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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Per the recent HostBot 4 approval, we started running 100 Wikipedia Adventure invites per day since last Wednesday. So far, we have had no technical problems and positive feedback about the game is coming in. (One editor intends to use TWA in a second education program course. Another education program member is adapting the game for a sandbox tutorial). Several editors have played through the game entirely yielding a very positive Learning pathway and final product. Technically and functionally it's all looking good.
Our playthrough rate is about 1 for every 150 invites. This is entirely normal for an online invitation. It tracks the same rate as the Teahouse invites did. Now that we know what the rate is, in order for us to demonstrate statistically significant impact we will need to increase the number of invites during the trial period. I'd like to request we raise the daily invite level from 100 per day to 300 per day. (500 would be even better.)
These editors are pre-selected for having good-faith editor patterns by the WP:Snuggle machine-learning algorithm. We exclude editors who have never made an edit, and also exclude those who are blocked. We have been monitoring activity from these new editors and continue to check on whether or not they're causing any maintenance hassles for experienced editors.
We'd like to run the increased invites per day for the full 4 weeks of the trial period. This will permit us to run a full analysis of the data in the timeframe of the Individual Engagement Grant, the final report for which is due January 1st. Thanks for considering this during the trial period. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Question about bot edits BattyBot24 does not have consensus and is breaking working citations. I propose the approval of BattyBot 24 be revoked. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
AWB uses .NET Framework 3.5 Regular Expressions GoingBatty ( talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Regex | Examples of matches |
---|---|
now to post a comment!|Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen!|Meld je nu aan om een reactie te posten\.|Log (nu )?in om een reactie te plaatsen\. |
now to post a comment! |
Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen! | |
Meld je nu aan om een reactie te posten. | |
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen. | |
Log nu in om een reactie te plaatsen. | |
Up for Discussion(Post Comment|\sJump to Forums)? |
Up for Discussion |
Up for DiscussionPost Comment | |
Up for Discussion Jump to Forums | |
Name\s\(required\) |
Name (required) |
Post to(\:|\sFacebook|\sTwitter) |
Post to: |
Post to Facebook | |
Post to Twitter | |
\d*(\s| )(second|minute|hour|hr|day|week|wk|month|mo|year)s?(\s| )ago? |
47 seconds ago |
3 mo ago | |
2 years ago | |
\d*\s*Comments? |
1 Comment |
27comments | |
The writer has posted comments on this article |
The writer has posted comments on this article |
The Critic has posted comments on this Movie |
The Critic has posted comments on this Movie |
Post a Job |
Post a Job |
USA |
USA |
admin |
admin |
TNN |
TNN |
\*?Please enter your (user)?name\.? |
*Please enter your name |
Please enter your username. |
Regex | Examples of matches |
---|---|
By: |
By: |
(at )?\d\d?:\d{2}( |\s)?([ap]\.?m\.?,?)?(\s([BE][DS]?|GM)T)?,? |
at 12:34 pm |
at 14:15 GMT | |
8:03 AM EST | |
Review(ed)? by |
Review by |
Reviewed by | |
Written by\:?( )? |
Written by: |
Written by |
Regex | Examples of matches |
---|---|
(?:Newsarama )?Staff(?: writer)? |
Newsarama staff |
Staff | |
Staff writer | |
\[\[Staff writer\]\] |
[[Staff writer]] |
@ Anomie: – Per AnomieBOT status, the Bot Administrators' Group bot, BAGbot, which updates Wikipedia:BAG/Status, shows status "error" from its last run @ 2014-01-23 18:48:19, and there is no next run scheduled. Does this require human attention? Wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Please can anyone reopen the BRFA request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CLT20RecordsUpdateBot which has been marked as expired? I have declared that the trial of the bot is complete, even if it has not made the required number of edits as it will not edit until at least 6 months. jfd34 ( talk) 10:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
ReferenceBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) went through a BRFA, and identified itself as exclusion compliant, and then was flagged. A recent RfC about bot messages prompted me to review the opt-out instructions for several bots that leave messages. I noticed that all of them except ReferenceBot has instructions on how to opt out. I posted a note at User_talk:A930913#Reference_bot requesting that those instructions be added to the userpage per WP:BOTCONFIG and A930913 ( talk · contribs) is refusing to publish how to opt out, even though the BRFA was approved as exclusion compliant. Werieth ( talk) 18:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
bots|deny=ReferenceBot}}
to your talk page?
GoingBatty (
talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
t|BAG assistance needed}}
.
Since the bot bot operator is refusing to address a basic issue of providing opt out instructions for a bot that is opt-out compliant I am requesting either a revocation of permission until such instructions are posted or until the bot passes a BRFA which is clearly marked as non-compliant.
Werieth (
talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)I request the approval of BattyBot 25 be reconsidered. The description of the bot only mentions CS1 (which is Help:Citation Style 1). The rules for date format are described there. But the bot is also being used to change {{ Citation}} templates. That style has hardly any date format restrictions; the users of that template have never been approached about whether they favor these restrictions, until this RFC which began less than 24 hours ago. Jc3s5h ( talk) 03:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC), link fixed 4:03 UT.
Hello
I have a question regarding renewing an approval for a bot which we got in 2011. The archival discussion about the bot is posted at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/InstructorCommentBot. We would like to renew this bot since we are going to start new phase of our work in this area. The specification of the bot will stay exactly the same as the one we have already got the approval for. I do appreciate your guidance on this process.
Rostaf ( talk) 13:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm considering resurrecting some of DQ's bot functions. Specifically for now, I'd start with UAA Bot reported usernames. Would I need a new BRFA? I already have User:TPBot.--v/r - T P 05:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
We have build a copy and paste detection bot based on WP:Turnitin. We are planning on running it on a few edits. It makes no changes to main space but just puts the results at WP:MED/Copyright. From what we understand we do not need approval for this sort of work. Please advise if we are wrong. There is support for the idea in a number of places. We hope to have a proof for concept soon. Will only run on medical articles initially. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
bot flag
, and should have no trouble getting a trial approved. —
xaosflux
Talk 15:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This issue was originally brought up here, but I'm moving it to this page, since this is the more appropriate venue for this portion of the discussion.
I think this contradiction needs to be addressed. I believe that the bot approval wording should take precedence, as limited testing by read-only bots or bots that edit only in their own user space is generally harmless and should not need approval. (Not to mention, as pointed out to me by a WP admin long ago, unless a server admin is looking at usage logs, or a checkuser is looking at the user agent, nobody's ever going to be able to tell if a read-only bot is running anyway.)
If we go that route, a simple tweak to this page's lead to "you must first get it approved, except as noted at WP:BOTAPPROVAL" or something along those lines would do the job. – RobinHood70 talk 17:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've made a series of 45 edits to take certain articles out of Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I did the first few in the edit window, and then switched to AWB to do the others ( sample edit). I kept my editing rate low and checked each diff. I've identified another list of 185 pages that could benefit from the same fix; I would like to work through those a bit faster if possible.
Did the series of 45 edits need bot approval? Would 185 edits? The rule at WP:BOTASSIST isn't much help: "In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, may be more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes" -- John of Reading ( talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi I would like to use my bot account, RahmanuddinBot which was denied bot access earlier. I would be using category.py to retrieve few list of articles on my sandbox pages. Please approve it for a period of 25 days.-- Rahmanuddin Shaik ( talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The BRFA for APersonBot's second request was declined due to inactivity. Since I have returned (mwahaha) and there is consensus for running the bot on Labs, can the bot request be approved? APerson ( talk!) 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
BAG assistance needed}}
template on it if you don't hear anything within a couple of days.
Reticulated Spline (
t •
c) 10:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)EranBot has been running successfully on medical content for 6 months. It has picked up more than 200 cases of copyright violations and for issues it flags is right more than half the time.
I would like to request permission to expand the content this bot runs on beyond medical content. Not only will approval be required before this occurs but we also must check with our partners at Turnitin and we need to develop mechanisms to address all the flagged concerns.
Should I start a new bot request approval? Or what is the proper process for expanding the scope of a bots work?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Any objections to deprecating Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Adminbots? Don't see any use of it having its own subpage. — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI. I have put the archives back in chronological order, and broken up the massively bloated Archive 4, which had grown to over a million bytes. Recent discussions were moved from Archive 1 to Archive 12. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Anomie: – Per AnomieBOT status, the Bot Administrators' Group bot, BAGbot, which updates Wikipedia:BAG/Status, shows status "running" and the next run is scheduled for 2015-02-09 22:48:52. That would be yesterday. Is it stuck in a loop, or waiting for something that's down? Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I see a serious lapse from my side. I missed to respond to comments by Josh Parris, Maralia and would like to respond to them. I was pleasantly surprised to look at the level of detail in which the edits were analysed by Josh. Although I am not an experienced wikipedia editor with thousands of edits under my belts, until such time, I would still like to improve Wikipedia using the best of my talents. Major concerns were with the exact process of link addition rather than the links themselves. I believe this is something which can be fixed.
The way we generate links is that the links in a source page are suggested on the basis of people using that page as a waypoint towards the target pages, across many instances. Thus a link at that place, would have helped the people reach the target page faster.
One error with this approach is that humans do not automatically consider the wiki linking guidelines while using it. However this issue can be mitigated by filtering links which refer to countries and originate from Category:Featured articles. We can work further on blacklisting certain types of links based on inputs from experienced editors.
Another error with this approach, is that finding the correct anchor text for the link itself can be tricky. The approach we use here is that we look at all possible anchors (words where a link can be inserted) for the target page across Wikipedia, filter such that anchors are not ambiguous (that is the probability of the anchor linking to other pages is small), and then we look for the first occurrence of any unambiguous anchor, since the link should be introduced as early as possible in the page. However we exclude section headings as per linking guidelines. The trade off here is between the least ambiguous link and its location in the page. We are working on a better weighting formula for combining these two factors instead of simply filtering by ambiguity and finding the first occurrence from the remaining. However such a formula is harder to justify.
This explains why "European" was included in the link text to classical music in Cello. The reason is that European classical music redirects to classical music across Wikipedia, which makes it an unambiguous anchor. And it is the first unambiguous anchor to appear in the article.
The second issue with this is that, although it can do multiple edits in the same page, it does not link pages which were not on the paths taken by people. So, the to Aromatic hydrocarbon linked to carbon dioxide, but not carbon monoxide, because we had data about carbon dioxide and not carbon monoxide. The common thread arising here was similarly positioned terms in the sentence and although we don't have supporting data, we are working on ways to identify such links and introduce them as well.
Another concern was regarding skipping of possible anchors. For example the bot chose to bypass Harvard Graduate School of Education and instead pipe link Harvard to Harvard University. However the manual of style for linking states that links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead which was specifically hard coded into the rules inside the bot.
Yet another concern is the context in which the anchor appears. For example, we wanted to link Raphael to Renaissance. The first occurrence of renaissance was preceded with the word high. We shall take care to exclude the anchors where in conjunction with preceding or succeeding words they can link to other pages.
However it is hard to understand the context of the sentence for example the fact that soybean edit links to Dairy, which is actually a dairy products factory instead of Dairy product. Or in sugar, where Protein was linked, instead of Protein (nutrient). This is harder than all the other issues and we have not been able to find a befitting solution for it.
Given that I am inexperienced in editing, I would like to work together with expert editors to augment the bot with AI rules, such that most of the edits are not shoddy and the utility is maximized. Ashwinpp ( talk) 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
How does one judge the "low resolution" requirement of our Wikipedia:Non-free content policy? Here are some things I consider - the size of the source image, the detail in the source image, the quality of the scan and encoding. What things does Theo's Little Bot consider? Only whether it's greater than 0.1 megapixels, an arbitrary number suggested by Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution. And if it is greater, and it's in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests, the answer is to reduce it to 0.1 megapixels regardless of its content. This degradation in quality is a one way process, as previous versions are deleted, users cannot revert, information is lost.
A look through the bot's uploads shows examples such as -
What does Template:Non-free reduce mean? It used to mean the current file is too large. Now it means, the current file needs to be 0.1 megapixels. For many editors, it still means the former. Editors will not consider whether the file should be 0.1 megapixels, only that it is too large - this is the intuitive expectation, regardless of bot implementation. Right now, there is no way to tag images for reduction and for that resulting image to be larger than 0.1 megapixels. Even when an image is unambiguously high definition, I'm told File:Dear Esther Screenshot Large.jpg was at 1080p, tagging it would be a mistake - because you're left with a resulting file so small as to fail its rationale.
I propose we stop TLB's task 1 from running, and only restart it when we have a better process and implementation in place to stop its pointless overuse and resulting errors shown above. - hahnch e n 21:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ MBisanz: -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth giving the template a size parameter or two. {{
Non-free reduce|size=.1M}}
{{
Non-free reduce|size=100K}}
{{
Non-free reduce|width=256}}
etc...
Also maybe it would make sense for the bot to skip items which would be reduced by less than 50%. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC).
According to Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Appeals_and_reexamination_of_approvals, this is where bots are re-assessed. Yet neither the bot author or any of the bot approvals group have made any comment. Aside from the discussion above, there's also this discussion at the Village Pump. The general consensus is that the current implementation is flawed, and there are multiple easy to implement fixes. I don't want to waste my time with shit such as this that the bot enables. - hahnch e n 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
While I agree a BRFA might be overkill for ~30 edits, and I'm glad the typos were fixed, I'm a bit disappointed for the outcome of the request. Magioladitis mentioned WP:SPELLBOT apparently ignoring that I explicitly stated the 'bot' would have been manually operated. Denying a BRFA within few minutes from the first reply, when the task has actually been carried out by someone else, is not a great display of sensitivity. -- Ricordi samoa 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Ricordisamoa you can always request an alternative account per WP:VALIDALT. We do not give out bot flags for single-use tasks that involve such a small numbers of edits and should only be done manually. There are many editors performing spell-checking in Wikipedia from their normal accounts. You are welcome to help on that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Enough wikilawyering. The edits were obviously correctly implementing the consensus at CfD, and are well within the bot's scope. Anomie ⚔ 21:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The operator of ArmbrustBot 4 seems to be unwilling to comply to WP:Bot policy#Categorization of people, see User talk:Armbrust#Problem at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births. Please revoke the bot's permission. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sick of filling out forms in wikitext, I made a DRN-style form that you can test out by installing User:APerson/easy-brfa.js and then going to WP:Bots/Requests for approval/request. Feedback is welcome; eventually, it would be nice if we had a button on WP:BRFA that went straight to the request subpage. APerson ( talk!) 23:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
How does one find out if an editor is running an approved bot or has permission to run a bot? I ask because the edits of Srednuas Lenoroc ( talk · contribs) seem to be suspiciously bot-like, but I can't tell if this is authorized or not. -- Calton | Talk 09:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: I'm also going to ask at the Village Pump. -- Calton | Talk 09:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In last 3 sections named ″ Approved requests″, ″Denied requests″ and ″Expired/withdrawn requests″ it's better to have links to requests pages, not (only) to bot account userlinks ({{ botlinks}}). First column from this table looks for me more usefull than all simple userlinks from these sections. -- XXN, 17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am writing a program to auto update /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty using the world bank api. https://github.com/utilitarianexe/wiki_poverty_list_bot If I use this to generate the markup but do not autopost does this still need approved. Also how do cite the program or let other editors of the page know that is how the data is being generated. Would it be better to make it truely autoupdate periodically as a full on bot? Thanks for any help Lonjers ( talk) 00:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help I finished with the first table using output from the program if you want to check it out. Will also be working on updating the rest of the page and maybe hunting for other things that need updated like this. If you have any suggestions of similar projects as this let me know. Maybe post on my wiki user page. Lonjers ( talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding dead Links bot (ie. User:Cyberbot_II) .. some concerns have been raised by multiple users about how it handles bare URLs and the response from the author is that is how it was designed and approved. How do we open new discussion/concerns about an approved active bot? -- Green C 16:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I was recently redirecting subpages of various talk pages, and this query from four years ago hasn't been answered yet:
Part III seems somewhat dated. In particular, after you add {{ BotTrialComplete}}:
- The instructions tell the bot operator to move the record to the 'trial complete' section, but
- AnomieBOT does this automatically.
I guess that AnomieBOT probably does similar maintenance in other situations. If this is a mature capability of AnomieBOT, perhaps the instructions should be revised. Blevintron ( talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Any comments? APerson ( talk!) 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm seeking a volunteer to verify if 22 edits made by my bot look OK to you. The list can be found here. Thanks for any feedback. -- Green C 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@ APerson: Can you take a look at this page and the included templates - something is breaking the page - see the errors in the approved requests (sometimes missing) and denied requests sections. — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 20 April 2016 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Per the recent HostBot 4 approval, we started running 100 Wikipedia Adventure invites per day since last Wednesday. So far, we have had no technical problems and positive feedback about the game is coming in. (One editor intends to use TWA in a second education program course. Another education program member is adapting the game for a sandbox tutorial). Several editors have played through the game entirely yielding a very positive Learning pathway and final product. Technically and functionally it's all looking good.
Our playthrough rate is about 1 for every 150 invites. This is entirely normal for an online invitation. It tracks the same rate as the Teahouse invites did. Now that we know what the rate is, in order for us to demonstrate statistically significant impact we will need to increase the number of invites during the trial period. I'd like to request we raise the daily invite level from 100 per day to 300 per day. (500 would be even better.)
These editors are pre-selected for having good-faith editor patterns by the WP:Snuggle machine-learning algorithm. We exclude editors who have never made an edit, and also exclude those who are blocked. We have been monitoring activity from these new editors and continue to check on whether or not they're causing any maintenance hassles for experienced editors.
We'd like to run the increased invites per day for the full 4 weeks of the trial period. This will permit us to run a full analysis of the data in the timeframe of the Individual Engagement Grant, the final report for which is due January 1st. Thanks for considering this during the trial period. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Question about bot edits BattyBot24 does not have consensus and is breaking working citations. I propose the approval of BattyBot 24 be revoked. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
AWB uses .NET Framework 3.5 Regular Expressions GoingBatty ( talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Regex | Examples of matches |
---|---|
now to post a comment!|Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen!|Meld je nu aan om een reactie te posten\.|Log (nu )?in om een reactie te plaatsen\. |
now to post a comment! |
Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen! | |
Meld je nu aan om een reactie te posten. | |
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen. | |
Log nu in om een reactie te plaatsen. | |
Up for Discussion(Post Comment|\sJump to Forums)? |
Up for Discussion |
Up for DiscussionPost Comment | |
Up for Discussion Jump to Forums | |
Name\s\(required\) |
Name (required) |
Post to(\:|\sFacebook|\sTwitter) |
Post to: |
Post to Facebook | |
Post to Twitter | |
\d*(\s| )(second|minute|hour|hr|day|week|wk|month|mo|year)s?(\s| )ago? |
47 seconds ago |
3 mo ago | |
2 years ago | |
\d*\s*Comments? |
1 Comment |
27comments | |
The writer has posted comments on this article |
The writer has posted comments on this article |
The Critic has posted comments on this Movie |
The Critic has posted comments on this Movie |
Post a Job |
Post a Job |
USA |
USA |
admin |
admin |
TNN |
TNN |
\*?Please enter your (user)?name\.? |
*Please enter your name |
Please enter your username. |
Regex | Examples of matches |
---|---|
By: |
By: |
(at )?\d\d?:\d{2}( |\s)?([ap]\.?m\.?,?)?(\s([BE][DS]?|GM)T)?,? |
at 12:34 pm |
at 14:15 GMT | |
8:03 AM EST | |
Review(ed)? by |
Review by |
Reviewed by | |
Written by\:?( )? |
Written by: |
Written by |
Regex | Examples of matches |
---|---|
(?:Newsarama )?Staff(?: writer)? |
Newsarama staff |
Staff | |
Staff writer | |
\[\[Staff writer\]\] |
[[Staff writer]] |
@ Anomie: – Per AnomieBOT status, the Bot Administrators' Group bot, BAGbot, which updates Wikipedia:BAG/Status, shows status "error" from its last run @ 2014-01-23 18:48:19, and there is no next run scheduled. Does this require human attention? Wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Please can anyone reopen the BRFA request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CLT20RecordsUpdateBot which has been marked as expired? I have declared that the trial of the bot is complete, even if it has not made the required number of edits as it will not edit until at least 6 months. jfd34 ( talk) 10:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
ReferenceBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) went through a BRFA, and identified itself as exclusion compliant, and then was flagged. A recent RfC about bot messages prompted me to review the opt-out instructions for several bots that leave messages. I noticed that all of them except ReferenceBot has instructions on how to opt out. I posted a note at User_talk:A930913#Reference_bot requesting that those instructions be added to the userpage per WP:BOTCONFIG and A930913 ( talk · contribs) is refusing to publish how to opt out, even though the BRFA was approved as exclusion compliant. Werieth ( talk) 18:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
bots|deny=ReferenceBot}}
to your talk page?
GoingBatty (
talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
t|BAG assistance needed}}
.
Since the bot bot operator is refusing to address a basic issue of providing opt out instructions for a bot that is opt-out compliant I am requesting either a revocation of permission until such instructions are posted or until the bot passes a BRFA which is clearly marked as non-compliant.
Werieth (
talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)I request the approval of BattyBot 25 be reconsidered. The description of the bot only mentions CS1 (which is Help:Citation Style 1). The rules for date format are described there. But the bot is also being used to change {{ Citation}} templates. That style has hardly any date format restrictions; the users of that template have never been approached about whether they favor these restrictions, until this RFC which began less than 24 hours ago. Jc3s5h ( talk) 03:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC), link fixed 4:03 UT.
Hello
I have a question regarding renewing an approval for a bot which we got in 2011. The archival discussion about the bot is posted at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/InstructorCommentBot. We would like to renew this bot since we are going to start new phase of our work in this area. The specification of the bot will stay exactly the same as the one we have already got the approval for. I do appreciate your guidance on this process.
Rostaf ( talk) 13:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm considering resurrecting some of DQ's bot functions. Specifically for now, I'd start with UAA Bot reported usernames. Would I need a new BRFA? I already have User:TPBot.--v/r - T P 05:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
We have build a copy and paste detection bot based on WP:Turnitin. We are planning on running it on a few edits. It makes no changes to main space but just puts the results at WP:MED/Copyright. From what we understand we do not need approval for this sort of work. Please advise if we are wrong. There is support for the idea in a number of places. We hope to have a proof for concept soon. Will only run on medical articles initially. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
bot flag
, and should have no trouble getting a trial approved. —
xaosflux
Talk 15:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This issue was originally brought up here, but I'm moving it to this page, since this is the more appropriate venue for this portion of the discussion.
I think this contradiction needs to be addressed. I believe that the bot approval wording should take precedence, as limited testing by read-only bots or bots that edit only in their own user space is generally harmless and should not need approval. (Not to mention, as pointed out to me by a WP admin long ago, unless a server admin is looking at usage logs, or a checkuser is looking at the user agent, nobody's ever going to be able to tell if a read-only bot is running anyway.)
If we go that route, a simple tweak to this page's lead to "you must first get it approved, except as noted at WP:BOTAPPROVAL" or something along those lines would do the job. – RobinHood70 talk 17:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've made a series of 45 edits to take certain articles out of Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I did the first few in the edit window, and then switched to AWB to do the others ( sample edit). I kept my editing rate low and checked each diff. I've identified another list of 185 pages that could benefit from the same fix; I would like to work through those a bit faster if possible.
Did the series of 45 edits need bot approval? Would 185 edits? The rule at WP:BOTASSIST isn't much help: "In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, may be more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes" -- John of Reading ( talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi I would like to use my bot account, RahmanuddinBot which was denied bot access earlier. I would be using category.py to retrieve few list of articles on my sandbox pages. Please approve it for a period of 25 days.-- Rahmanuddin Shaik ( talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The BRFA for APersonBot's second request was declined due to inactivity. Since I have returned (mwahaha) and there is consensus for running the bot on Labs, can the bot request be approved? APerson ( talk!) 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
BAG assistance needed}}
template on it if you don't hear anything within a couple of days.
Reticulated Spline (
t •
c) 10:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)EranBot has been running successfully on medical content for 6 months. It has picked up more than 200 cases of copyright violations and for issues it flags is right more than half the time.
I would like to request permission to expand the content this bot runs on beyond medical content. Not only will approval be required before this occurs but we also must check with our partners at Turnitin and we need to develop mechanisms to address all the flagged concerns.
Should I start a new bot request approval? Or what is the proper process for expanding the scope of a bots work?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Any objections to deprecating Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Adminbots? Don't see any use of it having its own subpage. — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI. I have put the archives back in chronological order, and broken up the massively bloated Archive 4, which had grown to over a million bytes. Recent discussions were moved from Archive 1 to Archive 12. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Anomie: – Per AnomieBOT status, the Bot Administrators' Group bot, BAGbot, which updates Wikipedia:BAG/Status, shows status "running" and the next run is scheduled for 2015-02-09 22:48:52. That would be yesterday. Is it stuck in a loop, or waiting for something that's down? Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I see a serious lapse from my side. I missed to respond to comments by Josh Parris, Maralia and would like to respond to them. I was pleasantly surprised to look at the level of detail in which the edits were analysed by Josh. Although I am not an experienced wikipedia editor with thousands of edits under my belts, until such time, I would still like to improve Wikipedia using the best of my talents. Major concerns were with the exact process of link addition rather than the links themselves. I believe this is something which can be fixed.
The way we generate links is that the links in a source page are suggested on the basis of people using that page as a waypoint towards the target pages, across many instances. Thus a link at that place, would have helped the people reach the target page faster.
One error with this approach is that humans do not automatically consider the wiki linking guidelines while using it. However this issue can be mitigated by filtering links which refer to countries and originate from Category:Featured articles. We can work further on blacklisting certain types of links based on inputs from experienced editors.
Another error with this approach, is that finding the correct anchor text for the link itself can be tricky. The approach we use here is that we look at all possible anchors (words where a link can be inserted) for the target page across Wikipedia, filter such that anchors are not ambiguous (that is the probability of the anchor linking to other pages is small), and then we look for the first occurrence of any unambiguous anchor, since the link should be introduced as early as possible in the page. However we exclude section headings as per linking guidelines. The trade off here is between the least ambiguous link and its location in the page. We are working on a better weighting formula for combining these two factors instead of simply filtering by ambiguity and finding the first occurrence from the remaining. However such a formula is harder to justify.
This explains why "European" was included in the link text to classical music in Cello. The reason is that European classical music redirects to classical music across Wikipedia, which makes it an unambiguous anchor. And it is the first unambiguous anchor to appear in the article.
The second issue with this is that, although it can do multiple edits in the same page, it does not link pages which were not on the paths taken by people. So, the to Aromatic hydrocarbon linked to carbon dioxide, but not carbon monoxide, because we had data about carbon dioxide and not carbon monoxide. The common thread arising here was similarly positioned terms in the sentence and although we don't have supporting data, we are working on ways to identify such links and introduce them as well.
Another concern was regarding skipping of possible anchors. For example the bot chose to bypass Harvard Graduate School of Education and instead pipe link Harvard to Harvard University. However the manual of style for linking states that links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead which was specifically hard coded into the rules inside the bot.
Yet another concern is the context in which the anchor appears. For example, we wanted to link Raphael to Renaissance. The first occurrence of renaissance was preceded with the word high. We shall take care to exclude the anchors where in conjunction with preceding or succeeding words they can link to other pages.
However it is hard to understand the context of the sentence for example the fact that soybean edit links to Dairy, which is actually a dairy products factory instead of Dairy product. Or in sugar, where Protein was linked, instead of Protein (nutrient). This is harder than all the other issues and we have not been able to find a befitting solution for it.
Given that I am inexperienced in editing, I would like to work together with expert editors to augment the bot with AI rules, such that most of the edits are not shoddy and the utility is maximized. Ashwinpp ( talk) 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
How does one judge the "low resolution" requirement of our Wikipedia:Non-free content policy? Here are some things I consider - the size of the source image, the detail in the source image, the quality of the scan and encoding. What things does Theo's Little Bot consider? Only whether it's greater than 0.1 megapixels, an arbitrary number suggested by Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution. And if it is greater, and it's in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests, the answer is to reduce it to 0.1 megapixels regardless of its content. This degradation in quality is a one way process, as previous versions are deleted, users cannot revert, information is lost.
A look through the bot's uploads shows examples such as -
What does Template:Non-free reduce mean? It used to mean the current file is too large. Now it means, the current file needs to be 0.1 megapixels. For many editors, it still means the former. Editors will not consider whether the file should be 0.1 megapixels, only that it is too large - this is the intuitive expectation, regardless of bot implementation. Right now, there is no way to tag images for reduction and for that resulting image to be larger than 0.1 megapixels. Even when an image is unambiguously high definition, I'm told File:Dear Esther Screenshot Large.jpg was at 1080p, tagging it would be a mistake - because you're left with a resulting file so small as to fail its rationale.
I propose we stop TLB's task 1 from running, and only restart it when we have a better process and implementation in place to stop its pointless overuse and resulting errors shown above. - hahnch e n 21:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ MBisanz: -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth giving the template a size parameter or two. {{
Non-free reduce|size=.1M}}
{{
Non-free reduce|size=100K}}
{{
Non-free reduce|width=256}}
etc...
Also maybe it would make sense for the bot to skip items which would be reduced by less than 50%. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC).
According to Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Appeals_and_reexamination_of_approvals, this is where bots are re-assessed. Yet neither the bot author or any of the bot approvals group have made any comment. Aside from the discussion above, there's also this discussion at the Village Pump. The general consensus is that the current implementation is flawed, and there are multiple easy to implement fixes. I don't want to waste my time with shit such as this that the bot enables. - hahnch e n 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
While I agree a BRFA might be overkill for ~30 edits, and I'm glad the typos were fixed, I'm a bit disappointed for the outcome of the request. Magioladitis mentioned WP:SPELLBOT apparently ignoring that I explicitly stated the 'bot' would have been manually operated. Denying a BRFA within few minutes from the first reply, when the task has actually been carried out by someone else, is not a great display of sensitivity. -- Ricordi samoa 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Ricordisamoa you can always request an alternative account per WP:VALIDALT. We do not give out bot flags for single-use tasks that involve such a small numbers of edits and should only be done manually. There are many editors performing spell-checking in Wikipedia from their normal accounts. You are welcome to help on that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Enough wikilawyering. The edits were obviously correctly implementing the consensus at CfD, and are well within the bot's scope. Anomie ⚔ 21:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The operator of ArmbrustBot 4 seems to be unwilling to comply to WP:Bot policy#Categorization of people, see User talk:Armbrust#Problem at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births. Please revoke the bot's permission. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sick of filling out forms in wikitext, I made a DRN-style form that you can test out by installing User:APerson/easy-brfa.js and then going to WP:Bots/Requests for approval/request. Feedback is welcome; eventually, it would be nice if we had a button on WP:BRFA that went straight to the request subpage. APerson ( talk!) 23:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
How does one find out if an editor is running an approved bot or has permission to run a bot? I ask because the edits of Srednuas Lenoroc ( talk · contribs) seem to be suspiciously bot-like, but I can't tell if this is authorized or not. -- Calton | Talk 09:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: I'm also going to ask at the Village Pump. -- Calton | Talk 09:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In last 3 sections named ″ Approved requests″, ″Denied requests″ and ″Expired/withdrawn requests″ it's better to have links to requests pages, not (only) to bot account userlinks ({{ botlinks}}). First column from this table looks for me more usefull than all simple userlinks from these sections. -- XXN, 17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am writing a program to auto update /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty using the world bank api. https://github.com/utilitarianexe/wiki_poverty_list_bot If I use this to generate the markup but do not autopost does this still need approved. Also how do cite the program or let other editors of the page know that is how the data is being generated. Would it be better to make it truely autoupdate periodically as a full on bot? Thanks for any help Lonjers ( talk) 00:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help I finished with the first table using output from the program if you want to check it out. Will also be working on updating the rest of the page and maybe hunting for other things that need updated like this. If you have any suggestions of similar projects as this let me know. Maybe post on my wiki user page. Lonjers ( talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding dead Links bot (ie. User:Cyberbot_II) .. some concerns have been raised by multiple users about how it handles bare URLs and the response from the author is that is how it was designed and approved. How do we open new discussion/concerns about an approved active bot? -- Green C 16:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I was recently redirecting subpages of various talk pages, and this query from four years ago hasn't been answered yet:
Part III seems somewhat dated. In particular, after you add {{ BotTrialComplete}}:
- The instructions tell the bot operator to move the record to the 'trial complete' section, but
- AnomieBOT does this automatically.
I guess that AnomieBOT probably does similar maintenance in other situations. If this is a mature capability of AnomieBOT, perhaps the instructions should be revised. Blevintron ( talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Any comments? APerson ( talk!) 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm seeking a volunteer to verify if 22 edits made by my bot look OK to you. The list can be found here. Thanks for any feedback. -- Green C 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@ APerson: Can you take a look at this page and the included templates - something is breaking the page - see the errors in the approved requests (sometimes missing) and denied requests sections. — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)