Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot

Note: Both of these requests are no longer approved. To regain approval for these tasks, new requests for approval must be filed. —METS501 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

BetacommandBot expansion of task

I would like to have the bot automatically tag catagorys older than 5 days with ((db-catempty}} that remain unused after five days Betacommand 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How would it do that? What would the bot run in? How frequently would you run it? αChimp ^laudare 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will get a dump of all articles in Special:unused categorys and wait five days at that time i will get another dump and compare them manualy, any category that remains on the list is subject to deletion after only four days on the list. once i have the list of old empty cats i will then run the bot in AWB to tag each article with {{db-catempty}} per the deletion policy. I plan to run it no more than once a day, less as the number of empty cats goes down. currently there is 3926 empty catagories. Betacommand 17:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

An initial influx of 4000 CSD's would be a strain on anyone working CAT:CSD, can this be set to only flag new loney categories for CSD? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does unused cat's include categories that are "empty" of pages, but have subcats? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan to use Special:Unusedcategories which states The following category pages exist although no other article or category make use of them. . as for the comment about flooding CSD i have a solution. create a category something to the effect of Category:Categories that have been empty for moer than five days and put a link to it on csd, so that the list can be accessed without flooding CSD and i will also maintain a record of the data I use at User:BetacommandBot/oldCategories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs)

One comment about the current 3926 empties. I'm sure that a lot of them will remain empty, but is that the number of categories empty after 4 days, or is that just the total empty right now? (those two stats might actually be different) alphaChimp ^laudare 05:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

right now. update(3914) Betacommand 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Using a holding category sounds good for the initial run, I've got no objection to using {{db-catempty}} tagging for the rest. Can you implement a check to prevent them from getting tagged on subsequent runs though (e.g. if in holding cat SKIP) ? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

already built in but thanks for the sugestion Betacommand 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a trial run be possible without having to deal with the 3926 cats first? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan to log them under User:BetacommandBot/oldCategories and slowly release the first large CSD over a period of time into the speedy. i was also thinking instead of {{db-catempty}} i create a similar template and put all Cats into it and place a link on WP:CSD so that they can handle the large number of cats as they get time without flooding CSD. Betacommand 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) PS. kind of like a Backlog Category wich i will slowly release into CSD Betacommand 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Trial period approved. Please limit the initial run to no more than 500 categories. If possible have the trial include some empty cats created after the trial starts. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trial run in progress please see User:BetacommandBot/oldCategories for full record and list of pages Betacommand 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the per page logs check a master or prior page days to not regnerate so many hits per page? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Trial run bloody well unapproved. He set it to tag for deletion hundreds and hundreds of categories that, whilst empty, are key elements in series of categories (like buildings by year, for years we don't have a buliding for yet). I've just sat and reverted them, and I don't have a bot. Much greater thought needs to be applied before approving expansions like this. Please; would this page stop handing approvals out for pointless tasks that don't need doing, and that need doing with a modicum of human judgement? Having witless bots do things merely for the sake of not having them idle is irritating at best. And this particular bot has already had one run of other edits (substs) reverted for also being wrong, and pointless. -Splash - tk 01:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We do run short trials to see what may happen and require further review before just letting bots go. I'm not sure why we really need empty cats such as Category:5.56mm machine guns (one of the cats tagged). WP:CSD#1 does state that empty categories are speediable, and according to your statements above these may not even fall in to the old categories that may have contained articles before, requiring further investigation. If consensus is that we should have all of these empty categories, how did we end up with the speedy criteria? Regardless, due to this complaint, trials relating to editing the categories themselves are suspended, but ones that are preparing lists are not. Additionally, there has got to be a better way to keep track of the gathering then categorizing the categories. This bot has been blocked by Splash, pending a response. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well no, there were some that did seem a bit arbitrary, but I wasn't going to manually review each of 500ish categories when ~99% of them needed reverting. I do not think there is necessarily a "consensus" somewhere I can point to about the categories, but it does seem fairly obvious to me (and others at User talk:Kbdank71#Bot-tagging of unused categories) that obliterating large chunks of sequenced categories, just because they happen to be empty is wrong. Empty categories should be deleted when they risk confusion or duplication etc; that's what the CSD is for, not for indiscriminate application. Also, just because something meets a CSD does not mean it is required to be deleted, only that it may be.

Xaosflux, to answer your question, yes, I'm fine of course with someone unblocking the bot once its owner appreciates the difference in the manner it needs to be operated. Not merely asking here and getting an out-of-context nod before embarking on major-sized operations like this without checking very thoroughly, in advance that they make sense. WP:BOLD does not need to apply to bots. That said, I do not view the unblock as at all time-critical; the action of this bot fall well below the 'critical' threshold and in some cases well below the 'useful' threshold.

On a broader note, I'd like it if runs of 500 hundred edits were not the trial size. These have to be reverted by patient humans, and the whole point of a trial is to save time if things go belly up. I would think trials of no more than 50, with well announced trialling would be very much more appropriate. -Splash - tk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Responce:

• A: My bot did not tag anything for deletion.
• B: All it did was state that the category was subject to the old category rule WP:CSD#1.
• C: If someone lets me know about a mistake i can have the bot revert all of the edits quickly without the overwork to humans.
• D: It has been brought to my attention that some cats need to be kept. I would like assistance in creating a list of cats that are key elements in series of categories. i will use thwm as an exclusion
• E: My bot did only 300-350 edits reguarding this subject
• F: If at any point there is concern about my bot leave a message on its talkpage and it will stop editing until i have reviewed it and have resolved the issue

Betacommand 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) PS: will work according to xaosflux Regardless, due to this complaint, trials relating to editing the categories themselves are suspended, but ones that are preparing lists are not. Betacommand 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• A, B: It amounted to tagging for speedy deletion.
• E: That's still a factor of 10 too many for a trial run.
• F: That is a useful feature that you should document on the bot's user page. -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What it is key to take away from this, Betacommand, is that you must check with relevant projects and processes and people before undertaking sweeping actions with a bot that are not precedented. Not before, to my knowledge have categories been mass eliminated under CSD C1, and so CfD should have been contacted before going ahead. This approvals page is evidently rather below-par for making sure of the utility and appropriateness of the editing the bot will undertake, really only making sure it is technically sound and possible. It is your responsibility to do the necessary homework. -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this bot is a good idea. If someone where create the category, you expect it to have at least one item. Keeping them provides no navagationial value. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously sequential years have navigational value if I'm a newbie trying to work out what categories I can use without realising I can make them (particularly if I'm an anon and prohibited from creating pages at all). -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• After receiving confirmation that this function is disabled for the time being (logs will still be written for debug purposes, but the bot will not make live edits related to this), I've unblocked the bot. However, if the bot is making any funny edits, feel free to reblock again. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this task. However, if certian categories are "required" or whatever, why not tag them with a template to that effect? Bots can detect the template and ignore it, and it will give humans the same cue. --Chris (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chris on this, a template would be a good idea, that makes the bot easily future-compatible, which is important for maintenance of series categories. I think that the task is a good idea, as long as some sort of exceptions mechanism is implemented, and all the needed categories are tagged before the bot runs.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Splash I object to your to how you have handled this situation you are going against Wikipedia policy (empty categories older than four days are subject to deletion), and you inability to read.

This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. It is a category that has no items whatsoever in it, it has been empty for at least four days (CSD C1).
Please Remove this notice if at any point this category is no longer empty

is how I marked the categories ‘‘‘NEVER’’’ did I list it for deletion or attempt to speedy it, all the bot did at this point was state 'This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion'. Regarding the fact that the categories are key elements in series of categories show some proof that there are guidelines to keep them and that they are exempt from WP:CSD#1. Also please show some consensus about keeping them that has more than four editors. That is NOT a consensus on Wikipedia. I am operating per Wikipedia:deletion policy. Please show me some guideline or policy that exist to back up your personal opinion, and the uncalled for hostile bordering on rude behavior you have show in this discussion. Betacommand 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The CSDs are things that may be speedily deleted if an admin agrees with you. They are not things that must be. It does strike me that perhaps you don't agree that you should check with relevant projects, people and processes before deploying your bot. That's a little disappointing. -Splash - tk 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to work with CSD to implament this task once i was completely comfortable with the logging and taging of old categories by the bot. you blocked my bot before i could do this. if you will look above i was thinking about putting a link on WP:CSD as a solution but i was planning to discuss this with CSD before nominating anything for deletion. As per above (my previous post) i am still waiting for the answers to the questions about your actions and the what policy that you were using for a guideline for reverting the tags and blocking of my bot. where is there a discussion about keeping them. and the other qusetions that i have rasied Betacommand 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am approving this bot on a trial run under the following conditions

1. This trial is no more than 50 edits
2. The bot will not tag w/ any tag that will add items to CAT:CSD, use a seperate sub-category like Tawkerbot on old user talk pages did.
3. If it's a subcategory something should show to that extent (unless someone has a diff to prove otherwise) - if there is nothing there (say the category page is blank) for goodness sakes tag it!

-- Tawker 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

done, please see Category:Categories that have been empty for more than four days and are subject to deletion Betacommand 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice…and you can see straight off the bat that those "A-class…" categories are each part of a set and should be tagged for exemption somehow. No mistake, this is a useful tool for rootling out categories which have gone unused and unloved, it just needs some mechanism for detecting those which are lying in wait for articles to populate them as part of an ongoing process.
One thing though: it would have been nice if the bot had spelt "Catagories" correctly HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

all A-Class articles are now excluced if there are any others that someone can identify i will add them to the exclude list thank you for your input. Betacommand 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is still no good. The trial has flagged a number of categories tagged as category redirects that have very obvious reason to exist for that purpose: to help prevent people categorising articles into them by seeing the red box that says "no, please put them in that category over there". It also tagged one category as meeting speedy criteria when it is currently on CfD. Betacommand, you seem to be unable to accept that BEFORE you do this, YOU NEED TO CHECK WITH SOME PAGE OTHER THAN THIS ONE. I can't make this any clearer than bold, italic capitals, and I've said as much several times earlier. The 'approvers' on this page do not apparently check that anybody actually cares whether or not your bot does stuff, and so you have to do that legwork yourself, before before before before before before before you jump in and do it. Now two of us have pointed out things wrong with this trial, I trust that it is unapproved - again. -Splash - tk 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• These kinds of things do not give me confidence at all. There's many categories that are empty, true, but that doesn't mean that they must be deleted. In fact, in most cases, they should not be, as they may be part of broader category schemes that aren't empty. There's no way to instill that kind of AI to a bot, so, as a result, I don't think a bot would be appropriate for this task. Oppose. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Responce: the bot has no AI I am its brain, I am currently working to identify all categories that should be kept like the A-Class artices you pointed out the bot only tags categories that i find, and even after they are identified as being empty for more that 4 days doent mean that they will be marked for deletion Because of some issuse that have been brought up durring this disscusion i was planning to manually examim all of the categories that meet the criteria befor putting them up for deletion. Just because my bot tags an article doesnt mean that it must be deleted or may deleted so far the tags only state that the category has been empty for more that four days and meeets the criteria for WP:CSD#1 it doesnt list them for deletion all it does is identify old empty categories. Given the issues raised durring this discussion I will review all categories thoroughly before i mark them for deletion. Betacommand 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And if that does not seem to work for this task I have an alternate solution have the bot add all unused categories to a parent category such as category:Abandoned category as of ..... That Would allow users to quickly identify old empty categories by date. this would not involve marking categories for deletion or placing a template on the page it would be something like the orphaned category page only this Would identify abandoned categories Betacommand 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More a question for the categories community, but perhaps a category "categories sometimes left deliberately empty" would help. Rich Farmbrough 21:03 15 August 2006 (GMT).

• Given the issues involved with this Task i hearby withdraw my request Betacommand 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAWN BY OPERATOR

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

BetacommandBot New task

as per request on my talk page and my responce on their page

Hi. I am looking for a process to automatically add a template to any articles that are in a category. It is for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team to add {{AncientEgyptBanner}} to all articles that are category Category:Ancient_Egypt. Would BetacommandBot do this, if so what do I need to do to run it ? Thanks in advance Markh 11:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do you need to add {{AncientEgyptBanner}} on the pages? if the bot can do it i'll list it on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and after i get approval ill do it if i can. Betacommand 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would want it to tag the talk pages with the tag. Not sure whether that is a bit tricky? Markh 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Real Easy let me make a request on WP:B/RFA Betacommand 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Betacommand 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So this bot adds templates to pages in a category; is this for this specific run or can it be expected to be used in general by any reasonable project effort?Voice-of-All 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

this and any other requst that is similar just adding {{Wikiproject...}} to the talk page of the pages Betacommand 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Approved. Voice-of-All 23:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

BetacommandBot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually Assisted:Auto

Programming Language(s):Python & AWB

Function Summary: CFD/TFD, Substing, WikiProject tagging, Spam stats

Edit period(s) :Continuous

Edit rate requested: depending on the task edit rate varies no more than ~10epm

Already has a bot flag :N

Discussion

I've divided each area into its own subsection. -- RM 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam Stats

AFIAK the bot was cleared for spam stats w/ no edit flag. Perhaps splitting the bots work into multiple accounts would be a good thing here -- Tawker 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need to. The CFD and Wikiproject and substing would warrant a flag, but the spam stats need not show up on RC or watchlists, I believe a link is simply posted to a channel, so is there any harm in running the stats with a flag? ST47Talk 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see a reason to split accounts as the stats task post only to a few pages and anyone interested with that data more than likely just uses the IRC link. Tawker all approval was withdrawn. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Tawker, perhaps the linksearch function could be speedily approved, whether under this account or another, as it supplies extremely helpful information on external links and affects nothing outside of the Wikipedia namespace. ST47Talk 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The linksearch feature is already under another bot, with another operator. It is still in trial though. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a very controversial task. I put forth a motion for speedy approval. Naturally this must be the exact same approval as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/VixDaemon_4, so all those comments will apply in this case as to what is allowed and not allowed. -- RM 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Provided we have the strict condition that the data isn't to be used for automated or semi-automated link removal until such time as a seperate application has been lodged for such a task (as you allude to), go for it. --kingboyk 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A special note on the semi-automatic link removal. I know that this caused a tremendous amount of problems, but I'd like to see this tool tested and verified by BAG and the rest of the community. With proper oversight, this could be an extremely useful tool which at some point should go through a separate approvals process, as mentioned by kingboyk above. -- RM 12:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedily Approved. The spam stats / linksearch function has already been mostly tested, so there is no reason to put this through trial, unless someone wants to disagree. The VixDaemon trial is basically done and ready to be approved anyway. It is explicitly not to be used for any automated or semi-automated link removal without a separate approval, which you are encouraged to seek. The bot flag will not be granted for this task, but will likely be granted when the other tasks are approved. -- RM 12:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a request for this task. I would like open ended approval for stat work so I can develope more and better data collection and interpertation to assist in counter spam. (I have a few design ideas that of how to interpret and display link data. they may or may not end up working out) but I would like approval to continue development of statical functions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about making a new account and a seperate application for that task proposal? (I don't like the sound of "open ended" but we can discuss that when the task is formally requested and more technical info supplied). --kingboyk 15:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When I mean open ended I want only approval for anti-spam data analysis within the wikiproject spam space. I will not leave that area but would like to be able to expand on the stats that are currently generated. IE be able to track spam counts over time and other stats. this will NOT be anything else than stats within the WP:WPSPAM subspace. I dont see any issues here or the need to split accounts. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK, if it's analytical work within that project area I see no problem at all. Thanks for clearing that up Beta. I was thinking you wanted to apply for approval to test your link removal code, which I definitely think should be a seperate application. --kingboyk 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Subst

Betacommand, we don't want more problems. You need to be more specific. "Substing" is not a task summary. —METS501 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

that is per WP:SUBST or a random TfD by request. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really specific. Which templates will you be substituting? Which namespaces will you be operating in? I know you've been doing all this for a while, but it's very vague what exactly you mean by "substing". Be specific. -- RM 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

anything listed under under sections 2 and 3 of WP:SUBST Templates that should be substituted and Templates that must be substituted this task as does the nature of templates spreads across all namespaces. I shall be very careful in the template namespace when edits are needed there more than likely I will do those simi auto. TFD will be answered in section below Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, for future, Special:ExpandTemplates is the way to go with this sort of thing, as I discovered (and coded for) with the deletion of {{TVep}}. Martinp23 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Adding wikiproject banners to article talk pages and associated issues. IE if pages are tagged as {{WikiProject}} but are listed in a sub cat I may add or change {{Wikiproject|class=stub}} or variants of that. or if its in cretin categories add the template to talkpages. see [1] for a request that has been asked. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD/TFD

Could you describe this task in specific detail? -- RM 12:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:CFD and WP:CFD/W decisions either remove a category or rename it. same thing cydebot does. in regard to TFD I have only done one or two such request but I might as well get approval for any future request if they come up. {{smiley}} was a widely used template with at least four variants of it, a total of over 50 parser functions that were used to display facial images. there was a TfD in which it was decided that {{smiley}} should be deleted. But if users just removed the {{smilely|what ever face number}} that would /could change the tone and meaning behind the post. I was asked to orphan and delete the templates when that was done per tfd. I coded several bot runs (basically one per template). Mets you pointed out one diff that was made in that run on the previous discussion of BCbot. Without checking for parser functions I just substed it. when it was pointed out that it used parser functions (part way through the first template) I then coded BCBot to examine the templates and play template namespace and figure out what the parser functions did and then replace the template with what ever the template would have render into any way. IE {{Smilely|happy}} would become Image:Happy face.jpg or what ever the corispnding image would have been. this was extremely esoteric template task that I doubt any other bot operator would have bothered to do. (there was originally just a request for a bot to remove the template.) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyde even stated "impossible to properly substitute" yes there were a few bugs with that task but I am very happy with the outcome. FYI {{smiley}} alone had 22 parser functions to subst. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That task would have been very easy with Special:ExpandTemplates. —METS501 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case not really the parser function results were simple. the matter was coding them all in and the variants that were used in order to be able to remove the template completely with a bot. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)