If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. To do so, follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming it may be a good idea to ask someone else to run a bot for you, rather than running your own.
Instructions for bot operators | |
---|---|
Instructions for approvals group members | |
---|---|
![]() Archives |
---|
Old Format |
Current requests for approval
CanaryBot
Operator: Ivanhercaz (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 01:36, Monday, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual.
Programming language(s): Control Panel with Bash and scripts from Pywikibot.
Source code available: Not at this moment. I'm trying to refine more the code and make a better control panel before to share the code.
Function overview: Replace incorrect images (like no official symbols by the official or its alternative) and replace images for SVG version if its is available. It also make lists of pages and archive of its userpage to be look up.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Any discussion relevant at this moment.
Edit period(s): When I find something to replace or when I will make a SVG version of some image.
Estimated number of pages affected: Depending. There is files used 5-15 times, but there is another files used more than 1000 times.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details:
- Replace images by its SVG version (if its available). This function consists mainly in looking for an image on every page where it is and replace it with its SVG version. It's very safe because everything is manual and I have to accept the change. I will never change images of user pages, discussion pages, wikiprojects pages, etc.; I'm only accept changes on articles and templates pages (nor in its discussions).
- Correcting images. That works like the first task but the focus is different. It consists in replace image because it's erroneous. To be more concise I give you an example.
-
- The provinces of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife haven't got official flags but there is many articles where the users have put a flag (Las Palmas and Santa Cruz de Tenerife unofficial flags) known like the "official". Why it isn't official? Because there isn't an official regulation (it hasn't been published in any official gazette (like es:Boletín Oficial de Canarias). So the solution is replace by one official symbol to represent the province (or by nothing if there isn't one), I mean like the coat of arms, in the case of both provinces exists officials coat of arms.
- List pages. I have include a function to list specific pages, like every page in one category or every that has an external link to a website. It's useful to recover information of what websites are referenced on wiki articles. When I list pages the bot ask me if I want to archive the list, if I say "yes" the bot create a page in its userpage that everyone could visit. To illustrate that example I invite you to visit the user page of CanaryBots in Spanish Wikipedia.
When someone confirms me that I can make some tests of my tasks in the articles I will made to illustrate how CanaryBot works. While you can check the contributions on Spanish Wikipedia.
Discussion
- Quick note: that link to the bot's ESWP contributions seems to be broken. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 05:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Excuse me! Fixed
Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión
09:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me! Fixed
- Keep in mind that some non-free images have SVGs available, but in some cases should not be used. My go-to example for this seems to have been deleted a few years ago, so I'm afraid I can't illustrate such a case. But from WP:FREER, For a vector image (i.e. SVG) of a non-free logo or other design, US law is not clear as to whether the vectorization of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Of course. I'm going to replace images following the rules. Before to start the task I read the warnings in both files to know if there is some reason to not make the change (like the example that you have said). First of all I'm going to concentrate in replace images that clearly do not infringe the rules, like many flags of the Spanish province. Then I will try to make SVG version (in the case that I can make it legally) and then make the replacement. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión
09:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course. I'm going to replace images following the rules. Before to start the task I read the warnings in both files to know if there is some reason to not make the change (like the example that you have said). First of all I'm going to concentrate in replace images that clearly do not infringe the rules, like many flags of the Spanish province. Then I will try to make SVG version (in the case that I can make it legally) and then make the replacement. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión
RemindMeBot
Operator: Enterprisey (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 04:29, Thursday, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: https://github.com/APerson241/RemindMeBot
Function overview: Reminds editors upon request.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#ReminderBot
Edit period(s): Half-hour intervals
Estimated number of pages affected: 10, maybe?1,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: When you ping the bot by saying {{u|RemindMeBot}}
plus a time interval, the bot stores the location of the ping in a databasein your space and puts a reminder on your talk page with the location after the time interval.
Discussion
- Nice, was this the original inspiration for the task? :) I can see such a bot being very useful. -FASTILY 06:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it was! Good eye. Yeah, I really missed not having it here. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm inclined to agree with Earwig in the linked discussion. This would be better fit for a new feature to mw:Extension:Echo, which would not be very technically difficult to implement. What Echo does, is it allows us to no longer need to place {{talkback}} on people's talk pages. This bot's task is functionally analogous to that, and hence belongs in the MW extension as well. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- This bot may indeed be a better fit for an Echo feature, but unfortunately I don't know PHP, so I wouldn't mind at all if you want to get someone who knows PHP to implement this. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- This functionality seems useful, but the implementation seems way overkill. Why not some JS gadget that stored reminders in localStorage (or similar) and displayed them at the right time? Seems a lot cleaner and less abusable to me. Legoktm (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- I see problems with this approach that would arise if a user a) edits with multiple computers and/or web browsers, b) clears their browser cache/history. -FASTILY 09:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Aye. I edit with quite literally at least 20 browsers, on at least 7 machines, running 6 operating systems, at two fixed locations, plus three of them are mobile devices. Cookies? What are those? LOL. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Legoktm, I opted for the more "heavy" approach because I want to build a web frontend for this that allows deleting and modifying reminders, as well as some proper database code. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that's reasonable. Instead of localStorage, it could use a user's subpage for persistent storage across devices. Legoktm (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I like this idea, because it would also allow you to manage reminders en-masse (including changing or removing them, which I don't think you could do with this bot as currently designed). Also, it would avoid cluttering user talk pages. — Earwig talk 22:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- So you're saying the bot itself should ping users from the same page they were stored? (So, just to clarify it a bit for myself, I'd ping the bot on some Wikipedia page, the bot would edit my subpage (without a ping) immediately, and later on, the bot would add a ping to the same subpage.) Sounds good, although archiving would then become a problem to solve. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 23:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, as a likely power user of this bot, do you have any preference between getting pings on your talk page or a subpage of your user page? Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 23:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- APerson ideally user-selectable. May people are talk-page focused, but I would definitely prefer a subpage, so I could transclude it and do stuff with it, like I do with the to-do list on my userpage (both my user and user talk page have a bunch of transcludes; it's an ugly mess, design-wise, but serves my functional needs. Ideally the entries would be very minimal, fitting on one line. The notices a lot of wikiprojects leave, huge boxes of stuff that fill half the screen, are not so hot. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Request params updated. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- APerson ideally user-selectable. May people are talk-page focused, but I would definitely prefer a subpage, so I could transclude it and do stuff with it, like I do with the to-do list on my userpage (both my user and user talk page have a bunch of transcludes; it's an ugly mess, design-wise, but serves my functional needs. Ideally the entries would be very minimal, fitting on one line. The notices a lot of wikiprojects leave, huge boxes of stuff that fill half the screen, are not so hot. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, my suggestion was in line with Lego's; there is not bot that edits to ping with Echo in this situation, but a user script or MediaWiki extension that produces notifications directly. — Earwig talk 04:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Huh. Yes, that would definitely be ideal. However, I have no clue how to produce Echo notifications myself, and hence why I opted for either sending Echo pings or regular user talk page messages. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, as a likely power user of this bot, do you have any preference between getting pings on your talk page or a subpage of your user page? Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 23:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- So you're saying the bot itself should ping users from the same page they were stored? (So, just to clarify it a bit for myself, I'd ping the bot on some Wikipedia page, the bot would edit my subpage (without a ping) immediately, and later on, the bot would add a ping to the same subpage.) Sounds good, although archiving would then become a problem to solve. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 23:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I like this idea, because it would also allow you to manage reminders en-masse (including changing or removing them, which I don't think you could do with this bot as currently designed). Also, it would avoid cluttering user talk pages. — Earwig talk 22:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that's reasonable. Instead of localStorage, it could use a user's subpage for persistent storage across devices. Legoktm (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Legoktm, I opted for the more "heavy" approach because I want to build a web frontend for this that allows deleting and modifying reminders, as well as some proper database code. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Aye. I edit with quite literally at least 20 browsers, on at least 7 machines, running 6 operating systems, at two fixed locations, plus three of them are mobile devices. Cookies? What are those? LOL. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, I could never do that. By the way, I'm sorry if I never got to finishing the code, I just couldn't do it. PhilrocMy contribs 11:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- No problem at all - the code's on GitHub, and pull requests are always appreciated! :) Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- You really think only 10 people will ever use this? — xaosflux Talk 11:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add another order of magnitude. I also have code in another branch for using an actual database on Labs, if that's needed. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Updated. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add another order of magnitude. I also have code in another branch for using an actual database on Labs, if that's needed. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would use this bot [or other implementation] heavily. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- This idea is #32 on the 2015 Community Wishlist. It's filed as phab:T88781 for potential implementation within Echo/Notifications. It would be best if we could implement this in a way that works for all our wikis, rather than just Enwiki. I do like the idea of the simple and public way for triggering a reminder-request, though I wonder if that's discoverable enough, given that many people will want to use the feature? This bot idea might work on a small local scale, but we should also continue thinking about ways to implement it on a larger scale (probably at that phab task). HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I actually did read that ticket, and the bot probably could run on other wikis with a bit of localization. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read that ticket before filing this BRFA? →Σσς. (Sigma) 18:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. I apologize if my wording was unclear. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- If there is agreement that Echo would be the best and proper way to do it then efforts to address this should be in parallel directed toward Echo; if this bot would be used as an interim solution until new features are added to Echo, and we are actually taking actions to move toward it, then that may be acceptable as well. That said, it is evident that this is not entirely uncontroversial. Multiple users other than me have suggested not using a bot for this task due to various reasons. →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Enterprisey would not be the one to implement it the better way, so working on this bot as a temporary solution shouldn't slow progress on other implementations. KSFTC 20:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
-
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Let me clarify:
If you intend to solve a problem, you should take into account the present facts and the past attempts to look at it. Actions should be in response to the past in the context of the present. The Phab link describes implementing it directly into MediaWiki through Flow/Echo/some form of an extension. In the Phab link, there is no discussion of using a bot for this. The BOTREQ discussion linked to two archived discussions. Both described a bot and the second eventually linked to the Phab task, but it was not further discussed.
You were not aware of the phab link at the time of this BRFA—nothing wrong with that—but now that the phab link is brought to light, it would be greatly beneficial if you could incorporate the data from it into this discussion.
Implementing this bot may give the appearance that the task is complete, and so someone who knows how to write MediaWiki extensions might not start work, thinking that it's best not to create redundant software. Multiple users have suggested making a gadget or adding new features to Echo. In the BOTREQ link, Earwig expressed that if we did it by bot it would end up being a strange hack that would probably have other issues, which I agreed with in my first comment here. Creating this bot without addressing all this is fundamentally flawed.
→Σσς. (Sigma) 20:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree with your main points. The fundamental question here is whether it's better to have a suboptimal solution now, or an optimal solution later. It is my belief that the optimal solution will take too long to finish. Even if this BRFA didn't exist, it would still take too long. The village pump discussion linked to in the BOTREQ discussion is from 2010. Anyone who wanted to make an extension has had at least six years. Let's make a bot. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Right. I'm not trying to prevent this bot from being approved—worst case scenario, you've done some prototyping and edge-case discovery for the future echo feature—all I want is an effort to help ensure a smooth transition from the bot to the echo feature (I understand that this will take significant product design/planning). And I agree with the "we're all volunteers" philosophy alluded to below, but we should be trying to make things that don't impede other work, even unintentionally.
I don't have much of an opinion on an n-month shutoff, but as a general idea I think it should be heavily underlined (somehow) that this bot isn't meant to last forever. Maybe a huge notice on the bot's userpage would be all; I don't know, ideas are welcome.
→Σσς. (Sigma) 05:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would absolutely be in favor of putting as many notices on the bot's user page as we want if it means moving this task forward. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 03:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- For what it's worth, I agree with your main points. The fundamental question here is whether it's better to have a suboptimal solution now, or an optimal solution later. It is my belief that the optimal solution will take too long to finish. Even if this BRFA didn't exist, it would still take too long. The village pump discussion linked to in the BOTREQ discussion is from 2010. Anyone who wanted to make an extension has had at least six years. Let's make a bot. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Enterprisey would not be the one to implement it the better way, so working on this bot as a temporary solution shouldn't slow progress on other implementations. KSFTC 20:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- If there is agreement that Echo would be the best and proper way to do it then efforts to address this should be in parallel directed toward Echo; if this bot would be used as an interim solution until new features are added to Echo, and we are actually taking actions to move toward it, then that may be acceptable as well. That said, it is evident that this is not entirely uncontroversial. Multiple users other than me have suggested not using a bot for this task due to various reasons. →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. I apologize if my wording was unclear. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read that ticket before filing this BRFA? →Σσς. (Sigma) 18:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I actually did read that ticket, and the bot probably could run on other wikis with a bit of localization. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- We all agree that implementing this as part of Echo notifications is ideal, and we all agree that this is a beneficial feature that should ideally exist in the short-term. How about a temporary bot approval to get this feature going in the short-term but not remove the impetus for the Echo solution? After three months from the date of approval, the bot stops taking new reminder requests, no exceptions. This wouldn't disincentivize developers from working on Echo reminders, and it may even increase interest in developing that solution as editors get a taste for how reminder notifications would help them in their workflow. Could this be a compromise solution? ~ Rob13Talk 19:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sounds a bit abrupt to me, but I would support finding someone who wants to work on the extension before having the bot approved. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- As we've said, this bot isn't an ideal solution to the problem, but it's not a bad one either. I don't have a problem letting it run indefinitely until an Echo implementation is written. My main concern right now is the lack of interface integration, and the scaling issue I brought up with Enterprisey earlier regarding the need to frequently check X subpages. It would be nice to have a concrete plan for developing the replacement, but given the "we're all volunteers" philosophy, this isn't a prerequisite for approval if we can't find anyone willing to do it. — Earwig talk 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- To address your main concern, the one major architecture choice we face is what storage medium to use: user subpages or a database on Labs. I lean towards the latter, but the former was suggested over the course of the BRFA. It would be great if people would comment which they prefer so a decision could be made on the merits of each. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 03:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- As we've said, this bot isn't an ideal solution to the problem, but it's not a bad one either. I don't have a problem letting it run indefinitely until an Echo implementation is written. My main concern right now is the lack of interface integration, and the scaling issue I brought up with Enterprisey earlier regarding the need to frequently check X subpages. It would be nice to have a concrete plan for developing the replacement, but given the "we're all volunteers" philosophy, this isn't a prerequisite for approval if we can't find anyone willing to do it. — Earwig talk 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sounds a bit abrupt to me, but I would support finding someone who wants to work on the extension before having the bot approved. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Lowercase sigmabot IV 1
Operator: Σ (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:26, Saturday, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Soon
Function overview: Replace CSD tags on pages if the tags are removed by the author
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: [0, ∞)
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: From the link: If a page which has been nominated for deletion has it's speedy tag removed by the author of the page, this bot will replace (or revert, depending on what you people want it to do ;D) the deletion tag and warn the user.
Notice that I am not implementing the G7-tagging part. I've seen that some authors will blank a new page they create right after they create it, and then later, add more content. WP:NPPNICE; I wouldn't put this up to this bot as I envision it.
Discussion
- So If I create a page, then speedy it, then change my mind - this will revert me? — xaosflux Talk 03:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- A few observations from a quick look at SDPatrolBot's contributions:
- It reports the editor to AIV for removing CSD templates
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanzeel007&oldid=568028622 It first sends a custom {{uw-speedy1}}, then a regular {{uw-speedy2}}, then {{uw-speedy4}}. It may have been overlooked that {{uw-speedy3}} was not used.
- It restores the CSD template without reverting any other changes
- That should answer a few of your questions. I also found Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II and have added it to the list of relevant discussions at the top of the page.
- I think it may be wise for the bot to respect 3RR for safety and that deletion should "reset" the 3RR clock: if the page is recreated after deletion, and CSD tagged again, the bot should restore the CSD tag if it's removed again. But I have nothing against carrying out the decision of this discussion wherever the chips may fall. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- The reason for the skipping of the level 3 warning was to be able to give a final warning before reporting to AIV, without violating the 3RR. The number of time the bot reverts was actually a configurable option set at User:SDPatrolBot/configuration/replacementslmt.css, I think it would make sense to keep to 3 reverts before reporting, to stay inline with 3RR, and it therefore seems to make sense to follow a warning level of 1, 2 and then 4, so that a final warning is presented before reporting (reporting instead of reverting the fourth time the tag is removed). - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- You should also exempt G13s from this bot, because, obviously, if the creator edits their draft nominated for G13 to remove the notice, then it no longer qualifies for G13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni Flames (talk • contribs) 11:11 19 June 2016
- I do not plan this bot to edit outside of mainspace. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. Omni Flames (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- I do not plan this bot to edit outside of mainspace. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- You should also exempt G13s from this bot, because, obviously, if the creator edits their draft nominated for G13 to remove the notice, then it no longer qualifies for G13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni Flames (talk • contribs) 11:11 19 June 2016
- The reason for the skipping of the level 3 warning was to be able to give a final warning before reporting to AIV, without violating the 3RR. The number of time the bot reverts was actually a configurable option set at User:SDPatrolBot/configuration/replacementslmt.css, I think it would make sense to keep to 3 reverts before reporting, to stay inline with 3RR, and it therefore seems to make sense to follow a warning level of 1, 2 and then 4, so that a final warning is presented before reporting (reporting instead of reverting the fourth time the tag is removed). - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- A few observations from a quick look at SDPatrolBot's contributions:
-
-
APersonBot 9
Operator: Enterprisey (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 03:29, Monday, May 30, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: https://github.com/APerson241/APersonBot/blob/master/update-participants/update-participants.py
Function overview: Moves inactive project participants to a new "Inactive participants" section.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#Idea: WikiProject stale participant member remover bot
Edit period(s): Weekly, perhaps
Estimated number of pages affected: 500
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Checks each listed participant for activity (i.e. any edits made in the last 3 months), then moves the inactive participants into a section titled "Inactive participants". The order of the participants is preserved.
Discussion
- The linked discussion noted this may not be suitable for all projects, are you planning on having wikiprojects "opt in" to this? — xaosflux Talk 04:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm completely willing to make it opt-in, but I don't think it's a good idea. As The Transhumanist noted, I was looking at it as an out-of-date contact list. Contact lists are only as useful as they are accurate. In the scenario brought up in that comment (only 4 active editors remain in a 50-editor project) it's not likely that I'd be able to get consensus for opting in at the project talk page, and if, say, I wanted to find the 4 active editors to ask them about opting in, I would have done the bot's job for it already. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 15:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Jonesey95, who originally said it should be opt-in. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 15:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some buy-in from some actual projects before you would be able to just start editing every/any project page - please list this at WP:VPR. As far as trialing, are there any projects that will opt-in that the trial can address? — xaosflux Talk 23:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- VPPR discussion started. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 03:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some buy-in from some actual projects before you would be able to just start editing every/any project page - please list this at WP:VPR. As far as trialing, are there any projects that will opt-in that the trial can address? — xaosflux Talk 23:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable with the idea of automatically retiring people when they take a break. But not so bothered if it applies both ways, so when a person resumes editing they automatically get moved back to the active list. ϢereSpielChequers 23:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- The bot would definitely move users under the inactive heading back to their original spots if it saw any activity. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- When moving people between lists, is there a enwiki wide standard for ordering? (e.g. alpha, last edit, etc) that you will be following? — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- At the moment, I preserve as much of the original ordering as possible. For example, if editors A, B, C, and D are listed and B and D are inactive, then the list will look like this:
-
- A
- C
- ===Inactive participants===
- B
- D
-
- There is, of course, a problem if B becomes active again: how am I going to tell the bot that B has to go between A and C? I could tag each editor with their position on the original list when the bot makes its first edit, which would work in every case, even when the editors are ordered by, say, the date they joined the project. However, that introduces a lot of clutter. The bot could also try to figure out the ordering by inspection; if everyone seems to be in alphabetical order, then the bot should use alphabetical ordering. However, I think the best idea is to scan for the last revision before the bot edited to get an idea of the order everyone should be in (taking into account the situation where bot and human edits are interwoven) and use that for ordering. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm curious whether you've extracted an algorithm for this yet. You might be able to comment the line out instead of removing it entirely, and then uncomment it if they become active again. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Great idea! I'll see if I can implement that. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 18:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm curious whether you've extracted an algorithm for this yet. You might be able to comment the line out instead of removing it entirely, and then uncomment it if they become active again. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- At the moment, I preserve as much of the original ordering as possible. For example, if editors A, B, C, and D are listed and B and D are inactive, then the list will look like this:
- When moving people between lists, is there a enwiki wide standard for ordering? (e.g. alpha, last edit, etc) that you will be following? — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- The bot would definitely move users under the inactive heading back to their original spots if it saw any activity. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 21:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey: From the discussion above it looks like you were still working on some coding - has this completed? — xaosflux Talk 02:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it's mostly completed now. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Question, not all projects are just a list of "names". Will you be preserving notes, signatures etc? e.g. look at these lists:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Participants
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_law#Participants
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Atheism/Participants
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptozoology/Members
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants
I don't see a great way to ever set this bot loose on every wikiproject, and you don't want them to opt-in; so will this be defacto limited to only projects that use a specific ordering and styling method you are expecting? — xaosflux Talk 04:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- My bot code actually successfully parses all of those lists of participants; what I do is scan for standard username-looking things (strings of characters that aren't "User0" or whatever) and then move entire lines around (preserving notes and signatures in the process). I suppose I could ask at the WikiProject Council if any projects are interested. Then again, the entire point of this bot task is to update participant lists for inactivity, and by definition, inactive users aren't around to update their own participation in projects. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm curious how your bot would update the tables on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants. Looking at wikitext_to_usernames(), I can't see how it would deal with all the table markup. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm probably going to have to make it split by |- if it detects that participants are in a table. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 11:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey: To approve this in to trial, I'm going to need to see a list of projects you will trial with, you will need to notify the project talk of this bot request, and you should include projects with different layouts. Your bot page and edit summaries should detail the task, including how to opt out of it on a per-project basis. — xaosflux Talk 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- xaosflux's question was never answered. Will this be defacto limited to only projects that use a specific ordering and styling method you are expecting? At the moment the standard two-sectioned, one-per-line, numbered list format and wikitables. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, of course - if the bot can't parse a page, it won't attempt to save it. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 03:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I don't doubt your bot's ability to parse a page and successfully extract usernames. My concerns are over the generation of the updated page, though. It seems to be doing more than just moving lines around: TEMPLATE = u"{}\n===Inactive participants===\n''Generated by a [[User:APersonBot|bot]]''\n{}" ← This doesn't seem to take into account already-existing "inactive participants" sections, for example.
- I don't think it would be useful to have a trial if it mangles every page that isn't the standard two-sectioned, one-per-line, numbered list format. I suggest that before this is approved for a trial, you run the bot on the wikiproject participant pages that xaosflux listed (our ad-hoc unit tests, so to speak) and dump the results in a subpage in userspace for review. If that is reasonable, of course: @Xaosflux: →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- FYI: This script is very similar, written by @Harej: for WP:WikiProject X. You two may want to discuss this together. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I will note that the WPX UI approaches project membership completely differently from other WikiProject design methods, but this approach makes it easier to automate the list. Members have "WikiProjectCards" that are transcluded onto a WikiProject's members subpage. If members go for more than a month without editing, the card is moved to a list for inactive members. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Technology/Members. Harej (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I basically just picked a few pages at random from the active projects list - preproduction trial might be good to copy that entire page to a bot subpage, then run it on there (perhaps wrapping the entire page in a comment tag to avoid sending notifications). — xaosflux Talk 13:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I generally support this task, but it should probably be opt-in. For instance, WP:CFL uses two years as our "inactivity threshold". Is that a good thing? Probably not, but I also think three months is a bit short and wouldn't want our participants list tinkered with without discussion. As a side note, what are your thoughts on dropping a talk page notice when you move someone's username to the inactive list? This would both let them know they need to move their name back when they return and potentially prod them into coming back to the project. ~ RobTalk 22:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I did consider leaving talk page notices, but thought it would be a bit spammy. However, I agree with you that it would probably be a useful improvement, so long as marking one user as inactive on two different project pages only results in one notification sent to that user. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) This discussion has sort of died down - it is pretty clear we are not going to open a trial on this to every wikiproject, so you have a few options:
- (a) Get a few projects to opt in for trial.
- (b) Make copies of several actual project participant pages in the bot's userspace, and run the updates there.
- How would you like to proceed? — xaosflux Talk 02:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just a tad bit busy right now, but hope to get to this by this weekend. (I'm going to leave the operator assistance tag activated to help remind me.) Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 05:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Josvebot 13
Operator: Josve05a (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:30, Monday, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Java
Source code available: WPCleaner
Function overview: Will almost do the same work as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16 exept a few differences. See function details below. The bot will fix some of the WP:CHECKWIKI-errors automaticly.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: ~1-500 pages per week
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: These are errorswhich can be fixed with WPCleaner's automatic bot edit mode. Yobot has already gotten approval to fix these kind of errors, so there is precedence to allow bot to fix these errors. WPCleaner also marks the issues as fixed on the checkwiki-database.
Error | Description |
1 | Template contains useless word Template: |
2 | Tags with incorrect syntax |
4 | HTML text style element <a> |
6 | DEFAULTSORT with special letters[1] |
9 | Categories more at one line |
16 | Unicode control characters[2] |
17 | Category double |
20 | Symbol for dead |
22 | Category with space |
54 | Break in list |
85 | Tags without content |
88 | DEFAULTSORT with blank at first position |
90 | DEFAULTSORT with lowercase letters |
a.^ Josvebot is already approved to fix tis error
Josvebot could also fix 91 and 524 without changing any of the WPCleaner´s settings, but it won't becuase of too many bad fixes. Josvebot is also already approved to fix error 37, but supervised.
Discussion
@Magioladitis: This looks like a good one for you to review :D — xaosflux Talk 11:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Josve05a me, Bgwhite and NicoV cooperate so that CHECKWIKI, AWB and WPCleander will produce the same lists. This is not the case right now. i still believe AWB is better because it can deal multiple errors are the same time and also do all this little stuff people say they have to be done but not as sole tasks. I would like to hear from Bgwhite too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- If set properly, WPCleaner will fix multiple issues at the same time as well, plus all it takes is one click, and it will load all the errors and articles, while in AWB you have to generate each error manually one-by-one. And then manually mark them as fixed, and since the errors are listed in the database, someone will fix these issues at some time, whether or not if it is the only edit or not. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I use AWB to fix the errors. I then use WPCleaner to mark which ones were fixed. Best of both worlds, but it takes more time. AWB does fix alot more errors than WPCleaner and is overall a better tool. Josvebot is already approved for several errors listed above.
- This should be viewed as a standard "fix checkwiki" bot request. Josvebot should be able to fix any CheckWiki error with either AWB or WPCleaner. Instead of approving to fix certain errors one at a time, just do them all. Both tools are proven and get the job done. Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Josve05a I think it is more important that you keep reporting bugs and feature requests for WPCleaner. A bot ht will solely use this tool at the moment is not good idea. Maybe soon when we will hve the list generation coordinated.I think you should be patient for a short while. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Bots in a trial period
DYKReviewBot
Operator: Intelligentsium (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 12:20, Friday, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Available
Function overview: To aid in new WP:DYK nominations by checking for basic criteria such as sufficient length, newness, and citations.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC: A bot to review objective criteria
Edit period(s): Fixed intervals (~once per hour)
Estimated number of pages affected: Subpages of Template:Did you know nominations and author talk pages
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The DYK nominations page is perennially backlogged. Nominations typically take several days to a week to be reviewed. This bot will ease the backlog by checking basic objective criteria immediately after nomination so the author is made aware of those issues immediately.
Specific criteria which will be checked are:
- Readable prose
- Article newness or recent 5x expansion
- Citations in every paragraph
- No maintenance templates
- Link to Earwig's copyvio report
- Hook is <200 chars
- Whether the article is a BLP
If there are issues, the bot will leave a note on the nomination page and on the nominator's talk page.
This bot is intended to supplement, not substitute for human review.
Discussion
Administrator note: Flagged "confirmed" as known alt account of User:Intelligentsium. — xaosflux Talk 13:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- How will the copyvio check work? Will above a certain percentage receive a "possible copyright violation" note? Since quotes from a source are typical in good articles (which can come to DYK), there's going to be a high false positive rate there. What are your thoughts on leaving a note even when all criteria it checks for are met so reviewers know which clear-cut objective criteria (readable prose, hook length, and newness, probably) they don't need to check? ~ RobTalk 13:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. It will link to Earwig's page with a note about the percentage. The relevant message makes it clear there is low confidence in the automated copyvio detection, and reviewers should still manually ensure there is no violation if the bot reports no violation (or vice versa). I agree that a standard notice is a good idea - the bot will edit any DYK page that has not already been reviewed with these comments. Intelligentsium 13:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, good responses. Please check directly with Earwig that this use complies with our license to use search results on his tool. There was some hubbub about APIs and licenses recently, and I know fully automated tools had some issues. Other than that, this is an obviously helpful bot. ~ RobTalk 14:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging @The Earwig: to keep all discussion in one place. Is automatically linking to the results page for your copyvio tool in compliance with the Google TOS? Intelligentsium 15:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine. — Earwig talk 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- The link isn't the potential issue. It's the actual running of the tool to get a percentage, which you said you'd be placing in the review note. Certain search sites require that their API is only used by an actual person and that the search results are displayed in a search-like experience (i.e. not just summarizing a percentage). I assume Earwig saw that bit too when looking this over, though, so you should be good on that front. ~ RobTalk 19:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine. — Earwig talk 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging @The Earwig: to keep all discussion in one place. Is automatically linking to the results page for your copyvio tool in compliance with the Google TOS? Intelligentsium 15:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, good responses. Please check directly with Earwig that this use complies with our license to use search results on his tool. There was some hubbub about APIs and licenses recently, and I know fully automated tools had some issues. Other than that, this is an obviously helpful bot. ~ RobTalk 14:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. It will link to Earwig's page with a note about the percentage. The relevant message makes it clear there is low confidence in the automated copyvio detection, and reviewers should still manually ensure there is no violation if the bot reports no violation (or vice versa). I agree that a standard notice is a good idea - the bot will edit any DYK page that has not already been reviewed with these comments. Intelligentsium 13:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI I'm going to run a short test in my userspace to ensure the code to save pages is working correctly. Intelligentsium 17:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Here is an example run, which you can see below. Any feedback is welcome.
- User:Intelligentsium/Marine mammal
- User:Intelligentsium/Gaëlle Ghesquière (this revealed a bug which has since been addressed)
- User:Intelligentsium/Michelle Tisseyre
- User:Intelligentsium/César Camacho Quiroz
- User:Intelligentsium/Catch Me If You Can (Girls' Generation song)
- User:Intelligentsium/Pennsylvania Shell ethane cracker plant
- The source code is also posted here. I'm not a professional programmer and much of this was written yesterday so please excuse any sloppiness. Intelligentsium 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- For full disclosure there are a few known issues
- Unable to handle multi-article nominations. I'm not sure how best to implement that as sometimes single articles have commas, sometimes multinoms are made under only one article, and sometimes the link is a redirect.
- Maintenance template grepping is a hack because I was lazy - it looks for dated templates as content templates usually are not dated (this does introduce false positives, for example
{{use mdy dates}}
) - The char count is not exactly the same as Shubinator's tool as his tool parses the HTML while mine uses wikitext. Let me know if there is a significant (>5%) discrepancy
- Sometimes the paragraph division is off, possibly because a single return in the editor doesn't break the paragraph in display.
- I mostly ignore exceptions since there are many, many ways a nomination can be malformed
- Intelligentsium 19:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- For full disclosure there are a few known issues
- You wrote in the discussion that reviewers need to manually use Shubinator's tool and Earwig's tool to perform these standard checks. These issues could be pointed out easily by a bot for nominators to work on, rather than having to wait several days/weeks until a human reviewer gets around to raising them. What if pasting the output of Shubinator's tool and Earwig's tool was made standard in DYK submissions? Not to say that I have any issues—I fully support this bot—I'm just a bit surprised that you actually went to the trouble of this BRFA before what I saw as the most obvious solution.
- I also recommend mwparserfromhell to parse wikitext instead of those nasty regular expressions. You may find using ceterach on Python 3 to make handling unicode much smoother, as well. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Seconded that mwparserfromhell is a wonderful library to use. I, too, once used regex to parse wikitext, but one of the many problems with doing so is that the expressions constantly have to be updated as editors find new and exciting ways to write malformed wikitext. Regex-based wikitext parsing is really technical debt, and once you switch over, it'll be so much easier. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 03:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look into the mwparser. @Sigma: I'm not sure I understand your comment. Using Shubinator's and Earwig's tools is standard review practice but because there are hundreds of submissions and as many of the users who participate at DYK are new users, the reviewer ends up having to perform the check. Intelligentsium 04:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Here are some updated results
- User:Intelligentsium/Cortinarius rubellus
- User:Intelligentsium/Rebel Girl (song)
- User:Intelligentsium/Petite messe solennelle
- User:Intelligentsium/Ríe y Llora
- User:Intelligentsium/Tommy_Best
- User:Intelligentsium/Dean_Fausett
Intelligentsium 00:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Source code updated based on various feature requests; available here. Intelligentsium 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#RFC:_A_bot_to_review_objective_criteria seems to have concluded and there seems to be unanimous consensus that this is a needed bot, and recent userspace tests have shown no problems. Can this be approved for trial? Intelligentsium 13:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Intelligentsium: During "normal" operation - what page(s) will you be creating/outputing to? — xaosflux Talk 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Xaosflux: Thanks - this bot will edit new nomination pages at Template talk:Did you know as well as user talk pages if issues are found. For example, it would leave comments such as shown on User:Intelligentsium/Petite messe solennelle at Template:Did you know nominations/Petite messe solennelle. Intelligentsium 20:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
-
Approved for trial (50 edits or 15 days). — xaosflux Talk 20:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Intelligentsium Don't know if this issue was covered at DYK or not. But here goes. Is the bot configured to determine if each and every hook on a nomination is sourced? It would help a lot. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's almost certainly not possible unless the hook was taken word-for-word from the article. ~ RobTalk 21:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer. Nevertheless, this bot is going to be a good addition to DYK. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Xaosflux. I've wondered myself why we use Template: pages for nominations rather than Wikipedia: subpages. It's probably an artefact of never moving away from the talk page of Template:Did you know for nominations, unlike ITN or TFA which have their own Wikipedia: pages.
- @Maile66: Unfortunately, Rob is correct; that would be exponentially more difficult than anything the bot currently does. I don't know if you follow xkcd but this xkcd comes to mind... Intelligentsium 22:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer. Nevertheless, this bot is going to be a good addition to DYK. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's almost certainly not possible unless the hook was taken word-for-word from the article. ~ RobTalk 21:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Intelligentsium Don't know if this issue was covered at DYK or not. But here goes. Is the bot configured to determine if each and every hook on a nomination is sourced? It would help a lot. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Approved for extended trial (250 edits or 30 days). This trial is approaching the original edit limit - there has been a tremendous amount of community discussion below and issues appear to concerns are being continually addressed - extending the trial period to allow this to continue. — xaosflux Talk 15:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Trial comments
- The bot reviewed my recent nomination, and says "This is Random86's 23th nomination". It should be 23rd. Random86 (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Random86: Thanks. This is a known issue, but low-priority. To be honest I'm not thrilled about the idea of adding moving parts to deal with this cosmetic issue. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Intelligentsium: How about just subst'ing Template:Ordinal in:
{{subst:ordinal|23}}
? /~huesatlum/ 22:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)- Done, thanks! Intelligentsium 12:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Intelligentsium: How about just subst'ing Template:Ordinal in:
- @Random86: Thanks. This is a known issue, but low-priority. To be honest I'm not thrilled about the idea of adding moving parts to deal with this cosmetic issue. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Minor thing: I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Macrocybe, co-written by Sasata and Casliber, nominated by Casliber. The bot reported Sasata's QPQ history but technically it should have been Cas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Thanks. I could handle this when I was looking for the creators and nominators in the signature line ("Created by ... Nominated by ... at ..."), but now I am using the DYKnoms and DYKmakes, which is more accurate. However in a case like this, when there are multiple creators and only of the creators is the nominator, it doesn't know which one as
{{DYKnom}}
is not used for co-creators. I could fix this by adding a redundant check of the signature line, but is this significant enough for that? Note that all creators will be notified on their talk pages if there are issues. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Thanks. I could handle this when I was looking for the creators and nominators in the signature line ("Created by ... Nominated by ... at ..."), but now I am using the DYKnoms and DYKmakes, which is more accurate. However in a case like this, when there are multiple creators and only of the creators is the nominator, it doesn't know which one as
- On Template:Did you know nominations/List of exports of Romania, the bot said all paragraphs were cited, but the third paragraph has no citations. Random86 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd recommend turning off the checking for citations on each article entirely. Citations on each article is not sufficient or necessary, since articles can have a citation in each paragraph but not be verifiable, and leads don't require citations if the information is cited later in the article (even at DYK). But in a stub, the lead may require citations because the lead may be the whole article or a substantial part of it. That bit is better left to a human reviewer, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 02:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Thanks. The problem here was lead-checking. A former version of the bot ignored just the first paragraph and alerted if there were no citations on the rest of the article, which doesn't handle multi-paragraph lead sections correctly. The new version considers everything up to the first header the "lead", but doesn't handle articles which do not have headers correctly. I agree with Rob's concern that discriminating the two types is not trivial to do automatically, but I think it's important to have this check as WP:DYKSG#D2 is one of the most overlooked rules. Maybe we can come to a consensus about which side we ought to err on? Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd recommend turning off the checking for citations on each article entirely. Citations on each article is not sufficient or necessary, since articles can have a citation in each paragraph but not be verifiable, and leads don't require citations if the information is cited later in the article (even at DYK). But in a stub, the lead may require citations because the lead may be the whole article or a substantial part of it. That bit is better left to a human reviewer, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 02:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- On Template:Did you know nominations/Qriously it said there were no errors, yet there was no QPQ for the users 221st DYK. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was fiddling with the conditions under which it reports an error/uses an icon. There was still an X to indicate a QPQ was required. This should be fixed now. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- The bot just ran a check on my nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen F. Golden. It's great! I'd just like to note that the use of the
icon will confuse editors that the article has already been approved, as it is green just like our approval tick. Since the line No issues found is in bold, is the green tick really necessary? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agree that we should eschew overall icons. (The tiny check and X are okay.) The character count difference in Ellen F. Golden was 13: 4003 for the bot, 3990 for DYKcheck. I was wondering, though, why the bot says "No issues found" when there was a potential issue (see the small red X) with copyvio. I also think it might make sense to add an extra line to the bottom of the review, after what's there, that starts with the "review again" icon and would perhaps say something like "Full human review needed", perhaps also in bold. Otherwise, I think people may believe that a regular review has begun, and go on to another nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent work on the bot so far, and agreeing with comments above. It did occur to me when I read through the ones checked by the bot, that visually speaking, potential reviewers might think, "Oh...that one's already been done...I don't need to bother with it." So, yeah, maybe something eye-catching to let the reviewer know a human is still needed. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. @Yoninah: I wanted something which would complement
for reviews with issues. I deliberately chose
as it is not one of the icons we usually use to indicate that the nomination is not yet approved, but I see how this could be confusing to new reviewers. @BlueMoonset: I'm still debating the best way to handle possible copyvio. The bot just sees the percentage and compares it to a threshold value of 20% (which I can change if people would like me to do so). The articles I've seen with close paraphrasing are usually at least 15-25%, which is why the threshold is here. However, this also catches some articles which use titles and quotes extensively, and because the metric has low confidence, I don't know if this should be flagged as an "issue" per se, rather something a human should look further into (which they should always do anyway as the note says). If this is flagged as an issue then the nominator will automatically be informed, for what could just be a waste of time. @Maile66: (also relevant to Yoninah and BlueMoonset's comments) This may also be a matter of people getting used to the bot; some other areas of the wiki have bot-endorsed/bot-issues-found icons which are distinct from the regular icons, and once people are aware of the bot and understand what the bot icons mean, there should be less confusion. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- That symbol is used for Good Articles, and its use here is confusing. I'd suggest using the red "re-review" roundel
, as the intention is for a human to confirm the bot-generated review. If we really want a new symbol, perhaps the blue plus roundel
could be used. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Done! Intelligentsium 12:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- That symbol is used for Good Articles, and its use here is confusing. I'd suggest using the red "re-review" roundel
- Thanks for the suggestion. @Yoninah: I wanted something which would complement
- Excellent work on the bot so far, and agreeing with comments above. It did occur to me when I read through the ones checked by the bot, that visually speaking, potential reviewers might think, "Oh...that one's already been done...I don't need to bother with it." So, yeah, maybe something eye-catching to let the reviewer know a human is still needed. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that we should eschew overall icons. (The tiny check and X are okay.) The character count difference in Ellen F. Golden was 13: 4003 for the bot, 3990 for DYKcheck. I was wondering, though, why the bot says "No issues found" when there was a potential issue (see the small red X) with copyvio. I also think it might make sense to add an extra line to the bottom of the review, after what's there, that starts with the "review again" icon and would perhaps say something like "Full human review needed", perhaps also in bold. Otherwise, I think people may believe that a regular review has begun, and go on to another nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/2016 OFC Nations Cup Final; I do not see how the error the bot reported corresponds to the DYK criteria. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Yellow Dingo: This was a bug which has been corrected, thanks. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- The bot is great, but each auto-review is a lot of text. The nominations page is already consistently browser-stuttering and unwieldy. (The HTML is 1.3M at the moment.) Can we revive the idea of automatically moving human-reviewed and approved DYK nominations to a different subpage? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the page does sometimes lag for me as well (though the idea of the bot's review is that the user won't have to review the same criteria, so theoretically no net change). However, speaking as a regular DYK reviewer rather than "The Bot-op", approved nominations are often double-checked by other reviewers, and moving them to a subpage may reduce the additional scrutiny "approved" nominations receive. Moreover, this double-checking frequently leads to de-approvals, and moving the pages back and forth would be a pain (would probably call for another bot...) Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/PSLV-C34 "This article is too short at 1487 characters" The DYK Check shows it as 1536 characters as of the time and date the bot ran. I have noted that on the nomination's template. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately 50 chars is within margin of error. I've examined the readable text extracted by the bot, and the discrepancy was coming from the converted units, which the bot wasn't counting. I can reduce the bot's pass threshold to 1450, though articles that are that close to the boundary often benefit from a bit more prose anyway. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Intelligentsium, how practical would it be to incorporate existing prose-checking code, such as User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, into your bot? If not very, perhaps a rewording of the message could say that as your result is borderline, the number should be checked against DYKcheck or prosesize to get an exact number. (Maybe a yellow question mark or something like that could indicate this?) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately 50 chars is within margin of error. I've examined the readable text extracted by the bot, and the discrepancy was coming from the converted units, which the bot wasn't counting. I can reduce the bot's pass threshold to 1450, though articles that are that close to the boundary often benefit from a bit more prose anyway. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this has been covered already, but does the bot ignore lead sections when checking for paragraph cites? Lead sections are not required to have citations. Also, does the bot deal appropriately with articles moved from userspace? Gatoclass (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: The current version of the bot considers everything up to the first header the "lead" and doesn't require it to have citations. This will not handle an article without sections correctly (though in almost all cases the article should have sections anyway). An alternative from an older commit is only to give the first paragraph a pass, which of course will handle multi-paragraph leads incorrectly. In your opinion, which behaviour is more desirable? The bot does correctly handle articles moved from user- or draft- space, as well as articles which are created from redirects and disambiguations. In fact the bot ignores the user-provided classification and performs its own classification (created, 5x, GA, 2xBLP) because the user classification is frequently inaccurate. As long as it qualifies under some DYK criterion, the bot will find it. Intelligentsium 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry I was unexpectedly called out for the whole day today so I haven't had a chance to respond to these comments til now. I will respond to each comment individually above. Intelligentsium 02:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- A question was raised earlier by Opabinia regalis about misidentifying the nominator. This could be a problem in cases where an article has several authors, and one who does the nomination by an editor in their first five nominations (even if other authors have more than 5). As I understand it, QPQ is not required from that nominee in such a case, but if the bot picks a different author then a need for QPQ could be reported. Note also the QPQ issue I mentioned on your talk page. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a "corner case" which it is also possible to address, though doing so would increase the complexity of the code and thus increase the number of possible failure points. Is this a common occurrence? This case would only be encountered when an article worked on by multiple authors is nominated by the least experienced with DYK (who would thus have fewer than 5 nominations). Usually when multiple authors work on an article, who the nominator "technically is" doesn't make a huge difference as the nompage only supports one nominator but all of the authors are responsive. Intelligentsium 12:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Could the bot look to whoever created the nom page, because they will almost certainly be the nominator in a multi-author hook? EdChem (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's a good solution, I will implement that. Intelligentsium 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Could the bot look to whoever created the nom page, because they will almost certainly be the nominator in a multi-author hook? EdChem (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a "corner case" which it is also possible to address, though doing so would increase the complexity of the code and thus increase the number of possible failure points. Is this a common occurrence? This case would only be encountered when an article worked on by multiple authors is nominated by the least experienced with DYK (who would thus have fewer than 5 nominations). Usually when multiple authors work on an article, who the nominator "technically is" doesn't make a huge difference as the nompage only supports one nominator but all of the authors are responsive. Intelligentsium 12:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Some hook length comments. The bot is counting the entire hook, but according to the hook format rules and Supplementary rule C8, the italicized (pictured) or similar text should not be counted, nor should the initial ellipsis and space. Also, for Template:Did you know nominations/Nuclear blackout the bot got 135 characters but I counted 134, which could be an off-by-one error. (Also, the last couple of bullets are at a different indentation level than the first bunch.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have raised an issue with this nomination as the article claimed for QPQ credit has been claimed on a previous nomination. Intelligentsium and I briefly discussed this at his user talk page, where I asked whether the bot checks for a previous claiming of QPQ credit. Now that we have an actual case of this issue arising, I think we need input on whether the bot could / should do such a check, or make clear it has not been done, or report differently on the QPQ topic. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be great if the bot could check for double-counting of QPQs. However, it would have to account for reviews of multi-article hooks. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- QPQ double-count checking has now been implemented. It will be interesting to see how common an occurrence this is, and if the pattern suggests this is due to carelessness or if some users are doing this out of laziness. Intelligentsium 10:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be great if the bot could check for double-counting of QPQs. However, it would have to account for reviews of multi-article hooks. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have raised an issue with this nomination as the article claimed for QPQ credit has been claimed on a previous nomination. Intelligentsium and I briefly discussed this at his user talk page, where I asked whether the bot checks for a previous claiming of QPQ credit. Now that we have an actual case of this issue arising, I think we need input on whether the bot could / should do such a check, or make clear it has not been done, or report differently on the QPQ topic. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/2016 OFC Nations Cup Final - bot only counted the hook length for ALT0 but didn't do it for ALT1 - Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've made it so the bot will look harder for alt hooks. However, because users tend to format alts in a variety of ways, it is still possible that a few will be missed. I'm doing some testing of hook format checking (checking for the space, link, bold, and correct use of (pictured) - it won't immediately show up in the reviews. I'm looking into the counting issue. Intelligentsium 12:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Could you include text with the QPQ check that indicates the reviewer should check if the QPQ is a full review? DYK has always had issues with nominators "completing" their QPQ by providing a review that just says "Good to go" or omits several of the DYK criteria, and these "reviews" don't count toward QPQ because they must be re-reviewed by another editor to check all the criteria. I'm somewhat worried that a bot "verifying" the QPQ will make it less likely for reviewers to double-check that an appropriate review was performed. ~ RobTalk 15:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I have a more radical suggestion to prevent editors from ignoring certain criteria in their reviews as a result of the bot's automated review. I apologize for this suggestion coming so late in the game, since it's going to be a pain to implement now if this is the way we decide to go. Why don't we just have the bot make notes where it does find errors rather than noting all the things that weren't incorrect? If reviewers are meant to double-check anything the bot does anyway, then noting all the non-errors doesn't serve any purpose. Noting an actual error could expedite correcting the error before a reviewer even touches the DYK nomination, though. That's where this bot's benefit is. Thoughts on this? ~ RobTalk 15:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not everything needs to be double-checked - for instance, human reviewers shouldn't have to double check the length or date or expansion if the bot verifies it. I think the purpose of the bot is to shift the focus of a human review away from ticking off the criteria towards a content-based review: do the sources say what the article claims they say, are the sources reliable, is there close paraphrasing, etc. I think someone commented early in the discussion that it's useful to have the bot explicitly state the criteria even if it doesn't find a problem so human reviewers can be reminded of what the criteria are. I can reword the QPQ bullet to note that a human should confirm the review was performed properly. Intelligentsium 16:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I have a more radical suggestion to prevent editors from ignoring certain criteria in their reviews as a result of the bot's automated review. I apologize for this suggestion coming so late in the game, since it's going to be a pain to implement now if this is the way we decide to go. Why don't we just have the bot make notes where it does find errors rather than noting all the things that weren't incorrect? If reviewers are meant to double-check anything the bot does anyway, then noting all the non-errors doesn't serve any purpose. Noting an actual error could expedite correcting the error before a reviewer even touches the DYK nomination, though. That's where this bot's benefit is. Thoughts on this? ~ RobTalk 15:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, the bot is reporting the same number of DYKs (39) for the nominator in four reviews on July 5, 2016, one minute apart. They are: this edit at 19:22, this edit at 19:22, this edit at 19:23, and this edit at 19:23. Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, the bot uses the QPQ checker and only counts credited DYKs, not pending nominations. Intelligentsium 12:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it shouldn't say "This is Editor X's 39th nomination", but that "Editor X has 38 DYK credits". The latter phrasing would help reviewers determine if a QPQ is needed. Yoninah (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Done Intelligentsium 20:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it shouldn't say "This is Editor X's 39th nomination", but that "Editor X has 38 DYK credits". The latter phrasing would help reviewers determine if a QPQ is needed. Yoninah (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, the bot uses the QPQ checker and only counts credited DYKs, not pending nominations. Intelligentsium 12:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Intelligentsium, one of the DYK requirements is that the article not be a stub. The DYKcheck tool looks for this but I find that sometimes there is no talk page and no rating has occurred. Would it be appropriate for your bot to check for a stub tag on the talk page, or a stub category on the article page, and report these as a stub, and if no stub category and no talk page, report it as unassessed? EdChem (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- While checking for stub templates and tags is appropriate—DYKcheck does this today—I can think of no DYK reason why the bot should check for unassessed WikiProject classes or empty talk pages. Both are irrelevant to DYK and its criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- My thinking is that if there is no talk page then there has likely never been an assessment and hence it could be a stub. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a reviewer check if there has been an assessment and if there is none then tag as stub or start or ...? EdChem (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this is within the purview of the bot. The bot current does check for stub templates on the article page but Wikiproject categorization should be up to the discretion of the reviewer (indeed it may create more work if editors who don't know what they're doing start tagging articles because they think it's required) Intelligentsium 01:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- My thinking is that if there is no talk page then there has likely never been an assessment and hence it could be a stub. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a reviewer check if there has been an assessment and if there is none then tag as stub or start or ...? EdChem (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- While checking for stub templates and tags is appropriate—DYKcheck does this today—I can think of no DYK reason why the bot should check for unassessed WikiProject classes or empty talk pages. Both are irrelevant to DYK and its criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The bot reviewed my nomination and tells everybody my number of credits. The number is not correct (I guess those before templated DYK was introduced were not counted), but I don't like it there anyway. The human reviewer might get some bias such as "she has many credits, no need to check carefully". How about the bot checking qpq first, - if done there's no need to even check the credits. If not done, checking and then a line "... has more than 5 credits" would be enough. - I also think the always same caution about paraphrasing should not appear in every review, but be linked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Gerda, I think it's actually the cases where the credits are done manually rather than by the bot, my list of credits is missing a recent one, though I think your suggestion is a sensible one - what matters is if QPQ is needed, not how many credits there are.
Intelligentsium, maybe have the bot recognise "tbd" or something similar as "Nominator recognises that a QPQ is required and will post here once it has been done"? EdChem (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed the phrasing so that it's only a binary more than 5 credits vs less than 5. However I think there is too much variation in how nominators say tbd for automated detection - at any rate it's useful to have the reminder there as it's easy to forget about it. Intelligentsium 09:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the bot could first check if a qpq was done, if yes no need to run anything further. If no, a check if more than 5 DYK credits, - only speak up if yes, - keep the bot a bit more silent, - in general. (If saying anything, it should probably be "five or fewer" but seems clumsy.) As EdChem noted, the figure can be incorrect but never to high, so would err on the lenient side. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: actually, it is possible for it to be too high. In this case I found that there were 5 credits recorded but two of them were the same (1 and 2) though in different formats. Some sort of bot issue, presumably, but I was glad I checked it before asking for a QPQ. (PS: Intelligentsium, I would not suggest that your bot should catch things like this, it needs an aware reviewer or a nominator who raises the issue.) EdChem (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the bot could first check if a qpq was done, if yes no need to run anything further. If no, a check if more than 5 DYK credits, - only speak up if yes, - keep the bot a bit more silent, - in general. (If saying anything, it should probably be "five or fewer" but seems clumsy.) As EdChem noted, the figure can be incorrect but never to high, so would err on the lenient side. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed the phrasing so that it's only a binary more than 5 credits vs less than 5. However I think there is too much variation in how nominators say tbd for automated detection - at any rate it's useful to have the reminder there as it's easy to forget about it. Intelligentsium 09:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Gerda, I think it's actually the cases where the credits are done manually rather than by the bot, my list of credits is missing a recent one, though I think your suggestion is a sensible one - what matters is if QPQ is needed, not how many credits there are.
- I have a suggestion: to add <!--hidden comment codes--> on either side of the review to separate the bot's review from comments below it and the nomination above. It'd be really useful with wikEd, etc. Raymie (t • c) 03:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. Intelligentsium 09:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- At the moment, the bot inserts its review after the ":* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* -->" line in the template (immediately above the bottom, template-ending "Please do not write below this line"). The idea behind the "replace" comment line is that the (human) reviewer should start their review here, but that no longer makes sense if the bot's review is placed below it. I'd like to propose that the bot inserts its review above this comment line, so that the line appears directly below the bot's review (with a blank line between), indicating where the human review should begin. The blank line between the comment line and bottom line of the template should also be retained. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Done Intelligentsium 22:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- The bot is counting "ALT1", and even my signature on that alt, to the character count for ALT1. See [3]. Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I believe it only counted your signature. Unfortunately there is less confidence in the parsing of any alt hooks as there is usually greater variation in their formatting. I didn't mention this before but now is probably a good time to do so - the bot can look for hooks using a permissive regex, tolerant of incorrect formatting (missing ..., "that", or question mark at the end) or a "strict" regex, which requires correct formatting (unless no correctly formatted hooks are found, in which case it falls back to the permissive regex). The strict manner is likely to result in a slightly more accurate count but is also likely to miss alts unless they are perfectly formatted. I guess the question is, which is more important - getting all the alts or getting the count exactly right? Personally I don't think it makes a huge difference either way though I'm open to thoughts. Intelligentsium 22:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Moving towards stable operations
@Intelligentsium:, just checking in, the discussion and responses above have been great! Once live, where would you want editor feedback to go (e.g. your talk, the bot's talk, some other page)? Are there any outstanding technical or operational issues (not including enhancement requests)? — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Bot tags formal names
Bot just reviewed my DYK nomination…said risk was ~25%. However, virtually everything it tagged as close paraphrasing was a formal name combined with simple grammar words (e.g. “in the National Register of Historic Places”, “with the Brooks-Scanlon Lumber Company”, “for the Pilot Butte Development Company”, “and the Central Oregon Irrigation Company”, “mayor of the City of Bend, Oregon”, etc). “National Register of Historic Places” and other formal names can’t be avoided yet the bot tagged them multiple times causing a high risk score. Is there any way you can modify the bot to avoid tagging formal name in the review process?--Orygun (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mean for the copyvios tool? 25% is quite low for that tool, and even a 100% rating doesn't mean there's a copyright violation because it could have just caught a properly attributed quote. Editor review is required to determine if a copyright violation or close paraphrasing has taken place. The copyvios tool is only a shortcut for checking for that. ~ Rob13Talk 21:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, comment is related to copyright tool. At 25% the tool marks the copyright section with a red X (vice a green checkmark) so human reviewer is given the impression that there is a copyright problem. In the case of my article, I think a human reviewer would quickly see that there wasn't a copyright violation, but if formal names hadn't been tagged risk percent would have been in low single digits and could have been marked with a green check.--Orygun (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Orygun, the bot is not doing the check, it is just reporting the output from using Earwig's tool which every reviewer should check. It is not uncommon for the tool to flag a possible copyvio issue which a reviewer can see is not an issue (eg. I recently saw a 98% case where the text had been copied from WP without proper attribution). Close paraphrasing and copyvios get missed at DYK too often, so the bot reminding everyone to check is a good thing. I doubt anyone who knows what they are doing will see a high percentage as a mark against you without investigating because the tool finds similarities which might be problematic and flags them for attention, it doesn't conclude whether or not a problem actually exists. EdChem (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Orygun, EdChem and BU Rob13 are correct: the copyright checker is Earwig's tool and there is a note that titles and cited quotes may trigger a false positive. However, only a human check can verify whether a copyright violation exists; the bot merely alerts the human reviewer to be pay more attention when Earwig's tool reports a violation greater than 20%. It would be possible to raise this threshold if there is consensus to do so, but in my (manual) reviews I have found that >20% is almost always a reason for taking a closer look at the very least, and violations can exist even below that. Intelligentsium 23:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- What is the language used for >20%? There might be a case for using softer language for 20–50% (possible close paraphrasing, for instance) and stronger language for >50% (possible copyright violation, for instance). ~ Rob13Talk 23:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't think there's necessarily a greater possibility of copyvio for >50% than >20% (usually >50% just means there's a mirror somewhere); close paraphrasing generally falls on the lower end, in the form of snippets and phrases rather than entire sentences or paragraphs. I have changed it so the notice will now be a purple question mark (?) and the bot will not automatically notify the nominator to avoid spamming; the human reviewer will have to review the comparison and confirm if a violation indeed exists. Intelligentsium 14:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've found copying when the Earwig-reported number was less than 10%; copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing is something that should be always checked by a human reviewer. I would disagree with any request to set the number higher than 20%, and think the idea of a purple question mark is a good one. Given the number of false positives generated by Earwig, it's probably a good idea not to notify the user if Earwig numbers are the only issues found. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
DYK bot
At Template:Did you know nominations/Samiun dan Dasima, the new review bot tagged the article as lacking a citation for the plot section. As the film is still extant, and the plot is implicitly cited to the film (and no citation is required, per WP:DYKSG #D2, can we please add an exception to the bot's code so that sections titled Plot or Summary aren't checked? If we have a swath of film articles nominated, not having an exception coded might lead to more work for reviewers (or mislead new reviewers into thinking plot summaries need a citation). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Intelligentsium: copying this over from WT:DYK. Hope you see this here Chris Woodrich — Maile (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I saw this, thanks (though oddly I didn't get this ping...). I've had to do a bit of unexpected travelling over the past few days, nothing too major but I might not be able to respond in-depth until this weekend. However I will look into this issue. Intelligentsium 23:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again. I haven't read through this whole page, but I'm wondering if someone mentioned the length of the text that the DYK review bot is adding to each nomination. It takes me much longer now to scroll down T:TDYK to find suitable hooks to promote to prep. I'm wondering if the bot's review could be placed in a collapsed box so prep promoters can easily scroll through and select suitable hooks? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I saw this, thanks (though oddly I didn't get this ping...). I've had to do a bit of unexpected travelling over the past few days, nothing too major but I might not be able to respond in-depth until this weekend. However I will look into this issue. Intelligentsium 23:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
BU RoBOT 20
Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 16:04, Friday, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Auto-assesses class of articles as requested by WikiProjects
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
- Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Auto-assessment
- Specific project discussions are linked at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess
Edit period(s): As requested by projects
Estimated number of pages affected: For most projects, a couple thousand at most, but it depends entirely on the project.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Auto-assesses the class within {{WikiProject Biography}} using class parameters in other WikiProject templates. Only auto-assesses to "standard" classes (stub, start, C, B, GA, FA, FL). Skips articles that have multiple "standard" classes. Will not auto-assess any other project templates. Similar task has been approved and successfully run in the past at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 12 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 15. I will only run this task at the request of WikiProject members after they obtain consensus (or a lack of opposition after several days, since many projects aren't all that active). I originally planned to submit individual BRFAs for each project, but I've received four requests in a very short period of time, so doing so would flood the approval system.
Discussion
- I wouldn't say this needs another request for approval as it is basically the same as BU RoBOT tasks 12 and 15, only with a different WikiProject (am I right)? Therefore, if those tasks worked correctly, I don't really think a separate BRFA is required each time. So, I recommend a speedy approval. Rcsprinter123 (drone) 16:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Having a general task for this does seem OK - provided it is endorsed by the wikiprojects and perhaps with a maximum limit? Maybe tagging runs up to 5000 pages? Any guidelines others would like to impose? — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm completely ok with that. On a typical project, only around 1/3 of the unassessed pages are assessed by this task. For large projects, this is usually lower (WP:WikiProject Biography wound up being closer to 1/5). Very few projects have more than 15,000 unassessed pages, so a 5,000 edit limit per WikiProject is sensible and would either greatly reduce or possibly even eliminate the necessary BRFAs. If you want to formalize the guidelines I'm using myself, here they are:
- Before any assessing can occur, the relevant WikiProject must have a discussion on their talk page for at least five days.
- There must either be consensus for assessing at that discussion or no opposition over the five day period. (I'm a frequent closer of RfCs, TfDs, and CfDs, so I'm comfortable with double-checking consensus for this.)
- I will auto-assess only according to the rules at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess unless specifically requested by a WikiProject. If their request is simply adding or removing a class to auto-assess to, I think that's fine to do under this approval (i.e. don't assess to B-class, if the project in question has their own criteria they want to use), but I wouldn't add anything more complicated without seeking additional approval (i.e. only inherit classes from a specific set of WikiProjects or something like that).
- A WikiProject member must add the project to User:BU RoBOT/autoassess for me to start assessing. Clear consensus at the project without a specific action from a project member to opt-in isn't good enough. In other words, the project must determine amongst itself that they have consensus (although I'll double-check that before starting). I will be verifying that the person who lists a project didn't recently become a member, and if they did, I will verify they've worked in that topic area for a while.
- ~ RobTalk 17:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm completely ok with that. On a typical project, only around 1/3 of the unassessed pages are assessed by this task. For large projects, this is usually lower (WP:WikiProject Biography wound up being closer to 1/5). Very few projects have more than 15,000 unassessed pages, so a 5,000 edit limit per WikiProject is sensible and would either greatly reduce or possibly even eliminate the necessary BRFAs. If you want to formalize the guidelines I'm using myself, here they are:
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} ~ RobTalk 22:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Approved for trial (5000 edits or 30 days). OK to trial using your new sign up process-edit limit is per project. — xaosflux Talk 01:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Alright, so if I understand correctly, the trial is 30 days with a potentially unlimited number of edits, but capped at 5,000 per project. Is that correct? Should I mark this as trial complete at some point before the 30 days if there's a sufficiently large number of edits to judge the trial? ~ RobTalk 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
AGbot
Operator: Andrew Gray (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 22:49, Sunday, May 29, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised for first runs, automatic if successful
Programming language(s): Python (for PWB), bash scripts (for content generation)
Source code available: Standard pywikibot, uploading locally assembled text files (code)
Function overview: Maintaining lists of possible citations for articles
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily or weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: ~50
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no - will only be editing specified pages
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: I am working on a local script which generates correctly-formatted citation templates based on known matches between external sources and Wikipedia articles, via Wikidata. The bot will upload index pages of these (a first-pass example is at User:Andrew Gray/odnb), showing the article and the possible citation(s). These can then be reviewed by editors for manual inclusion in articles when useful & appropriate, either as a new source or as a nicely-formatted replacement for an existing bare citation.
This can potentially cover a number of resources, but for the first stage I'm working on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (~42k enwiki articles matched to subjects via P1415, between 4-10k of which cite the ODNB in some way). Later stages will cover links to the older Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource (currently ~9k links), and to the History of Parliament (currently ~7k links), both of which are frequently-used sources. In theory, the same system could be extended to a number of other high-quality resources if there is demand and there is suitable metadata on Wikidata.
This processing will all be done offline and the bot will simply have to upload the indexes. They will be stored in a suitable location (possibly userspace, possibly under Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography), and the bot will not edit articles itself. These lists will be refreshed on a periodic basis - either daily or weekly. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
Approved for trial (200 edits or 30 days)Userspace only. You can trial this, please start by making your lists in the bot's own userspace. — xaosflux Talk 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) The trial time has run - please present the results of your trial here. — xaosflux Talk 11:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Andrew, curious how will editors know the lists exist and how to find them? Would it make sense to leave a talk page post such as "Hi I am a bot. I found this ODNB citation that may be useful for this article. FAQ etc.. " -- GreenC 15:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Bots that have completed the trial period
BU RoBOT 23
Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:02, Sunday, July 10, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Tag template and category talk pages in Category:Stub categories and Category:Stub message templates with {{WikiProject Stub sorting}}
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#AALERTS
Edit period(s): Initial one-time run, possibly run again in the future if requested by the project
Estimated number of pages affected: 41,200
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The intention of this task is to allow the stub sorting project to set up WP:AALERTS. Only categories/templates in the above two categories will be tagged; the contents of sub-categories will not be. {{WikiProject Stub sorting}} doesn't include quality assessment, so there's no auto-assessment or anything here; this is a very simple task. Past similar tasks include Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 13, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 17, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 18.
Discussion
BU RoBOT 24
Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:48, Saturday, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Replace {{1960s-song-stub}} ... {{2010s-song-stub}} with {{1960s-single-stub}} ... {{2010s-single-stub}} when the articles are in Category:1960s singles ... Category:2010s singles
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This is fairly uncontroversial given the nature of these articles. This is a very typical way to move stubs into more specific stub categories. There was no opposition at this discussion.
Edit period(s): One-time run
Estimated number of pages affected: < 1,500
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Just what the function overview says. This is a very simple task.
Discussion
GreenC bot 2
Operator: Green Cardamom (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:49, Friday, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Nim and AWK
Source code available: WaybackMedic on GitHub
Function overview: User:Green Cardamom/WaybackMedic 2
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot - first revision approved and successful completed.
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: ~500,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot is nearly the same as the first bot (User:Green Cardamom/WaybackMedic), with these differences:
- In fix #2, instead of only making changes when other changes are made, it makes changes always. For example, it will convert all web.archive.org http links to secure https even if it's the only change. This modification amounts to commenting out the skindeep() function so doesn't require new code.
- The first bot was limited in scope to articles previously edited by Cyberbot II. This will look at all articles on the English Wikipedia containing Wayback Machine links, somewhere around 500k -- a more exact count will be available after the July 1 database dump. The bot will determine which articles to look at by regex'ing a Wikipedia database dump prior to its running.
Most of the edits will be URL formatting fix #2. Fix #4 will impact somewhere around 5% of the links (based on stats from the first run of WaybackMedic). The rest of the fixes should be minimal 1% or less.
Discussion
- I assume the difference in #2 is just how you're pulling a list of articles, not any coding change to the bot. Is this using the exact same code as the last bot except for commenting out the skindeep bit? Did the issues at the previous trial (bugs relating to alternative archives) pose no problem in the full run? If yes to both, this seems like something that could be speedily approved to run in 25,000 article batches with a 48-72 hour hold between them. If I'm understanding correctly, the only change is the removal of a simple function, and there seems to be no room for new bugs to have been introduced. ~ RobTalk 16:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Essentially yes. Before if it found a URL needing fix #4 and fix #2 in the same link, it did both fixes on that link (eg. changed the snapshot date (#4) and added https (#2)). If however it found only a fix #2 in a link, it ignored it as being too "skin deep" ie. just a URL format change. So now the bot will fix those skin deep cases. There is no change to the code, essentially, other than it no longer ignores the "skin deep" cases (only fix #2), and it will run against all articles with Wayback links not just a sub-set of them edited by Cyberbot II. The edits themselves will be the same as before, so the code is not changed. There were a couple minor issues that came up during the run that were fixed in the code and Wikipedia articles. I won't run the bot until after July 1 when the next database dump becomes available, since that is where the article list will be pulled from. -- GreenC 17:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Green Cardamom: Sorry, I phrased that ambiguously. By #2, I meant the second bullet point above, not fix #2. Nothing in the actual code of this task changed to widen the scope from articles edited by a previous bot to all articles, right? It's just in the manner in which you're pulling articles from the database dump? ~ RobTalk 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Essentially yes. Before if it found a URL needing fix #4 and fix #2 in the same link, it did both fixes on that link (eg. changed the snapshot date (#4) and added https (#2)). If however it found only a fix #2 in a link, it ignored it as being too "skin deep" ie. just a URL format change. So now the bot will fix those skin deep cases. There is no change to the code, essentially, other than it no longer ignores the "skin deep" cases (only fix #2), and it will run against all articles with Wayback links not just a sub-set of them edited by Cyberbot II. The edits themselves will be the same as before, so the code is not changed. There were a couple minor issues that came up during the run that were fixed in the code and Wikipedia articles. I won't run the bot until after July 1 when the next database dump becomes available, since that is where the article list will be pulled from. -- GreenC 17:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note Community feedback solicited on WP:VPR due to large run size. — xaosflux Talk 01:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Approved for trial (250 edits or 15 days). — xaosflux Talk 03:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Trial 1
WM will process in batches of 100 articles each, but some articles may not need changes so the number of edits will vary within each batch.
- Trial batch 5 (July 02) (51)
- Trial batch 4 (July 01) (62)
- Trial batch 3 (July 01) (42)
- Trial batch 2 (July 01) (33)
- Trial batch 1 (June 30) (48)
- @Green Cardamom: In this edit why was the content removed? — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This is fix #4 on that list. If an archive URL is not working it tries to find a working snapshot date, if it can't find it the archive is removed, as was here. In this case since the original URL is still working it didn't leave a {{dead}}. However there is a problem -- the archive URL is working. The bot keeps logs so I checked the JSON returned by the Wayback API which shows the URL was not available at Wayback. But the bot also does a header check to verify since the API is sometimes wrong. The header check also returned unavailable (at the time it ran). I just re-ran a dry run and it came back as link available - the problem doesn't appear to be with the bot. If I had to guess it's robots.txt as that is the most common reason links come and go from Wayback. robots.txt are controlled by the owners of the website. -- GreenC 13:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Monkbot 11
Operator: Trappist the monk (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 14:28, Monday, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): awb/c#
Source code available: User:Monkbot/task 11: CS1 multiple authors/editors fixes
Function overview: fix cs1|2 author/editor parameters in articles listed in Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list and Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): no recent discussions
Edit period(s): primarily one-time with additional runs as necessary
Estimated number of pages affected: at this writing there are 107,538 + 8,268 pages in the two categories
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): yes
Function details: User:Monkbot/task 11: CS1 multiple authors/editors fixes
Discussion
Comment to Trappist: I support this work. Have you considered testing for and skipping the pathological case in which |firstn=
is present with no corresponding |lastn=
, i.e. articles in Category:CS1 errors: missing author or editor? If not, I suggest trying to do so. "Correcting" author lists in articles with this case present will probably result in malformed citations with no error messages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Point. Now, any template that has
|firstn=
after empty parameters have been removed is ignored. I actually haven't seen any of these in the wild (yet) but no doubt, perhaps as one of the artifacts of citation bot, there are|author=name, name, name
|first2=first name
. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Yay? Nay? As of this morning, I've made some 2800 edits manually with the bot's script (see Special:Contributions/Trappist the monk).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Trial complete. The first 125 edits were made using articles listed in Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list; the second 125 edits were made using articles listed in Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list.
These anomalies are noted:
- H. A. Willis:
|author1=Curle Smith, H. Nora
looks like two authors with a comma separator. Since there is only one comma, this author name is not the reason that the article is a member of Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. I reverted this edit; refined the bot code, and ran the bot again over the page where it properly did not make an edit. - Steve Hagen:
|author=Brussat, Frederic and Mary Ann
omits Mary Ann's last name though the bot cannot know that. This is a case of garbage-in-garbage-out. cs1|2 do not support such naming conventions; complete author names are required. - Ron Holland: gigo; three names marked-up as two authors.
- Buddy Holly: I neglected to remove a debug statement; the edit was reverted and the bot retried
- to fix the Buddy Holly bug, it was necessary to disable the selective skipping in the code; I neglected to re-enable the selective skipping so edits that would not normally be made were made to:
- Hospital Food
- House of Fraser
- Housefly
- Houston Astros
- Houston College Classic
- Howard Johnson (baseball)
- Howard Lake (Washington)
- HTC HD2
- Huascarán National Park
- Hudson_County, New Jersey
- Hudson Yards, Manhattan
- Hudson's Oldfield mouse
- 11th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron
- 13th School Group
- 14th/32nd_Battalion_(Australia)
- 14th_Battalion_(Australia)
- 14th Operations Group
- Lester S. Willson: gigo:
|editor=William H. Powell, Lt Col, U.S. Army
should not include rank and affiliation - Lexis diagram: gigo:
|editor=Demographic Research, vol. 4, art. 3, pp 97-124
is not the name of an editor
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have modified the bot so that it skips templates with author/editor parameter values containing digits or the word 'army'. Items 2, 3, 6 & 7 above have been corrected manually.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Approved for extended trial (250 edits or 10 days). Please make a final run to demonstrate that errors have been cleared. — xaosflux Talk 11:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Trial complete.
- Thank you for posting this notification on my talk page. I had forgotten about this brfa. Can I ask why the significant delay between the end of the first trial and the approval for an extended trial? Should I have done something different?
-
- Anomalies noted:
- Atlah Worldwide Church: gigo;
{{cite court}}
is a more appropriate template than{{cite web}}
but I have no experience with that template so I reverted with corrections and added 'supreme' and 'court' to the bot's list of banned words;
- Atlah Worldwide Church: gigo;
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:BAG/Status is kind of backed up right now, I'm working through as many as possible. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Minor side effect in this bot trial, may be addressable via code: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Haché: Vancouver style error introduced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, know about that. This bot task is not in the business of fixing the content of the parameters. It cannot know if hyphenated initials in your examples are correct for those names or if the hyphen should be removed. Those sorts of decisions require an editor's brain. I have fixed that template.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Minor side effect in this bot trial, may be addressable via code: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Haché: Vancouver style error introduced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:BAG/Status is kind of backed up right now, I'm working through as many as possible. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Anomalies noted:
Approved requests
Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (), while old requests can be found in the archives.
- Cyberbot II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5a) Approved 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Cewbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 15:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FastilyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Approved 15:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- APersonBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 04:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 22) Approved 01:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- APersonBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 17:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 21) Approved 13:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 18) Approved 02:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FastilyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 02:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 19) Approved 16:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 17) Approved 17:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- SSTbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 1) Approved 01:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- EsquivalienceBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 03:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Bot1058 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 14:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FastilyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 22:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- GreenC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 20:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Approved 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 16) Approved 15:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- UTRSBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 03:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FastilyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 11:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- JJMC89 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 04:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Josvebot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 02:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Approved 00:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FastilyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 14:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnkitAWB (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 13:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 11:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Approved 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DarafshBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 08:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- JJMC89 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 16:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Denied requests
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.
- Athikhun.suwBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 15:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- GTBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 06:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- rezabot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Bot denied 19:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- nakon-bot01 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- WikiMonitor (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 06:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- CheckBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Bot denied 06:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- wargo32.exe (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hot Riley Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 23:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- TamizhBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 07:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- sanskritnlpbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- KoehlBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 15:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Bottastic 6 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 15:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Helperbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Bot denied 03:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirectbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- AWB - mass spelling fix (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Expired/withdrawn requests
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at anytime. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.
- Antigng-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- KSFT bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 18:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- NihiltresBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 03:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- CheckBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 00:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Matthewrbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 12:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- BU RoBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Withdrawn by operator 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nyubot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- CheckBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- JJMC89 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 23:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- TyAbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- JackieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 1) Expired 16:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Community Tech bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 22:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- ASammourBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 19:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Luke081515Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Expired 03:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)