Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:20, 14 July 2010

Lightbot 4

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Janitorial edits to units

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

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

Function details:
I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.

A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.
Edits may modify the format.
Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
Edits may add, remove or modify links to units.

Discussion

I'm sorry, did I miss something or are you not "indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia"? - EdoDodo ^talk 13:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, yes. I have just applied to have the restriction lifted. However, an arbitrator said I need to come here first. So here I am. :) Lightmouse (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your past history, I have a number of concerns:

What will you do to prevent any repeat of the behavior that led to the ArbCom finding of fact Lightbot repeats its own errors?
I recall much drama over how you used to respond to talk page comments (and even remove the "stop" command) using your bot account. Do you commit to never using your bot account to respond to talk page comments or make any other edits besides those for approved tasks, as required in WP:BOTPOL#Bot accounts?
You state that your bot will honor {{nobots}}. Will it also comply with {{bots|deny=Lightbot}} and variations?
As stated, this request is far too broad and far to vague; Lightbot 3 was quite controversial for that very reason, and things have become more strict since then. Please specify exactly the types of changes the bot will be doing rather than vaguely stating "may add, remove or modify". I understand this may be a long list, and I note that explicitly listing each change does mean that adding a new type of change will require a new BRFA.
- Note that ArbCom also asks for a statement "indicating specifically which functions you will be performing".
"Units of measure" should similarly be more defined. Template:Convert/list of units has an extensive list of units, which may be incorporated by reference. Are there other units on which you intend to work?
The edit summary you used previously, "unit/dates/other", does not fit with WP:BOTPOL's requirement that the bot "uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users". Please address this.

Given the controversy Lightbot's activities generated both before and during the ArbCom case, we must be particularly careful here to ensure that the community wants this done and wants Lightmouse to be doing it. I have posted notices at WP:AN, WP:VPR, WP:BON, and User talk:Lightbot to attempt to gather community input. If anyone knows of other pages where Lightbot's previous activities were extensively discussed (e.g. MOS, WikiProject, or template talk pages), please post a similar notice in those places and mention that you did so here. Please keep in mind WP:CANVAS. Anomie ⚔ 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State the bot's exact function in detail without reference to other BRFAs; the other BRFAs seem equally vague / it's tedious to have to cross-reference. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to provide a list of units of measure. It might take a little effort to compile but I can do it. Would that help? Lightmouse (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I used various 'units of measure' related categories on Wikipedia to create a list at User:Lightmouse/list_created_from_categories_referring_to_units_of_measure. As suggested, there is also the list of units of measure addressed by Template:Convert/list of units. There are also lists maintained by the official SI authority, by the British and US weights and measures authorities and by others. In the event of a dispute about whether something is a 'unit of measure', I'm sure the knowledgeable people at wp:mosnum can arbitrate. Has anyone ever seen any such disputes? Lightmouse (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the units of measure you intended to work with, not every unit of measure you could possibly think of; do you really intend to do anything with amagats, almudes, agates, or adowlies? Several items on your list don't even seem to be units of measure, for example Active daylighting or Active Resistance to Metrication. And quite frankly, I don't have any confidence in your fan club at WT:MOSNUM. Anomie ⚔ 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely unclear to me from this request what, exactly, the bot would do. Can you give an example of what you think a typical edit would be like? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Lightbot was already approved to edit units of measure. This approval request is a word-for-word copy of the units of measure section of Lightbot 3. So there are thousands of examples in the contributions. For example:

If anyone knows of a better edit summary, please feel free to suggest it.
This application stands on its own merit. It doesn't require anyone to read other BRFAs if they don't wish to.
AWB has a method of addressing bot exclusions that is used by other bot owners. I'll do the same.
Feel free to look at one example of AWB code that was used in the past. Lightmouse (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, is doing conversions such as the examples you post the sole task of the bot? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It will do more than just add conversions.

Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units. For example, this may add a conversion or fix an error in an existing conversion.
Edits may modify the format. For example, this may change 'KW' into 'kW' or 'kmph' into 'km/h'.
Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units. The diff examples given above show it adding templates. It may also remove or modify templates as part of maintenance e.g. if the templates themselves need updating.
Edits may add, remove or modify links to units. For example, it might add a link to obscure units, remove a link from a common unit, or correct a wrong or misdirected link.

I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note that Lightbot 3 probably shouldn't have been approved given the lack of consensus evident in that discussion, and in reaction to criticism from the community (in part due to the approval of Lightbot 3) we have tried to become more careful about requiring a strong consensus and about not approving vague or overly-broad tasks. Although to be fair most (but by no means all) of the controversy there was related to dates rather than units.

While examples of edits are nice, we need to know exactly what types of edits are being approved here. For example, "Wrap measurements using US customary units with {{convert}} to also display them with the corresponding metric units" could appropriately describe the above 4 edits.

As for an edit summary, it should reflect what the bot is actually doing. Ideally the summaries for the 4 edits you link above would be "adding metric conversion for mph using {{convert}}", "adding metric conversion for inches using {{convert}}", "adding metric conversion for square feet using {{convert}}", and "adding metric conversion for miles, acres using {{convert}}", although just "automatically adding metric conversions using {{convert}}" would be ok. Anomie ⚔ 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The code is sophisticated enough to parse a page for lots of units. I gave those examples because they were simple to understand. In reality, one edit might do 2 conversions of miles, 3 conversions of feet, 1 modification of a link, and a change of format from KW to kW. The next edit might do a completely different combination. The next edit might do a different combination again. That's why the edit summary is generic. Lightmouse (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the code is that sophisticated, shouldn't it also be able to determine an appropriate edit summary? Anomie ⚔ 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied with the "for examples" and "mights" above, because they do nothing to make the request less vague. So far, it sounds like the types of changes being considered for this task are:

Add {{convert}} to measurements using non-metric units to also display appropriate metric units.
Add {{convert}} to measurements using metric units to also display appropriate customary units.
When appropriate, use {{convert}} to display multiple alternative units (e.g. 640 acres (2.6 km²; 1.00 sq mi))
- Do you intend to use any other templates, e.g. those at Template:Convert#See also?
Correct broken invocations of {{convert}}.
- Do you intend to correct any other templates, e.g. those at Template:Convert#See also?
Correct incorrect manually-formatted conversions, e.g. "100 miles (10 km)".
- How does the bot determine whether 100 mi or 10 km is actually correct? What is the threshold between "inexact" and "incorrect"?
Correct spelling, abbreviation, or capitalization of existing units in measurements to match the applicable standards, e.g. 100 KW → 100 kW. This may be a side effect of applying {{convert}}, but may also be done on its own.
Add links to uncommon units in measurements (e.g. "100 furlong" → "100 furlong"), remove links to common units in measurements (e.g. "100 mi" → "100 mi"), or correct incorrect links to units in measurements (e.g. "1 atm" → "1 atm").
- Would these also be done for units not in measurements?

Is that correct? Are there other specific changes being considered? Anomie ⚔ 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse is one of Wikipedia’s best (most sophisticated) bot operators. The project needs people with his skills and the last thing we need to be doing is making volunteers have to jump through hoop after hoop in order to offer their volunteer services. This sort of white-glove treatment is unseemly to me. Lightmouse should be (and does) listen the community as a whole. If he’s doing something that could be done better or should be done differently, he’ll do it pronto. I don’t think any bot operator should have to first get a papal dispensation from a gatekeeper and then practice his or her art while being sensitive to community input. All this fine-tooth-comb inspection, in my humble opinion, is just detritus left over from an old date-related conflict. Get over it please; the world moves on. Greg L (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the good work which Anomie does with automation, I feel the above detailed questions are a heavy dose of WP:UNDUE for an experienced operator such as him and Lightmouse. I cannot help but feel Anomie would rile in severe pain if the same processus was meted out to him whenever he submits a bot application. Instead of treating Lightmouse like an untrustworthy rival and subjecting him to an enema, he should treat Lightmouse with the respect that he would himself like to be accorded. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 Is that correct? Are there other ''specific'' changes being considered? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
-Lightmouse is one of Wikipedia’s best (most sophisticated) bot operators. The project needs people with his skills and the last thing we need to be doing is making volunteers have to jump through hoop after hoop in order to offer their volunteer services. This sort of white-glove treatment is unseemly to me. Lightmouse should be (and ''does)'' listen the community as a whole. If he’s doing something that could be done better or should be done differently, he’ll do it pronto. I don’t think ''any'' bot operator should have to first get a papal dispensation from a gatekeeper  ''and then'' practice his or her art while being sensitive to community input. All this fine-tooth-comb inspection, in my humble opinion, is just detritus left over from an old date-related conflict. Get over it please; the world moves on. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 01:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
+Lightmouse is one of Wikipedia’s best (most sophisticated) bot operators. The project needs people with his skills and the last thing we need to be doing is making volunteers have to jump through hoop after hoop in order to offer their volunteer services. This sort of white-glove treatment is unseemly to me. Lightmouse should be (and ''does)'' listen the community as a whole. If he’s doing something that could be done better or should be done differently, he’ll do it pronto. I don’t think ''any'' bot operator should have to first get a papal dispensation from a [http://www.libertybellmuseum.com/images/product_images/23053.jpg gatekeeper]  ''and then'' practice his or her art while being sensitive to community input. All this fine-tooth-comb inspection, in my humble opinion, is just detritus left over from an old date-related conflict. Get over it please; the world moves on. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 01:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 With all due respect to the good work which Anomie does with automation, I feel the above detailed questions are a heavy dose of [[WP:UNDUE]] for an experienced operator such as him and Lightmouse. I cannot help but feel Anomie would rile in severe pain if the same processus was meted out to him whenever he submits a bot application. Instead of treating Lightmouse like an untrustworthy rival and subjecting him to an [[enema]], he should treat Lightmouse with the respect that he would himself like to be accorded. [[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)