This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Since the situation with unsourced images is now somewhat under control, I've modified OrphanBot's behavior:
-- Carnildo 07:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a project in the making, not an existing bot... I created a couple of lines of Perl that allowed me to pull up a subsection of Category:Living people in a format that would allow me to cut-and-paste it into List of people by name. This led to some discussion, which included the points that:
So I'm hereby asking permission. The account for the bot is not created, the script is not written. But I would like to make sure I'm not getting ahead of myself. -- Alvestrand 13:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering if anyone can point me out where to get the answer. My question is that if I have a specific category, I would like to get all red wikilinks in all articles in that category. Do you know any bot that can do this thing? Thanks for any answer -- Manop - TH 15:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't had time to read all of this, but I was looking to run a bot that replaced flag images. Is there such a bot already? I could even help it if it exists... F e tofs Hello! 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S: Can I use it to solve disambiguation links as well?
A clarification: if someone is using their browser to make fast edits, either with keyboard shortcuts or perhaps using a JavaScript tool or something like Greasemonkey, does that exempt them from this policy? I have noted a few cases of late where editors are making 10 edits per minute or more for extended periods, and when queried, they say they are not running a bot, but rather using browser features. Is this policy scoped to the tool in use, or the frequency of edits, or to something else? -- TreyHarris 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have begun coding a bot in C++/CLI, nothing concrete yet...probably not for 2 or 3 weeks. Just checking that the programming language is ok. P.S. I will put up a bot page, specify exact mission and all that other stuff once it is nearer to completion and is closer to testing. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of WP:B seems very misleading to me. Many bots are not just automated processes but rather have a large degree of human input. I have seen this first sentence cause some confusion. Would it not be better to say "Bots are automatic or semi-automatic tools that interact with Wikipedia over the World Wide Web"? Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not requesting for a trial run yet, I don't think, unless the perscribed activety below indicates otherwise. (I'm not sure). I plan to run the part of the code that pulls out the pages of wikipedia so the bot can edit. (basically a test of it's ability to navigate wikipedia) NO EDITS WILL BE MADE WITH THE BOT. The only reason I am asking is that the C++/CLI code is running really fast, and loads pages very quickly. I promise that I will upload only in short burst, with at least 30 min to an hour inbetween. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The bots purpose is not yet fully formulated, but to me that does not mean I cannot test the code out to the fullest extent possible. Agian I will not conduct any edits Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If I request permission to operate a vandalbot, will it be authorized? -- DanielleCunio 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I checked my contributions from when I was using AWB for disambiguation yesterday, and it looks like I averaged (pulls out calculator) 2.13 edits per minute during the time periods in which I was working. I don't think I'm likely to go much faster than this (DAB work requires a certain amount of thought), but I probably will be working at near this speed on a fairly regular basis. Do I need to request a bot to work at this speed, and, if so, would it be a bigger hassle to create a bot account and get it approved or to slow down to whatever would be an acceptable speed? Robth Talk 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Uhh.. is it about time to archive some of these? This page is really getting long. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Mathbot is pasting messages in user's talk pages asking them to do more edit summaries. I find this very obnoxious. Wikipedia is supposed to improve by cooperation and peer review in the act of editing itself. The kind of eye-in-the-sky monitoring of this bot-function is IMHO quite contrary to that spirit. Also, I think there should be a very high burden of proof on bots who leave messages in user's talk pages. Bacchiad 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the additional comment but I have a question
Do I need to go here to run a bot without a flag???? Time between edits at say 40 seconds?? The reason I am asking is that I have no need to run faster than that. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The policy text uses the terms general consensus and any objections but it is not clear about what happens when there *are* objections. An editor says I think one legitimate oppose is all that should be required to deny a bot operating approval. I can see his reading of the text but he happens to be opposed to my application and I would like an independent view. It is a very simple and very powerful rule that could be stated clearly.
If that is the policy then I was wasting my time applying. And over 50 voters were wasting their time voting/debating.
I presume that all those taking part in the debate would like to know:
Can I have an opinion from somebody independent? Thanks. bobblewik 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Bots, the burden of proof is upon the bot owner to demonstrate the following:
If people oppose, it's because that people do not believe the bot owner has demonstrated the previous four issues to be true for the bot sufficiently. There is good reason for these policies for bots, a "rough" consensus is not good enough. Rather than trying to circumvent the bot policy, demonstrate the previous issues to be true.
I for one don't believe that the bot is harmless (given the numerous examples of mistakes reported by other editors on Bobblewik's talk page), and I don't believe it is useful - I for one find links around dates useful for browsing to other historical events occuring at a similar time. The bot has been "tested" enough already, when it was being run without permission, and unless Bobblewik explains how he's changed his bot to now be harmless and useful, I don't see how "testing" it for another week will be of any advantage to Wikipedia. Talrias ( t | e | c) 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Bobbblewik has done everything by the book.
Now it looks as if those that object to his edits, rather than coming up with a good reason or trying to negotiate, are saying that any objection means he can't run under a bot flag. The project page is confused on this point "Get a rough consensus on the talk page that it is a good idea. Wait a week to see if there are any objections, and if there aren't, go ahead and run it for a short period so it can be monitored."
Can we please say at this point - "Bobblewick, run your one week test, and lets gather some feedback." Then we can, by consensus, make any reasonable stipulations, re-test, etc. until everyone's happy, or at least has no reason to complain. Rich Farmbrough 18:21 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Following the extensive discussion. I hereby withdraw my application for a bot flag. I would like to thank all those that have taken part in the debate.
I am now lifting my voluntary suspension of date edits in accordance with the MoS. I will continue to lobby for a reduction in the mismatch between articles and MoS. bobblewik 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if one already exists, but I'd like to code a bot that scans articles for the most common words whose spellings differ between the US and England et. al. The algorithm would go something like:
How does that sound? - ElAmericano ( dímelo) 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a bot actually making these changes, I would prefer that the bot stored a list of pages with inconsistent spelling as some maintenance page, and left it up to humans to actually make the necessary changes. Remember, also, that Wikipedia's policy is to use the original language spelling, not the most common. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Supposedly the notices added by Orphanbot to people's talk pages are useful, but it appears that occasionally it adds notices based on incorrect {{ nosource}} tags. As the notice doesn't concede such a possibilty, the bot's notices can be qualified as "misleading" at least. I suggest that the bot be stopped until this is fixed. -- User:Docu
Perhaps it would be appropriate and useful to identify (in OrphanBot's message) the user who added the tag. — Mar. 12, '06 [16:40] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
I'm working on a new job for OrphanBot: identifying and tagging unsourced images. Once a day, OrphanBot will download the list of all images uploaded that day, and for images with a blank image description page, or an image description page that consists only of a copyright template requiring that the source be indicated ({{ fairuse}}, most public-domain tags, any free-license tag requiring attribution, and other tags), OrphanBot will tag the image as {{ no source}}, and will notify the uploader of the problem. -- Carnildo 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is rather disorganised. Can we either archive some of the discussions here, and/or split out this page into two sections, those for bot request feedback, and those for discussing the project page (which is what talk pages are meant to be for)? Talrias ( t | e | c) 17:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Where can I complain about User:OrphanBot? I disagree with having a bot remove images it feels are unsourced. The sourcing of images is afairly complex process, and I have found this bot to be in error a few times. My complaints have fallen on deaf ears, as evidenced here. Indeed the bot shutoff has been disabled, and the complaints of others have been blown off as well. What should I do? Sam Spade 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh... I guess that clears things up somewhat. I still have the objection about which images are tagged, since there seems to be little effort to determine their actual source and status. Also, when a mistake is made, and an image is kept, who goes back and restores the image to obscure articles? Sam Spade 10:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm working on my spelling stats-generating bot (no edits made in article namespace, only on its own userpage), and I don't really know how to traverse Wikipedia most efficiently. What is common bot practice? - ElAmericano ( dímelo) 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to run a bot that reads the recent changes irc output (in a similar way to CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter). The bot will tag very obvious vandalism for deletion (although most of this is already caught), very short articles as stubs and articles with no links as needing wikification. The bot will only read the articles when they are over a certain age (i.e. when they are no longer on the first page of the newpages list) to avoid any edit conflicts.
My motivation for this is the increasing volume of substandard articles that we receive that just end up floating around, anyone who has scanned the database will know what I'm talking about. I would like to test it for a week, and then assess how useful it is. I have written most of the software already (in c#), and providing there are no major objections I will probably be ready to test in a week or so. Martin 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Since the situation with unsourced images is now somewhat under control, I've modified OrphanBot's behavior:
-- Carnildo 07:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a project in the making, not an existing bot... I created a couple of lines of Perl that allowed me to pull up a subsection of Category:Living people in a format that would allow me to cut-and-paste it into List of people by name. This led to some discussion, which included the points that:
So I'm hereby asking permission. The account for the bot is not created, the script is not written. But I would like to make sure I'm not getting ahead of myself. -- Alvestrand 13:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering if anyone can point me out where to get the answer. My question is that if I have a specific category, I would like to get all red wikilinks in all articles in that category. Do you know any bot that can do this thing? Thanks for any answer -- Manop - TH 15:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't had time to read all of this, but I was looking to run a bot that replaced flag images. Is there such a bot already? I could even help it if it exists... F e tofs Hello! 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S: Can I use it to solve disambiguation links as well?
A clarification: if someone is using their browser to make fast edits, either with keyboard shortcuts or perhaps using a JavaScript tool or something like Greasemonkey, does that exempt them from this policy? I have noted a few cases of late where editors are making 10 edits per minute or more for extended periods, and when queried, they say they are not running a bot, but rather using browser features. Is this policy scoped to the tool in use, or the frequency of edits, or to something else? -- TreyHarris 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have begun coding a bot in C++/CLI, nothing concrete yet...probably not for 2 or 3 weeks. Just checking that the programming language is ok. P.S. I will put up a bot page, specify exact mission and all that other stuff once it is nearer to completion and is closer to testing. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of WP:B seems very misleading to me. Many bots are not just automated processes but rather have a large degree of human input. I have seen this first sentence cause some confusion. Would it not be better to say "Bots are automatic or semi-automatic tools that interact with Wikipedia over the World Wide Web"? Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not requesting for a trial run yet, I don't think, unless the perscribed activety below indicates otherwise. (I'm not sure). I plan to run the part of the code that pulls out the pages of wikipedia so the bot can edit. (basically a test of it's ability to navigate wikipedia) NO EDITS WILL BE MADE WITH THE BOT. The only reason I am asking is that the C++/CLI code is running really fast, and loads pages very quickly. I promise that I will upload only in short burst, with at least 30 min to an hour inbetween. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The bots purpose is not yet fully formulated, but to me that does not mean I cannot test the code out to the fullest extent possible. Agian I will not conduct any edits Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If I request permission to operate a vandalbot, will it be authorized? -- DanielleCunio 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I checked my contributions from when I was using AWB for disambiguation yesterday, and it looks like I averaged (pulls out calculator) 2.13 edits per minute during the time periods in which I was working. I don't think I'm likely to go much faster than this (DAB work requires a certain amount of thought), but I probably will be working at near this speed on a fairly regular basis. Do I need to request a bot to work at this speed, and, if so, would it be a bigger hassle to create a bot account and get it approved or to slow down to whatever would be an acceptable speed? Robth Talk 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Uhh.. is it about time to archive some of these? This page is really getting long. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Mathbot is pasting messages in user's talk pages asking them to do more edit summaries. I find this very obnoxious. Wikipedia is supposed to improve by cooperation and peer review in the act of editing itself. The kind of eye-in-the-sky monitoring of this bot-function is IMHO quite contrary to that spirit. Also, I think there should be a very high burden of proof on bots who leave messages in user's talk pages. Bacchiad 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the additional comment but I have a question
Do I need to go here to run a bot without a flag???? Time between edits at say 40 seconds?? The reason I am asking is that I have no need to run faster than that. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The policy text uses the terms general consensus and any objections but it is not clear about what happens when there *are* objections. An editor says I think one legitimate oppose is all that should be required to deny a bot operating approval. I can see his reading of the text but he happens to be opposed to my application and I would like an independent view. It is a very simple and very powerful rule that could be stated clearly.
If that is the policy then I was wasting my time applying. And over 50 voters were wasting their time voting/debating.
I presume that all those taking part in the debate would like to know:
Can I have an opinion from somebody independent? Thanks. bobblewik 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Bots, the burden of proof is upon the bot owner to demonstrate the following:
If people oppose, it's because that people do not believe the bot owner has demonstrated the previous four issues to be true for the bot sufficiently. There is good reason for these policies for bots, a "rough" consensus is not good enough. Rather than trying to circumvent the bot policy, demonstrate the previous issues to be true.
I for one don't believe that the bot is harmless (given the numerous examples of mistakes reported by other editors on Bobblewik's talk page), and I don't believe it is useful - I for one find links around dates useful for browsing to other historical events occuring at a similar time. The bot has been "tested" enough already, when it was being run without permission, and unless Bobblewik explains how he's changed his bot to now be harmless and useful, I don't see how "testing" it for another week will be of any advantage to Wikipedia. Talrias ( t | e | c) 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Bobbblewik has done everything by the book.
Now it looks as if those that object to his edits, rather than coming up with a good reason or trying to negotiate, are saying that any objection means he can't run under a bot flag. The project page is confused on this point "Get a rough consensus on the talk page that it is a good idea. Wait a week to see if there are any objections, and if there aren't, go ahead and run it for a short period so it can be monitored."
Can we please say at this point - "Bobblewick, run your one week test, and lets gather some feedback." Then we can, by consensus, make any reasonable stipulations, re-test, etc. until everyone's happy, or at least has no reason to complain. Rich Farmbrough 18:21 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Following the extensive discussion. I hereby withdraw my application for a bot flag. I would like to thank all those that have taken part in the debate.
I am now lifting my voluntary suspension of date edits in accordance with the MoS. I will continue to lobby for a reduction in the mismatch between articles and MoS. bobblewik 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if one already exists, but I'd like to code a bot that scans articles for the most common words whose spellings differ between the US and England et. al. The algorithm would go something like:
How does that sound? - ElAmericano ( dímelo) 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a bot actually making these changes, I would prefer that the bot stored a list of pages with inconsistent spelling as some maintenance page, and left it up to humans to actually make the necessary changes. Remember, also, that Wikipedia's policy is to use the original language spelling, not the most common. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Supposedly the notices added by Orphanbot to people's talk pages are useful, but it appears that occasionally it adds notices based on incorrect {{ nosource}} tags. As the notice doesn't concede such a possibilty, the bot's notices can be qualified as "misleading" at least. I suggest that the bot be stopped until this is fixed. -- User:Docu
Perhaps it would be appropriate and useful to identify (in OrphanBot's message) the user who added the tag. — Mar. 12, '06 [16:40] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
I'm working on a new job for OrphanBot: identifying and tagging unsourced images. Once a day, OrphanBot will download the list of all images uploaded that day, and for images with a blank image description page, or an image description page that consists only of a copyright template requiring that the source be indicated ({{ fairuse}}, most public-domain tags, any free-license tag requiring attribution, and other tags), OrphanBot will tag the image as {{ no source}}, and will notify the uploader of the problem. -- Carnildo 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is rather disorganised. Can we either archive some of the discussions here, and/or split out this page into two sections, those for bot request feedback, and those for discussing the project page (which is what talk pages are meant to be for)? Talrias ( t | e | c) 17:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Where can I complain about User:OrphanBot? I disagree with having a bot remove images it feels are unsourced. The sourcing of images is afairly complex process, and I have found this bot to be in error a few times. My complaints have fallen on deaf ears, as evidenced here. Indeed the bot shutoff has been disabled, and the complaints of others have been blown off as well. What should I do? Sam Spade 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh... I guess that clears things up somewhat. I still have the objection about which images are tagged, since there seems to be little effort to determine their actual source and status. Also, when a mistake is made, and an image is kept, who goes back and restores the image to obscure articles? Sam Spade 10:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm working on my spelling stats-generating bot (no edits made in article namespace, only on its own userpage), and I don't really know how to traverse Wikipedia most efficiently. What is common bot practice? - ElAmericano ( dímelo) 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to run a bot that reads the recent changes irc output (in a similar way to CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter). The bot will tag very obvious vandalism for deletion (although most of this is already caught), very short articles as stubs and articles with no links as needing wikification. The bot will only read the articles when they are over a certain age (i.e. when they are no longer on the first page of the newpages list) to avoid any edit conflicts.
My motivation for this is the increasing volume of substandard articles that we receive that just end up floating around, anyone who has scanned the database will know what I'm talking about. I would like to test it for a week, and then assess how useful it is. I have written most of the software already (in c#), and providing there are no major objections I will probably be ready to test in a week or so. Martin 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)