Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betacommand (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 6 April 2007 (Subst). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Operator: Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Tawker all approval was withdrawn.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 (talkcontribsBot) 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribsBot) 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talkcontribsBot) 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

that is per WP:SUBST or a random TfD by request. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talkcontribsBot) 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How will the bot deal with pages like User:CliffC/Temp? —METS501 (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to filter out several namespaces such as Wikipedia:, Help:, and user subpages so those should not come to the bot. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talkcontribsBot) 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend using my plugin when you're tagging for projects which it specifically supports, and optionally for all such requests. I'm in the process of writing a page explaining why but trust me, it makes your life easier :)
Also, please be aware that there is mounting dissatisfaction at the number of talk pages with multiple tags, so if you get requests which would result in lots of double tagging - because the projects share scope but don't work together - you might want to gently ask them to consider template sharing.
Those points aside, this is a mostly non-controversial task which you've been doing for a long time. The request you showed us looks fine too. I move to speedy approve this task, which will also necessitate a bot flag. --kingboyk 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to use your plug in unless I cant get it to do what I need, But by default that is what I use. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Approved. As per kingboyk's motion for a speedy close. This is the least controversial of Betacommand's tasks. I should also note that I approved of his usage of "Infoboxneeded" on those talk pages, as that was similar enough. Placing maintenance tags for the Wikiprojects on article talk pages is exactly what he is doing here, whether or not it is labeled "WikiProjectXXXX" or not. It should be pretty obvious whether a differently named tag is sufficiently different to require bot approval. I should note that I like when Betacommand takes requests from specific WikiProjects to do these things. Just be careful, as kingboyk points out, that these types of banners may at some point be frowned upon, so care must be taken to stop immediately if anyone complains and engage in a dialogue as appropriate. -- RM 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD/TFD

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

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 (talkcontribsBot) 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talkcontribsBot) 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That task would have been very easy with Special:ExpandTemplates. —METS501 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talkcontribsBot) 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}.