that is/should be covered in those articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is only going by the entries that already exist in the tables & it looks like there are only about 5 invalid entries across the dozen or so pages. As such, I've leave it up to regular editors to pull the entries out of the main table rather than trying to write a function to do it.

Improper age sorting (fixed)

A sample update has been performed here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look closely at it, but I notice the age sorting isn't working right, but I can't figure out why. Any idea? Abyssal (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, could you be more specific as it seems to work for me. The first click put it from most recent to oldest and the second from oldest to most recent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first 20% or so is alright, but after the Miocene (when viewed in ascending order) it starts listing Jurassic stages, then it goes back to Pleistocene, and for some reason Cretaceous ages are listed as if they were the oldest. It's looked this way both at home and at school. The browser I used is Firefox. Abyssal (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I figured out the problem. Apparently the {{sort}} template doesn't work properly with numbers, so everything is being sorted "alphabetically" - that is 1 < 10 < 2 etc. It was only coincidence that the first 20% is still correct (and I didn't look down far enough to realize the error). I'll add a fix for this tonight & re-upload the sample page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good sleuthing! Abyssal (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the latest upload fixes the issues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you fix the problem (I'll need to use the same method for other articles). Abyssal (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By adding enough zeros in front of the numbers to make them correctly sort as strings. That is, by converting "1.23" to "001.23", "45" to "045", etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for outside input

Just a thought, but in light of the Anybot debacle - it might be a good idea to put a call out to the WikiProjects and recruit some marine biologists/fossil guys/crustacean guys/etc. to come take a look at your trial edits and check them over with a fine tooth comb before the bot is given final approval. If Anybot taught us anything, it's how simple errors in interpreting database content can lead to masses of incorrect information going live to the 'pedia and remaining there for months, unnoticed. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly want several people to look over the data and have notified the 6 most relevant WikiProjects. So far, those notices don't seem to have attracted many people. :( --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try asking specific editors by the type of articles you intend to produce? Asking editors if they will check the data? --69.225.12.99 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13 pages? Why do we need to approve a bot for that? Run your program. Dump the output to a screen. Post it by hand. Preview. Save. A bot will save you a few minutes whilst vastly increasing the risk to the project. Hesperian 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let's not be ridiculous - me running a program locally & manually uploading the data is no less of a risk than me running a program locally & it automatically uploading the data. Now, there are several reasons I am requesting approval rather than just uploading the data:

Yes it will only edit a few pages, but the amount of data it will import is immense, as we are talking about the automated filling of several thousand table entries. The amount of info that is being auto generated and added deserves community consent, IMO.
I want as many people as possible to look it over to make sure the bot isn't adding inaccurate info. If I just uploaded it all in my name, it wouldn't get the same scrutiny
There is a planned second part of this task (automated creation of stubs) that will edit thousands of articles. This will be a separate BRFA, but the idea here is to get any bugs/inaccurate input data fixed on a relatively non-controversial task before moving onto a possibly controversial one. If the bot can handle accurate adding content to existing articles, then there is concrete evidence that it should be able to create stubs with prose based on the same information.

I hope that clear it up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously agree with Thad. This sort of tedious point-by-point extraction of information from a database is what bots are Wikipedia bots are made for. As someone who has filled similar tables out manually, I can vouch that using a bot for this purpose is the most effective way to accomplish it. Abyssal (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding some objections

In my opinion, I don't think this bot should go forward without proactive community support for the bot. This means more than no one disapproves or shows negative interest. It requires editors from relevant projects get on board for vetting uploaded data. Without a group of editors to check data, it is my opinion the potential for another AnyBot type mess exists. Yes, this is the type of work that bots should be used for, in my opinion. But it requires a human editorial community to accompany the creation of articles. I'm also not thrilled with the sideways answers to some of my questions about this bot, before the RFBA. A single straight-forward answer to a question, when first asked, is more in keeping with the kind of communication that should be done when running bots that create articles, in my opinion. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, no one asked me a single question. An IP (possibly you) asked Abyssal some questions, but they seemed to be directed towards his editing activities & not this bot. Additionally, he obviously didn't know the exactly details of how the bot would operate since he wasn't programming it... and frankly I didn't know the exact details either since it wasn't complete yet. I have explained what the bot plans to do in this BRFA (which is the correct place to do so), released the source code, and released the database. I personally have manually checked dozens of entries and I'm pretty sure Abyssal has as well. If you are offering your help in spot checking, then please check how many ever entries you want from the database, against whatever data source you can. If you find any problems, by all means please tell me so I can make adjustments to the database.

Beyond that, there really isn't anything I can do. I can't force people to spot check the data. Nor can I, or anyone else, check more than a trivial % of the total. I have to rely on the accuracy of the data I obtained from reliable sources. I can't verify every piece of data by hand, but only confirm the general integrity of the sources from which the data came. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, the bot isn't going to be creating any articles at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the bot is going to be creating tables of data on wikipedia and there is not a single editor outside of the creators interested in the data, there appears to be no desire for the bot on wikipedia. If aren't willing to check the data and are not interested enough to comment on the bot, who wants the bot?

According to bot policy, to gain approval, a bot must :

be harmless
be useful
not consume resources unnecessarily
perform only tasks for which there is consensus
carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines
use informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users

Consensus involves discussion and other editors. No other editors = no discussion = no consensus for the task to be done, much less by a bot. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about the way Wikipedia works. Discussion is not needed to take action, discussion is only needed if the action taken if met with objection. Being bold is a core principle. If we had to discuss every action first, very little would actually get done. The task clearly falls under policy so there is already consensus to do the task. This discussion is to establish that my bot can do the task accurately and efficiently.

Second, you mistake low input for lack of interest. Just because few people have commented here, doesn't mean no one is interested in the data. We are talking about scientific data on prehistoric creatures here, not Britney Spears. The audience interested in this material is limited, of course, but nearly everyone would agree that this sort of information is at least as important to have on Wikipedia as pop culture, even though far fewer people are interested in it.

Third, you misunderstand what this request is for. The request is to fill in the existing tables, not create new ones. Technically (as pointed out by Hesperian) I do not even need BOT approval to do the task. The request was created in part to solicit additional eyes to make sure the data is accurate. Again, the information is 100% from reliable sources and a bot will copy the information far more accurately than a human ever could. So, I ask again are you willing to look over the data? Or are you just trying to block the task from happening? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not mistaken about how wikipedia works, and I'm not mistaken about your insulting me rather than addressing the issue. The use of bots does not function by the, be bold, run a bot, make 10,000 entries, then decide if the community wants it theory. Please read the bots policy in its entirety before requesting approval for a bot. It is your responsibility as a bot operator to adhere to bot policy. You can't do that if you don't know it.

I think it's time to close this bot request for approval until there is community consensus for this task to be done. The lack of editors monitoring AnyBot was problematic enough, but that bot at least had some community consensus. This bot has absolutely none, and its operator denies there is any need for community consensus for its task. This is a bad start. Couple with the bot operator's combative nature and inability and/or unwillingness to address issues, I can't see anything but disaster and another mess of 1000s of entries for someone else to clean up. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, designer, and near sole contributor to Wikipedia's lists of prehistoric invertebrates, and also the user who "proactively" sought out someone capable of programming a bot to perform the task at hand, I am curious as to who you expect us to seek consensus from. Should I make sock puppets and then ask them if they approve? I created every single one of the lists ContentCreationBOT will be contributing to, and somewhere around 23-26 of the 28 lists of prehistoric invertebrates in total on Wikipedia. Yes, I gave a range of pages there, as in "I created so many of them that I've lost count." The community-of-people-who-contribute-to-Wikipedia's-lists-of-prehistoric-invertebrates consists nearly entirely of myself, and there is strong consensus between myself and I that this task should move ahead. It's also nice of you to dishonestly claim that we're creating stubs here. We've worked diligently for months preparing this bot and you're willing to shut us down without even having read the description of the task we're requesting approval for. And the when we don't just hump up and take it, you throw a hissy fit and demand that the discussion be closed. Wow. Abyssal (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the word stub, until now. I think that this type of personal attack of people ("you throw a hissy fit") who have questions and concerns about the bot, once more, bodes poorly for the use of this bot to create any type of content. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took "create 10,000 entries" as you implying the bot would engage in stub generation, if that's not what you meant, sorry. Assuming you were referring to the data-adding task the bot isn't "creating" the enries, it's filling in blank entries in tables that already exist. Abyssal (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't insult you, and I am sorry you took it that way. I merely stated that you don't appear to understand what consensus means (at least as it applies to bot tasks).

2) "Perform only tasks for which there is consensus" means perform a task for which there is generally consensus. It doesn't mean we need 20 editors to come comment on every bot and say "yep, there is consensus for this task." There is already implicit consensus for adding this sort of information to articles as it has been done hundreds of time by many different editors with no objections. The bot can just do it faster and more accurately.

3) I have 3 approved bots and understand bot policy thoroughly.

4) You are arguing over semantics, not substance. I most certainly didn't claim the bot doesn't need consensus.

5) I can't "address the issue" as you have not outlined any actual issue with either the bot or the RS data it is using. You have only stated your personally opinion that you think more people should look at the data.

6) Do you have any actual policy based objection to the task of filling in existing tables with reliable source data? Or any objections to the data/code to put it on Wikipedia?

7) If the bot is rejected I will just manually upload the exact same data - as is my right as an editor - and the community will loose the benefit of explicitly knowing it was extracted from a database by a bot. Again, I didn't even have to ask for approval of this task as there is no actual need to automate the uploading. I did so for the community's benefit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the data has been looked over by accredited scientists or it wouldn't have been on Paleodb.org to begin with. To expect me or anyone else to manually check every entry is completely unreasonable and, in my opinion, would be more likely to introduce novel errors than improve overall accuracy even if it was possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my original "hissy fit." --69.225.12.99 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you also stand by your refusal to provide any concrete objections? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ThaddeusB and Abyssal

As a matter of interest - and this may help to assuage "the IP algae guy"'s (as I think of him, based on our previous work together cleaning up after Anybot and in lieu of a better name) doubts and concerns, how familiar are you guys with the taxonomy of prehistoric invertebrates in a non-WP context? Is this your chosen field, area of scholarly interest or hobby? IOW - do you *know* these ex-critters, or are you strictly data-processing here?

The reason I ask is so that it may be established how likely it would be that a subtle misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the data presented at Paleodb (perhaps due to incorrect assumptions being made from incomplete knowledge) could occur, go unnoticed during the transfer because no-one knows what to look for - and thus result in massive factual errors being introduced to the wiki. Going back to Anybot, one of the reasons that it failed so hard was the that BotOp didn't really 'know' algae to any great extent - but did he earnestly believe that he was capable of extracting the data automatically and formatting it into encyclopedia articles. That's all well and good, if it works - but well as misunderstanding some fundamental algae-related terms, he incorrectly assumed (as far as I am aware) that 'number of taxa/species listed at AlgaeBase = number of taxa/species known to science' and ran with it. Then, as there was no-one else around at the time who knew better (or perhaps because no-one else even looked at the resultant articles once they'd gone live), the assumption was made that the bot's output was correct. IIRC, the systematic errors were only uncovered when "IP algae guy"'s students started handing in coursework containing WP-sourced nonsense.

This scenario may not be exactly applicable to the Paleodb dataset - but before this goes any further, I would like to gauge the likelihood of the same thought process being applied again and leading to a different, but equally-borked end result. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main problem with Anybot was programming, not lack of knowledge - although the second obviously contributed. The programmer made several fundamental errors like not resetting variables & making it runnable from a remote location without a password. These problems were not caught because 1) the code wasn't published and 2) no one who knew what they were doing looked over the sample stubs from the trial run. My code has been published, as has the data, as has a sample page. The code is not runnable remotely.

I do not personally have any knowledge of the subject. I was solicited as a capable bot op, with (what I believe to be) a reputation for carefully checking my bots' output & correcting errors. Abyssal is the one with the knowledge of the subject and the idea for the bot. He was doing the task manually for some time, but some users contacted him to say they thought a bot would do the task faster and more accurately, which is true. A human copy and pasting data will make an occasional error despite their understanding of the subject that a bot wouldn't make.

The reason I have been asking User:Abyssal about the bot is because there are problems with the fish stubs he/she created en masse. I am still waiting for him/her to respond to a question about the fish stubs I put on the user's talk page on May 30th.

While Abyssal claims to be the only working invertebrate paleontologist on wikipedia that is incorrect. I edit invertebrate paleo articles as do a number of my colleagues. Ultimately I will be more concerned about the stubs, but, thank you Kurt Shaped Box for reminding me how I met Abyssal: correcting problems with stubs. Oh, by the way, I'm not really algae guy, as I've said before, I'm marine invertebrate paleo guy. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words in Abyssal's mouth. He didn't claim to be the "only working invertebrate paleontologist." He claimed to be the only one working on the specific articles for which this bot will provide data. Additionally, the error you found is precisely why this task should be done by a bot. No human is going to be able to copy gobs of data without introducing novel errors. A well made bot, won't introduce novel errors, although obviously it won't correct any errors in the original data either. (However, by Wikipedia policy we really should be goign by what the source says anyway, not using our own knowledge.) If you have any source to cross-check the paleodb data against, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I say that this is the best available data and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with reproducing it.

Again, why are you trying to block this task. You say you have knowledge with the subject, yet you refuse to offer you help looking over the data. You demand I find people willing to do this, yet you yourself are a prime candidate to help & refuse. Why? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has issues with the stubs I made before, all they have to do is ask. If they've asked and I've forgotten to respond, all they have to do is ask again and remind me. That's much nicer than asking, then waiting for months before bringing it up as an act of passive aggression. Also, the substubs I created are not only irrelevant to the discussion on face, but they also bear little resemblence to the fuller, more complete stubs that ContentCreationBOT may create in the future and serve as a poor analogy for such. Abyssal (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - 'Marine Invertebrate Paleo Guy' is is, then... :) By the way, is this the user talkpage post you're talking about? If so, Abyssal did reply to you. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact he/she didn't. The last question I posed has been ignored since it was posted--reread the post about the two articles with similar names. He/she only responded to the first part, agreeing I had corrected his data for the one article, and thanking me for doing so, but not for the question of whether both articles for what appear to be a single organism should be on wikipedia. This last is precisely the type of mistake that needs reviewed and corrected by humans with content creation bots. This bots owner and assistant have resorted to bullying. Bullying by the bot operators coupled with failure to act = giant mess on wikipedia that someone else has to clean up. It took months and probably a dozen wikipedia editors to clean up the AnyBot mess. In my opinion it's time to put an end to this RfBA as a place for User:ThaddeusB to post his personal attacks, since he doesn't have what is necessary for running a bot of this nature, and is focused on attacking me rather than getting the bot together. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only one attempting to bully people here is you with your whole I don't agree with this so let's shut down discussion right now attitude. You have repeatedly demanded this not take place, but still have yet to offer a single constructive comment. You say I am focused on "attacking you rather than getting the bot together." Um, the bot is together. There is nothing to "get together." Again, you have yet to offer a single actionable complaint with the actual bot that I can address.

You claim to be interested in making sure the bot doesn't make any errors, yet you refuse to help. I think it is pretty clear that your objection is either philosophical against this sort of task ever being done, or is motivated by personal dislike for me and/or Abyssal.

I have not made a single personal attack against you. I merely comments on your comments, just as you have commented on mine. Somehow it is perfectly acceptable for you to distort others comments and say whatever crap you want about them, but if they dare mention you in a reply they are personally attacking you?

Finally "this is the kind of mistake that needs to be reviewed by humans" is an irrelevant comment because this mistake was made by a human, not a bot. In fact, this example is proof why the task should be done by a bot - humans will always make some mistakes when copying large amounts of data. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm male, no need to use the double pronoun thing. As for bots adding errors, the articles won't be set in stone after creation, they will be subjected to the same scrutiny and incremental revisions and fact-checking that all other Wikipedia articles are. It's almost certain that bot generated content will introduce some errors, however, our human editors do substantial amounts of that as well. If a human added 99% good information and 1% inaccurate information, we would think of them as doing a good job. It's illogical to demand more from an automated contributor than from a flesh-and-blood one, but you seem to be expressing that double standard anyway. "Failure to act"? We've already run succesful demonstrations and made the full code public! What would it take to please you? As for us being bullies, well, an old proverb comes to mind. Abyssal (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that all bots can hiccup and make mistakes from time to time. Unless they start crapflooding, blanking or overwriting a huge number of articles, it's a pretty matter to put right. I'm more concerned about systematic errors that could result in non-apparent-except-to-experts factual inaccuracies across the majority of the bot-generated content. How confident are you with the subject matter at hand and the interpretation of the database content that this may be avoided - or if it did occur, that you'd be able to spot it quickly? I don't want it to come across as though I'm picking on you and ThaddeusB here - but Anybot has left me wary of bots that autogenerate content in this manner, wary enough at least to be thorough in asking questions. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons the anybot mess wound up so spectacularly bad was poor communication on the part of the bot operator and unwillingness to respond to concerns. These two users see expressions of concerns about their bot as an opportunity to attack someone for expressing concerns. This will make communication hard to impossible. Poor communication means it won't matter how a mistake is made, because the response will be to attack those who raise issues. And keep attacking and attacking them. Then come back and attack them some more. In my opinion, it simply doesn't matter, once an attitude of this manner has taken hold of the bot operator, there will be no means for issues of concern about the bot to be raised, no means for problems with the data to be pointed out. All such actions will get is an attack. And another attack, and an attack from a different angle, and a new attack. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Abyssal - could you check to see whether Graphiuricthys and Graphiurichthys (with an extra 'h') are supposed to be two separate articles? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]