Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval
- العربية
- Arpetan
- Asturianu
- Avañe'ẽ
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Corsu
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Euskara
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Interlingua
- Italiano
- עברית
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Кыргызча
- Ladino
- ລາວ
- Latviešu
- Lombard
- Magyar
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- Malagasy
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- مصرى
- Bahasa Melayu
- ꯃꯤꯇꯩ ꯂꯣꯟ
- Minangkabau
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Occitan
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- پنجابی
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Piemontèis
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Qırımtatarca
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Русский
- Shqip
- Sicilianu
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- SiSwati
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Suomi
- Svenska
- தமிழ்
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- Tsetsêhestâhese
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- Walon
- ייִדיש
- 粵語
- 粵語
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mobius Clock (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 17 May 2010 (→Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot: ++). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
![]() |
![]() | All editors are encouraged to participate in the requests below – your comments are appreciated more than you may think! |
New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!
- Approval process – How these discussions work
- Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
- Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon
To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.
Instructions for bot operators | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bot-related archives (v·t·e) |
---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 |
|
Bot Name | Status | Created | Last editor | Date/Time | Last BAG editor | Date/Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IznoBot 4 (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2024-07-13, 15:47:52 | Izno | 2024-07-13, 15:48:19 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
Platybot (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2024-07-08, 08:52:05 | BilledMammal | 2024-07-08, 11:47:35 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
BattyBot 81 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-02-07, 14:12:49 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-02-15, 12:09:35 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-02-15, 12:09:35 |
C1MM-bot 2 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-06-25, 00:56:44 | Primefac | 2024-07-05, 17:53:58 | Primefac | 2024-07-05, 17:53:58 |
BaranBOT 3 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-06-19, 05:08:35 | Primefac | 2024-07-10, 15:32:21 | Primefac | 2024-07-10, 15:32:21 |
DannyS712 bot III 74 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-05-09, 00:02:12 | TheSandDoctor | 2024-07-13, 22:20:18 | TheSandDoctor | 2024-07-13, 22:20:18 |
StradBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-02-17, 03:20:39 | SD0001 | 2024-02-17, 05:58:51 | SD0001 | 2024-02-17, 05:58:51 |
CapsuleBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | Extended trial | 2023-06-14, 00:14:29 | Capsulecap | 2024-01-20, 02:36:30 | Primefac | 2024-01-15, 07:40:39 |
AussieBot 1 (T|C|B|F) | Extended trial: User response needed! | 2023-03-22, 01:57:36 | Hawkeye7 | 2024-02-18, 23:33:13 | Primefac | 2024-02-18, 20:10:45 |
DoggoBot 10 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2023-03-02, 02:55:00 | Frostly | 2024-02-21, 22:41:18 | Primefac | 2024-01-15, 07:40:49 |
Mdann52 bot 14 (T|C|B|F) | Trial complete | 2024-06-10, 17:46:58 | Mdann52 | 2024-07-06, 08:56:38 | Primefac | 2024-07-05, 17:57:38 |
BaranBOT 2 (T|C|B|F) | Trial complete | 2024-05-27, 14:01:46 | DreamRimmer | 2024-07-06, 14:03:24 | Primefac | 2024-06-27, 15:25:33 |
PrimeBOT 39 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2023-05-11, 12:48:50 | Primefac | 2023-09-22, 10:51:59 | Headbomb | 2023-07-02, 17:38:58 |
Current requests for approval
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: SunCreator (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually-assisted
Programming language(s): None, AWB
Source code available: If required, I can make the source code available in the form of AWB settings files.
Function overview: I am using AWB to inspect a lot of articles as part of WP:URBLP related checking. Hunting for articles that are missing/incorrect categories or WPBiography tags.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): There is a bot User:LivingBot that does similar tasks, but I've heard it's not working lately. Here I'm trying to find things that have previously been missed and thus the appropriate Category:Living people or similar is missing.
Edit period(s): Daily for a while until exhausted checked for BLP's.
Estimated number of pages affected: In some case the bot may add/remove Category:Living people, date of birth and age, birth/death year/unknown/missing category, living=yes/no. If that does result it will be manually-assisted.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):
Function details: I am using AWB to build a list of articles, it returns a partial list of a maximum 25000 articles. The categories I wish to check are found in Category:Biography_articles_by_quality and some of those surpass the 25000 limit. To go beyond 25000 one must use a bot account, hence I find myself filling in this request!
Discussion
- Hey SunCreator! Im glad you've taken an interest in operating bots! While I do not know the full details of what you want to do, this kind of bot task seems to lend itself to SQL. If that is true, it will save you loads of time to use a Database query to build your list rather then AWBs functions. What, exactly, will you be parsing for? I may be able to help. Tim1357 talk 03:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Tim, yes, much of this could be done with a Database query, I am familiar with SQL. Here would be some obvious starters of conflicting data between something indicating a person is alive and something indicating they are dead.
- Moved database report criteria to => Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Living_people_possibly_deceased_or_deceased_people_possibly_living
- Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Tim, yes, much of this could be done with a Database query, I am familiar with SQL. Here would be some obvious starters of conflicting data between something indicating a person is alive and something indicating they are dead.
LivingBot never really did it very efficiently anyway, best of luck to you. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I think it's useful to clarify that I'm not replacing LivingBot or any other automated bot(learnt of User:Yobot recently). I'd like access to more then 25000 articles in category so that I can correct errors like 226 year old(infobox age), the now deleted Duck, marked as a BLP, this 'living' ceramic duck File:Roberto the duck.jpg - actual picture that was in the infobox and was aged 1 year old in the infobox. Numerous other BLPs that for reasons unknown aren't marked with Category:Living people even if they are on the talk page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should grab a database dump. Last one is 12th march, but they should be running again soon. Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I like the idea as using the database scanner is fast. Unfortunately my hard disk has only 30Gb free so I can't download the zip file let alone uncompress it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need 30gb to d/l the dump it is about 4-5 G but it is 27 G uncompressed. You can scan the compressed dump but not with AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- You should grab a database dump. Last one is 12th march, but they should be running again soon. Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
What's the status of this? Josh Parris 02:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, what is the status of this? Nothing has been happening; I'm inclined to expire just because there's no activity at all. — The Earwig (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Am I suppose to use the bot without getting approval? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see how it goes! –xenotalk 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- News? MBisanz talk 03:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay, got the info thank you. On a bit of a hiatus at the moment but will get back to this later. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2010
- Status? Mr.Z-man 04:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- on wikibreak. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to be on wikibreak anymore, judging by Special:Contributions/SunCreator. Do you intend to resume this request? Anomie⚔ 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I no longer have a sense that this checking which effectivly results in more uBLPs being tagged would be welcomed activity. See discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Unsourced_biographies_of_living_persons#Huge_backlog_of_tagged_unsourced_biographies_of_living_persons with a sense that the number is to 'high/huge' and adding to it is not welcomed from either side. In addition over at WP:RSN I'm being falsely accused of drive by tagging, and identifying more Category:Living people and tagging uBLP's based on horizontal checking through articles seems an unwelcomed cause. At this point I'd likely resume when number of uBLPs (currently 867) is low, down to a few months backlog or less. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we consider this "withdrawn" then? Anomie⚔ 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. WP:SILENCE Anomie⚔ 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we consider this "withdrawn" then? Anomie⚔ 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Aushulz (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: both
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Standard pywikipedia
Function overview: adding template:Portal and Template:Portal box when needed (on "See also" section)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Bot_to_add_Template:Portal
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: about 10,000 pages per month (see it)
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): no (except in Italian Wikipedia)
Function details: using replace.py or a modified version of portale.py I will add a syntax like "{{portal|portalname}}" on "See also" section of page in namespace:0 (where "portalname" it's the name of related portal, e.g. "chemistry", "physics", "mathematics", "biology", "medicine", "music", "sport", etc...). I will work on one portal at time; the exact portal will be choose seeing the category of the specified page. For example I'll add "{{portal|chemistry}}" on pages of "Category:Chemical elements" (e.g. "Hydrogen"). I will add Template:Portal box, too, but first I have to discuss about to eliminate the parameters "image1"..."image5" from this template, cause they are needless and don't permits easy changes with bot.
Discussion
Watching Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Template:Portal with interest. Got a couple of questions; what will you do if the page doesn't contain a see also section? Pywikipedia should be exclusion compliant be default, have you changed this? Also, you may be interested to see this past BRfA, although Juliancolton doesn't run it as often as you seem to be planning to. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't understand what "Exclusion compliant" means. Can you link some page that explain it?
- For example, {{bots|deny=AWB}}. See Template:Bots. Pywikipedia has a function to check for exclusion -
Page.botMayEdit(botname)
. Josh Parris 05:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, {{bots|deny=AWB}}. See Template:Bots. Pywikipedia has a function to check for exclusion -
- The page Template:portal says "Within articles, this template is meant to be placed at the bottom of the article in the See also section.", so if a page don't contains the "See also" section, I'll ignore that page. I'll not modify the pages that contains Template:Portal box, too (or maybe in future, but first I need to discuss to change a little Template:Portal box, to make it more simply to modify with a bot). So I think to begin with the simplest cases, and then I will gradually modify the regex code to make it more general.
- Sorry, I didn't understand what "Exclusion compliant" means. Can you link some page that explain it?
- --Aushulz (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened a discussion here. If you agree to it and my bot will be flagged, I can modify all the pages where are the portal template. I add my proposal at village pump. In this manner portals will be more visited, I know it because I saw good results on Italian Wikipedia. --Aushulz (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 61#Template:Portal and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 75#Bot to add Template:Portal don't seem to show a consensus to perform this task. Josh Parris 04:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In Italian Wikipedia my bot works fine and I'll change only the pages I'm sure about. --Aushulz (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without a consensus to point to editing these links onto pages (either manually or with a bot) might be construed as disruptive. You're going to need to rally some consensus that this editing is desirable. Josh Parris 03:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. There doesn't seem to be any interest in this bot from yourself or others; You've not made any edits since 2010-may-17. Josh Parris 02:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Denied.
Operator: SagaUser (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually assisted
Programming language(s): C# (.NET Framework 3.5)
Source code available:SagaCookBot source, Archive password: SagaPublishingService
Function overview:Addition of articles and further modifications
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s):Time to time run
Estimated number of pages affected:about 150 - 200 pages
Exclusion compliant (Y/N):No
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):No
Function details: Bot performs articles addition and editing on behalf of content managers from external cooking web site. Process in general as follows: content manager adds article on cooking we site and then may opt to publish it to wikipedia using bot. Bot publishes all content as is from cooking web site to wiki. Later on if content manager alters article text it may opt to update article on wikipedia using bot. Regarding Exclusion compliancy bot may be stopped easily by simply disabling its account. Also bot cannot harm the wikipedia as it is simply publishes content entered by a human.
Discussion
Please set up a separate user account. The bot should only be used for approved tasks, so creating this BRfA, responding to queries (for example) should be done by the owner. Also, please let us know the cooking site which the content will be copied from, it will be important to see the copyright, as well as the quality of the work there. I'm also interested in the format of the work there, it will be pointless copying articles across if the page then requires clean-up and wikification. As well as this, you will need to get some community input on this, please visit our village pump, and inform potentially interested parties of this request. I'm not sure users will be in support of a bot which essentially copies and pastes web pages to Wikipedia (albeit, with some wiki-formatting, by the looks of your code) - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, www.sagacook.com?
- Kingpin13 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have separate account for bot - SagaCookBot. Content addition and modification is approved tasks. Cooking site is www.sagacook.com but it is an old version. New version is not available yet. Page will not require clean-up and wikification it is done automatically by the bot. Is it mandatory to have community input ? Is it because it is a bot ? But how it differs from just a person who adds an articles about cooking to wikipedia ? Our bot is just a tool allowing user to avoid repeating same steps two times just because he wants to share it with a bigger audience on wikipedia.
- You will need to set up a separate account (not an "IP account" or the bot account) for use by the operator or the bot. How will the bot figure out how to modify content if it is changed later? What happens if the bot creates a page, another user (User X) rewrites it, and then the sagacook page is changed slightly, will the bot lose the edit by User X?
I can't approve this bot task unless you get some community support I'm afraid, copying content from other sites is likely to be of interest to a lot of users, and may be rather controversial, please see the bot policy. Even though the bot is copying content approved by a user of a different site, it still has a lot of potential to mess up, in the formatting, referencing, etc, and it may be that Wikipedia don't actually need or want the pages - you need to ask. At the moment www.sagacook.com looks like an advertisement. If you're going to change the site a lot, you will need to do that prior to getting approval for this bot, so we can see what the site will actually look like at the time when the bot would be running. What will the articles be about? What will their copyright status be? - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the bot is doing content changes on behalf of multiple people, that would be starting to get into role account territory. While bots operated by multiple people are typically allowed, this would be different, as it would be submitting manually written content, which could also have licensing issues if the original author cannot easily be determined. Mr.Z-man 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input on that. Now I see your point. I will get back about copyrighting thing a bit later. Regarding content modification: bot does not determine modifications itself, when content manager modifies content it can run bot in order to put updated content on WikiPedia. Unfortunately we cannot guarantee that content will not be overridden if User X also modified content (I guess WikiPedia also cannot guarantee this since User Y may come and completely rewrite article created by User X, am I right ?) before content manager (but we are asking content manager before publishing changes if he really wants to overwrite whole article). Also if it is a serious issue that may prevent bot approving I guess we may disable content updates by bot, but it is really really not desirable. Regarding showing you new version of the site prior to bot approval: is it ok if we show you not the final version but the version in our test environment since it is crucial for us to get bot approved prior to site finished and publicly available? Regarding community input: Would you specify what exactly should I do (e.g. link, information, steps) in order to get community input on this ? Thanks.
- This could be quite a serious issues, and would require either the bot or the content manager to always check that the page has not changed since the last update. Of course Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that a user's contributions will remain, but normally the user overwriting them will at least see what they are overwriting. I suppose seeing the test site would be okay, but I'm not sure it's worth it unless we can actually see how the articles which are going to be on the site look. You would have to make sure the articles meet Wiikpedia's requirements, as well as your own. Could you let us know what these articles are likely to be about? And how they are likely to be written (what format will they be in, will it be the same as Wikipedia?). Regarding community input, I've created a section at the village pump for you, so hopefully we'll get some from there. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is an acceptable standard and the copyright checks out then I'm happy to have a bot load some extra articles to Wikipedia. But I'm uncomfortable with bot updating as that looks to me like making Wikipedia a mirror of another site. Bot updating of articles that were created this way and have not subsequently been edited other than by bots would be OK, as would adding a talkpage message along the lines of "this article was originally sourced from http://www.sagacook.com/Bakedbeansontoast - that article has subsequently been updated and could be used as a source to update this article". ϢereSpielChequers 10:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have some serious concerns about this. Firstly, we aren't a cookbook - if the intention is to copy recipes over to Wikipedia, you'd be better off copying them to Wikibooks instead, which does maintain a cookbook. Secondly, it looks like Saga Cooking is a for-profit business. While I have no problem with contributions from a for-profit business, bot edits must not violate our Neutral point of view policy for content, nor be otherwise promotional, so suggesting the use of your cooking papers (or cooking papers in general) is right out. If that would remove the entire reason for these contributions, then you should contribute this material. It would help in discussing both preceding points if you could point to a sample of what you hope to contribute along with an indication of where you wish to contribute it.
- In addition, we need to be certain that your bot does not violate copyright and does not cause us to violate copyright or our own license. One way to do this would be to explicitly place the contributed material in the public domain, if you have the right to do that; then we can't possibly screw it up on our side. Another way would be to explicitly license the material under the license of Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA-3.0 (unported) plus GFDL 1.3) and supply a list of contributors or a link to a version elsewhere that is legitimately under that license. Lastly, we would need for your bot not to edit war with human editors or to spam its material into articles where there's a consensus that it's not wanted. At a minimum, it would need to be exclusion compliant; you've indicated above that it would not be, which is unacceptable. Yes, complying with these points can be a pain, when you just want to give us free stuff - I know it. But this is what needs to be done, if you want to make such contributions. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with "it will be pointless copying articles across if the page then requires clean-up and wikification" since we are only talking 200ish pages - all imported material and new articles need some clean-up. I also disagree with " have not subsequently been edited other than by bots would be OK" - because bots do things that fix/prevent breakage, and sometimes these are one-off runs - for example you could be re-adding content using dead categories and templates. I do share the other concerns, the licensing, content and WP would need to be a fork not a mirror - that's not to say that I am against data being mirrored from elsewhere, if that is the case, and it is useful, we can devise a suitable wrapper. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- My point about it being pointless if the page requires cleanup is that it would be just as easy for a user to copy the article manually and clean it up, as to have the bot copy it and then a user clean it up. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. True up to a point. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- My point about it being pointless if the page requires cleanup is that it would be just as easy for a user to copy the article manually and clean it up, as to have the bot copy it and then a user clean it up. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response. Regarding automatic updates I agree that this can cause a problems so we will disable automatic updates by our bot. Only first time publishing will be available. The concept of articles is that these articles will concentrate on supporting the benefit and product claims we give about (cooking with) SAGA. This will be as scientific data as possible; studies and research that we have ordered from a third party (independent and unbiased of course, but the research focuses on the aspects that are of particular interest to us) or studies that are of interest to us but which have been initiated and conducted without any influence by our side. When this kind of data is published on sagacook.com, it’s never published as such but as a summary or as quotations. We will, naturally, always give the source when we use external material. I’m not sure what the case with copyrights is when we have ordered and paid for some 3rd party research, but definitively, when we have simply quoted a completely independent study, we don’t own it. But that’s the case with any article that uses external references. (I think the academic rule is that any published data can be used if the source is mentioned.). Does such kind of content meets Wikipedia ? About clean up - the bot will perform all cleanup automatically. I agree that maybe bot will not be able to perform all possible cleanups but at least a most common set of cleanup. Also after user publishes content it always reviews what has been published, and if there are some issues that needs to be fixed user can do this (but amount of this issues would be definitely lower than if user just copies content by hands). Do you see what I mean ? Looking forward for response from you.
User account required
Seriously: set up a user account. This BRFA can't proceed without a responsible user operating the bot. Josh Parris 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User account created. Name - SagaUser.
- Now, the only problem I can foresee that hasn't been addressed is the actual content of the articles. Would you be so kind as to manually create one of the articles you're proposing to do with the bot? Josh Parris 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this not a conflict of interest, it seems he is editing article about his own site CrimsonBlue (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be, but without seeing a proposed article it's hard to judge. Josh Parris 06:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not editing article about his own site, importing suitably licensed content. As Josh says if it is also suitable content then it is fine, since there is no ownership of the articles. Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Is this not a conflict of interest, it seems he is editing article about his own site CrimsonBlue (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make any difference in which language example article will be ?
- This request for approval only effects the English Wikipedia, even if this is approved, it may only edit the English Wikipedia, therefore all of the bots articles should be written in English - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we will prepare example article in English. But our content will be available on 6 to 9 languages. Does it mean that I need to put 6 to 9 requests on all required language versions of WikiPedia to approve the same version of the bot ? It seems really strange don't you think so ?
- I'm afraid it does, since approval here does not effect other sites. It is possible to get a global bot flag, but most wikis (this one included) don't allow even global bots to edit without local approval (although we do allow global-interwiki linking bots). Each wiki has it's own policies regarding bots, so each has bots approved separately. You may want to read through the English Wikipedia bot policy, if you haven't already done so,as this explains all of that. On another note, I also wanted to voice my concerns that the pages created by this bot may be "spammy", as the sagacook site at the moment seems very promotional. So I would be interested in seeing a sample page - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you an example of article later. Also the site will be different from what you see at the moment so please don't pay to much attention to it. I'm steel very worried about need to approve bot on all languages. It seems not logical, also it will require to find persons who knows e.g. German, Spanish, Finnish, Polish etc. language in order to just register the same bot. (the one thing that make me happy is that we don't need to support Chinese language :))
- This is the English Wikipedia; we have no control over any of the other WMF wikis – they have their own bot policies and approved bots. If you file for approval here, it only affects here. I'd personally like to see a bot running on this wiki before you start filing for approval on other languages, so we can see how the bot will run in the first place and other wikis have a better idea of what it will do. This request has been open for over a month and almost no progress has been made. I would really like to see how these articles are going to look, what they will be about, and how you are going to incorporate them into the rest of Wikipedia. — The Earwig (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly if you can't find a person who can take French approval process through, for example, I'm not sure why you think they would let you bot content onto their wiki. Oh well we will see what happens... Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The owner has made no edits since this request as it's been 18 days since a comment on it. The owner shows lack of comprehension of Wikipedia policies, and until those can be followed I suggest that the BAG deny the request. FinalRapture - † ☪ 17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide us with an example article, or I will expire this approval request without further notice per the above comment by FinalRapture. — The Earwig (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding for a long time. I will provide you with an example article by the end of the week.
We have finished the example article. Could you give me your email so I send it to you ?
- You can log into the SagaUser account, then use Special:EmailUser to send it to us, but wouldn't it be easier to post the whole thing online somewhere? Perhaps on the talk page of this BRFA, for example. — The Earwig (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with procedures here, but if no one can clearly spell out how this might help the encyclopedia, wouldn't it be kinder to close this discussion? Is there a sample of what might be produced? Does anyone think that it would be desirable to have a bot publish a page from an external cooking site to Wikipedia? Also, the option "if content manager alters article text it may opt to update article on wikipedia using bot" seems implausible given that an article might be edited here; how would conflicts be resolved? The bot name and the operator name do not inspire confidence since the names might indicate a close connection with a commercial website. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denied. Per Johnuniq and others, this does not seem like it can possibly work as a bot. I have yet to see some evidence that the articles are acceptable, and it's been months. — The Earwig (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Andewz111 (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): PHP
Source code available: Soon
Function overview: Find articles that a spoken version is over 120 days old and put on the talk page that the page needs an updated spoken version
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): On WikiProject Speech: see discussion below
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: some what plenty, but will rate limit to 15 articles per 30 days
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: Trivial: see function details above
Discussion
I am bit concerned about the concept in itself, what's the point of having TTS spoken articles :S If one would want just to have a TTS, he could do it on the fly client-side, as suggested at WP:SPOKEN. Unless there is some consensus and discussion on this, which the operator has not linked, I'm not really inclined favorably toward this. Also, the operator has been active for about two weeks on this project. Snowolf How can I help? 06:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Having a machine read the article kind of defeats the purpose of having spoken articles. --Chris 06:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It helps to relieve the stress upon human speakers. Even if there's a lot of them... Also, my account was created 12 August, and I made a few sporadic edits. This is just the more active part. Getting off of that, the bot runs client-side and not on a server. Another idea is to have people verify if the bot did it's job. For most of its task bot rights won't be needed. I know the disadvantages as well: yet there is quite a few advantages too. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 06:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then a consensus at the wikiproject could help. Snowolf How can I help? 07:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- point 3. Also, how does this differ from Wikipedia:Pediaphon? --Chris 07:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Need_to_reach_a_consensus_about_a_bot. Also, this bot generates OGG files for upload on Wikipedia. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 07:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or I can repurpose this bot. Basically, it can look for articles that have a spoken version older than 120 days, and put them up for another spoken translation. But the bot would run forever. Changing information section. I'm repurposing and changing the language to PHP. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 07:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Will do the same w/the request on WikiProject Speech.[reply]
- Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Need_to_reach_a_consensus_about_a_bot. Also, this bot generates OGG files for upload on Wikipedia. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 07:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 19:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (sorry, just needed it)[reply]
- I think the new task could be an acceptable bot task, if the spoken Wikipedia project wants it, but, I don't think that number of days is a very good metric to use here. It is entirely possible for an article to go several months with no significant changes. Age in days could be a good starting point, but I think it should try to compare the version of the article from around the time the spoken version was made to the current version to see if there's a significant difference. It could look at size changes or number of edits, or actually look at a diff or calculate an edit distance. Also, why only 0.5 edits/day? Mr.Z-man 02:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great idea right here. It may come in later iterations. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Any update? It's been several days and I'm not withdrawing. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I share the same concerns as MrZMan; an arbitrary length of time is too simplistic; we can't just re-record articles every four months. If this is all the bot is to do, I'd prefer to see that implemented as a report. Josh Parris 02:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, this bot would probably help with the other duties of the Spoken articles WikiProject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These other functions you speak of aren't detailed. What are they? Josh Parris 09:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, that is up to the wikiproject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not going to get approval for a bot with unspecified functionality. Perhaps you could come back with details? Josh Parris 02:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand, but is the first task. A dicussion on the spoken articles wikiproject will ensue. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not going to get approval for a bot with unspecified functionality. Perhaps you could come back with details? Josh Parris 02:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, that is up to the wikiproject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These other functions you speak of aren't detailed. What are they? Josh Parris 09:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, this bot would probably help with the other duties of the Spoken articles WikiProject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not approving without community consensus, as established on the noted wikiproject or elsewhere. Snowolf How can I help? 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've bumped the wikiproject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not approving without community consensus, as established on the noted wikiproject or elsewhere. Snowolf How can I help? 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was going to change to an edit distance. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 13:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your consensus doesn't seem to be building. I suggest you build your bot and have it list pages at User:SpeakerBot/re-record; The bot can edit pages in its own userspace without BAG approval, and you could even transclude the list somewhere on the Spoken Wikipedia WikiProject. Get feedback on the list from users on the WikiProject. Once you've built up their enthusiasm, come here a get permission to edit outside of the bot's own pages. Josh Parris 06:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, you give me permission to do bot tasks inside userspace (alas approved for trial inside userspace)? Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not approved for trial, but you're free to run it in your userspace. You don't need our approval or consensus for the userspace. Snowolf How can I help? 04:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, you give me permission to do bot tasks inside userspace (alas approved for trial inside userspace)? Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your consensus doesn't seem to be building. I suggest you build your bot and have it list pages at User:SpeakerBot/re-record; The bot can edit pages in its own userspace without BAG approval, and you could even transclude the list somewhere on the Spoken Wikipedia WikiProject. Get feedback on the list from users on the WikiProject. Once you've built up their enthusiasm, come here a get permission to edit outside of the bot's own pages. Josh Parris 06:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What assistance do you require? Josh Parris 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just ensuring that this is still not in the trash :) Puffy (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you built a consensus yet? Josh Parris 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still none. Puffy fish penguins 19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you built a consensus yet? Josh Parris 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just ensuring that this is still not in the trash :) Puffy (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely no consensus, like Promethan said. I withdraw. OpenTheWindows, sir! 16:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Bzho3255 (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: uses python-wikitools
Function overview: Bot that will only use the wikipedia API to retrieve full revision histories for a university research project.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): No Editing
Estimated number of pages affected: No Editing
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Not relevant. API Querying only.
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: The bot will simply query the API and retrieve page meta information as well as revision histories (including content). The information will be used for a research project in the University of Sydney. Results from queries will be cache locally for some time to reduce the number of queries required.
The bot will NOT make edits or page scrape.
It's here for approval to get the bot flag (and hence higher API limits, especially for revision queries).
Discussion
I should also mention that we have considered using dumps, but it doesn't seem practical at the moment. We require full revision information including contents, so we would have to obtain, decompress, and upload into a database a full dump (of which there aren't any recently). We're also only sparsely querying wiki articles (that is, we're not planning to parse all revisions of all articles), so the overhead of setting up the database seems wasteful. The idea of this bot is to retrieve the articles and histories we need then cache it locally for further use.
The API with higher limits seems like the best option. Or are there more appropriate methods? Bzho3255 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sorry for speedily denying this, I did not read carefully enough. How many pages will you be pulling down? If it is big enough, I can help you with an XML parser, which I already have downloaded. Otherwise, You don't need a bot account to query the database for full revision histories of pages. In fact, I suggest taking a look at Special:Export, which will probably be easier for you. Tim1357 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current problem is that to download all the metadata for the revisions for the 9/11 page, for instance, takes 2 minutes (23 queries). The amount of data being retrieve is in fact very little (just meta so far, not content), but the overhead of 23 queries is quite a lot. Raising the limit with a bot flag will reduce this to 3 queries. The export page also limits how deep you can retrieve histories. I'd like to retrieve full histories. I already have working code to do all of this, I'd just like a bot account for higher api limits. Thanks for any assistance Bzho3255 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Last month isn't a recent enough dump? Q T C 23:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that the English Wikipedia did not produce full dumps anymore (wasn't it broken a while back?). In any case, I'd still rather avoid expanding terabytes worth of data. Bzho3255 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would depend on how many pages you need the full history for. If you only need a few, then using the API should be fine. But if you need more than a few hundred average-sized pages, or you're specifically interested in pages like 9/11 that have thousands of edits, then you should really use the dump. Mr.Z-man 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the moment, we only need 100 pages, say. But this will change in the future. The plan is definitely to expand a dump if we ever need to scale up to thousands. But currently, we're just experimenting and querying the API seems like the best option. Not having the bot flag, however, makes querying painfully slow. Bzho3255 (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not going to see much of a speed improvement if you get the bot flag. The bot flag allows bigger clumps to come down in each hit, but that size increase isn't huge. There may be optimizations you could perform to improve performance. Josh Parris 13:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Querying revisions can be done 500 at a time without bot flag and 5000 with. As I've previously mentioned, this is a reduction from 23 queries to 3 for the a large article like 9/11. The overhead of querying the API appears to be the bottleneck as the amount of data across the 23 queries is only a few megs, but still takes 2 minutes. Bzho3255 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A full dump was recently produced for the first time in 4 years; compressed it's 32Gb, and expands out to 5+Tb. I'm not sure you want that.
- Would an editing-denied bot account be appropriate for your uses? Josh Parris 05:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Are you still intending to proceed with this request? Josh Parris 09:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. Josh Parris 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: John Cardinal (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually-assisted
Programming language(s): I will only be using regex commands via AWB.
Source code available: If desired, I will make the source code available in the form of ABW settings files.
Function overview: I am using AWB to inspect a lot of articles as part of removing deprecated templates, merging templates, etc. Please see the Function details section below.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Infrequently; one-time for different manually-assisted tasks, and certainly not intended for continuous or daily use.
Estimated number of pages affected: Because these are manually-assisted edits, the page rate should be less than 10 per minute, the highest rate I've observed when using AWB to make simple changes. A more typical rate is 3 per minute.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):
Function details: I am using AWB to make manually-assisted edits. In order to build a list of more than 25K candidate articles in AWB, one must use a bot account. There are two maintenance tasks (one of which is complete) that I will use to illustrate why I would like to use a bot-approved account, but I should point out that these are examples of the type of edits I was planning to make and so this is an open-ended request.
In the recent past, I used AWB to make thousands of edits to change the deprecated template {{Mapit-US-cityscale}} to {{coord}} or equivalent. The relevant discussion for that change is here. After making those edits, I discovered that making that many manually-assisted edits might require bot approval.
As part of that task, I used AWB list tools to make lists of candidate articles, and specifically, I used them to build a list of articles that transclude the template. It is limited to returning 25K pages, and there were more than 25K such pages, but given I was removing pages from the universe of articles as I edited them, the technical restriction was not a major barrier. It did impact me in that I could not make a cross-list of pages that transclude both Mapit-US-cityscale and {{Infobox settlement}}, a template with more than 25K transclusions that was used on many of the same pages as Mapit-US-cityscale. When Infobox settlement was present, adjusting its parameters was the preferred way to eliminate the use of Mapit-US-cityscale. Due to the restriction, I could not determine how many of the uses of Mapit-US-cityscale should be replaced by changing the parameters of an Infobox settlement template in the same article. This was not a major barrier, but it did make the project more difficult.
I am currently investigating a proposed merge of two templates: {{Infobox single}} (25K+ uses) and {{Infobox song}} (~2800 uses). Merging the templates has been discussed on the template talk pages of both templates at various times in the past. The most recent discussions are on the Infobox song talk page. I am doing some research right now so I can prepare a formal proposal, but I can not say whether that proposal will be accepted. I suspect it will; the infoboxes are very similar, maintaining them takes twice as much effort as it should, and users have complained about slight differences between the two. In order to support the merger discussion, there should be an analysis of how merging the templates will affect existing articles. I was planning to use AWB to help with that analysis, but the 25K limit for non-bot accounts in AWB is a barrier.
One example of the analysis concerns the |Type=
parameter. It is a valid Infobox song parameter but it is not a valid Infobox single parameter. Despite that, it is sometimes included in calls to Infobox single. Without knowing how many times it is used, and what values it has in those instances, it's hard to know if those calls will be a problem when the Infobox song Type parameter is implemented in the merged template. I could trigger the addition of the article into a category when the Type parameter is used in Infobox single, but there are various similar situations and making categories for them would require more work for me and more work for the WP servers. Also, the two templates are protected, and I am not an Admin, so to make the "add category" edits I would have to edit the sandbox version, wait for an admin to install it, wait for the servers to update the categories, etc. Again, this seems like extra work all around.
While this request is open-ended, my plan is not to use AWB to edit 25K+ articles. I want bot approval for the CMoonBot account so I can find the articles of interest without using maintenance categories and without using database dumps.
Discussion
Is there any particular reason you don't want to use database dumps? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I may not know enough to make a good decision about that, but using database dumps seems like a lot more work to me, especially to get around a relatively arbitrary limitation. I have to download a multi-gig compressed dump file, expand it to an even bigger database feed, and then load that into a DB program which I don't currently have, so I'd have to install and configure it. The dumps are always a little stale, so the results may not be 100% accurate, though that's a small issue for the type of projects I'll be doing. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that if you're only searching text, you don't need to load it into a DB, you can just parse the XML directly. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I assume I'd have to use a SAX-based XML tool. (I've got experience with XML tools, but all DOM-based.) — John Cardinal (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that if you're only searching text, you don't need to load it into a DB, you can just parse the XML directly. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You dont even have to decompress the dumps on your harddisk because a lot of languages allow you to read a zipped file and decompress on the fly. SAX is faster but I guess you can use both. --hroest 12:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought about changing the infobox templates such that they accept the same parameter sets? I have no experience in the file of music but that would at least relive the problems of people that use the "wrong" template. --hroest 12:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have knowledge of the specific templates being discussed but has it been pointed out that AWB has a database dump scanner, which would allow all the exiting template calls to be analysed offline? Rjwilmsi 21:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
- Are other editors using the XML-based approach described above? Can someone describe their tools?
- I use the XML based approach on the de-Wikipedia to find and correct typos in a semi-automatic fashion. --hroest 12:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about cases where I use AWB to make edits that are allowed by the tool but exceed the accepted usage, i.e., edits of the type where the AWB docs say you should have a bot account even if performing manual edits?
— John Cardinal (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May I suggest WP:DDR? They do stuff like this. Tim1357 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The activity level here seems to have died down. What's going on with it? Are there any updates, and do you still want this request to stay open? — The Earwig (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. No operator activity since 2010-mar-08 Josh Parris 01:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Mobius Clock (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: After cleanup, this will be a link
Function overview: Fixing articles that have <ref> tags and/or template parameters which create references, but no <references/> or {{reflist}}, using this category.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Missing_reflist
Edit period(s): Periodically, category requires semi-constant clearing
Estimated number of pages affected: However many are in the category!
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No, if necessary can be made so
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: Although SmackBot was approved to do this, it hasn't run this task in a while, and given that there has been a direct request for this kind of thing, I thought it can't hurt to have more than one bot available. Basically the bot will run through the 'pages with missing reflist' category, and add said reflist if: the page actually has references, excluding those in HTML comments, or the page contains a template with a parameter that automatically adds a reference, and there is no reflist or <references/> tag. One ref-generating parameter in the German location infobox (see BOTREQ) prompted this task, if any others exist, please let me know. The BOTREQ referred to running through the transclusions of the given template; I did a dry run and found that less than 5% of the pages needed to be fixed, and therefore I thought it more efficient to do the whole category, and cross the whole thing off the 'things what need fixing plz' list, at least temporarily.
Discussion
- AWB is unable to add references to thousands of these cases because there is no visible ref tag. [1]. The reference comes from Infobox German location.
- Where will Mobius Bot add the reflist tag? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot uses the standard pywikipedia methods to remove cats and interwikis, inserts the reflist, then 'floats' it above any other templates using a custom process, and finally sticks the cats and IWs back. In short, the reflist will end up before any templates, categories or IW links at the end of the article in question. Here's one of my userspace tests. - Mobius Clock 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Lets see how this runs in the real world. Josh Parris 02:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. - Trial went without incident save for this slight bug, caused by the page having a template placed within the 'Further Reading' section or suchlike (i.e. in a bulleted/indented list). I've tweaked the regex to compensate, and ran a further test on a copy of an original page, which ran fine. - Mobius Clock 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a high rate of occurrence of misplaced ==References==; would you be willing to detect that problem and record it on a list for humans to go and repair?
- One edit reordered DEFAULTSORT away from the categories, that's probably undesirable - perhaps instead to put it at the end of the templates just before the categories. Josh Parris 07:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say misplaced references, which ones are you referring to? If it's the ones I mentioned above (templates in lists), I did squash that bug. If you mean reordering DEFAULTSORT, I hadn't noticed that error; I've further modified the code, and now DEFAULTSORT will be left alone, and I've also tweaked things to avoid munging the order of page-footer items. I tried putting it after the templates, but that just looks wrong, I'd rather spend some time fixing any bugs and have the bot do a good job first time around rather than having to get humans to clean up after it. I have no problem with logging the bot's edits to a page on wiki, however, I just need to know which ones I should treat as 'suspect'. - Mobius Clock 09:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, bug squashed, but the bug was triggered by faulty ==Reference== placement; humans really ought to look at that kind of thing and repair it (see BetaCommand's comment below re vandalism). Josh Parris 13:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the edit above the stub template moved above the categories which is wrong. AWB places them under the categories per WP:LAYOUT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, bug squashed, but the bug was triggered by faulty ==Reference== placement; humans really ought to look at that kind of thing and repair it (see BetaCommand's comment below re vandalism). Josh Parris 13:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say misplaced references, which ones are you referring to? If it's the ones I mentioned above (templates in lists), I did squash that bug. If you mean reordering DEFAULTSORT, I hadn't noticed that error; I've further modified the code, and now DEFAULTSORT will be left alone, and I've also tweaked things to avoid munging the order of page-footer items. I tried putting it after the templates, but that just looks wrong, I'd rather spend some time fixing any bugs and have the bot do a good job first time around rather than having to get humans to clean up after it. I have no problem with logging the bot's edits to a page on wiki, however, I just need to know which ones I should treat as 'suspect'. - Mobius Clock 09:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things, I would use pywikipedia's noreferences.py with a tweak to the detection of refs. But PLEASE be careful. this is something I have been reviewing recently (excluding those created via templates) and have noticed a LOT of it is caused by vandalism 70%+. I would support adding refs to those articles that need it due to refs via template but thats it. βcommand 12:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll incorporate a logging system for odd results so they can be checked. And yeah, adapting the noreferences.py script probably is a good idea, I suppose I started off coding for the templated ones only and the code grew from there (I know, bad idea!). As most of the category consists of ref-from-template pages, I have no problem with only fixing those ones, as it seems others require human attention due to vandals borking things. - Mobius Clock 15:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming BetaCommand is happy, and that you've made the modifications necessary, are you ready for another trial? Josh Parris 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll incorporate a logging system for odd results so they can be checked. And yeah, adapting the noreferences.py script probably is a good idea, I suppose I started off coding for the templated ones only and the code grew from there (I know, bad idea!). As most of the category consists of ref-from-template pages, I have no problem with only fixing those ones, as it seems others require human attention due to vandals borking things. - Mobius Clock 15:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Ping. MBisanz talk 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I don't hear from the operator soon, I will archive it as withdrawn later this weekend. MBisanz talk 04:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. MBisanz talk 01:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Tedder (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): perl
Source code available: yes, GitHub
Function overview: automagically remove {{current}}
template (and others, currently {{current related}}
) from stale pages.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
- User talk:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot
- Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 35#Current_tag_removal
- Template talk:Current#Bot
Edit period(s): probably every 30-90 minutes.
Estimated number of pages affected: ~10 pages per day.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes.
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes.
Function details: See User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot.
Discussion
I'm not sure personally about the two hours, but we'll see if the discussion at the template talk page continues to support that. Maybe there could be an on-wiki page with a number, which the bot reads, to allow for easy changing of the hours? - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm not too sure about the exact number, but I'm fine having a dial that can be moved around. I'm really nervous about having a dial that makes it too easy to move around, so it'd probably end up being full-protected, which means it's not anymore useful than having it as a constant in the script. I'll add in trivial support for per-template timing when needed, meaning
{{current}}
might be 2 hours and{{current-foo}}
might be 12 hours. tedder (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason for this. Perhaps the nominator was mixed up between this template, which only comes to inform the reader and editor that the subject is current and prone to sudden changes in content, and Template:Under construction, which indeed informs us that the article is under active construction. Even for that case, I think we do not need a bot, and the occasional conscientious editor can take care of removing it, if needed. Debresser (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of other editors and I spend a great deal of time removing the template. I personally have removed it over 100 times since mid-February. Abductive (reasoning) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest an alternative strategy for picking how long to leave the template before removing it: start with no edits in 24 hours, and wind the figure down until someone complains the bot is too aggressive, then back off a fair way (eg, if there's a complaint at 3 hours, make the setting 6). What of the other templates, such as {{Under construction}} - do you plan to monitor them at some point in the future? Josh Parris 13:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally asked for 12 hours since the last edit. In my experience removing templates, I have found that the template is applied to three broad classes of articles: completely inappropriate articles where it should never have been applied in the first place, articles whose topic or some aspect of the topic have had some brief mention in the news, and the busy articles for which the template is quite appropriate. 12 hours since any edit means that there isn't going to be any new information. I'm speaking both in terms of editing load and the real world news cycle here. The bot is supposed to supplement editors who look for inappropriate uses of the template, not to enforce the guideline on its use. (In other words, to find forgotten and neglected templates.) So I have no problem starting at 12 hours (most editors on the talk page wanted 2 hours) and seeing how it goes. Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other time-sensitive templates can be added to the bot's roster through the usual bot request channel. Right now
{{current}}
and{{current related}}
are the ones that have consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see what a trial throws up. Josh Parris 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete.. I made one pass through the articles with the template in place (snapshot). I made two mistakes: first, I forgot that the consensus here was to move back to 12 hours at first, so I ran it at 2 hours. Second, I found a little logic bug that meant it accidentally removed it from a non-stale template. I fixed the bug and manually rolled back the one page that had been affected. tedder (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And more- to state it clearly here, I looked through each edit to ensure there were no regex problems. I've also rolled back a "stale current" page to see how the bot handles it. I'll have to wait, since the bot now sees that page as having a current edit, not a stale edit. tedder (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who scans for non-appropriate uses of the template, the 12-hour edit will only pick up the most egregious mis-uses of the template. Perhaps all the author intends. I was the advocate of the 2-hour span, as the historical purpose of the template was to warn editors not to step on each others' edits, when there are hundreds of edits a day in some crisis topic. Somewhere above 95% of the uses of the template are superfluous.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is that the bot will help editors who remove the templates, not replace them. For example, I spot an article where the current template has just been applied. The person who applied it is still active. I know that the template is inappropriate, but if I remove it, the other editor may get upset. I could wait, but I have to go to sleep or work sometimes. So the bot will provide a backstop. Now if the bot does need to be sped up, that request can be made after a few weeks. Even so, the current-related template may have to stay at 12 hours. Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot seems to limit its activities to namespace 0; would it be reasonable to operate in other namespaces? Josh Parris 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. For what purpose? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes a current event template is addede to a talk page, or a template, but I'm not sure if the bot should cover these cases. --Conti|✉ 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if approved, the bot should be used for all the current event templates (since their purpose is always the same): Template:Current, Template:Current disaster, Template:Current person, Template:Current related, Template:Current sport, Template:Current tropical cyclone, and possibly Template:Current spaceflight (That one has slightly different guidelines). Most of these templates are rarely used, so that shouldn't be a problem. --Conti|✉ 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bot edit message change desirable
It is not appropriate for the Bot to cite a page that is a redirect, and the page acronym is essentially meaningless with a defunct title, because of the months' ago deletion of the "future" templates. Here's the edit summary as of this date:
- (remove stale current-event template, please see WP:CAFET. (bot edit))
The link to WP:CAFET once upon a time redirected to "Wikipedia:Current and future event templates", which was in October 2009 moved to: WP:Current event templates, after the "future" templates were all deleted in 2009.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What edit summary would you prefer be used? It'd be nice to have a short link, but I don't see any others. I'm happy to change it either now or after the BRFA is over. tedder (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot could simply link to the guideline on the template itself, since they're always the same, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd much rather link to a template. So I've created WP:CET as a shortcut and changed the edit summary: "[[User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot|remove stale current-event template]], please see [[WP:CET]]. (bot edit)" tedder (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot could simply link to the guideline on the template itself, since they're always the same, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What edit summary would you prefer be used? It'd be nice to have a short link, but I don't see any others. I'm happy to change it either now or after the BRFA is over. tedder (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}}
Where are we at tedder? Josh Parris 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll follow up with conti on the edit summary issue. Otherwise I'm not aware of other issues during the test run, so I was waiting for BAG's blessing to add it to my cron. tedder (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. I'm sure you will continue to improve the bot based on feedback from other community members. Josh Parris 05:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Anypodetos (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised
Programming language(s): Python, PyWikipedia
Source code available: yes
Function overview: Creates redirects from ISO 639 codes to language articles (see Category:Redirects from ISO 639)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Anypodetos#Bot request, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Creating language stubs
Edit period(s): One time run; possibly later runs if necessary/requested
Estimated number of pages affected: Less than 7700 redirects (the number of ISO 639-3 codes)
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No (bot affects only redirects, which are unlikely to have an exclusion template)
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: Creates redirects of the type ISO 639:aaa → Ghotuo language. The codes and language names are obtained from the lists ISO 639:a etc. Existing redirects are checked for the presence of the template {{R from ISO 639}} (which is added if necessary) and for target language (which the bot doesn't fix automatically, but only writes to a log for manual inspection). Another log is created for target language pages that don't exist.
Discussion
If the target language page doesn't exist, I presume it won't be created. If so, will a redirect to a non-existent page be created? Josh Parris 10:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If the target page doesn't exist, the redirect is not created. Such cases are only logged to a page in the bot's user space. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. No objections, so let's trial things. Josh Parris 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BotTrialComplete}} Rephrased the edit summary for new redirects and did some other tweaking, but I encountered no serious problems. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot seems to be creating double-redirects
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_639:aas&action=history
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_639:abo&action=history
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_639:abs&action=history
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_639:acc&action=history
You're going to need to avoid that. Josh Parris 07:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I wasn't aware that the bot was required to do that, since Xqbot is taking care of double redirects. I will implement a fix tomorrow. What shall I do then, run another dozen trial edits or just inform you that the fix is ready? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Yes, go ahead and run another 20 edits once you've got that sorted. Josh Parris 09:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_639:acn&redirect=no is an example of the fix working: it would have redirected to Achang language instead of Ngac'ang language. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Looks good. Josh Parris 08:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Tim1357 (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Auto
Programming language(s): Python Source code available: Not written yet
Function overview: Tag shortcuts with {{r from shortcut}}
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Monthly Estimated number of pages affected: On first run, 4327 redirects.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: The page is tagged if:
- It is a redirect;
- It starts with at least two letters (A-Z);
- It is in all CAPS;
- It is not already tagged;
- It has no spaces; and
- It is in the Wikipedia: namespace.
Discussion
To see a pre-generated list, click here. Tim1357 talk 01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you distinguish between a shortcut and an abbreviation? Josh Parris 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the template:
Abbreviations, rather, are used in the article namespace. That is what is apparent from the What links here pages for both {{r from shortcut}} and {{r from abbreviation}}Shortcuts are generally reserved for Wikipedia project pages
- According to the template:
- The stated conditions should be joined by "and" or "or". Otherwise they cannot be interpreted. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not sure what you are suggesting. I had to use those logical connectors when I made the list. Tim1357 talk 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Function details" section above lists many conditions that will control whether the bot does anything, but it does not say if all the conditions must be satisfied, or any one of them. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what's the 'win' here? Why run this task? Josh Parris 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorizing a whole list of redirects who are otherwise un-categorized. Tim1357 talk 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And once they're categorized... then what? Josh Parris 12:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have no big picture goal for this task. In my experience, the more we can categorize things, the easier (and more efficient) it is to manage our information in the future. That is why this task is a win in and of itself. Tim1357 talk 13:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the question is, does anyone actually use redirect categories for anything except determining which redirects are categorized? Mr.Z-man 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally WildBot used a redirect catagory to determine what redirects linked to disambiguation pages. Josh Parris 02:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the question is, does anyone actually use redirect categories for anything except determining which redirects are categorized? Mr.Z-man 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have no big picture goal for this task. In my experience, the more we can categorize things, the easier (and more efficient) it is to manage our information in the future. That is why this task is a win in and of itself. Tim1357 talk 13:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And once they're categorized... then what? Josh Parris 12:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorizing a whole list of redirects who are otherwise un-categorized. Tim1357 talk 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so 15% of redirects are categorized. That doesn't really answer my question. Is anyone actually using this information? Did someone request this bot to be run so that they can do something with the information, or is it just categorizing for the sake of categorizing? Mr.Z-man 03:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it'd be best to ask the community if this task is worthwhile. Therefore, I left a message at the redirect wikiproject. If there is no response there, Ill bring it to village pump. Tim1357 talk 11:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just thought I'd chip in to say that I agree with those above who have doubts about the usefulness of this task. Categorizing articles is important, as it makes finding related information easier, and allows for easier management (cleanup cats, etc.). However, categorizing redirects, especially WP:FOO redirects seems rather pointless. It's quite obvious what they are, and I doubt there'll ever be a need to process them all in a batch for some reason (and even if there is, we can pull a list then). - Mobius Clock 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it'd be best to ask the community if this task is worthwhile. Therefore, I left a message at the redirect wikiproject. If there is no response there, Ill bring it to village pump. Tim1357 talk 11:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Clarifying_WP:_shortcuts_and_Wikipedia:_page_titles may benefit from this Josh Parris 07:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of those tricky arguments. Basically there was a lot of "categorising redirects for the sake of it", I am sure - but some of the categorisation IS useful: most important is "redirects with possibilities" - also distinguishing "redirects from alternative names" from "redirects from typos" - the latter class should never be linked to. Having established that some categories are useful we realise that if we can cat all redirects, we will not have putative members of "redirects from typos" sitting uncatted. I do wish we used "Redirect from" rather than "R from" though. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Status report? MBisanz talk 02:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the lack of response at the Redirect wikiproject's talk page, I think this task is pretty much a dud. Tim1357 talk 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. Tim1357 talk 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Tim1357 (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: I need to figure out SVN
Function overview: Find suitable archived copies for dead links on the Internet Archive
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I have to find them all, but it's there.
Edit period(s): Every Night
Estimated number of pages affected: N/A
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details:
- Get all urls that are used between
<ref>
tags. - Find those that return error 404 (if they do, test them again 5 seconds later) *
- Check to see if they are associated with a
|accessdate
. If so, skip to step 5. - Query wikiblame, Find approximate date of insertion. **
- Check the Internet Archive for any archived copy within 6 months (either direction) of our date. ***
- If so, update all references using the url (with |archiveurl if possible, otherwise {{Wayback}})
- Tag all non-fixed urls with {{dead link}}
* Some pages return 404 on the first try because their disks are spinning up.
** I have asked for permission to query wikiblame, waiting for reply.
*** The people at the Internet Archive told me I could do this given I use a identify-able user-agent (with email and such)
Discussion
I did testing (under my own account) in my user space, and did one little edit in the real world to make sure everything worked. Tim1357 talk 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks helpful. Why "Archive automatically found by DASBHBot"? Josh Parris 03:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think would be a better note to leave (if any). Tim1357 talk 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to consensus discussions. Josh Parris 03:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When {{dead link}} is inserted there seem to have a trailing space on the preceding citation template. How come? Josh Parris 03:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Bot:Fixing dead links" is a more explicit edit summary. If you were bored you could include a count of how many were fixed. If {{dead link}} is used, the summary should also include something like "marking dead links"; this also could include a count. Josh Parris 03:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be more than a day that you wait. More like a week or so. So you'll need to store the dead URLs for that period of time. Shouldn't be too difficult. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Ill have a bot pre-parse for dead links before hand. Then, in 5 days, go back to the article and test those dead articles. Tim1357 talk 03:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't there a script built into pywikipediabot that does this? CrimsonBlue (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a script in pywikipedia that scans the links and creates reports on talk pages of the dead links. I believe it can be set to include a link to the internet archive. Tim1357 talk 10:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Ill have a bot pre-parse for dead links before hand. Then, in 5 days, go back to the article and test those dead articles. Tim1357 talk 03:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the misspelling of DASHBot, have you considered using the API parse function on each revision, or even better, API-exporting large numbers of revisions and scanning for external links yourself, instead of using Wikiblame? Not only does Wikiblame run on another server, it is also very slow. And what will you do if an editor made 500 edits to the same page in one week? That sometimes will happen. Perhaps the bot should make a good guess which archive it is (for example, the newest few, disregarding "not found" messages like the ones from news sites) if the article has a long history? Remember that the Wayback system's archives frequently do not work (as in "failed to connect to our server" and others), so those probably should be ignored as valid archives (can be identified by the img code for the Internet Archive logo, not sure if it returns an HTTP error code or anything). PleaseStand (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer one of your questions: yes, the bot checks to make sure the archive works before adding it to the article. Tim1357 talk 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran the parse sequence last night on some 70 articles. That means I will be ready for a test in 5. Thanks Tim1357 talk 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What of the other questions? Josh Parris 09:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer one of your questions: yes, the bot checks to make sure the archive works before adding it to the article. Tim1357 talk 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you will work to improve efficiency when you get a handle on where the bottlenecks are. Do you have a way of measuring where the bottlenecks are?
Have you figured out Subversion yet? Try http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/svn-book.html
What technique will you use to select the pages to operate on? Do you have a target edit rate for the bot? Josh Parris 09:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. To answer PleaseStand's question: I use wikiblame because it is something that already exists and is probably more bandwidth efficient (for me at least). However, I am wrote something that uses Special:Export to get the accessdate. It can only, however, parse the latest 1000 revisions I believe. Tim1357 talk 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Josh, I have not done any formal testing on the matter, but I can tell that wikiblame is the slowest cog in my bot. Following behind that is the query to the Internet Archive. Tim1357 talk 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Josh. I will use a list of pages that Dispenser generates with his tool checklinks. After I do those, well, I'll cross that page when I get to it.
- I changed my method of storing dead links from a simple dictionary, (which is memory intensive and not so safe) to a SQL database table. My plan is to build a map of all urls on wikipedia, dead or alive, and check urls the minimum amount I have to. Josh, I know you are good with SQL so you might be able to help me with a method of finding articles with the most dead links, using my database. Tim1357 talk 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to reduce false deadlink tripping on momentary server downtime, you might consider checking the google cache for its timestamp if not its content.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot only checks urls that are in reference tags because urls outside of references are not fit to have links to archives. For example, while this section does not follow the manual of style, it still happens:
should not be replaced withFoo bar, baz, spam spam spam lorem foo
.Foo bar, baz, spam spam spam Archived May 27, 2009(Timestamp length), at the Wayback Machine lorem foo
- The bot only checks urls that are in reference tags because urls outside of references are not fit to have links to archives. For example, while this section does not follow the manual of style, it still happens:
- Good idea about the google cache. I just discovered it yesterday. I am weary, however, to do large-scale calls of their cache without google's consent first. Tim1357 talk 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get your point. I was mainly thinking of Wikipedia:Cite#Embedded_links used as references. When they rot they are the worst-case for loss of ref information, with no backup title, author, etc, to work from. Accordingly they arguably should be the highest priority for fixing when they go dead, though of course it would be much better to flesh them out in advance of that event. I would think that the pattern .[http://www.refsite.org/path] could safely be replaced by [http://web.archive.org/web/20090527/http://www.refsite.org/path <sup>archived ref</sup>] or some such, until human editors can follow up. Too problematic? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea about the google cache. I just discovered it yesterday. I am weary, however, to do large-scale calls of their cache without google's consent first. Tim1357 talk 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What will happen when run against Why Is Sex Fun? Josh Parris 09:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot will skip the page because there are no External Links used within references. Tim1357 talk 10:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, when I say "between two ref tags" I mean used anywhere between two ref tags. That includes all citation templates such as {{Cite Web}}. Tim1357 talk 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah crap. I thought that was a reference, not an external link. It won't 404 anyway, it will just ask for log-in details. Okay, moving on... Josh Parris 11:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, anything except for 404 is considered alive. Better have the bot be too timid about messing with links than to be over-ambitious with archiving. Tim1357 talk 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah crap. I thought that was a reference, not an external link. It won't 404 anyway, it will just ask for log-in details. Okay, moving on... Josh Parris 11:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, when I say "between two ref tags" I mean used anywhere between two ref tags. That includes all citation templates such as {{Cite Web}}. Tim1357 talk 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot will skip the page because there are no External Links used within references. Tim1357 talk 10:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Waybacks's star "*" notation for changed revisons reliable enough to use links outside the 6 month window? — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see the bot in action on a larger sample set. Josh Parris 02:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Has the trial been undertaken? Josh Parris 11:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y My first successful edit. Keep in mind that I had 'remove duplicate references' turned on, which seems to have done more harm than good. Because of this, I turned that part of the bot off. Additionally, I switched the bot to use only Special:Export to find the insertion dates, as I found I was relying too much on wikiblame. Tim1357 talk 20:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. 32 edits. Sorry I went a bit over, I kept going until I was confident I had worked out all the bugs. The more recent edits are better representatives of the bot's ability. Tim1357 talk 04:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So which edits ought I ignore? Josh Parris 04:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Date-determination
Perhaps the thing I most struggled with is determining the accessdate of a URL. For that reason, I thought it'd be nice to expand on how I go about determining the date of insertion.
- Look for an |accessdate, or use regex to find a string like "Accessed on ".
- Separate this into three slices, candidates for year, month, and day.
- The 4 digit number is the year, obviously.
- If there is a named month, then obviously that is the month, and the other 1-2 digit number is the day.
- If one of the numbers is above 12, then it is obviously the day and the other is obviously the month.
- If there is still uncertainty after this, the bot assumes the first 1-2 digit number is the month, and the second 1-2 digit number is the day.
However, if there is no available accessdate associated with the url, then it scans the article's recent history (1000 revisions) to find the closest date of insertion. Tim1357 talk 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another technique you could use is to look at the date of the edit inserting the reference, the accessdate will be similar to that. Josh Parris 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I do that (see the line above). Tim1357 talk 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you deal with vandalism? For example, user removes the content then spends 5 edits randomly posting lolcat pictures. Finally, someone restores the content. I assume you scan the revisions from oldest to newest so this shouldn't be an issue. Also, doesn't full revision retrieval take forever? I don't know about export, but API doesn't let downloading too many revision at a time if the page is large.— Hellknowz ▎talk 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I do that (see the line above). Tim1357 talk 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, because it scans from old to new, that shouldn't be a problem. Special:Export is slow, but its not so bad. Im in no hurry and Im not paying for the bandwith :). Tim1357 talk 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the URL linked in this edit to England national football team manager is a 404 (sorta). Do you have a mechanism to check if any of the other edits linked to not-helpful archives like this one? Josh Parris 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I have since turned the WebCitation archive checker off, because their service is so spotty (long outages, wonky server responses, ect). Maybe when they stabilize, I will turn the feature back on, but for the time-being, its only the Internet Archive. Tim1357 talk 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit claims genfixes; none are made. Josh Parris 08:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, it removes whitespace on line 172. Tim1357 talk 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit doesn't mention marking dead links; perhaps Found archives for 5 of 17 dead links? Josh Parris 09:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's actually in my code, but I never really noticed that it wasn't working. I'll fix it. Tim1357 talk 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, it would be nice if the bot could explain a bit more in the summary, may be give a link to task descritpion page. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote a decription at the shutoff page, so Ill add a note about that in the e. summary. Tim1357 talk 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, undated references added in the very first revision have a high chance of being copied/split from another article. This means the addition date is not the access date. For example, 2007 suicide bombings in Iraq, first revision. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the link exists in the first available revision for a page, the bot does not search for an archive of the url in question and simply marks the url as being dead. Tim1357 talk 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets wrap things up here
Are there any other concerns that I have not met? Tim1357 talk 02:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Good, good… go break a leg! — The Earwig (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Auto
Programming language(s): AWB/Perl
Source code available: Standard AWB, one offs using PERL API
Function overview: Simple text search and replace.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This is for non-contentious search and replace tasks.
Edit period(s): Intermittent runs.
Estimated number of pages affected: Probably 100 or less per day.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: Search and replace specific relatively low volume non contentious strings. Similar to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6
Discussion
This is to cover simple replacements such as are often made at Wikipedia:Bot_requests. Rich Farmbrough, 04:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm concerned that this is basically a blank cheque. The precedent you cite, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6, was for a specific phrase. Do you have anything specific in mind? Josh Parris 09:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes at the time it was somethign I forget, recently I was looking at /''' (fl\.? (\d)/''' ([[floruit|fl.]] $1/, right now I'm looking at /(==\n\s*{{\s*[Ee]xpand)\s*\|\s*[Ss](ection\s*[\|}])/$1 s$2/ and /(==\n\s*{{\s*)[Ee]xpand(\s*\|?\s*[Ss]ection\s*}}\s*\n==)/$1Empty$2/. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) In the future, how will you be determining if a request is non-contentious? Josh Parris 03:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, I feel it would be better to get approval for each type of task as and when they come up (i.e. so should someone request the exact same task again, you won't need further approval). A blanket approval for 'simple' tasks just doesn't sit right with me. - Mobius Clock 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes at the time it was somethign I forget, recently I was looking at /''' (fl\.? (\d)/''' ([[floruit|fl.]] $1/, right now I'm looking at /(==\n\s*{{\s*[Ee]xpand)\s*\|\s*[Ss](ection\s*[\|}])/$1 s$2/ and /(==\n\s*{{\s*)[Ee]xpand(\s*\|?\s*[Ss]ection\s*}}\s*\n==)/$1Empty$2/. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Request Expired. Josh Parris 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Bwilkins (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Pywikipedia
Source code available: https://svn.toolserver.org/svnroot/josh/g7bot
Function overview: Delete pages in userspace when requested by that user, under strict conditions.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): VPP here
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 50 per day
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: Similar to how 7SeriesBOT checks G7's now, this task will check db-user category, will check if:
- the page does have the correct tag
- it was tagged by the correct user/owner
- check to see if it has never been moved (to prevent moving pages from articlespace then deleting them), and
- will delete the page
Discussion
There's a problem with this, because user request does not apply to talk pages. So I'd be more happy if it checked that the only (substantial?) editor was the user requesting their user space to be deleted. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, check if it is the only editor. If there was another editor, even a minor edit from some bot, leave the request for an admin to decide. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I've notified WT:CSD of this request. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great to see something moving on this,from previous discussions of this sort of Bot, may I suggest:
- If a page is flagged {{g7}}, {{u1}} or {{db-author}},
- and has only been edited by one account, Or by a bot or bots on the whitelist for this bot.
- and has not been moved other than a move from user space to mainspace
- and is not in projectspace
- and is not in templatespace
- then delete.
- You've already got much of that in the spec, the projectspace and templatespace limitations will kick in rarely but one should be cautious there. Can you find a way to screen out ones where the deletion tag appears because someone has tagged a userbox or other transcluded page? ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that trancluded material will trigger the bot. Will they? --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I hope not, but we sometimes get speedies appearing at CAT:SPEEDY because of tranclusions, so I'd appreciate assurance that the bot will not be fooled by them. ϢereSpielChequers 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that it wouldn't be nice if vandals could take advantage of such liabilities. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) The function details say that the bot will check that the page is correctly tagged, and isn't just in the category. At present I think the bot will just be deleting under U1...? So project/template space shouldn't matter. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I hope not, but we sometimes get speedies appearing at CAT:SPEEDY because of tranclusions, so I'd appreciate assurance that the bot will not be fooled by them. ϢereSpielChequers 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that trancluded material will trigger the bot. Will they? --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a page is flagged {{g7}}, {{u1}} or {{db-author}},
- One other point - you want to check that the user page in question has only ever been in the userspace of the page creator. If a page in created by Alice, but it was created in Bob's userspace, then deleting it requires human review of what's going on. Most of such deletions would still be uncontroversially mechanical, but the remainder would be things that shouldn't be blindly bot-deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be covered by "not moved", shouldn't it? And of course that would be covered by "only edited by userspace-owner" which has been correctly been requested as an additional requirement above. The bot should only delete pages that someone created in their own userspace without any third-party edits to it. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be covered. I just want to be certain the bot will handle this specific case correctly. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be covered by "not moved", shouldn't it? And of course that would be covered by "only edited by userspace-owner" which has been correctly been requested as an additional requirement above. The bot should only delete pages that someone created in their own userspace without any third-party edits to it. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great to see something moving on this,from previous discussions of this sort of Bot, may I suggest:
- FYI, I've notified WT:CSD of this request. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as bot is limited to userspace and follows the limitations laid down by WereSpielChequers, especially that concerning edits from other users, I don't see a problem. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support under the strict conditions provided. –xenotalk 17:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems the only additional check wanted is to check that the only contributor to the page (possibly excluding bots) is the user. Is it possible to have this added to the bot please? - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on this? Also, is this bot running? I noticed that it was deleting a few pages tagged as U1...? - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the edit summary is this:"(Only one contributor who requested deletion under WP:CSD#G7)". Wouldn't it be better if the user that requested the deletion is mentioned in the summary? --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 7SeriesBOT has been running it's first task - deleting only G7's under strict conditions - for some time. Nothing related to U1 (a new task) has been added yet, as I do not yet see official approval for this U1 task yet (that, and Josh is away). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the bot has been deleting U1 tagged user pages, on the 5th of this month. Will Josh be doing the coding again then? - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had the chance to ask him yet ... but when he returns, I hope that he agrees to. In theory, it's a simple addition (I could probably do it myself, but it would take longer!) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=7SeriesBOT shows 3 deletes by the bot on that date, all summaries claim G7. Josh Parris 13:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But all of these were marked as U1 by the nominator. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which tag specifically? {{db-U1}}? Josh Parris 14:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{db-userreq}} - Twinkle's default - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It ought not have, line 168 of the source checks for the tags defined on line 38. Josh Parris 14:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on your talk page, since this is more to do with the other task. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It ought not have, line 168 of the source checks for the tags defined on line 38. Josh Parris 14:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{db-userreq}} - Twinkle's default - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which tag specifically? {{db-U1}}? Josh Parris 14:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But all of these were marked as U1 by the nominator. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the bot has been deleting U1 tagged user pages, on the 5th of this month. Will Josh be doing the coding again then? - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 7SeriesBOT has been running it's first task - deleting only G7's under strict conditions - for some time. Nothing related to U1 (a new task) has been added yet, as I do not yet see official approval for this U1 task yet (that, and Josh is away). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with the conditions:
- the page is in userspace or usertalkspace and has the tag g7, u1 or redirects placed directly (i.e. not through transclusion) on it
- it has only been edited by the user to which the userpage or usertalkpage belongs
- it has never been moved
As I can find situations where omitting any one of those conditions would need review (edits by bots should exclude the page too because it may be bots warning on edits); but if they're all met it seems reasonable to delete without review. Cenarium (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor edits by bots can be ignored. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the original 7SeriesBOT proposal, it was suggested that a plausible scenario might run like this: User drafts a wonderful piece of prose in User space. User gets very mad at project. User U1 tags wonderful piece of prose and leaves screaming profanities. Bot deletes this as meeting its criteria. Project loses wonderful piece of prose. What safeguards can be erected against this scenario? Josh Parris 13:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That it can be undeleted? --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What can be undeleted? I can't see anything. Can you? When a human deletes a page, they look at its contents and make a judgment of value. Bots are notoriously bad at that. If valuable content is just deleted, it's no longer discoverable, even if it isn't lost. Josh Parris 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1000+ admins can look. The odds are pretty slim, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Odds of someone destroying his work or admins discovering it? I find it highly unlike that someone would delete his own work. It would be rare enough anyway to allow us to consider that possibility negligible. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1000+ admins can look. The odds are pretty slim, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What can be undeleted? I can't see anything. Can you? When a human deletes a page, they look at its contents and make a judgment of value. Bots are notoriously bad at that. If valuable content is just deleted, it's no longer discoverable, even if it isn't lost. Josh Parris 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this going anywhere? There seems to be enough support for this task, I need to know if Josh is willing to code it? If not I suggest you (Bwilkins) find another user to code this (I could make you a c# .net program to do this), or I can mark this as expired, and it can be re-opened once there's some code. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to let Josh settle in after his wikibreak - he's had some coding to work on with WildBot since his return. If I read correctly, we'll need to add:
- a separate section for checking the parameters as approved above (including a variety of ways that U1 actually gets tagged)
- a second deletion message noting "deleted according to U1"
- I'll coordinate with Josh (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source Code
Some code
|
---|
def get_all_bots(self):
'''Loads a list of all flagged bots, and saves it to self.bots'''
params = {
'action' :'query',
'list' :'allusers',
'augroup' :'bot'
}
data = wikipedia.query.GetData(params,self.site)['query']['allusers']
all_bots = [p['name'] for p in data]
del data
self.bots = all_bots
def owner_is_only_contributor(self,page):
'''Given a wikipedia.Page object, it determines if the page is in the proper namespace, and if there is one or zero non bot contributors.'''
verdict = False
if int( page.namespace() ) in [1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,101,109]: #if it is a userpage, or any talk page
contributors = list(page.contributingUsers()) #get a list of all users who have edited the page
contributors = [con for con in contributors if con not in self.bots] #remove all bots
if len(contributors) <= 1: #Make sure that there is one or less (non bot) contributors
verdict = True
return verdict
|
I have contacted Josh, who is able to provide some assistance - even considering his busy schedule. As it's an add-on to an existing bot, if the new task itself is approved, then the implementation is likely the easy part overall. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like an unopposable idea. There are edge cases where it might be abused, but they would be admin-fixable anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 11:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I've done a first-pass, untested write up, but Internet issues mean I can't as-yet upload this. Josh Parris 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now uploaded. Head nod to Tim1357, whose snippets were mercilessly stolen. Josh Parris 06:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Josh, you're awesome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah.
Approved for trial (As long as you want, set to log only). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
Tim1357 talk 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah.
- Josh, you're awesome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial
Run it for a week in Trial mode; there's nothing stopping you as bots can edit their own user space freely, especially for testing purposes. Josh Parris 11:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's been running in conjunction with the original version for a couple of days now ... the new code seems to be generally catching the CSD category first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For those interested, the bot's proposed actions can be monitored at User:7SeriesBOT/Dry-Run 2 Josh Parris 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trial seems to have stalled. Can you bring us up-to-date where things are? Josh Parris 02:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm currently unable to get either the new trial or the original bot operating ... all fixes I have been given have been unsuccessful - I still get "wrong password or CAPCHA". Frustrating as hell, actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trial seems to have stalled. Can you bring us up-to-date where things are? Josh Parris 02:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For those interested, the bot's proposed actions can be monitored at User:7SeriesBOT/Dry-Run 2 Josh Parris 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's been running fine today. Original G7bot is currently shutdown. Lots of pages being logged today - would be good to turn this back on to actual "delete" mode soon. One forgets how many pages that this ends up actually affecting until you see the CSD count some days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ready?
An analysis over over a week's worth of data, including the new code of mid-May suggests that it's tagging as it should. Although, by appearances, if one user, WildBot and FrescoBot all edit a talkpage, it's suggesting that there are multiple contributors - whereas I believe that bot edits are not supposed to be considered. This is minor, as for the most part everything looks good, and I think it's ready to go live. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While you hunt Josh down to fix that bug, I'll give you this:
Approved for trial (30 deletions). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Tim1357 talk 22:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've set it to delete overnight (my time) ... should be less than 30 by morning. 7SeriesBOT (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any news in the last week? MBisanz talk 02:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having some bizarre connectivity issues, but only on that PC. I have a batch file that does regular ping's to en.wikipedia, and show full connectivity, but the bot continually says "retrying in 1 minute". Even switched it back to non-delete mode last night. Anyone seen anything like this, or is it truly a connection issue? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Been another month, any progress resolving it? MBisanz talk 14:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been running cleanly for a couple of weeks actually! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll approve tomorrow unless I hear otherwise. MBisanz talk 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been running cleanly for a couple of weeks actually! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Been another month, any progress resolving it? MBisanz talk 14:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Symbol_confirmed.svg/20px-Symbol_confirmed.svg.png)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Bots in a trial period
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Mobius Clock (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: 'Coming soon', I just want to tidy it up and optimize here new code
Function overview: Tagging categories for CfD (specifically in relation to this BOTREQ)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): See BOTREQ above
Edit period(s): As-and-when-required, apparently there are quite a lot of these categories to do
Estimated number of pages affected: several hundred in Category NS
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Not relevant
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: As per the BOTREQ, the bot would add to all nominated categories the following:
{{subst:Cfr|<ProposedName>|<Nomination name>}}
Where ProposedName is in the form 'Settlements established in <year>' or 'Settlements in <place>', and the Nomination name is the CfD heading for the current batch. ProposedName is obtained via a regex sub applied to the current category name:
(?:Cities(?:[,] towns and villages|[ ]and towns)|Settlements)( established)? in (.*?)$; replace with 'Populated places\1 in \2'
Discussion
So are you looking for approval for all CfD tagging? Or just for this case? How do you get the list of pages to tag? - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be a big help. There are many hunderds of catagoies than need tagging to be moved, many listed at User:Carlaude/Rulers. See also the consensus here: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements.
- BTW, the "<Nomination name>" can be anything, but sould be all the same for related catagoies, e.g. "More settlements", "Former settlements", etc. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 22:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mobius indicated here that tagging other categories would require only a trivial change from a programming standpoint, so I ask that approval be given for all CfD tagging. Having a bot to tag large numbers of pages for group nominations would be extremely useful (for instance, I have the same tagging request for the 700+ subcategories of Category:Image-Class articles), and the process for tagging categories for group noms is essentially the same regardless of the categories involved. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from the amount of work there seems to be to do, I would like to request approval for all CfD tagging, which would involve using 98% identical code between runs. As for the list of pages to tag, I can either get the nomination list and convert to a bot-readable text file, or have people provide me with such a file (as in this case). - Mobius Clock 22:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As we have done in this case, we typically do trial CFDs before tagging all the categories in a group. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 01:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mobius indicated here that tagging other categories would require only a trivial change from a programming standpoint, so I ask that approval be given for all CfD tagging. Having a bot to tag large numbers of pages for group nominations would be extremely useful (for instance, I have the same tagging request for the 700+ subcategories of Category:Image-Class articles), and the process for tagging categories for group noms is essentially the same regardless of the categories involved. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looks like these tags have already been done. Is there another CfD we can do a trial on? Also, does your code check if the category is already tagged before adding a tag to it? - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about another CfD, we may have to wait for one to come up! As for checking whether a cat is already tagged, the bulk of the code only executes if this evaluates to true: - Mobius Clock 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if (page.get().find('Cfr full') == -1): #In other words, only edit if we can't find 'Cfr full' on the page
- I sure that most of the items at User:Carlaude/Rulers are not tagged. Last I looked, not even those at the start were tagged. Were you looking here instead? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 18:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, yeah, I was looking at the second one, which was the specific reason this BRfA was started (afaik), but the bot is also wanting approval to do other CfD tagging as well. User:Carlaude/Rulers doesn't seem to load for me, might just be because it's too long. Not sure if this bot is actually doing what User:Carlaude/Rulers is listing (since I can't see it). Mobius, is it possible to find something to do some trial edits on? We can always do a mock up in userspace if it comes to it. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can offer a list of about 150 categories for speedy renaming (in groups of 47, 65 and 39 categories), but the code to add the tags would be slightly different:
{{subst:cfr-speedy|<ProposedName>}}
- If that would be a problem, I can try to find another group of categories which would need to be tagged with the regular/standard CfD renaming template. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The code I've written is really for the settlement categories, but I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to adapt it if you'd like to do those ones instead, although that might constitute a different task. Personally I'd rather stick to the original one. Carlaude, would it be possible to split User:Carlaude/Rulers into smaller sets, it won't load for me either. - Mobius Clock 09:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been trying to do that-- but have trouble loading or editing that page myself. I will create two new pages with half the data in each. They are done and ready once User:Carlaude/Rulers2 and User:Carlaude/Rulers3 are not redlinks. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. 2 won't load for me, but 3 works fine, and once I've tweaked the regex slightly to take into account the various possible permutations of 'Settlements in Foo' I'm ready to go, pending trial approval and a relevant CfD! - Mobius Clock 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'K. Now they are split three-ways. User:Carlaude/Rulers, User:Carlaude/Rulers2, and User:Carlaude/Rulers3. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, code is updated and can handle all the permutations given in the list. I know it's a kludge, but it gets the job done! - Mobius Clock 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any news on whether a CfD for some of the other cats is in the works? - Mobius Clock 08:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, code is updated and can handle all the permutations given in the list. I know it's a kludge, but it gets the job done! - Mobius Clock 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can offer a list of about 150 categories for speedy renaming (in groups of 47, 65 and 39 categories), but the code to add the tags would be slightly different:
- Mmm, yeah, I was looking at the second one, which was the specific reason this BRfA was started (afaik), but the bot is also wanting approval to do other CfD tagging as well. User:Carlaude/Rulers doesn't seem to load for me, might just be because it's too long. Not sure if this bot is actually doing what User:Carlaude/Rulers is listing (since I can't see it). Mobius, is it possible to find something to do some trial edits on? We can always do a mock up in userspace if it comes to it. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is this one, but I have been waiting on approval for this bot. Why is it taking so long? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 22:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the BAG were waiting for an appropriate CfD to be posted here so that a trial can be authorized. I can't run a trial without categories to tag ^_^. Now that we have one it shouldn't take too long. - Mobius Clock 09:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial
- Yup, sorry for the time :/. Looks like those ones have already been tagged again.
Approved for trial (50 or so edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. as soon as anything comes up, if possible run it as manually-assisted for the first few. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, feel free to start a CfD, and I'll be ready and waiting to tag the categories! - Mobius Clock 18:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, sorry for the time :/. Looks like those ones have already been tagged again.
- I began a CfD for this here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 15#More settlements. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 01:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BotTrialComplete}} I tagged all the pages in the given nomination, apologies for the borked edit summary in the first few edits. Won't happen again. - Mobius Clock 17:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have placed all remaining nominations from the lists from User:Carlaude/Rulers, User:Carlaude/Rulers2, and User:Carlaude/Rulers3 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 17#Many more settlements — except for the "port settlements" at the very end. Feel free to delete from the lists at User:Carlaude/Rulers, User:Carlaude/Rulers2, and User:Carlaude/Rulers3 as you use them. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 05:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone noticed that the date for the link was wrong. Why was the date wrong? I presume you'll be repairing the borked edits? Josh Parris 07:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- *facepalm* The date was wrong because I had (wrongly) assumed that the bot would tag the pages on the same day as they were listed on CfD (the wrapper template substs in the current date). I've changed the code to add the inner 'Cfd full' template with a specified date to stop such things from happening again. The previously borked edits are currently being unborked. Whoops! - Mobius Clock 13:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Trial
Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. let's give that another go; this time it will work for sure! Josh Parris 06:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I saw this. Vegaswikian seems to have marked all the categories by hand under "c. 150 cities, towns and villages by country categories" but all the many others at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 17#Many more settlements still need marking. Let me know if you need more info, etc. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 16:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the tagging of the May 17 nomination going to happen? The nomination is now past its close date, and I'm wondering if the whole thing needs to be picked up and restarted as a new nomination because none of the categories have been tagged. Some guidance would be appreciated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) What's the state of play here? Josh Parris 11:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Tim1357 (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Auto
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Not unless someone wants it
Function overview: Solve redirects on templates that use navbox.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): MOS: Wikipedia:Redirect :* It is preferable to change redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g. {{US Presidents}} at the end of George Washington). In this case, when the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to that article (not a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.
Edit period(s): Monthly
Estimated number of pages affected: On first run: 113302 replacements on 32619 pages.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: Using a database query, find redirects in templates that transclude {{Navbox}}. Replace those redirects with their target. The bot will preserve the title of the link, so the name of the link will not change after the bot's edit.
The Query
|
---|
SELECT concat('Template:',main.page_title), link.page_title, rd_title
FROM page AS main
JOIN templatelinks on tl_namespace= 10 and tl_title = 'Navbox' and tl_from = main.page_id
JOIN pagelinks on pl_from = main.page_id
JOIN page as link on link.page_title = pl_title and link.page_namespace=pl_namespace
JOIN redirect on rd_from = link.page_id
WHERE
main.page_namespace = 10
AND
link.page_namespace = 0
GROUP BY main.page_title;
|
Discussion
Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. given the lack of objections. Josh Parris 09:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see a more explanatory edit summary than "Solving redirects in a Navbox"; perhaps "Use direct link so it will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles". Josh Parris 10:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the edit summary, what about something along the lines of:
- Tim1357 talk 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that too brief; I'd like to see an edit summary that reassures me that the bot has done nothing interesting and that I need not inspect the edit. Perhaps "Bypass redirect in navigation template, making navigation through the series of articles clearer" Josh Parris 05:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen all the edits, are there any circumstances where changing the display text would be appropriate? I'm specifically thinking about en- to em-dashes (or vice versa), but there might be a general case that's applicable? Josh Parris 11:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, there were some instances where the link name should have been changed. However, I do not think that'd be an appropriate job. I think it is not the bot's place to determine when it is OK to change the name. It is a job best left for humans. Tim1357 talk 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; at the same time, I found the bypasses from one dash-version to another dash-version seemed on first inspection to have no effect; it was only after some head scratching that I figured out what had happened. If the redirect was marked {{R from modification}} I think you might have reason to change the text in the navbox - I'd personally find that less confusing, and presume others would. Josh Parris 05:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if we are only looking at the en/em dash link thing:I could run the bot-safe general-fixes on the navboxes which I believe covers converting spaced hyphens to em-dashes. Tim1357 talk 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're willing to add that functionality, please go ahead. If you'd prefer not, I think I'm ready to run with this once everyone's happy with the edit sumary. Josh Parris 05:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if we are only looking at the en/em dash link thing:I could run the bot-safe general-fixes on the navboxes which I believe covers converting spaced hyphens to em-dashes. Tim1357 talk 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; at the same time, I found the bypasses from one dash-version to another dash-version seemed on first inspection to have no effect; it was only after some head scratching that I figured out what had happened. If the redirect was marked {{R from modification}} I think you might have reason to change the text in the navbox - I'd personally find that less confusing, and presume others would. Josh Parris 05:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Where are we at Tim1357? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Parris (talk • contribs)
- I am pretty much ready to go, but I need to come up with a better edit summary. How about:
Bot: Bypassing redirects in navboxes in order to improve article navigability;details/shutoff
- Or:
Bypassing redirects in navboxes, in order to improve article navigability;details/shutoff
- Because redirects and navbox don't need links, but the reasoning for the bypass does. Josh Parris 04:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I like that one. Tim1357 talk 02:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because redirects and navbox don't need links, but the reasoning for the bypass does. Josh Parris 04:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Josh Parris 02:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, with a look over contribs everyonce in a while.
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Pywikipedia, source:
Version 1.0
Version 1.01 Fixing CSD errors, and not moving some CSDs
Version 1.1 Fixing redirect Errors & CSD tagging
Function overview: Will move WP:AFC Submissions to the correct pages for us to review.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): None.
Edit period(s): once every 30 min (pending approval on Toolsever)
Estimated number of pages affected: 1 month maybe 20-30
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No, as bots should be all WP:AFC subpages, as EarwigBot also checks for copyright vios on those pages.
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: If it finds submissions with the extra wording in it, or it's in the namespace, and moves them to the proper location. It will also tag submissions, if moving across anything besides namespaces 4 & 5, will tag with CSD R2.
Old links:
Discussion
Should have the code ready for viewing within the next 24 hours. Sorry for the delay. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Code is up. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've seen working in AfC, there aren't that many misplaced pages which aren't already moved to the correct place quickly by anyone watching the category. If this could run off the toolserver continuously or something, it might be more effective. fetchcomms☛ 21:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, toolserver is an idea, I just have to modify the code to run every 30 min. Will be done within the night. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Wasn't needed, will cron.[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Untouched by BAG since 17th. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (15 pages). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. –xenotalk 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Error Occured: The bot attempted to move the pages, but was not confirmed and failed there (has been confirmed now). Also, I am now adding CSD clearing from the mainspace as AFC's do not need to be CSD'd. Will try some more edits when the next opertunity comes up. This is one of the fails, the other one was deleted.-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Typical in my first act as a BAGger, I would miss something obvious like that =) –xenotalk 21:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Now, only moves pages that don't have CSD or fall under CSD G11, A7, and A9. See Ver. 1.01 -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to note that the bot continues with the trail, several edits have happened in the last few days. Josh Parris 09:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working Yep, it is still ongoing, I have found some problems and have fixed them each step of the way, but there have been delays since it is hard to find mis-placed submissions while I am on. I should have the modified code uploaded soon. Thank you for waiting. Now, do you want 15 correct edits or 15 edits? I would like to be able to have it edit until it gets it right, which I am close to, and I always sight each change it makes. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have uploaded the final version of my code. One thing that I can't avoid is when the bot moves a page from the userspace, it only removes the "User:" part of it. This can be easily dealt with by a reviewer at the end, if it even gets that far. I tried to find a way to program it in, but I couldn't. Otherwise I'd say this thing is ready to go. (I've been over 15 edits and the past three are perfect :) ) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (25 pages). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Let's see a bit more of an extended trial with the new codebase. –xenotalk 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, just a head's up, another 25 edits are going to take a while as I don't have it on 24-7, and I can only do it a certain times. Toolsever hasn't been approved yet. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine... –xenotalk 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heads up, I was moding the code this morning to correct a userspace compaitibility issue, and I made a stupid mistake in the code. It created two mistakes which I got an admin to fix and I stopped it before it went further. Just thought I would log this. -- /MWOAP.alt|Notify Me\ 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's this going? Josh Parris 02:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, the bot is healthy after making a few changes to stop the bot from moving created pages back. Waiting to test more. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bot again had an issue. Added some extra safety paramitters to the code so it doesn't edit if there is an error. Should be uploaded soon. -- /MWOAP.alt|Notify Me\ 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot keeps getting caught in the page moves with the error: "Unknown Error {u'error':{u'info' u'The modification you tried to make was aborted by an extension hook', u'code': u'hookaborted'}}. What is this? -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot has been prevented from moving pages several times by the edit filter - I assume that's it. Ale_Jrbtalk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and question: I am not convinced that this bot is a good idea; there are very few misplaced submissions, and they are quite quickly dealt with manually. I think this is a case where manual intervention is preferable - a misplaced submission might need moving to AfC, or it might need other action - discussion with the user, etc. Sometimes they intended to make it live - I've come across such examples. So, to demonstrate the need, could you provide some statistics re. how many misplaced submissions there have been in the past few months, and how many should have / were relocated to AFC? (And please let me know; I don't manage to watchlist things very well) Chzz ► 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now we are recieving multiple Userpages that need to be moved to the correct location so I am working on that to fix it. Currently the bot is going under a rename to DeltaQuadBot, I will update the links. I am working with the username code to get it to work now. I assume that Edit filter hits can still count as edits. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey MWOAP, its been over a month. Hows it going? Tim1357 talk 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, ya, it's been a while. I have had a move recently, sorry for the delay. Trying to get the bot to work, but it won't even launch right now. Will report back in a few days. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is funny, it now works :P. Anyway, it hit an edit conflict on the last one, so adding a sleep parameter now to avoid. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's good, any new updates for us? MBisanz talk 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added safety sections in, which will check if the file already exists in a certain spot, but that is not functioning for some reason. Still ongoing battle. Also having problem with getting /*username*/ out of titles switched from the userspace. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, just let us know when it is resolved so we can approve it or test it more. MBisanz talk 02:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added safety sections in, which will check if the file already exists in a certain spot, but that is not functioning for some reason. Still ongoing battle. Also having problem with getting /*username*/ out of titles switched from the userspace. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's good, any new updates for us? MBisanz talk 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is funny, it now works :P. Anyway, it hit an edit conflict on the last one, so adding a sleep parameter now to avoid. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, ya, it's been a while. I have had a move recently, sorry for the delay. Trying to get the bot to work, but it won't even launch right now. Will report back in a few days. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey MWOAP, its been over a month. Hows it going? Tim1357 talk 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the bot is making some dumb mistakes (e.g. [2] where the username is still included in the new title). I agree with Chzz that this bot is probably not needed as it is easy to cope with the small number of misplaced submissions manually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actually starting to agree with that. The code is soo long now just to handle these things and it would need more testing in my userspace and I think this is just too much work for the productivity that we are going to get. I think we can close this up now and if I have any more ideas for a bot, I will come back. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 11:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. MBisanz talk 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Emijrp (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic, unsupervised
Programming language(s): python
Source code available: [3]
Function overview: create redirects from hyphens to endashes
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): request
Edit period(s): weekly
Estimated number of pages affected:
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): no
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): yes
Function details: bot searches for titles with endashes and creates a redirect from hyphens
Discussion
Do you intend to mark the redirects {{R from incorrect name}}? Josh Parris 13:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is necessary I have no problem. emijrp (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't {{R from modification}} be more appropriate? – PeeJay 09:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, AWB tags such redirects as {{R from modification}}. Though there's not much detail on how the bot will determine a correct hyphen versus one that should be an endash. Rjwilmsi 11:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bot can't do that. It creates the redirect. If a human thinks that the title must contains hyphen or endash, only needs to move the page over the bot redirect. emijrp (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, AWB tags such redirects as {{R from modification}}. Though there's not much detail on how the bot will determine a correct hyphen versus one that should be an endash. Rjwilmsi 11:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't {{R from modification}} be more appropriate? – PeeJay 09:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will the bot abstain from creating a redirect if a page of that name already exists (so as not to overwrite content)? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Bot doesn't overwrite content. emijrp (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — The Earwig (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this trial run been performed yet? Would be nice to get an update on the situation. – PeeJay 07:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Yes, I have performed a trial (link). A question, the bot has created some redirects like this one Croatia-Morocco relations -> Croatia–Morocco relations, which redirects to Croatia–Morocco relations -> Foreign relations of Croatia. I can make bot links Croatia-Morocco relations to Foreign relations of Croatia in one step, but, are these redirects desirable? Regards. emijrp (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that such redirects are desirable. We should not expect regular users to search for articles using characters not found on a standard English QWERTY keyboard. Since the endash is not one of those characters, it seems reasonable that any redirect that uses an endash should also have a hyphen equivalent. – PeeJay 16:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Yes, I have performed a trial (link). A question, the bot has created some redirects like this one Croatia-Morocco relations -> Croatia–Morocco relations, which redirects to Croatia–Morocco relations -> Foreign relations of Croatia. I can make bot links Croatia-Morocco relations to Foreign relations of Croatia in one step, but, are these redirects desirable? Regards. emijrp (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you put in place code to bypass redirects, avoiding the creation of double redirects? Josh Parris 04:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean these kind of redirects (later fixed by Xqbot), yes, I have fixed the code. Can I run a second trial? emijrp (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do! – PeeJay 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - Josh Parris 05:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been done now? – PeeJay 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, done. emijrp (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a redirect from modification? (endash) emijrp (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would imagine that where the alternate article is itself a redirect, the redirect created is not a redirect from modification. Josh Parris 13:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - once a modification is made to not mark redirect bypassing as redirect from modification. Josh Parris 13:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, done. emijrp (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this approved? emijrp (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. There don't appear to be any redirect from modification edits, but things look good. Josh Parris 11:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Ohms law (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): C#
Source code available: No
Function overview: Add {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} to appropriate images in Category:NASA images
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Periodic
Estimated number of pages affected: ~3,500 (For initial run)
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: Ohms Law Bot will add {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} to all pages in the File namespace that are in Category:NASA images. The bot skips pages that already include either {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or {{Do not move to Commons}} (although, why any images in NASA images would include {{Do not move to Commons}} is beyond me). The page must also include {{NASA}}, {{NASA logo}}, or {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. If the file already exists on Commons, with the same file name, then the bot removes {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and adds {{ncd}} instead.
Ohms Law Bot will move all properly licensed images which are located in Category:NASA images onto Commons. After the move it complete, it will subst {{NowCommons}} to the image's page here on en.wikipedia.
See also commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Ohms Law Bot
Discussion
- I ran one test on File:A50.jpg. Just out of curiosity, would there be an issue with actually copying the files to Commons by bot? It seems as though there are something like 23,000+ files currently using {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I can't see any problem with copying via bot, but you might want to ask here and at commons to see if there would be any problem others can foresee. Do you plan on adding that functionality into this task?
- Will you be using a hash to determine that the file with the same name is the same file?
- Why aren't you publishing your source code? Josh Parris 03:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copying by bot question is more for future consideration, especially since I don't have any sort of bot approval on Commons, currently. I've never really thought about the question before now, is all.
- Anyway, for this task I'll simply be relying on the MediaWiki install on Commons to tell me if the page exists or not. If Commons says that there's already a page with the same name there, then the page here is tagged with {{subst:ncd}} ({{NowCommons}}).
- I might publish my code eventually, but right now it's a hacked to together mess, and I'd be ashamed to put it out there in public. It's all fairly standard stuff though, written in C#, and using the MediaWiki api as much as possible. There's nothing really special about it *shrug*.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I can generate a list of files on Commons for you, if you think that could save time. How are you making sure that they are the same file? Tim1357 (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at the moment I'm just worried about getting the template on the page, here on Wikipedia. The goal is to go through and use the provided CommonsHelper link in order to manually move as many as possible. The logic is simply to reduce the possibility of adding a template where it most likely shouldn't belong. Even though myself (and, hopefully, others) will do the moves manually, it's still probably better to miss templating a couple, rather then needing to skip or remove a whole bunch, you know?
- Anyway, my main concern is that I'll be adding a bunch of duplicate files to Commons. If the files are moved with the same filenames on Commons as they have here, then that's easy enough to track (and the bot can easily add {{NowCommons}} to the files... I think that there are already a couple of bots which do that, aren't there?), but if someone changes the name in the process, or if a third party adds the same image to Commons separately, and with a different file name... There's just no way that I can imagine to programmatically figure that possibility out. If it turns out that the people at Commons wouldn't mind possibly many duplicate images then I'd gladly just move them with the bot, but I'll need an answer to that first.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can generate a list of files on Commons for you, if you think that could save time. How are you making sure that they are the same file? Tim1357 (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of tagging 3,000 images that we know are PD/movable? The workload will be the same regardless of whether or not the files are stamped for moving. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for me, getting the link to CommonsHelper is very valuable. Having to manually add that link somehow easily doubles the workload. The categorization given to the page by adding the template is an obvious benefit as well (to some at least. I can personally do without cleanup categories, but other people seem to like them).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for me, getting the link to CommonsHelper is very valuable. Having to manually add that link somehow easily doubles the workload. The categorization given to the page by adding the template is an obvious benefit as well (to some at least. I can personally do without cleanup categories, but other people seem to like them).
General move to commons bot?
- As I said above, I'm able and perfectly willing to have the bot actually move the images, but I'll somehow need to get Commons' permission first I'd think, so this subject is really for future planning. Would anyone be averse to authorizing bot driven file moves to Commons?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- As long as the bot is following standard move-to-Commons guidelines, I don't see permission is needed. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "standard move-to-Commons guidelines"? where? (I did look around, but I didn't see anything obvious. At least, not about bots)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, yea, that's what I thought that you were talking about, but... is there approval for using that process with automated moves (assuming that the bot abides by the procedures, obviously)? I mean, if we're willing to trust the fact that the images are properly marked as PD, I'd gladly just have the bot move all of them.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, yea, that's what I thought that you were talking about, but... is there approval for using that process with automated moves (assuming that the bot abides by the procedures, obviously)? I mean, if we're willing to trust the fact that the images are properly marked as PD, I'd gladly just have the bot move all of them.
- Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "standard move-to-Commons guidelines"? where? (I did look around, but I didn't see anything obvious. At least, not about bots)
- As long as the bot is following standard move-to-Commons guidelines, I don't see permission is needed. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reboot
- Rebooted this request in order to convert it into an automated move to commons task. Seeking reciprocal approval on Commons at: Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Ohms Law Bot.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- BAG on Commons is requesting that I do a trial run. Can I get approval to do a trial run here as well?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Sure, why not? — The Earwig (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Should have a run of diffs available later tonight.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Trial ran from Midnight - 1 am EDT (04:00 - 05:00 server time) March 21, 2010. The edits here are marked with "Adding {{NowCommons}} to image which has been transwikied to Commons (Task 2)", but it'll probably be easier to see them if you look at the Commons edits instead, since I've got the bot doing stuff here fairly constantly, in it's own user space.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Should have a run of diffs available later tonight.
- Sure, why not? — The Earwig (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BAG on Commons is requesting that I do a trial run. Can I get approval to do a trial run here as well?
Back to original proposal
OK, since the folks on Commons have become totally non-responsive, I'm going back to the original proposal. What little feedback I did receive indicates that they're not particularly interested in having a bot actually move the images anyway, which is what I figured would be the issue anyway.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to approve you for the previous task you did, following that trial, but noticed the strange consensus on Commons. I'll let this settle for a day or so, and if there aren't any objections, I'll approve you for a trial. — The Earwig (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I have to say, it is a bit disappointing, but not at all surprising. Frankly, I was a bit shocked at the suggestions that the original proposal was too conservative. I agree that having a bot just move the images would be terrific, but considering the difficulties in cross-wiki communication and collaboration I'm not at all surprised at the resistance.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. enough waiting already. Josh Parris 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (oops) {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} I must've forgotten about this. Any updates, Ohms law? — The Earwig (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I have to say, it is a bit disappointing, but not at all surprising. Frankly, I was a bit shocked at the suggestions that the original proposal was too conservative. I agree that having a bot just move the images would be terrific, but considering the difficulties in cross-wiki communication and collaboration I'm not at all surprised at the resistance.
What if anything will this bot do if a file is on here and Commons but under two different names?--Rockfang (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. I might revisit this at a later date, but Wikipedia has kinda taken a backseat in my life, for now.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Josh Parris (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Once developed
Function overview: Simple link fixes and notification on the target of multiple broken #section links
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 3
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: About 1500 links have the http problem; Category:Pages containing links with bad anchors has nearly 2000 pages (I guess 20% of these pages have a link that can be fixed with a case-insensitive match, so 400-ish edits); and I don't know how many pages have multiple broken #section links targeting them, but there's at least two.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): standard in pywikipedia
Assert Edit flags used (exists, user/bot, none): none
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: This task includes a shopping list of fixes:
if an internal link is a redlink, and it starts with http:// , change it to an external link.- There are 1500 instances of this problem at the moment
select count(*) from pagelinks where pl_namespace=0 and pl_title like 'Http://_%';
- if a #section link is a case-insensitive match for an anchor on the page, change it to match that anchor.
- This is a reasonably common case within broken #section links (see Category:Pages containing links with bad anchors)
- Same-page links will be caught too
- Notification on the target page where there are the same broken #section links come from multiple pages.
- Used when a section-header is changed, and that breaks multiple pages linking to that page, for example: Page [[footy]] has the section ===Center=== changed to ===Centre===, and any pages like [[Linebacker]] which linked to [[footy#Center]] is now broken. The notice will encourage editors to put {{anchor}} in front of the new section name with the old section name in it, to allow backwards compatibility. This message will look something like:
![]() | Consider using {{anchor}} to create a target for other pages to #section link to without anything being visible in the article. Multiple pages have broken #section links to the same section in this page: This box was placed by WildBot, a bot designed to keep it up to date and then remove it when the links are fixed. If WildBot is malfunctioning, please leave a message. |
Assert Edit is not currently supported by pywikipedia's trunk release; it is in the rewrite release.
Discussion
Approved for trial (45 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Preferably 15 each of fixes one, two, and three. — The Earwig (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SELECT page_namespace, count(*) FROM page join pagelinks on page_id=pl_from WHERE pl_namespace=0 AND pl_title LIKE 'Http://_%'
group by page_namespace limit 10;
- Shows 4 hits in article space and 6 in File space. I don't think this point is worth pursuing. I'll keep at the others. Josh Parris 10:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section fixes
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=350384250
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_algorithms&diff=prev&oldid=350560233
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_climbing_terms&diff=prev&oldid=350676846
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Texas_at_Austin&diff=prev&oldid=350683122
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mascots&diff=prev&oldid=350685711 * Repeated message in summary. Fixed.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Van_Dam&diff=prev&oldid=350686907
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blaxy_Girls_discography&diff=prev&oldid=350693479
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electroshock_%28wrestler%29&diff=prev&oldid=350693804
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=350700554
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madonna_%28entertainer%29&diff=prev&oldid=350701879 * Useless change. Fixed.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_A%26M_University&diff=prev&oldid=350703524
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Belong_Together&diff=prev&oldid=350708094
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=350709089
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk_%28song%29&diff=prev&oldid=350709431
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeah!_(Usher_song)&diff=prev&oldid=350711285
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=350716022
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternate_history&diff=prev&oldid=350716079
These edits show this chunk of functionality is done. Josh Parris 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popular #section targets
I will commence testing on this around the 10th of April. Josh Parris 23:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any updates? The bot has been blocked, what's going on? — The Earwig (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bot's blocked and I haven't yet figured out what caused it to do the thing it was doing that caused the blocking. Still no progress on the #section bizzo (been quite busy), but I do intend to complete this. Josh Parris 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Please reply when you've figured out what the problem is and when you're willing to get back to work on this task. ("I haven't yet figured out what caused it to do the thing it was doing that caused the blocking"... o_O) — The Earwig (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beep. Hows it going with the trial? Tim1357 talk 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Please reply when you've figured out what the problem is and when you're willing to get back to work on this task. ("I haven't yet figured out what caused it to do the thing it was doing that caused the blocking"... o_O) — The Earwig (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bot's blocked and I haven't yet figured out what caused it to do the thing it was doing that caused the blocking. Still no progress on the #section bizzo (been quite busy), but I do intend to complete this. Josh Parris 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any updates? Mr.Z-man 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. Given the lack of progress and lack of time to devote to this at the moment. I intend to reopen this when I've got the time available to devote to this. Josh Parris 20:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Emijrp (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (pywikipediabot and irclib)
Source code available: Google Code
Function overview: anti-vandalism
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: Depend on vandals
Exclusion compliant (Y/N):
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No, and I think that it is not needed. It's edits must be seen in Recent Changes, right?
Function details: Anti-vandalism, anti-blanking, and anti-test edits. Also, it leaves a message to users.
Discussion
This bot has been tested in Spanish Wikipedia for about 2 years, and it has reverted about 200,000 vandalisms. emijrp (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more features:
- Different messages for different vandalisms (blatant vandalism, blanking, tests edits);
- The regular expressions list can be edited by admins, in real-time;
- Reporting to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism;
Regards. emijrp (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs wider discussion. as this bot has the potential to modify a large number of pages anywhere in the encyclopedia in a short amount of time, please announce this BRFA at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard; while there, please invite code reviews at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard with the reviews to be published here.
- What computer system does this bot operate from (if it is blocked by an admin, will that affect other users)? Josh Parris 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as the admins have a clue when blocking and dont enable autoblock (very stupid thing to do with bots as it also blocks the operator) it wont be a problem. βcommand 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bot runs on meta:Toolserver, so, if blocking, don't enable autoblock, please. emijrp (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Josh. I will post some messages on that places, thanks. emijrp (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the bot-opperator is pretty well established. The idea to have bot correct vandalism is not new, and already has community support. However, community input never hurt anybody. Tim1357 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I created a pretty extensive list, and got some admins to add it to the page. Take a look and tell me what you think. However, because all the regexes are case-sensitive, I could not add anything that included shouting in articles. Tim1357 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Tim, thanks for working on the list. Regular expressions are not case-sensitive. emijrp (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have announced this BRFA at village pump[4][5] and at bot owner's noticeboard[6]. Regards. emijrp (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This bot will be working only in the article namespace, correct? Tim1357 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It works in the user, wikipedia, and category ones too... but not in talk pages. emijrp (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to suggest that regex comments be mandatory, so that one can quickly scan the list of regexes and see the intended purpose of each. DES (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandatory regexp comments is a good idea. emijrp (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some Wikipedia: pages work like talk pages (for example, this one); is there a mechanism to exclude those pages, or would it be easier to exclude the WP: namespace? Josh Parris 02:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point josh, I vote we exclude the Wikipedia namespace. Also, I agree with DES, ill go through and start adding comments. Tim1357 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it exists a feature to exclude pages (individual or using regexps). You can add pages to User:Emijrp/Exclusions.css. emijrp (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we also exclude edits to ones own userspace please? Also, I'd like to see the warnings being used by this bot. And I see at the Spanish Wikipedia the bot marks pages for deletion if they are too short, could you please say whether or not this function will be used here? (Probably not a good idea to use it here). And there's no need to not have the bot flag, since users can choose if bot edits show up in RC (I think they do by default). - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This bot doesn't revert own userpage edits. Newpages watch function can be disabled if you want. emijrp (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we also exclude edits to ones own userspace please? Also, I'd like to see the warnings being used by this bot. And I see at the Spanish Wikipedia the bot marks pages for deletion if they are too short, could you please say whether or not this function will be used here? (Probably not a good idea to use it here). And there's no need to not have the bot flag, since users can choose if bot edits show up in RC (I think they do by default). - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to suggest that regex comments be mandatory, so that one can quickly scan the list of regexes and see the intended purpose of each. DES (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It works in the user, wikipedia, and category ones too... but not in talk pages. emijrp (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no enough details, does this bot use a scoring system? Is it 1RR compliant? Sole Soul (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it uses a scoring system (see Regexp list for details). It is 1RR compliant for the same vandalism, but, if the user inserts a different bad word, it is reverted (it is a new vandalism). emijrp (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like it if you did some work on the bot's user-page. Many new users will navigate to the bot's user-page, so lets make sure that they can understand what the bot is and why it reverted them. Also, I'd like to get started with part one of the trial. For the first part, I'd like you to log all the edits that would be reverted. That way, you can tweak the score list. How about 1 week? Later, we can move to a real-world trial. Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial
Approved for trial (~ 7 days, userspace only). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Tim1357 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have started the trial. You can see the log at User:AVBOT/Trial. emijrp (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been watching the bot in action, and it seems to be doing work that Cluebot isn't (I'm shocked).
- While I haven't seen much in the way of questionable calls, I think a week-long trial is too long. Analysis and verification of the data produced is heavy going work; Tim1357, do you have a reason to run this bot for 7 days? Can we cut it off at one, and re-start the trial once everyone has had a look at the performance of the bot in that window? Josh Parris 14:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, now that I see how much the bot has already done, I suggest 3 days. Its entirely up to you, however. P.S. I made some changes to the regexp list. I was hoping to get you to sign off on them before I get an admin to udate the live one. Tim1357 (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim, all the regexps, when loaded, are inserted into this context: [ \@\º\ª\·\#\~\$\<\>\/\(\)\'\-\_\:\;\,\.\r\n\?\!\¡\¿\"\=\[\]\|\{\}\+\&]. For example (ass(es)?):
- [ \@\º\ª\·\#\~\$\<\>\/\(\)\'\-\_\:\;\,\.\r\n\?\!\¡\¿\"\=\[\]\|\{\}\+\&]ass(es)?[ \@\º\ª\·\#\~\$\<\>\/\(\)\'\-\_\:\;\,\.\r\n\?\!\¡\¿\"\=\[\]\|\{\}\+\&]
- So, it is not necessary to put \s like this \sass(es)?\s. Furthermore, \sass(es)?\s doesn't match asses!!!!!, but with the context above yes. Regards. emijrp (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, cool. I took out all the \s's. See what I've done now (note I alphabetized them) Tim1357 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it is not necessary to put \s like this \sass(es)?\s. Furthermore, \sass(es)?\s doesn't match asses!!!!!, but with the context above yes. Regards. emijrp (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for sorting the list. I have to develop a feature to sorting the list automatically. emijrp (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(\w[a-z\s]{3,})\1{5,};;-2;;t;
What it does, essentially, is match any 4+ character string (letters and spaces only), that has been repeated 6 or more times. I think this avoids the problem you encountered with template parameters, as this regex requires that any string starts with a letter. Tim1357 (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice ClueBot is 1RR-compliant with minimal exceptions. AVBOT made four reports concerning the same page in about ten minutes. Will this bot honor 3RR or 1RR? — The Earwig (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting emijrp above "It is 1RR compliant for the same vandalism, but, if the user inserts a different bad word, it is reverted (it is a new vandalism)." Sole Soul (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, didn't notice that for some reason. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A preliminary analysis
The proposed edits are listed at
In total there were 8 reverts that were considered inappropriate; Emijrp has apparently addressed a few of them already. It would be helpful if everyone had a look at the inappropriate reverts and offered suggestions. Once the 8 reverts are addressed to everyone's satisfaction, perhaps another (longer) trial run would be appropriate. What's an acceptable false-positive rate? Josh Parris 05:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree, we should continue the trial. Josh, I wanted to point out that 4 of those eight were my fault (weighting things to heavaly, ect). Also an incentive to continue the trial, I added a substantial amount of regexes. Some of them may come with problems that I have not foreseen. Despite all the hiccups, I must say I am immensely pleased with the accuracy of your bot. This kind of open-sourced bot is exactly what we here need, so I thank you. Tim1357 (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi all. First, thanks for you work in both trial subpages: Josh Parris, Tim1357 and The Earwig. Yes, we have to do some more tests, so I will run the bot again when you approve a second trial. emijrp (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. You can continue your trial until you feel confident in the bot's abilities. No controversy in user-space edits anyways. When you want, we can get on with having the bot work in the real world, preforming reverts and such. For the meantime, I can help writing the templates. Can you give me some instructions on how to make them usable for the bot? Tim1357 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi all. First, thanks for you work in both trial subpages: Josh Parris, Tim1357 and The Earwig. Yes, we have to do some more tests, so I will run the bot again when you approve a second trial. emijrp (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While that trial's progressing, perhaps we could examine the unaddressed failures in the last trial:
- 2010-02-28 14:48:49.999603: Possible Vandalism in List of The Secret Life of the American Teenager characters by 96.245.119.123, reverting to 346426327 edit by 71.194.239.18
- This was reverted, among other reasons, because the edit included 'I love...'. Since the trial, we have reduced the score given for that particular regular expression. Tim1357 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010-02-28 16:10:20.223026: Possible Test in Newport News, Virginia by 70.174.63.127, reverting to 346251432 edit by Lucasbfrbot
- Umm, this is a test. We define any form of 'hi' as a test. Tim1357 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010-02-28 15:55:05.238836: Possible Vandalism in Internet slang by 81.204.228.34, reverting to 346792617 edit by Betsythedevine
- This one is tricky. While it is a vandalism, it is really close to the edge. I think what I'll do is add good points to an edit if there appears to be full sentences. Perhaps
[\w].*?(\s.*?\w){3,}.*?[\.\?\!];;+1;;g;; #Full sentences are good, must start with a letter, have 3 spaces, have 3 other letters, and end in a period, a question mark, or an exclamation point.
The only problem is that it will be put into the context:[ \@\º\ª\·\#\~\$\<\>\/\(\)\'\-\_\:\;\,\.\r\n\?\!\¡\¿\"\=\[\]\|\{\}\+\&]
which means it will screw with out regex a bit. In the end, slapping a ? on the beginning will ignore the first context and a .*? end of it will make it work with the second context. Finally:?[\w].*?(\s.*?\w){3,}.*?[\.\?\!].*?
Tim1357 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is tricky. While it is a vandalism, it is really close to the edge. I think what I'll do is add good points to an edit if there appears to be full sentences. Perhaps
What can be done about these? Josh Parris 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about delay, I'm going to run a second trial in the next days. emijrp (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any updates? Are you going to start the trial soon? — The Earwig (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am running the second trial. Thanks for your patience. The log is in User:AVBOT/Trial. Regards. emijrp (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add the score beside each suspected edit? Sole Soul (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am running the second trial. Thanks for your patience. The log is in User:AVBOT/Trial. Regards. emijrp (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complex regexp
Please, be careful while adding complex regular expressions. This one: f+(.?)a+\1?g+\1?(g+\1)?(o+\1?t+\1?)?s*\1? has made some false positives (it matches the word "flag", detecting this as vandalism). It is better a lazy bot than an hungry one. ; ) Regards. emijrp (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, Sorry about that. It wasn't me being lazy it was me not thinking. The new way of doing things make more sense (using [^a-z] instead of .) Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Messages
I started working on a list of message templates. here for a list. Im not sure how you wanted them to be set up so that they could work with the bot, but I guess that can be changed later. Tim1357 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to check the templates in the next hours, please wait. emijrp (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked the warning templates, they are very good. Tim, can you create the test warning too? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, he can't create that page; it's admin-only. — The Earwig (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, in User:Tim1357/uw-test1. emijrp (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. emijrp (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about the link that AVBOT leaves in usertalk? Message, link to restore. It is a very easy way to restore a good faith edit in a false positive, but also, in the vandalism cases. emijrp (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Message headers do not seem to follow "standard" form for other manual and 'bot warnings. Should be == Month Year == so that (at a minimum) cluebot and others can escalate properly. For example, at User talk:99.225.199.97, if the 04:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) message had been in a section titled "April 2010" instead of "Possible vandalism (Warning #1)", the subsequent warning would have been at level2 instead of another level1. DMacks (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward
I'd like to move forward with this request. According to Tim, all (or nearly all) of the errors in the trial were caused by faulty regexes or scoring and have been corrected. If so, I'd like to:
- Stop editing the regex list as often, so we can get it stabilized.
- Approve this for a real-world trial, possibly week-long, so we can see how it fares when actually editing the wiki.
What do we think? — The Earwig (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Sounds good to me! Sorry about making all the faulty regexes. :_) Tim1357 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No joke.
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (X! · talk) · @911 · 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: Mainspace trial. (X! · talk) · @636 · 14:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No joke.
- OK, I will run this 7 days real-world trial in a few days. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 Things:
- You need to have
<!-- Template:uw-huggle1 -->
, somewhere on the vandal template, so that WP:Huggle can tell what level the warning is. Please put<!-- Template:uw-huggle{{{3}}} -->
right before the signature. - You also need to fix the diff part of the template. For example: The bot lists this as the diff on User talk:J4j93. Click on the link and see what's wrong, basically you need to change
&diff=next
to&diff=prev
. Thanks Tim1357 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second issue resolved. emijrp (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to have
- 2 Things:
- OK, I will run this 7 days real-world trial in a few days. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About the first issue, ClueBot puts <!- Template:uw-cluebotwarningX -><!- Template:uw-vandalismX -> [7]. I will change uw-cluebotwarningX to uw-avbotwarningX. emijrp (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If user made a good edit then a second good edit then a third test edit, the bot would revert all three edits. We expect a vandal to repeat his vandalism. This is not necessary the case with test edits. Only the last edit should be reverted if it is a test edit. See [8], [9]. Sole Soul (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about that. Those two examples are really false positives. Does ClueBot work as you say? Please, more feedback about to revert only the last edit in test cases. emijrp (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that ClueBot revert test edits. Sole Soul (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this, please wait. emijrp (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
False positives
Hi, I'm working hardly in the false positive cases, adding new regexps using this list. About the messages above, I will reply them in the next hours/days and I will fix all the bugs. Thanks for you feedback. Regards. emijrp (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think you are up to go again? Honestly we can't approve you for another go until the bot gets a slightly better track record. Nonetheless, this seems like an awesome bot, and I look forward to when I can finally approve it. Whenever you are ready, go again. Cheers. Tim1357 talk 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ny updates? Tim1357 talk 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Echoing Tim here. What's going on with the bot? — The Earwig (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May be it is better to contact emijrp on the Spanish Wikipedia. Sole Soul (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Echoing Tim here. What's going on with the bot? — The Earwig (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If emijrp is not so active on the english wikipedia, I could run the bot for him. If you want that Emijrp, I'd be glad to help. Tim1357 talk 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I'm so sorry to say that I have no enough time now. Can this RFBA be frozen? Of course, the code is GPL, so you can run it, althought it is ugly and dirty, and the bug about sorting user talk warnings is not yet coded. Regards, and thanks again for your effort in this RFBA. emijrp (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. Feel free to re-open at any time. I may do something with this idea later on, if you don't mind. Tim1357 talk 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Bots that have completed the trial period
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Source code available: On request
Function overview: Add {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} when four or more banners are present
Links to relevant discussions: Prior approval of same task
Edit period(s): Occasionally
Estimated number of pages affected: Many
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details:
The bot will look for talk pages that have at least one ==header==[1] along with four or more WikiProject banners[2] without a shell, add {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} (with the requisite activepol or blp=yes where required).
- ^ Presumably if there is no discussions on the talk page, it won't matter how much vertical space the banners are using.
- ^ When eight or more banners are present, it will add {{WikiProjectBanners}}.
Note that the bot is already doing this en passent during WikiProject tagging [10] [11].
Here are some sample edits using the latest codebase [12].
Discussion
Is this genfixes? If so, are you planning to disable changes like this (due to the lack of human review)? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The gen fixes that occur on talk pages are quite innocuous. They are noted automatically in the edit summary, so human review is possible if there was an issue with any of them. –xenotalk 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the task. But I think adding
|collapsed=yes
to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is neater than using {{WikiProjectBanners}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Either way is fine with me. To be honest, I don't think I'll come across many that have 8 banners without a shell... –xenotalk 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the 1= missing this will cause blp banner not to appear and probably Plugin++ to crash while processing pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add the 1=, but the blp=yes seems to work all the same? [13] (Plugin++ does hang, but that seems to be more related to this) –xenotalk 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I support the task. I suggest that you change in "Wikiproject..." most (or all) of the wikiproject banners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, not quite sure what you mean -- did you mean to bypass the redirects to the standard WikiProject Foo form? –xenotalk 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. For example WPE to WikiProject England, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, not quite sure what you mean -- did you mean to bypass the redirects to the standard WikiProject Foo form? –xenotalk 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I support the task. I suggest that you change in "Wikiproject..." most (or all) of the wikiproject banners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes yes yes yes!! And do it on all pages, not only those with headers. No need to hold back. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool
Approved for trial (60 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Tim1357 talk 03:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. 60 edits. Note this was operator error. –xenotalk 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. It appears all is in order. Josh Parris 07:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
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.
- RustyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Mdann52 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 30) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 45) Approved 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Numberguy6Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- SDZeroBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 13:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- CopyPatrolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 29) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 42) Approved 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43b) Approved 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 44) Approved 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 28) Approved 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 25) Approved 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 81) Approved 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FrostlySnowman (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 09:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43) Approved 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- SDZeroBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- The Sky Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DeadbeefBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 19:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 26) Approved 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Cewbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 13:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 79) Approved 08:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 80) Approved 14:13, 17 December 2023 (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.
- Fixatypobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 10:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- ValhallaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- HBC AIV helperbot 10 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- ChinaRailwayENGED (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Velociraptorbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- GeneGoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Template Maintenance Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- IronBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- MisterWikiBot (2nd) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- MisterWikiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 16:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- EmBOTellado (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:48, 2 December 2009 (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.
- EditCountBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 20:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- MPUploadBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Withdrawn by operator 06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- OwensQueryBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- DASHBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9.5) Withdrawn by operator 00:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- TorNodeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 23:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- DASHBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Withdrawn by operator 19:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- EarwigBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Withdrawn by operator 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Addbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 22) Expired 03:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- ContentCreationBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 03:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- MondalorBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 13:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sarukebot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 20:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- SoxBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 20) Withdrawn by operator 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Redirectcreation Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- SvickBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- CobraBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Withdrawn by operator 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- MWOAPBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 21:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- DASHBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Withdrawn by operator 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- MWOAPBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 08:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Coreva-Bot 2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: XXII) Withdrawn by operator 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Chris G Bot 2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 11:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- DASHBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- WaybackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 05:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- DrilBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Withdrawn by operator 04:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: XXIII) Withdrawn by operator 14:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- ActiveAdminBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 01:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)