Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/wargo32.exe

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.

wargo32.exe[edit]

Operator: Wargo (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 11:53, Thursday, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic (random checks if mass replacement)

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: no

Function overview: Replacing dead links with new. Some domains updates URL structures and links on wikipedia don't work but content is still available on these sites. This bot replaces URLs to new patterns. Active on plwikipedia.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Manual configuration and run

Estimated number of pages affected: 100-1000 per task

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Currently updates external links if url moved. You can see my last edits with "(bot)" added to summary

Discussion[edit]

@Wargo: Per WP:BOTACC, would you consider adding "Bot" to your proposed bot's username? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ this. The normal convention with bots is for the username to clearly indicate that it's a bot, either by using "bot" or otherwise being obvious (e.g., WikiProject Notification Service). While wargo32.exe sorta makes sense to computer nerds, keep in mind this needs to make sense (and be obvious) to people who aren't computer nerds. What's worse, seeing a random .exe on the internet, well... it looks a little suspicious to begin with—even though it's just a username. :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cross-wiki bot, which allows us an additional bit of leeway; a very clear edit summary could possibly make this acceptable. I don't know how many people would find the .exe suspicious—I think it's cute. — Earwig ^talk 03:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit, I did a double take, initially thinking it to be an attempt at trolling/humor. I can see why Slakr thinks it could be suspicious for non-programmers, who are constantly warned to avoid double-clicking anything ending with .exe. -FASTILY 03:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The function details you have provided too vague and are not sufficient for BRFA per WP:BOTAPPROVAL. You need to state exactly what tasks and changes you intend to make, and we will trail and approve each task. I also agree that the bot name should be obvious, either by function or "Bot" in name. I don't think being cross-wiki in any way precludes OP from making a different account. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really problem with name? --Wargo (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people have complained about it above means it probably is a problem, though there's always a danger in doing things out of fear that other people will be offended. You're welcome to poll the village pump to get a broader opinion, though it's a lot easier to just create User:WargoBot...

As for the task itself, in line with Hellknowz's comment, can you be a bit more specific as to how it works? — Earwig ^talk 00:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} @Wargo: ^ --slakr^\ talk / 03:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like anyone noticed/questioned this, but the operator mentioned in his function overview to check recent contributions with "(bot)" in the edit summary. Looking at his contributions, it appears he's made ~900 edits with that "bot" edit summary. With a constant rate of 7 edits/minute, these look like unapproved fully automated edits. ~ Rob^Talk 04:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? --Wargo (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wargo: See Hellknowz's comment above. More specific function details were requested. ~ Rob^Talk 12:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended "Function overview". --Wargo (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume human intervention is needed to identify pattern changes? ~ Rob^Talk 14:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --Wargo (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Regarding the username, I must concur with slakr on it. I thought I was looking at a virus name, at first, and while I'm smart enough to identify this as a bot account in regards to the name, others may actually go as far and think that your bot is a virus, though they most likely would see this account as a regular user, rather than a bot. With that being said, I can rename it for you since it hasn't yet amassed a high number of edits.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 05:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. — several people have raised concerns about the username. Furthermore, the function details remain extremely vague, despite requests for greater, specific detail on how the bot is going to operate. Feel free to resubmit with these details. A good place to start is to describe how the bot determines that something needs changing or simply post a link to is source code. Ideally also consider using a more user-friendly username for the bot that makes it clear it's a bot. --slakr^\ talk / 03:29, 16 April 2016 (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.