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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regarding last discussion RU Rob stated that he is not planning to redo the task the same way they did so far. So, I think the task can be removed and Rob can reapply in the future hen he proves new consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_14#Re-examination_of_BU_Rob13.27s_bot_approval for previous discussion. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 it's not about that. I claim(ed) that the problem is your method and that we should seek a different approach to avoid these errors. I would like to see AWB with custom module doing this task since it provides better built-in functions. Quitting the task for now and perhaps fixing it in the future is a good approach (and I have followed it in the past despite complains) but in this case I claim that the method itself is faulty. I think the task is one of the things bots should do but with different method and tools. We can cooperate and I can show you what I mean. Is it clear now? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: Page is currently in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and may not display correctly. — xaosflux Talk 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Sasan-CDS: Yesterday it seems that you created Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CensusBot 2. It does not appear to be filled in as a BRFA and is not listed on the main [[[WP:BRFA]] page. Are you requesting an additional task with your bot? TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 11:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I performed the requested test edits for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 13. I'm sorry for the long delay. Could you please reopen the approval procedure? -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 17:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It would seem BAG has dropped activity all of a sudden. I have no problems with this in general but there are still some BRFAs which need to be closed. So just a friendly ping and reminder that these BRFAs require attention of BAG.
Can you please reopen it? Thanks! -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 21:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
JL-Bot Task 7 generates statistics for WP:JCW. I have been asked to extend this to WP:MCW. The task will continue to operate in the same manner (parse a database dump file, extract citation templates, calculate statistics, and save statistics to the project pages). The only difference will be it now looks for magazine citations as well as journal ones and will save the magazine stats to the WP:MCW pages. I'm assuming this is a non-controversial change. However, double checking if anyone feels a new BRFA is needed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre ( talk) 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
On February 3 I applied for approval for bot operation, and was directed to the Village Pump for more discussion. I started a discussion section at the Village Pump, received several suggestions, and implemented most. The project has received positive support at varying levels, with no explicit opposition. Updated project details are at User:Qbugbot.
Thanks! Bob Webster ( talk) 21:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disable_messages_left_by_InternetArchiveBot. Comments from anyone who reviews the suitability of bots for Wikipedia would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please apply the folowing change :
Add {{
BRFA|sys|Open}}
below the folowwing line: '
SysEqLo (
talk) 10:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't figure out where the hell this button comes from, or why Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header doesn't show up upon transclusion. It displays for have a second, then gets replaced by the blue button on the left of the page. WTF? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
<inputbox>
in
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Instructions for bot operators. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)importScript( 'User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js' ); // Backlink: [[User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js]]
$( "table.collapsible" ).first().replaceWith( "<br /><a href='//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" + TRIGGER_PAGE + "'><span class='mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive mw-ui-big' role='button'>Make a new request</span></a><br />" );
I plan on changing the frequency of this task from daily to hourly so that everyone can see up-to-date information of the ISBN and ISSN errors if that is okay. This will run automatically through the WPCleaner command line. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{ BRFA}} Fz-29 ( talk) 17:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
Operator: Steinium ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search) Time filed: 14:06, Monday, April 1, 2019 ( UTC) Function overview:to add a template to all pages in a category with too many pages Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic Programming language(s):AWB Source code available:N/A Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):N/A Edit period(s):Continuous Estimated number of pages affected:1000 Namespace(s):Mainspace/Articles Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):Yes Function details:My bot adds templates to all pages in a category and it watches over if any mistakes to certain pages
|
If I withdrew a BRFA and now want to revisit the topic, should I reopen the same BRFA or file a new one? Thank, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey folks, there's a growing backlog at BRFA. At time of writing, there are 7 requests in need of BAG attention, and 14 requests where the trial has been completed. Could we please get some attention on these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @ Anomie, @ BU Rob13, @ Cyberpower678, @ Headbomb, @ HighInBC, @ MBisanz, @ MusikAnimal, @ Primefac, @ Slakr, @ SQL, @ The Earwig, @ TheSandDoctor, @ Xaosflux, @ Hellknowz, @ Jarry1250, @ Kingpin13, @ Maxim, @ MaxSem, @ Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 21:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I've a few approved tasks for my bot, WikiCleanerBot, and planning on requesting for more. I'd like to add some cosmetic edits when my bot already does a non-cosmetic edit on an article, what's the process to apply for such possibility? For example, my bot can automatically remove whitespace characters after a title ( CW Error #538) in addition to a non-cosmetic edit: this is clearly a cosmetic edit (only helpful for gadgets like SyntaxHighlighter which gets confused by the extra whitespace and doesn't format the title properly). This is only an example, but there are many other such edits that could be perfomed ( CW Error #1: Template contains useless word Template:, CW Error #9: Categories multiple in one line...). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive changewould be a good idea. I.e carry out the cosmetic changes only if there is a substantial edit to be done as well. And of course, mention which proposed cosmetic changes the bot would do in the approval request so that people can review whether they are warranted or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. My initial question was really in order to follow the bot policy on cosmetic changes (when my bot already does a non-cosmetic edit on an article). I intended to start a BRFA for each cosmetic edit I'm intending to do (or a group of them), but I was rather wondering how the trial would be done: it's harder to demonstrate since I can't easily provide 20 or 50 edits for this cosmetic fix if it has to be done simultaneously with other non-cosmetic edits (hard to find the required number of articles that will have this specific cosmetic fix with one non-cosmetic fix I'm alread doing by bot). For example, suppose I want to add the cosmetic edit for CW Error #1 (Template contains useless word Template:), do I file a BRFA for it and when I have the go for the trial, I just activate it with my other bot fixes, and check the bot contributions for edits with this cosmetic fix, and report them when I find some? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
InternetArchiveBot suddenly started adding spam links to articles. [1]. Has this been approved? The links provide nothing useful; all you get is the cover of the book and a preview. They and serve no purpose other than to drive traffic to IA, so it appears to be spam. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot nor Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot 2 were ever transcluded here, and the operator is the sockpuppet of a CU blocked user (see User talk:JJBullet#Other accounts). Would a BAG member take a look and close them? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 20:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone, BRFA is backlogged again. At time of writing, there are 8 requests in need of BAG attention, and 9 requests where the trial has been completed. Could we please get some attention on these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @ Anomie, @ Cyberpower678, @ Headbomb, @ HighInBC, @ MBisanz, @ MusikAnimal, @ Primefac, @ Slakr, @ SQL, @ The Earwig, @ TheSandDoctor, @ Xaosflux, @ Hellknowz, @ Jarry1250, @ Kingpin13, @ Maxim, @ MaxSem, @ Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not clear that there is consensus for this task, there is a discussion at AN that is WP:SNOWing for a revert of the changes that make this necessary.
Even if the changes are approved, it may make more sense to add the changes to WP:AWB general fixes for a couple of years, before finishing off by bot.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC).
I just wanted to notify BAG of this BRFA for a bot without an identified operator and who is editing their own BRFA and other pages. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BRFA. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to tell the BAG about some new non-transcluded BRFAs. First Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KnuthuehneBot; a BRFA accidentally created here instead of wikidata. The author has now created a BRFA at wd. Secondly Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/terminator a BRFA empty exccept for the title terminator. I CSD it as a test page. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 20:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Due to issues with tasks scheduled through tool forge being cancelled by running non-scheduled tasks through AWB or PAWS I would like to run my no-scheduled tasks on a second tasks on a second bot account, User:PearBOT II. This will be particularly relevant now that PearBOT 5 is approved which will edit a ton of pages through PAWS. Could I get a bot flag on this second account as well? I will redirect the user page of PearBOT II to User:PearBOT and explain the situation there. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Would a BAG revoke the approval for all three BRFAs for Dreamy Jazz Bot. They don't / are unlikely to be approved by the community since they have been inactive since March and the portals landscape has changed a lot. I also have no plans to run these tasks again. Once this is done, could you also change the {{ bot}} template on the userpage as not being approved on any task. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Another untranscluded BRFA this one isn't asking for approval but that their bot account should be unblocked. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey folks, just a friendly reminder that BRFA is backlogged again, and we've got several requests which have been languishing for months. Could we please get some attention to these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @ Anomie, @ Cyberpower678, @ Enterprisey, @ Headbomb, @ HighInBC, @ MBisanz, @ MusikAnimal, @ Primefac, @ Slakr, @ The Earwig, @ TheSandDoctor, @ Xaosflux, @ Hellknowz, @ Jarry1250, @ Kingpin13, @ Maxim, @ MaxSem, @ SQL, @ Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 03:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I started work on JoelHelperBot a few years ago and made a few edits with it, but then never got around to finishing the task. I've been reviving it recently, and am ready now to make the first full batch of edits. The original request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/JoelHelperBot, and description there is still accurate as to the bot's goal - some (but not all) of the improvements it aims to make have been made or more widely applied by others in the ensuing years. Thanks! The Human Spellchecker ( talk) 07:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The approval of InternetArchiveBot 3 has been contested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Stop InternetArchiveBot from linking books. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
So I am looking at switching User:NoSandboxesHere from AWB to a always-running PHP script. It does exactly the same thing as the AWB process (just does a regex search on anything in the Draft namespace with {{ User sandbox}} or {{ Userspace draft}}), however doesn't rely on Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox, it uses getTransclusions from RMCD bot's version of botclasses, filtering by the namespace.
Do I need a new/replacement BRFA for this or can I go ahead and just switch it out. Example diff in my userspace is just here ({{ Fuuuuuu}} is just an invalid template I added to the script to make sure the API calls were working) - Rich T| C| E-Mail 21:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We are creating a bot to scrape information of Malls in United States from the Wiki pages. Mall Data Scraping Bot ( talk) 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have inserted two pictures, Dainikjagran.jpg and Hindustanarticle.jpg, in an article. Both are original and aren't copyrighted material. That's an extract from a newspaper, which is legal to use. But now both are nominated for speedy deletion. Please approve both the images back. Don't delete them. Enigmaticpravin ( talk) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
QEDKbot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot on 20 May 2020, by @ Primefac. The approval seems surprising, since there were several well-founded objections, and no community consensus for its functions. The BRFA was advertised at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/QEDKbot, but not at any page which concentrates editors who work on categories, such as WT:CATP.
The bot's function is to populate Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. That category was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Category:Empty_categories_with_no_backlinks, and the discussion is still open. I spotted the discussion yesterday, and while the bot owner QEDK has been prompt and courteous in their replies, I haven't been able to glean from QEDK any clear explanation of what purpose is served by filling Category:Empty categories with no backlinks with category redirects. Those categories are supposed to be empty and to have no backlinks, so this amounts to categorising them as "all OK" ... which seems pointless.
In July, this was raised at
User talk:QEDK#Category_redirects (
permalink)by @
Mclay1. There were two replies from QEDK, who could offer no explanation for the utility of this category beyond It's for housekeeping
[3], which tells us nothing. Exactly what "housekeeping" is facilitated by this category?
Anyway with the CFD open I was very surprised to see that the bot has still been running. The CFD was notified to QEDK at 18:27, 9 August 2020 [4] by UnitedStatesian ... yet 2 minutes later, at 18:20, QEDKbot made its first edit [5] for two hours ... and in total, it has so far made 207 edits since the CFD opened. (see contribs list)
When the category's future is being discussed, it seems perverse for a bot to continue to populate it. At best that's WP:RECKLESS; at worst it's a bit WP:FAIT.
So I have two requests:
no community consensusThe bot was advertised at AN because it was an adminbot, it received quite a few comments on the BRFA w.r.t. its feasability - and a lot of the points were discussed and implemented.
why only category redirects?I have explained this multiple times that I need more time to actually make the bot work with other kinds of categories, and that category redirects were simply for demonstration. I have university and a part-time job, how easy is it to write programs in the time that's left?
no transparencyHow is this bot any different from other bots? ClueBot's all edits are found in its contribution, same with QEDKbot. MusikBot's protection actions are found in its protection logs. If you want to see what edits QEDKbot makes, see contributions, if you want to see deletions, see the Deletion logs. Even then, I still had written the code - I simply didn't get enough time to test it and it was buggy.
category redirects don't have backlinksExcept they do. And the point of keeping them lying around is so that we can preserve the ones with some usage. In fact, a lot of them have a lot of backlinks (feel free to write a script and check this), the ones with no backlinks are basically pointless (in most cases, but in some cases, not).
bad deletionsThe bot only deletes categories in narrow circumstances, in the only example cited, the category was tagged by the owner and stated to be "created in error", so the point is moot.
the ones with no backlinks are basically pointlessis alarming, because it shows a severe misunderstanding of how category redirects work and how they are used.
basically pointless. That is perverse.
basically pointless. That is also perverse.
the ones with no backlinks are basically pointless (in most cases, and that B) they can be deleted by G6. So it is entirely clear that the whole purpose of this bot is making a hitlist to cull redirects. You have now made your goal crystal clear (which you didn't do at the grossly under-notified BRFA), and your attempt to cast that as my "narrative" or "perception" is a viciously nasty response: it's gaslighting. Please conduct yourself much better. I have seen this pattern before: -manipulation of consensus-formation (by woefully inadequate notification and lack of upfront clarity about goals) and then a belated admissson of the real goal followed by an attempt at gaslighting the objectors, It is very nasty stuff; please stop it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You didn't notify the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects, and you didn't ask anywhere for any help in finding such places. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task in the appropriate forums. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects.
Bot operators are expected to be responsive to the community's concerns and suggestions. The collabrorative way to respond to objections is to pause and discuss ... but QEDK has chosen to do the exact opposite, by engaging a higher gear.
category redirects. So 99.76% of the the contents Category:Empty categories with no backlinks are redirects, which shouldn't have backlinks. This is a useless set: it would be massively more useful to simply make a list of the 127 pages which are not redirects. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I just spotted that at 14:27, 22 August 2020, the bot added [6] to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, even though it is a disambiguation category.
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17167124 shows that there are 441 categories which are in both Category:Empty categories with no backlinks and Category:Disambiguation categories -- presumably all added by the bot.
Note that at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/QEDKbot, WEDK pledged that: "If the category is tagged with {{Db-c1}}, {{Possibly empty category}}, {{Disambiguation category}}, {{Cfd full}} (Cf* to be accurate) or its redirecting templates, it will skip the page."
It isn't doing that: see also User talk:QEDK#please_fix_your_bot
I am pleased to see that QEDK says they have shut off this wretched disruptive bot ... but it seems very clear that it is not being competently run. Even if QEDK can't made the code work, they should at least be checking the bot's actions so that they spot these errors yourself ... and then fix them. Instead, nearly 36 hours later, these 441 errors are un-noticed and unfixed.
At 12:23 on 21 August, QEDK said [7] that the bot had been revised to stop placing category redirects in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, but too has not happened: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17167197 shows that 53349 category redirects are still in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which is over half of the 97,802 categories in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.
This beaches at least two counts of WP:BOTACC:
Please BAG, can you just revoke this bot's authorisation? There is no consensus to support its declared actions, the bot owner is failing to:
Pinging some WP:BAG members. @ TheSandDoctor, Headbomb, Xaosflux, and Primefac: please stop this bot. If it creates any more mischief, I will take this to ANI to ask for the bot to be blocked. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
identified the issue and fixed the codedoes not state what the revised code is intended to do. Will it untag the category redirects? Will it untag the cat dabs? QEDK gives no clarity.
due diligence. Sorry, but dunno + didn't ask ≠ due diligence.
I will not be uncategorising category redirects because that does not fall within the remit of the bot's stated functions (and would thus be considered misuse of the bot)
I'm not going to bother going into a lot of detail about my findings, because quite honestly there has been about 40k worth of text already dedicated to it. I'll do my best to summarize. The bot, as described in the BRFA, performs the following operations:
From everything I've read, the only contentious part of this bot run is 2.1, which in hindsight is reasonable given the scale of the editing and the ensuing apparent disruption to those heavily involved in category maintenance. Unless I'm missing part of a discussion, though, tagging or deleting as C1 has not been a concern of this bot. And yes, I know that there were some issues with mis-tagged C1 pages, but those bugs have apparently been dealt with and are not concerns with the task itself.
In other words, I find no reason to completely revoke permission for this bot, only the revoking of subtask 2.1. Unless one of my fellow BAG members feels otherwise, or there is demonstrated consensus against the other subtasks of this bot, I will consider this matter closed. QEDK, in the interest of good faith, please do not restart this bot task until one of us (BAG) gives the go-ahead, if only to allow for any further discussion that might arise from other parties. Primefac ( talk) 00:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Possibly empty category. Those should also not be C1ed, and even excluding Category:Articles by quality and importance+subcats and Category:Wikipedia vital articles+subcats still leaves a set of ~600 pages of which about half are WikiProject assessment categories (see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17176443). I took those Petscan rosults offline to filter out the pages whose titles include "-Class" or "-importance, and was left with 503 pages. But that set of 503 still contains ~#100 subcats of Category:Articles containing non-English-language text, which should also not deleted when empty, plus dozens of need-infobox categories which should also be tagged as possibly empty ... and there are probably more sets of false positives.
Possibly empty categorymore widely, and to engage openly with the wide range of issues that raises. That is important in building a useful list, but if the bot is doing any automatic CSD tagging or deletion, then it is absolutely essential that such false positives be entirely eliminated.
...revoking 2.1 does not of itself sort everything. That would still leave us with a bot which populates...no, if 2.1 is revoked then the bot will not be populating that category, since that is task 2.1.
If the category is not deleted...it currently has unanimous consensus to delete
If the bot continue its WP:C1 task...This one requires a little more than a hand-wavey reply, but what I am gathering from your concern is that a whole lot of categories that should have the required "exclusion templates" but don't will be nominated, in other words the false positives. This is not a problem with the bot, or the operator, or even the task itself, but rather with the actions (or inactions, in a way) of the editors who set up the categories falling into this false-positive group. It is not qedk's responsibility to make sure every category that is empty and nominated should be nominated (at which point it would be a 100% manual task and defeat the purpose of a bot), and I suspect that's one of the primary reasons why db-c1 has a one-week delay time; to give other editors enough of an opportunity to see why the category they created has suddenly been nominated. If anything, this bot will help in that process by pointing out potentially valuable categories that have been mis-managed (through intention or accident). Additionally, if any of the false positives do slip through and get deleted, REFUND is a tragically easy process to navigate.
mismanaged.
typically unhelpful terseness. The reply to which I linked was unhelpfully terse, as are many of QEDK's other replies. It is not uncivil or ABF to note that communication problem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
typically unhelpful terseness. I'm not sorry if your "communication" entails suffering a barrage of personal attacks, ad hominem and whatnot, I'm fine without those communications, thank you.
{{
Pec}}
categories, it was definitely not a feature (as I clarified with my reasoning to Trappist), the feature was to tag categories other than category redirects, in which process, I introduced the bug and it was fixed once I was made aware of it. Lastly, regarding "reports": I very much doubt that listing the category in a page format is suitable because MediaWiki has pagesize limits and would require the bot to make multiple pages, which would be quite difficult to navigate through, totally not worth the hassle imo, it would be simultaneously harder on end-users and me. --
qedk (
t 愛
c) 19:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
Pec}}
categories was a feature. The issue I raised was that the bot had place a non-redirected category in
Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which you described as a "fix". That's why I assumed that you intended this to be a feature. If that action was in fact an error, then your decision to describe it
[11] as a "fix is bizarre. Note that the diff you posted was
Special:Diff/974163791, which is a tagging of PEC category ... and I presume that you didn't intend that. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 19:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)qedk, I believe we're at the point where this can start being rolled out again. As a summary of my summary above, the bot has approval to:
I am also going to temporarily include a rate limit on the C1 taggings - no more than 100 per week, if only to avoid flooding the category and allow for checks to be more easily made to ensure any pages that should have {{ pec}} etc actually get them. We'll let it run like that for a few weeks and reevaluate. If this sounds acceptable, let me know, but I'm still happy to discuss any concerns. Primefac ( talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Primefac:. After all the discussion above, it would been helpful to pinged about this. That omission is surprising.
Because of the inadequate notification of the initial BRFA, these tasks have not been adequately scrutinised. Please do not re-start the bot until consensus is properly established for whatever task it is to perform.
A few specific points
WikiProject Assessment categories (e.g. "Stub-class XYZ pages"). Stub categories (e.g. Category:Japan stubs) are populated by templates applied to article pages. They are wholly separate to WikiProject Assessment cats (e.g. Category:B-Class Japan-related articles), which are populated by talk pages, through WikiProject banner templates.
I do welcome the end of task 2.1. But, please please ... it's now time to build consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@
Primefac, my post was a civil and reasoned attempt to clear up unresolved issues. I am very disappointed that you have tried to shut down discussion, and considerably annoyed that in your reply of 17:38 you have falsely accused me of misinterpreted or misrepresented almost everything I've said
.
Thank you for clarifying your mention of stub categories. The civil response to ambiguity is "sorry that was a bit ambiguous".
I am glad we agree that there there will always be categories that are somehow "left out" of an all-exhaustive list of categories to skip
. However, we do NOT have a clear statement of what is currently being skipped, and the bot operator's response to previous requests has varied between unclear, misleading, refusing and outright abusive. That is why I seek clarity and consensus before the bot resumes tagging categories for speedy deletion.
Thanks you for your assurance that 2.1 will not restart without consensus. That was what I sought. However, there is no need to be so hostile in your reply. You had not previously said that there should be consensus. What you previously wrote was It might not happen right away, but I'm sure that some form of 2.1 will be re-implemented eventually
. That left open the possibility of resumption without a fresh BRFA, which is why I sought clarification. And yes, this is why we have discussions
... and properly-notified discussions is exactly what I have been asking for since I opened this thread over a week ago once it become clear that the actions of an under-notified bot were populating a category which there appeared to be an emerging consensus to delete.
I have tried to AGF about BAG's role in this, but that is becoming increasingly difficult. Please please switch tack, and start consensus-building instead of imposing on the community a bot which does not have consensus, whose task is ill-defined, and whose operator does not resolve problems openly and effectively. (I think there probably will be consensus for something like this, but we need to clarify exactly what the community wants).
Given the clear consensus at the CFD, I am very saddened that several BAG members have chosen to cast me as a miscreant for coming here to try to resolve the issues caused by the good-faith-error of approving an under-notified BRFA by a bot-owner who does not communicate clearly and who is serially abusive.
I will now assume that I have exhausted all options here. If the bot resumes C1 tagging without resolving the outstanding issues, then I think I will probably have to escalate.
And that is very very sad. I have repeatedly asked that we have a properly-notified consensus-forming discussion about the bot's task. I find it alarming that instead of embracing the idea of building a clear consensus, BAG members seem to have dug in. Why why not just start a properly-notified discussion, and see where consensus is? This all seems bizarre. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Just as I was typing, the convo. was closed. Realize I may be too late, but I Oppose even this limited scope for the bot, for two reasons. 1) There is no mention of the log page to capture every page that the bot tags with a C1 tag. But more fundamentally, is 2): this is a classic example of trying to fix something that isn't broken. Human editors do a much better job of C1 tagging, and deleting after tagged for seven days, than the bot. To my knowledge, the two users who do almost all of the C1 tagging (@ Liz:, and myself) never asked for this, don't need it, and don't want it, and AFAIK the bot designer never did the task they have (so far unsuccessfully) tried to automate, which should be a BIG red flag. The C1 tagging is a small, easily human-managed task. Please, can we get bot help instead on much, much more time-consuming tasks? (G13 tagging comes to mind, but I am sure there are many, many others). UnitedStatesian ( talk) 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@ UnitedStatesian, yes you and Liz do almost all of the C1 tagging. It should be a big red flag to BAG members that none of the editors who know this area best want this bot, and that nobody else seems to want it either. The discussion at the CFD should also be a big red flag to BAG: when the bots actions were opposed, the operator's response should have been something like "OK, we need to reopen consensus-building" ... but was to dig in and dismiss an objection and then get insulting, and then post a cryptic comment about a "fix" that linked to a diff of an edit which wasn't a fix, but was actually outside the bot's remit on two counts.
I understand that BAG sometimes has to defend bot operators against unreasonable criticism ... but in this case it has dug in behind a bot which doesn't have consensus and whose operator behaves problematically.
Per my post above [18] I now assume that BAG will be of no further help. If the bot resumes editing, the only option left to us is ANI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
can we get bot help instead on much, much more time-consuming tasks), feel free to post them at my talk page, I'm always open to suggestions. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 20:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
least contentious deletions? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
reg = re.compile(r"(-class|-importance|cf.*full|wikiproject|quality|unassessed|featured\s+topic)", flags=re.IGNORECASE)
skip = {Page(site, "Template:Possibly empty category"), Page(site, "Template:Monthly clean-up category"), Page(site, "Template:Category disambiguation"), Page(site, "Template:Db-c1"), Page(site, "Template:Cfd full"), Page(site, "Template:Category class"), Page(site, "Template:Maintenance category autotag")}
there's always false positives for any use case but it's not significant enough in this case. However, publishing a list of what the bot finds is the only way to allow others to assess the false positive rate ... and since the community has rejected your judgement about the utility of category redirects, it would be wise for you to accept that your judgement about the rate of false positives in this search may be significantly different to that of other editors. Proceeding without that scrutiny would be at best reckless. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Main Page § Amalthea (bot) which maintains Main Page history is down again. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It seems the principle of the Cosmetic Boy Day as been approved, at least for a trial. Is there any place with a follow-up on what's going to be put in place? (date of the first day for example, process). My bot has already several approved cosmetic bot tasks (tasks 6, 8, 9, 11), so currently only done with other modifications. Is the current approval sufficient for including them in the first day? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a better place to post this, but in any case as a FYI, I rewrote TFA Protector Bot's code to be in Rust. It should be functionally identical, except instead of using regexes to parse the title out of pages like this, it uses Parsoid's HTML output instead, which I expect to be more reliable in the long run. I did some brief testing on testwiki and plan to switch over to the new code next week or so if there are no concerns. Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regarding last discussion RU Rob stated that he is not planning to redo the task the same way they did so far. So, I think the task can be removed and Rob can reapply in the future hen he proves new consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_14#Re-examination_of_BU_Rob13.27s_bot_approval for previous discussion. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 it's not about that. I claim(ed) that the problem is your method and that we should seek a different approach to avoid these errors. I would like to see AWB with custom module doing this task since it provides better built-in functions. Quitting the task for now and perhaps fixing it in the future is a good approach (and I have followed it in the past despite complains) but in this case I claim that the method itself is faulty. I think the task is one of the things bots should do but with different method and tools. We can cooperate and I can show you what I mean. Is it clear now? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: Page is currently in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and may not display correctly. — xaosflux Talk 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Sasan-CDS: Yesterday it seems that you created Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CensusBot 2. It does not appear to be filled in as a BRFA and is not listed on the main [[[WP:BRFA]] page. Are you requesting an additional task with your bot? TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 11:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I performed the requested test edits for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 13. I'm sorry for the long delay. Could you please reopen the approval procedure? -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 17:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It would seem BAG has dropped activity all of a sudden. I have no problems with this in general but there are still some BRFAs which need to be closed. So just a friendly ping and reminder that these BRFAs require attention of BAG.
Can you please reopen it? Thanks! -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 21:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
JL-Bot Task 7 generates statistics for WP:JCW. I have been asked to extend this to WP:MCW. The task will continue to operate in the same manner (parse a database dump file, extract citation templates, calculate statistics, and save statistics to the project pages). The only difference will be it now looks for magazine citations as well as journal ones and will save the magazine stats to the WP:MCW pages. I'm assuming this is a non-controversial change. However, double checking if anyone feels a new BRFA is needed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre ( talk) 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
On February 3 I applied for approval for bot operation, and was directed to the Village Pump for more discussion. I started a discussion section at the Village Pump, received several suggestions, and implemented most. The project has received positive support at varying levels, with no explicit opposition. Updated project details are at User:Qbugbot.
Thanks! Bob Webster ( talk) 21:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disable_messages_left_by_InternetArchiveBot. Comments from anyone who reviews the suitability of bots for Wikipedia would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please apply the folowing change :
Add {{
BRFA|sys|Open}}
below the folowwing line: '
SysEqLo (
talk) 10:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't figure out where the hell this button comes from, or why Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header doesn't show up upon transclusion. It displays for have a second, then gets replaced by the blue button on the left of the page. WTF? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
<inputbox>
in
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Instructions for bot operators. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)importScript( 'User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js' ); // Backlink: [[User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js]]
$( "table.collapsible" ).first().replaceWith( "<br /><a href='//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" + TRIGGER_PAGE + "'><span class='mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive mw-ui-big' role='button'>Make a new request</span></a><br />" );
I plan on changing the frequency of this task from daily to hourly so that everyone can see up-to-date information of the ISBN and ISSN errors if that is okay. This will run automatically through the WPCleaner command line. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{ BRFA}} Fz-29 ( talk) 17:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
Operator: Steinium ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search) Time filed: 14:06, Monday, April 1, 2019 ( UTC) Function overview:to add a template to all pages in a category with too many pages Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic Programming language(s):AWB Source code available:N/A Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):N/A Edit period(s):Continuous Estimated number of pages affected:1000 Namespace(s):Mainspace/Articles Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):Yes Function details:My bot adds templates to all pages in a category and it watches over if any mistakes to certain pages
|
If I withdrew a BRFA and now want to revisit the topic, should I reopen the same BRFA or file a new one? Thank, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey folks, there's a growing backlog at BRFA. At time of writing, there are 7 requests in need of BAG attention, and 14 requests where the trial has been completed. Could we please get some attention on these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @ Anomie, @ BU Rob13, @ Cyberpower678, @ Headbomb, @ HighInBC, @ MBisanz, @ MusikAnimal, @ Primefac, @ Slakr, @ SQL, @ The Earwig, @ TheSandDoctor, @ Xaosflux, @ Hellknowz, @ Jarry1250, @ Kingpin13, @ Maxim, @ MaxSem, @ Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 21:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I've a few approved tasks for my bot, WikiCleanerBot, and planning on requesting for more. I'd like to add some cosmetic edits when my bot already does a non-cosmetic edit on an article, what's the process to apply for such possibility? For example, my bot can automatically remove whitespace characters after a title ( CW Error #538) in addition to a non-cosmetic edit: this is clearly a cosmetic edit (only helpful for gadgets like SyntaxHighlighter which gets confused by the extra whitespace and doesn't format the title properly). This is only an example, but there are many other such edits that could be perfomed ( CW Error #1: Template contains useless word Template:, CW Error #9: Categories multiple in one line...). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive changewould be a good idea. I.e carry out the cosmetic changes only if there is a substantial edit to be done as well. And of course, mention which proposed cosmetic changes the bot would do in the approval request so that people can review whether they are warranted or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. My initial question was really in order to follow the bot policy on cosmetic changes (when my bot already does a non-cosmetic edit on an article). I intended to start a BRFA for each cosmetic edit I'm intending to do (or a group of them), but I was rather wondering how the trial would be done: it's harder to demonstrate since I can't easily provide 20 or 50 edits for this cosmetic fix if it has to be done simultaneously with other non-cosmetic edits (hard to find the required number of articles that will have this specific cosmetic fix with one non-cosmetic fix I'm alread doing by bot). For example, suppose I want to add the cosmetic edit for CW Error #1 (Template contains useless word Template:), do I file a BRFA for it and when I have the go for the trial, I just activate it with my other bot fixes, and check the bot contributions for edits with this cosmetic fix, and report them when I find some? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
InternetArchiveBot suddenly started adding spam links to articles. [1]. Has this been approved? The links provide nothing useful; all you get is the cover of the book and a preview. They and serve no purpose other than to drive traffic to IA, so it appears to be spam. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot nor Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot 2 were ever transcluded here, and the operator is the sockpuppet of a CU blocked user (see User talk:JJBullet#Other accounts). Would a BAG member take a look and close them? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 20:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone, BRFA is backlogged again. At time of writing, there are 8 requests in need of BAG attention, and 9 requests where the trial has been completed. Could we please get some attention on these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @ Anomie, @ Cyberpower678, @ Headbomb, @ HighInBC, @ MBisanz, @ MusikAnimal, @ Primefac, @ Slakr, @ SQL, @ The Earwig, @ TheSandDoctor, @ Xaosflux, @ Hellknowz, @ Jarry1250, @ Kingpin13, @ Maxim, @ MaxSem, @ Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not clear that there is consensus for this task, there is a discussion at AN that is WP:SNOWing for a revert of the changes that make this necessary.
Even if the changes are approved, it may make more sense to add the changes to WP:AWB general fixes for a couple of years, before finishing off by bot.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC).
I just wanted to notify BAG of this BRFA for a bot without an identified operator and who is editing their own BRFA and other pages. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BRFA. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to tell the BAG about some new non-transcluded BRFAs. First Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KnuthuehneBot; a BRFA accidentally created here instead of wikidata. The author has now created a BRFA at wd. Secondly Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/terminator a BRFA empty exccept for the title terminator. I CSD it as a test page. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 20:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Due to issues with tasks scheduled through tool forge being cancelled by running non-scheduled tasks through AWB or PAWS I would like to run my no-scheduled tasks on a second tasks on a second bot account, User:PearBOT II. This will be particularly relevant now that PearBOT 5 is approved which will edit a ton of pages through PAWS. Could I get a bot flag on this second account as well? I will redirect the user page of PearBOT II to User:PearBOT and explain the situation there. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Would a BAG revoke the approval for all three BRFAs for Dreamy Jazz Bot. They don't / are unlikely to be approved by the community since they have been inactive since March and the portals landscape has changed a lot. I also have no plans to run these tasks again. Once this is done, could you also change the {{ bot}} template on the userpage as not being approved on any task. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Another untranscluded BRFA this one isn't asking for approval but that their bot account should be unblocked. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey folks, just a friendly reminder that BRFA is backlogged again, and we've got several requests which have been languishing for months. Could we please get some attention to these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @ Anomie, @ Cyberpower678, @ Enterprisey, @ Headbomb, @ HighInBC, @ MBisanz, @ MusikAnimal, @ Primefac, @ Slakr, @ The Earwig, @ TheSandDoctor, @ Xaosflux, @ Hellknowz, @ Jarry1250, @ Kingpin13, @ Maxim, @ MaxSem, @ SQL, @ Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 03:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I started work on JoelHelperBot a few years ago and made a few edits with it, but then never got around to finishing the task. I've been reviving it recently, and am ready now to make the first full batch of edits. The original request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/JoelHelperBot, and description there is still accurate as to the bot's goal - some (but not all) of the improvements it aims to make have been made or more widely applied by others in the ensuing years. Thanks! The Human Spellchecker ( talk) 07:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The approval of InternetArchiveBot 3 has been contested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Stop InternetArchiveBot from linking books. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
So I am looking at switching User:NoSandboxesHere from AWB to a always-running PHP script. It does exactly the same thing as the AWB process (just does a regex search on anything in the Draft namespace with {{ User sandbox}} or {{ Userspace draft}}), however doesn't rely on Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox, it uses getTransclusions from RMCD bot's version of botclasses, filtering by the namespace.
Do I need a new/replacement BRFA for this or can I go ahead and just switch it out. Example diff in my userspace is just here ({{ Fuuuuuu}} is just an invalid template I added to the script to make sure the API calls were working) - Rich T| C| E-Mail 21:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We are creating a bot to scrape information of Malls in United States from the Wiki pages. Mall Data Scraping Bot ( talk) 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have inserted two pictures, Dainikjagran.jpg and Hindustanarticle.jpg, in an article. Both are original and aren't copyrighted material. That's an extract from a newspaper, which is legal to use. But now both are nominated for speedy deletion. Please approve both the images back. Don't delete them. Enigmaticpravin ( talk) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
QEDKbot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot on 20 May 2020, by @ Primefac. The approval seems surprising, since there were several well-founded objections, and no community consensus for its functions. The BRFA was advertised at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/QEDKbot, but not at any page which concentrates editors who work on categories, such as WT:CATP.
The bot's function is to populate Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. That category was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Category:Empty_categories_with_no_backlinks, and the discussion is still open. I spotted the discussion yesterday, and while the bot owner QEDK has been prompt and courteous in their replies, I haven't been able to glean from QEDK any clear explanation of what purpose is served by filling Category:Empty categories with no backlinks with category redirects. Those categories are supposed to be empty and to have no backlinks, so this amounts to categorising them as "all OK" ... which seems pointless.
In July, this was raised at
User talk:QEDK#Category_redirects (
permalink)by @
Mclay1. There were two replies from QEDK, who could offer no explanation for the utility of this category beyond It's for housekeeping
[3], which tells us nothing. Exactly what "housekeeping" is facilitated by this category?
Anyway with the CFD open I was very surprised to see that the bot has still been running. The CFD was notified to QEDK at 18:27, 9 August 2020 [4] by UnitedStatesian ... yet 2 minutes later, at 18:20, QEDKbot made its first edit [5] for two hours ... and in total, it has so far made 207 edits since the CFD opened. (see contribs list)
When the category's future is being discussed, it seems perverse for a bot to continue to populate it. At best that's WP:RECKLESS; at worst it's a bit WP:FAIT.
So I have two requests:
no community consensusThe bot was advertised at AN because it was an adminbot, it received quite a few comments on the BRFA w.r.t. its feasability - and a lot of the points were discussed and implemented.
why only category redirects?I have explained this multiple times that I need more time to actually make the bot work with other kinds of categories, and that category redirects were simply for demonstration. I have university and a part-time job, how easy is it to write programs in the time that's left?
no transparencyHow is this bot any different from other bots? ClueBot's all edits are found in its contribution, same with QEDKbot. MusikBot's protection actions are found in its protection logs. If you want to see what edits QEDKbot makes, see contributions, if you want to see deletions, see the Deletion logs. Even then, I still had written the code - I simply didn't get enough time to test it and it was buggy.
category redirects don't have backlinksExcept they do. And the point of keeping them lying around is so that we can preserve the ones with some usage. In fact, a lot of them have a lot of backlinks (feel free to write a script and check this), the ones with no backlinks are basically pointless (in most cases, but in some cases, not).
bad deletionsThe bot only deletes categories in narrow circumstances, in the only example cited, the category was tagged by the owner and stated to be "created in error", so the point is moot.
the ones with no backlinks are basically pointlessis alarming, because it shows a severe misunderstanding of how category redirects work and how they are used.
basically pointless. That is perverse.
basically pointless. That is also perverse.
the ones with no backlinks are basically pointless (in most cases, and that B) they can be deleted by G6. So it is entirely clear that the whole purpose of this bot is making a hitlist to cull redirects. You have now made your goal crystal clear (which you didn't do at the grossly under-notified BRFA), and your attempt to cast that as my "narrative" or "perception" is a viciously nasty response: it's gaslighting. Please conduct yourself much better. I have seen this pattern before: -manipulation of consensus-formation (by woefully inadequate notification and lack of upfront clarity about goals) and then a belated admissson of the real goal followed by an attempt at gaslighting the objectors, It is very nasty stuff; please stop it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You didn't notify the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects, and you didn't ask anywhere for any help in finding such places. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task in the appropriate forums. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects.
Bot operators are expected to be responsive to the community's concerns and suggestions. The collabrorative way to respond to objections is to pause and discuss ... but QEDK has chosen to do the exact opposite, by engaging a higher gear.
category redirects. So 99.76% of the the contents Category:Empty categories with no backlinks are redirects, which shouldn't have backlinks. This is a useless set: it would be massively more useful to simply make a list of the 127 pages which are not redirects. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I just spotted that at 14:27, 22 August 2020, the bot added [6] to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, even though it is a disambiguation category.
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17167124 shows that there are 441 categories which are in both Category:Empty categories with no backlinks and Category:Disambiguation categories -- presumably all added by the bot.
Note that at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/QEDKbot, WEDK pledged that: "If the category is tagged with {{Db-c1}}, {{Possibly empty category}}, {{Disambiguation category}}, {{Cfd full}} (Cf* to be accurate) or its redirecting templates, it will skip the page."
It isn't doing that: see also User talk:QEDK#please_fix_your_bot
I am pleased to see that QEDK says they have shut off this wretched disruptive bot ... but it seems very clear that it is not being competently run. Even if QEDK can't made the code work, they should at least be checking the bot's actions so that they spot these errors yourself ... and then fix them. Instead, nearly 36 hours later, these 441 errors are un-noticed and unfixed.
At 12:23 on 21 August, QEDK said [7] that the bot had been revised to stop placing category redirects in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, but too has not happened: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17167197 shows that 53349 category redirects are still in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which is over half of the 97,802 categories in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.
This beaches at least two counts of WP:BOTACC:
Please BAG, can you just revoke this bot's authorisation? There is no consensus to support its declared actions, the bot owner is failing to:
Pinging some WP:BAG members. @ TheSandDoctor, Headbomb, Xaosflux, and Primefac: please stop this bot. If it creates any more mischief, I will take this to ANI to ask for the bot to be blocked. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
identified the issue and fixed the codedoes not state what the revised code is intended to do. Will it untag the category redirects? Will it untag the cat dabs? QEDK gives no clarity.
due diligence. Sorry, but dunno + didn't ask ≠ due diligence.
I will not be uncategorising category redirects because that does not fall within the remit of the bot's stated functions (and would thus be considered misuse of the bot)
I'm not going to bother going into a lot of detail about my findings, because quite honestly there has been about 40k worth of text already dedicated to it. I'll do my best to summarize. The bot, as described in the BRFA, performs the following operations:
From everything I've read, the only contentious part of this bot run is 2.1, which in hindsight is reasonable given the scale of the editing and the ensuing apparent disruption to those heavily involved in category maintenance. Unless I'm missing part of a discussion, though, tagging or deleting as C1 has not been a concern of this bot. And yes, I know that there were some issues with mis-tagged C1 pages, but those bugs have apparently been dealt with and are not concerns with the task itself.
In other words, I find no reason to completely revoke permission for this bot, only the revoking of subtask 2.1. Unless one of my fellow BAG members feels otherwise, or there is demonstrated consensus against the other subtasks of this bot, I will consider this matter closed. QEDK, in the interest of good faith, please do not restart this bot task until one of us (BAG) gives the go-ahead, if only to allow for any further discussion that might arise from other parties. Primefac ( talk) 00:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Possibly empty category. Those should also not be C1ed, and even excluding Category:Articles by quality and importance+subcats and Category:Wikipedia vital articles+subcats still leaves a set of ~600 pages of which about half are WikiProject assessment categories (see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17176443). I took those Petscan rosults offline to filter out the pages whose titles include "-Class" or "-importance, and was left with 503 pages. But that set of 503 still contains ~#100 subcats of Category:Articles containing non-English-language text, which should also not deleted when empty, plus dozens of need-infobox categories which should also be tagged as possibly empty ... and there are probably more sets of false positives.
Possibly empty categorymore widely, and to engage openly with the wide range of issues that raises. That is important in building a useful list, but if the bot is doing any automatic CSD tagging or deletion, then it is absolutely essential that such false positives be entirely eliminated.
...revoking 2.1 does not of itself sort everything. That would still leave us with a bot which populates...no, if 2.1 is revoked then the bot will not be populating that category, since that is task 2.1.
If the category is not deleted...it currently has unanimous consensus to delete
If the bot continue its WP:C1 task...This one requires a little more than a hand-wavey reply, but what I am gathering from your concern is that a whole lot of categories that should have the required "exclusion templates" but don't will be nominated, in other words the false positives. This is not a problem with the bot, or the operator, or even the task itself, but rather with the actions (or inactions, in a way) of the editors who set up the categories falling into this false-positive group. It is not qedk's responsibility to make sure every category that is empty and nominated should be nominated (at which point it would be a 100% manual task and defeat the purpose of a bot), and I suspect that's one of the primary reasons why db-c1 has a one-week delay time; to give other editors enough of an opportunity to see why the category they created has suddenly been nominated. If anything, this bot will help in that process by pointing out potentially valuable categories that have been mis-managed (through intention or accident). Additionally, if any of the false positives do slip through and get deleted, REFUND is a tragically easy process to navigate.
mismanaged.
typically unhelpful terseness. The reply to which I linked was unhelpfully terse, as are many of QEDK's other replies. It is not uncivil or ABF to note that communication problem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
typically unhelpful terseness. I'm not sorry if your "communication" entails suffering a barrage of personal attacks, ad hominem and whatnot, I'm fine without those communications, thank you.
{{
Pec}}
categories, it was definitely not a feature (as I clarified with my reasoning to Trappist), the feature was to tag categories other than category redirects, in which process, I introduced the bug and it was fixed once I was made aware of it. Lastly, regarding "reports": I very much doubt that listing the category in a page format is suitable because MediaWiki has pagesize limits and would require the bot to make multiple pages, which would be quite difficult to navigate through, totally not worth the hassle imo, it would be simultaneously harder on end-users and me. --
qedk (
t 愛
c) 19:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
Pec}}
categories was a feature. The issue I raised was that the bot had place a non-redirected category in
Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which you described as a "fix". That's why I assumed that you intended this to be a feature. If that action was in fact an error, then your decision to describe it
[11] as a "fix is bizarre. Note that the diff you posted was
Special:Diff/974163791, which is a tagging of PEC category ... and I presume that you didn't intend that. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 19:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)qedk, I believe we're at the point where this can start being rolled out again. As a summary of my summary above, the bot has approval to:
I am also going to temporarily include a rate limit on the C1 taggings - no more than 100 per week, if only to avoid flooding the category and allow for checks to be more easily made to ensure any pages that should have {{ pec}} etc actually get them. We'll let it run like that for a few weeks and reevaluate. If this sounds acceptable, let me know, but I'm still happy to discuss any concerns. Primefac ( talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Primefac:. After all the discussion above, it would been helpful to pinged about this. That omission is surprising.
Because of the inadequate notification of the initial BRFA, these tasks have not been adequately scrutinised. Please do not re-start the bot until consensus is properly established for whatever task it is to perform.
A few specific points
WikiProject Assessment categories (e.g. "Stub-class XYZ pages"). Stub categories (e.g. Category:Japan stubs) are populated by templates applied to article pages. They are wholly separate to WikiProject Assessment cats (e.g. Category:B-Class Japan-related articles), which are populated by talk pages, through WikiProject banner templates.
I do welcome the end of task 2.1. But, please please ... it's now time to build consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@
Primefac, my post was a civil and reasoned attempt to clear up unresolved issues. I am very disappointed that you have tried to shut down discussion, and considerably annoyed that in your reply of 17:38 you have falsely accused me of misinterpreted or misrepresented almost everything I've said
.
Thank you for clarifying your mention of stub categories. The civil response to ambiguity is "sorry that was a bit ambiguous".
I am glad we agree that there there will always be categories that are somehow "left out" of an all-exhaustive list of categories to skip
. However, we do NOT have a clear statement of what is currently being skipped, and the bot operator's response to previous requests has varied between unclear, misleading, refusing and outright abusive. That is why I seek clarity and consensus before the bot resumes tagging categories for speedy deletion.
Thanks you for your assurance that 2.1 will not restart without consensus. That was what I sought. However, there is no need to be so hostile in your reply. You had not previously said that there should be consensus. What you previously wrote was It might not happen right away, but I'm sure that some form of 2.1 will be re-implemented eventually
. That left open the possibility of resumption without a fresh BRFA, which is why I sought clarification. And yes, this is why we have discussions
... and properly-notified discussions is exactly what I have been asking for since I opened this thread over a week ago once it become clear that the actions of an under-notified bot were populating a category which there appeared to be an emerging consensus to delete.
I have tried to AGF about BAG's role in this, but that is becoming increasingly difficult. Please please switch tack, and start consensus-building instead of imposing on the community a bot which does not have consensus, whose task is ill-defined, and whose operator does not resolve problems openly and effectively. (I think there probably will be consensus for something like this, but we need to clarify exactly what the community wants).
Given the clear consensus at the CFD, I am very saddened that several BAG members have chosen to cast me as a miscreant for coming here to try to resolve the issues caused by the good-faith-error of approving an under-notified BRFA by a bot-owner who does not communicate clearly and who is serially abusive.
I will now assume that I have exhausted all options here. If the bot resumes C1 tagging without resolving the outstanding issues, then I think I will probably have to escalate.
And that is very very sad. I have repeatedly asked that we have a properly-notified consensus-forming discussion about the bot's task. I find it alarming that instead of embracing the idea of building a clear consensus, BAG members seem to have dug in. Why why not just start a properly-notified discussion, and see where consensus is? This all seems bizarre. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Just as I was typing, the convo. was closed. Realize I may be too late, but I Oppose even this limited scope for the bot, for two reasons. 1) There is no mention of the log page to capture every page that the bot tags with a C1 tag. But more fundamentally, is 2): this is a classic example of trying to fix something that isn't broken. Human editors do a much better job of C1 tagging, and deleting after tagged for seven days, than the bot. To my knowledge, the two users who do almost all of the C1 tagging (@ Liz:, and myself) never asked for this, don't need it, and don't want it, and AFAIK the bot designer never did the task they have (so far unsuccessfully) tried to automate, which should be a BIG red flag. The C1 tagging is a small, easily human-managed task. Please, can we get bot help instead on much, much more time-consuming tasks? (G13 tagging comes to mind, but I am sure there are many, many others). UnitedStatesian ( talk) 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@ UnitedStatesian, yes you and Liz do almost all of the C1 tagging. It should be a big red flag to BAG members that none of the editors who know this area best want this bot, and that nobody else seems to want it either. The discussion at the CFD should also be a big red flag to BAG: when the bots actions were opposed, the operator's response should have been something like "OK, we need to reopen consensus-building" ... but was to dig in and dismiss an objection and then get insulting, and then post a cryptic comment about a "fix" that linked to a diff of an edit which wasn't a fix, but was actually outside the bot's remit on two counts.
I understand that BAG sometimes has to defend bot operators against unreasonable criticism ... but in this case it has dug in behind a bot which doesn't have consensus and whose operator behaves problematically.
Per my post above [18] I now assume that BAG will be of no further help. If the bot resumes editing, the only option left to us is ANI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
can we get bot help instead on much, much more time-consuming tasks), feel free to post them at my talk page, I'm always open to suggestions. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 20:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
least contentious deletions? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
reg = re.compile(r"(-class|-importance|cf.*full|wikiproject|quality|unassessed|featured\s+topic)", flags=re.IGNORECASE)
skip = {Page(site, "Template:Possibly empty category"), Page(site, "Template:Monthly clean-up category"), Page(site, "Template:Category disambiguation"), Page(site, "Template:Db-c1"), Page(site, "Template:Cfd full"), Page(site, "Template:Category class"), Page(site, "Template:Maintenance category autotag")}
there's always false positives for any use case but it's not significant enough in this case. However, publishing a list of what the bot finds is the only way to allow others to assess the false positive rate ... and since the community has rejected your judgement about the utility of category redirects, it would be wise for you to accept that your judgement about the rate of false positives in this search may be significantly different to that of other editors. Proceeding without that scrutiny would be at best reckless. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Main Page § Amalthea (bot) which maintains Main Page history is down again. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It seems the principle of the Cosmetic Boy Day as been approved, at least for a trial. Is there any place with a follow-up on what's going to be put in place? (date of the first day for example, process). My bot has already several approved cosmetic bot tasks (tasks 6, 8, 9, 11), so currently only done with other modifications. Is the current approval sufficient for including them in the first day? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a better place to post this, but in any case as a FYI, I rewrote TFA Protector Bot's code to be in Rust. It should be functionally identical, except instead of using regexes to parse the title out of pages like this, it uses Parsoid's HTML output instead, which I expect to be more reliable in the long run. I did some brief testing on testwiki and plan to switch over to the new code next week or so if there are no concerns. Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)