Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

IP bot?

If you look here you will see that this IP appears to be a bot. Presumably as it is an IP this bot has not got registration ("if their owners seek approval first"), but I'm not sure what to do about it. Any thoughts? --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked it pending more information, and left a note on the talk page for the IP address. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be User:YurikBot, seems to be running pywiki which has a habit of occasionally logging out.--Commander Keane 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Was stated to be YurikBot on IRC, apparently a cookie problem had it editing as an IP as opposed to a username -- Tawker 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't run logged out, and since it is continuing the edits as the IP address, I've re-blocked. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It happens, bots do get logged out sometimes. We have identified the bot, it shouldn't be blocked. Put a note on the IP talk page that this is yurikbot maybe. Mike _{(T C)} 19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest following Yurik's suggestions, only block for 15 min to reset the bot. I've found my bot did this once, its weird but it happens. -- Tawker 23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot not reviewing edits

Not reviewing every edit as required by AWB. Blindly piped UK and US in the List of all two-letter combinations.

--William Allen Simpson 13:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Did that repeatedly on the same page, after being reverted, and after notes on the talk page. He did fix it to ignore that page, but I'm not sure this is a useful thing to do unmonitored. AWB doesn't work well unmonitored.

Now, it just unlinked "max may med" to "max May med" at List of three-letter English words. Again, AWB doesn't work well unmonitored. And there's simply no reason what-so-ever to unlink months! Or words that might be months!

--William Allen Simpson 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Heck, it's worse than that! Reviewing the contributions (that it's making every 6 seconds), I see that it moves the trailing ]]s to s]]> on piped links. That's against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form.

--William Allen Simpson 00:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#SmackBot_and_AWB_operated_by_Rich_Farmbrough --Francis Schonken 10:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that AWB works perfectly automatically, the problem is that SmackBot is doing things that should not be done automatically. The things he is doing are not built-in functions either. Also, the month de-linking business has been discussed at length already, I believe the outcome was not to de-link them, at least until there is a firmer policy. Martin 10:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why I requested:

• SmackBot would no longer run under "bot flag"
• SmackBot activity (and all other use of AWB/semi-bots/bots by Rich Farmbrough) would be suspended until contentious issues have been cleared out.

--Francis Schonken 10:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a nightmare having this in discussion in so many different places! This complaint has spilled into at least six pages, and while I want to deal with it properly it is being made very difficult.

William makes three complaints, two that have occurred on pages he is involved with and one he hunted down out of the logs.

He is absolutely right about the edits to List of all two-letter combinations - they were wrong and should not have happened.

As he says I have ensured that they cannot happen again. Why were they allowed to happen in the first place? Because that page is pathalogical (in the mathematical sense, not the clinical), stuffed with self reference and arguably belongs on a different namespace.

The second complaint has some validity, on the other hand the utility of linking the word "may" to the month of May on List of three-letter English words is very dubious. I have changed it to link to May (disambiguation). This page is also very unusual, (not just for having survived a VfD despite a 31 to 16 vote to delete) and William spends a lot of effort reverting peoples changes to it, so perhaps that's why he's so unhappy about this particular edit.

The third problem appears to be a phantom. SmackBot changed [[constellation|constellations]] to [[constellation]]s, compare with "When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]]" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form.

I am always prepared to try to improve, and welcome helpful criticism of my edits by anyone, so I hope we can resolve this quickly and move forward. However I do understand people's concern about bots in general, and to this end I have added a stop button to User:SmackBot which can be used by anyone, not just admins. Rich Farmbrough 18:48 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Moving [[constellation|constellations]] to [[constellation]]s is correct, as far as I can tell, William is saying that you did the opposite to this. Martin 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly [[constellation|star]]s to [[contellation|stars]] ? . Faugh, I have spent a lot of time on this today, what with other little local difficulty, it's been very non-productive. Rich Farmbrough 23:06 27 March 2006 (UTC).

modbot?

Is this an authorised bot: Modulatum? Signs edits with "modbot" without further explanantion, and changes, e.g., "anual" to "annual, anal" diff.

I leave a note at user talk:modulatum#Bot operations. --Francis Schonken 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Even worse, modulatum now reverted

[[Image:Dpedro2-emp.png|thumb|right|160px|Pedro II Emperor of Brazil in [[regalia]] at the opening of the General Assembly (oil painting by [[Pedro Américo de Figueiredo e Melo|Pedro Américo]]).]]

to

[[Image:Dpedro2-emp.png|Pedro II of Brazil on an anual opening of the Congress|thumb|right|160px|Pedro II Emperor of Brazil in [[regalia]] at the opening of the General Assembly (oil painting by [[Pedro Américo de Figueiredo e Melo|Pedro Américo]]).]]

As if "Pedro II of Brazil on an anual opening of the Congress" has any meaning in this image tag.

The edit summary read "rv bot"; instead modulatum overwrote all changes since modbot had passed by.

Suggesting that modulatum would start a bot request procedure (PS: above on this page it is explained how to do that). --Francis Schonken 18:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did so for "modulatumbot." Modbot is the shorthand.

The original string reads: "Pedro II of Brazil on an anual opening of the Congress." Modbot changes this to "annual, anal" due to a faulty replacement string, which has been fixed since. I usually revert the modbot version to the one before it to offset the faulty edit. Then before I catch the mistake (when it's pointed out on my talk page), FS changes it to read, "Pedro II Emperor of Brazil in regalia at the opening of the General Assembly." Afterwards, not looking at the edit history, I simply revert to before the modbot edit, back to "Pedro II of Brazil on an anual opening of the Congress." I apologize for the hasty revert, but the bot has done nothing but correct common misspellings. The bug in question has since been fixed, and since the week has been a trial run for the bot, I've rigorously monitored every change, but unfortunately I let this one pass by. The week period for the bot will expire on the 26th, after which I'll let it go unmonitored. MOD 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#Modulatumbot, you're clueless about wikisyntax for images (ergo, the bot cannot be programmed to be less clueless about it). I never changed the visible image caption. Before, during and after your and my bot and manual operations the caption of the image in question continued to be read as "Pedro II Emperor of Brazil in regalia at the opening of the General Assembly (oil painting by Pedro Américo)." You didn't know (and still don't appear to know) that the part of the text you messed with was never visible, so the only logical thing to do with it (and that would have been a nice job for a bot while tedious for humans) is to remove the first string that has no function whatsoever.

Please realise that, for the time being there will be no "unmonitored", nor "monitored" runs of the bot, per User talk:Modulatumbot: "Just a reminder that this bot isn't approved and will be blocked if run." [1] --Francis Schonken 09:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

New approvals procedure

The current approvals system is ambiguous - you wait a week and if there are no complaints you proceed with a 1 week trial - but what if no one saw the request for approval? A dodgy bot would still get approval to run. A steward has also complained about the clarity of approvals (see here).

The new system will be similar, but approval will come from a core group of experienced Wikipedians. You will submit your request as usual. After a week a member of the approvals group will allow or deny the request, looking at discussion etc.

Then the one week trial will occur. After the trial a member of the approvals group will allow or deny the bot (a bot flag can be applied for after this second approval).

A core group of experienced Wikipedians has been selected: Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group.--Commander Keane 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I might suggest adding User:Joshbuddy to the reviewers list as he's one of the best bot coders I know. I think we also need a source code for all non clone bots (source code does not have to be released to the community just to specific users as is the case with Tawkerbot2 -- Tawker 03:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to put my time forth to be part of the group if you want another person. I know bot policy pretty well and think I could do the job well. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a facility for anything between allow or deny the request - more trials, yes, but conditional on certain things, probationary period and so forth. Hopefully most would be simple allows. Rich Farmbrough 23:30 27 March 2006 (UTC).

Certainly trials and conditions can be used, I didn't mean to convey otherwise. Common sense should be used, no need for have it black and white (deny and allow).--Commander Keane 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaints procedure

The complaints procedure is also ambiguous. At the moment, if you have a complaint about a bot during its one week trial you mention it in the application at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals, that seems fine. But what to do if you have a complaint about an established bot?

Minor complaints can be placed on the operators talk page. However, occasionally, a series of complaints will arise and editors become anxious and want to report it. What is the correct procedure? Options include:

1. Leave a brief note at WT:BOTS and continue discussion at the operators talk page
2. Have the entire discussion at WT:BOTS
3. Have the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals (not sure if that's a good idea, since it's for new requests)

Also, the Administrators noticeboard and Request for comment are places where discussion can occur about a bot.

Personally, I think option number one is ok, and would like to introduce it to the main project page: WP:BOTS.--Commander Keane 17:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with option number one, it has sufficient visibility, and if there's a mega problem will reach the audience who can best deal with it. Should we call it something more inviting, people might not want to "complain"? Rich Farmbrough 23:24 27 March 2006 (UTC).

We could say the user would be "informing Wikipedia about problems with a specific bot, that will be fixed" or anything like that. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a new subpage of Wikipedia:Bots should be created for complaints, for example Wikipedia Bots/complaints that way complaints can be sorted out from the rest of the bot discussions. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, anyway I'd prefer to have the discussions on a page actively monitored by the Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group. Maybe we need to make distinction between users that didn't follow any procedure prior to firing a bot, and bots that were approved, but started to perform contested tasks not in their original bot application, or start to make systemic errors.

Also I would think it a good idea that any account that operates in a bot-like fashion should have a "Emergency bot shutoff button" on top of their user page, (see user:SmackBot for example) --Francis Schonken 10:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. I think I'll add a Problems with a specific bot section to the project page, with instructions to discuss problems with the bot owner, and leave a small note on this page (WT:BOTS) if it's serious. I can't see the need for another subpage at this time, since problems are rather infrequent (but it's always easy to create a subpage at a later date, if necessary).

I'm sure people in the approvals group will be watching this page, and anyway they aren't required in dealing with problems. Various emergency shut off buttons exist. Some point to the block page, others (eg SmackBot) lead to the talk page. Some bots have the feature where a note on the talk page will stop operation. I think it is something to consider encouraging, but it is not perfect - for example with Orphanbot the talk page was abused and bot struggled to get any work done.--Commander Keane 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk page-stop feature is of course already on WP:BOTS under "Good Form". Rich Farmbrough 18:47 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Rolling several changes into one

I have seen divided opinion on this. Some watchers feel that small edits should be avoided, because they needlessly clutter watch lists. Some editors would prefer them broken out so that they can be selectively rolled back. Personally I have no preference, but perhaps this could be a guideline [if there is strong consensus]. Or perhaps we should simply put it on WP:Bots to make operators aware of the issue, and non-operators aware that they are aware. Rich Farmbrough 18:30 28 March 2006 (UTC).

I don't think we need a guideline, if a bot is making enough edits that need reverting such that it becomes a significant issue, then the bot shouldn't be running at all. Martin 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Or slower.... But I must not have been clear - an editor said to me "I liked this bit of your edit - I hated the other bit - had you done them separately I could have just reverted the bit I didn't like." Presumably a significant time period between the two edits would also have elapsed. Rich Farmbrough 23:10 28 March 2006 (UTC).

new template

Just wanted to let everyone know about {{User:UBX/bot vandalized}} which is meant to replace {{user vandalized}}, it is more specific towards bot pages and links to the Wikipedia:Bots page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PorthosBot

Who owns User:PorthosBot? Why does it have a bot flag?

I left a message at User talk:PorthosBot#Bot flag?, but didn't receive an answer yet... does anyone have more info on this bot? --Francis Schonken 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Porthos probably owns it. Martin 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Danny is responsible for granting bot status to User:PorhosBot and immediately renaming it to User:PorthosBot. I have asked him at m:User talk:Danny to explain what is going on and remove the bot flag until at least our basic requirements on identification and description are met. Dragons flight 09:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to this topic. I have a growing uneasyness about Porthosbot (primarily because it appears impossible to find/contact the bot operator; and to get any answer from Danny why bot flag was applied to this bot). The bot is still not mentioned at WP:BOTS...

So I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#PorthosBot while I have no clue what would be a next step.

I'd like to invite any sysop reading this message, to block PorthosBot: this has taken long enough: no clarification whatsoever for the existence/approval of the bot has been given since questions were asked more than a week ago. Let's keep an eye to user talk:PorthosBot after that, I'm sure it will be possible to sort out things quite rapidly if the bot operator starts to communicate. --Francis Schonken 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also posted a message at cs:Wikipedista diskuse:Zirland#PorthosBot (en:wikipedia), while Zirland appears to have been the owner of the preceding version of PorthosBot, see: User talk:PorhosBot --Francis Schonken 10:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I am operator of this bot. If there is a problem, I'd like to solve it. --Zirland 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this bot indefinitely pending more information. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

But what information? You asking me, but I do not know what you want to know. I see you have promptness to block the bot, so I hope, you also are goodwill to solve the situation. --Zirland 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To run a bot on the english wiki you have to get it approved first, this bot was not approved, the fact that it was given a flag and it was so difficult to communicate with the parties involved made the situation even more unusual. If you make it clearer on the bot's user and talk page how it's owner can be contacted, then there will be no problem with it running. Martin 11:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus follow the procedure and minimal requirements described at wikipedia:bots#Current policy on running bots I'd say, avoids problems in the future.

Lot of the nuisance could've been avoided if we could've found out earlier that Zirland was the operator of PorthosBot, note that just now Zirland updated:

• user:PorthosBot
• and: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Zirland_.3D_PorthosBot

... but the bot should be de-flagged (or not be used) until there's a positive approval of the bot according to procedure.

The only uneasiness that still remains for me, for the time being, is communication in English with Zirland (do we need to worry about that?)... if there's a problem in that sense, please ask help, we'd be happy to assist --Francis Schonken 11:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think de-flagging won't be neccessary, I agree to not use the bot (the account is blocked anyway) until the situation clarify. So what am I supposed to do now? The request for aproval is listed since March 3. --Zirland 11:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You're supposed to read wikipedia:bots#Current policy on running bots and apply it (that's not something we can do in your place);

Further, if reading current policy, you'll see it will be necessary to first de-flag PorthosBot (and I'd advise you to request de-flagging at m:Requests for bot status#Removal of bot status yourself, that'll be the quickest procedure): If PorthosBot is not de-flagged, it will stay blocked; if it stays blocked, it can't test-run, which is necessary to get an approval to flag it...

So, as far as I understand, de-flagging is the first step, and you can do what is necessary for placing that request in the appropriate place. --Francis Schonken 12:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course if it is needed...

1. I asked for bot removal on m:Requests for bot status#en:User:PorthosBot.
2. Do I need to place NEW request for bot approval here, or the old one is sufficient?

--Zirland 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the *place* Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Zirland_.3D_PorthosBot is OK for the time being (the approval request wasn't "frozen" in a conclusion yet...) – I already commented there too in the mean while. I'd concentrate now on:

• give a better job description for the bot, both at the BRFA page and at PorthosBot's user page (for instance the bot apparently does more than exclusively cz interwiki links; also it's for instance not clear to me whether PorthosBot is part of the py interwikibot framework, see WP:BOTS#Interwiki bots or is it a different type of software/framework?);
• HANDLE/ADDRESS/REPLY TO the remark given at user talk:PorthosBot#Incorrect addition of interlanguage links

--Francis Schonken 13:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to do anything at the moment, because my account was autoblocked. Zirland

Yeah, I feared this might happen as I wrote at cs:Wikipedista diskuse:Zirland#PorthosBot (en:wikipedia)... I'll leave a note to Talrias, that he unblocks; anyway, you should be able to log in as user:PorthosBot on en:, and then edit user talk:PorthosBot... (similarly: log in as user:Zirland on en:, and edit user talk:Zirland); which would give you opportunity to *at least* reply to the remark at user talk:PorthosBot#Incorrect addition of interlanguage links. --Francis Schonken 15:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked the bot and the one instance of a autoblock (which would only have arisen due to the bot attempting to edit - which is not acceptable). Talrias (t | e | c) 16:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is account autoblocked also for editing own page and/or own talk page? Just asking.

Thank you for deblock. --PorthosBot 16:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC) --Zirland 17:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Talrias is right: the PorthosBot account shouldn't do any more edits as long as it's not de-flagged (can take a few days); and you get a go-ahead for a new trial run at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Zirland_.3D_PorthosBot.

You best handle all issues & questions re. PorthosBot with your bot operator account anyway (i.e. Zirland) --Francis Schonken 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe it is only a feeling, but I think wheels are not rolling anymore. Or? You stopped Porthos's activity and I understand the reason. But no RFA activity from anybody since that time... --Zirland 06:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

YurikBot

I noticed User:YurikBot has been making a lot of bad interwiki links to ja: and zh: A lot of bad links: contributions. Cburnett 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the problem. By inserted unicode characters my browser can't render (Firefox/1.5.0.1) it shows them as blank lines. Even doing a view source shows them as empty links. I have to view the page source in a non-unicode environment for them to finally show up. Is it just my version of firefox? Cburnett 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not the firefox, but the windows that needs to have all the fonts installed (If Windows is what you are using). In control pannel, Regional and Language settings, check both checkboxes in the Languages tabs. --Yurik 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Emergency bot shutoff button

I see the bot shutoff button links to the Blockip special page... That means that if the bot gets blocked, I'm going to get blocked as well? Fetofs ^Hello! 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The emergency bot shutoff button is just a fancy link to the block page. If your bot is blocked, anyone trying to use the same IP will get autoblocked. In almost every case, this means that if the bot is blocked the owner's usual account will be too. So the answer to your question is yes.--Commander Keane 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of usage

As per the instructions on the bots policy pages in regards to expansion of bot tasks see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#User:Pegasusbot_expansion_of_usage in regards to expansion of the usage of User:Pegasusbot. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Curpsbot

As per the project page, I am requesting here that User:Curps be blocked until he shuts off his blockbot. It has caught me as a false positive about 8-10 times, and the last few times it has taken about 10 minutes to be unblocked. This is an obvious case of a bot gone bad, and should be stopped, as this has kept me from improving the encyclopedia as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois State Routes. This also introduces another divide between admins and non-admins, as the bot whitelists admins. Thus admins are able to make page moves as quickly as possible, but non-admins must guess at how much time to wait per move. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have written more about it on User:SPUI/Curpsbot. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

lol --Cyde Weys 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reasons for Curp's bot is pretty obvious IMHO, but I do think a whitelist would be of great use. There is pratically no way that us poor admins can stop a WoW attack instantly, hence the autoblock goes in. I'd support a whitelist but I wouldn't support shutting off the bot for the forementioned reasons -- Tawker 03:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, all admins are automatically whitelisted. Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, how many false positives has it really caught, besides yourself? --InShaneee 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, different people do moves in different ways. You're free to look through the stats if you want an answer. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware. I'm just saying that Curpsbot has done a lot more good than bad, so perhaps there is a solution (such as a whitelist) that's a little less drastic than outright blocking. --InShaneee 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Curps would be open to that suggestion, if you do suggest it I'd also suggest auto whitelisting accounts with the bot flag. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It might seem rather obvious, but maybe if you adjusted your modus operandi so that the bot wouldn't catch you, everybody might be a little happier. Is it absolutely necessary to perform each batch of moves within a single minute? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps does have a whitelist. Try messaging him about it. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Approval Group

Since the instructions say to post here if interested in helping I'd like to help out as part of the approvals group since I'm active on that requests for approval page commenting on bot requests and think I'd make a good addition. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough AWB

Don't know where else to bring this up. He's running something claiming to be AWB, but it's doing rather a lot of annoying things that I've never seen AWB do before.... And he's running at a very high rate of speed.

He's changing ordinal numbers like "18th century" to "eighteenth century". There is no consensus to do this.

He's changing location links, in this case adding complexity by splitting the county and state (and ending the sentence with "U.S.." -- two dots -- nobody actually previewing their edits before commit would make such a mistake.) Egregiously contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Context:

Links should use the most precise target that arises in the context, even where that is merely a simple redirect to a less specific page title. Don't use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. ... For example, link to "Rome, Italy" rather than "[[Rome, Italy|Rome]], [[Italy]]", and "V8 engine" rather than "V8 engine".

Most mysteriously, he's changing [[square kilometer|km²]] to [[km²]]? That's particularly odd, since usually I'm complaining about AWB bypassing redirects for no reason, here he's eliminating the bypass (the article is at square kilometer). Why?

In this example, he's hit the same article with Smackbot 3 times in the past month, and some of the changes this weekend were to the same sentences as the previous hits. How does this improve the *pedia? How does hundreds (sometimes thousands) of these per day all weekend long improve the *pedia?

There's so much real work to be done, instead we're thrashing the servers with this nonsense!

--William Allen Simpson 08:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, William, "I'm complaining about AWB bypassing redirects" AWB didn't do it, Rich did it. AWB has no specific functionality to do anything like this, other than it can be programmed to do what the editor likes. Martin 10:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to know (since the miscreants usually just edit comment saying "... using AWB"), what are the approved capabilities of AWB? Indeed, I'm sure you well remember an incident in the past where the original AWB author included certain optional capabilities in AWB without actually testing them, with disastrous results.

--William Allen Simpson 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I am the "original author", I never included any options without testing, and there were never any disasters, I do remember you making some bizarre claims though, which a number of people tried to correct you on. This is not the first time you have made allegations that are just based on fantasy. Also, referring to a group of people as "miscreants" is highly insulting, I really don't know how you expect people to take you seriously. Martin 13:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting your personal interest in the matter. I left it to you to identify yourself.

At the time (you were running AWB edits at a rate of mere seconds per edit), you stated [2] [3] [4]:

Thanks Sean. William, there is an option in the program that I was asked to implement that removes excess date links (I didnt even make the logic behind it), users have to conciously turn this option on for it to work. Plus every edit has has to be accepted by the user. The software can be used for a range of tasks, it is designed for no individual task in particular. Martin 11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

P.s. I made the software, not Ian!) Martin 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) whoops. Martin 15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So, you either:

• "didnt even make the logic behind it"; or
• "made the software"; or
• "never included any options without testing".

Your answer to criticism has always been to attack the critic. Personally, I find this objectionable. Particularly, when I do my best to give exact links, such as: breakage of Israel, delinking "1917", "1947", "1967", as unimportant excess dates in Israel? Whose "fantasy" is this?

Your response at the time [5]:

(Thanks again Sean) William, you are simply wrong; every edit is checked by the user, if you have a problem with people removing dates then take it up with them, as long as it is a guidline it will be an option in the software. I dont know where you get these ideas from, but I hope you stop these slanderous accusations. Martin 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So, "bizarre", "fantasy", "slanderous" -- your retorts to documented problems. And now we learn that AWB does run unattended without review of edits, and obviously isn't carefully tested programming. You've been lying to me (and everybody) all along. As I suggested more than 4 months ago, AWB should be throttled back to 30 seconds per edit for every edit on a page (3 lines changed count as 3 edits), and carefully audited before ever allowed to run again!

--William Allen Simpson 06:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, automatic bots are allowed on wikipedia, AWB can only be run on automatic mode with an account that is registered as a bot, plus this feature is relatively new, and certainly was released well after the above conversation. And, once again, it has been tested well, and there have never been any serious problems. The edits you suppose are somehow breaking articles are not, you disagree with it, but that is all, and the date de-linking issue is seperate from AWB, and has now (thankfully) been mostly resolved. Martin 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On a different note: this is beyond the scope that he applied for, so he really should not be doing it. However, some of it (such as the "ordinals" stuff, is done with JavaScript, I don't know if that could be considered bot work.

Then, it's a good thing I brought it to folks attention.

--William Allen Simpson 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also (I know this isnt the right place to debate it but...) "Rome, Italy" is clearly superior to "Rome, Italy" and I know a lot of people change it to be like that, I have no idea why we have a guideline saying otherwise. Martin 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see why it is in the guidelines now, because William added it. Martin 16:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

After debate on 3-4 different talk pages, yes, I used the same example in several places so that all could be consistent as a whole.

--William Allen Simpson 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

@William, you might be wanting to support the wikipedia:semi-bots proposal. Or if you have any ideas regarding that proposal, just leave a note at wikipedia talk:semi-bots, and join that discussion in which also Martin/Bluemoose is already involved. --Francis Schonken 10:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's only 2 days old, and we sure have a plethora of proposed guidelines; but I'll take a look at it. Needs a better, more descriptive name, tho'....

--William Allen Simpson 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to have not gotten the hint the last dozen times you've brought this up deal with him not with us since we don't want to hear it and there's nothing we can do about it. It is clearly stated on the guidelines for using AWB and for reporting people who abuse AWB that the issue is with them so if he's abusing it as you say then put a note on AN to that extent or go through the dispute resolution process if it's something you two are disputing but there's no purpose to repeatedly bringing it up here and ranting about the evils of AWB. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot status

Bureaucrats can now grant and revoke bot status for users on the local project. This is in response to a long-standing request from the stewards, both to cut down their workload, and to allow local projects to have more control over what happens there.

Most of the technical details can be found here; but the short and tall of it is that this is accomplished via the MakeBot extension; a screenshot for the curious (and non-'cratted) can be found here. Rob Church (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the log portion of that could be exported to a Special:Log page like all the other logs though I assume that would take a dev to do that. Cool though that now it can be done locally so we don't have to bug the devs anymore about it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is. See Special:Log/makebot. Rob Church (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Approvals Group

I have removed references to the approvals group for the procedure on both the main bots page and the requests for approvals page due to the fact that they have no consensus to exercise authority and are entirely self appointed without consensus. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I think approvals group is acting cabalistic in the sense that they are exercising absolute control with no hint of authority and the fact that this was a rapid departure from the old style of doing things by community inputted consensus and good sense as to whether a bot is safe or not and a 1 person or small panel approval is not only unwise but is also risky since there is less oversight and less input in the process. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is rather disruptive, and certainly the old versions should be restored as soon as possible (I will restore them once I post this). The approvals group was set up with the consultation of many experienced users, indeed discussion occurred above - where no objections (including from yourself) were raised. It helps operators and the project to know that someone has investigated a bot before it runs/is flagged. The people is the group are trusted, they understand consensus and that is how they will act. There is just as much input - everyone is free to comment on bot applications. The old system was Ally Union approving each and every bot request. He has not been around recently, so the existing system was modified. It works well, so what is the problem? --Commander Keane 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Having it all on Allyunion's shoulders was indeed a bad idea but your recent actions towards me are exactly why this is a bad idea since it's the Wikipedia equivalent of a local zoing board (as in a small group with absolute power). I have reverted back to a version that actually works bypassing the group which would mean that things would work by direct consensus. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also who gave you guys authority to decide who can and cannot make a sound judgement call on whether a bot is harmful or not and whether there's a consensus to allow it. That shows true arrogance and is what annoys me. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

who gave you guys authority - that's pretty not needed, as it's obvious community consensus (including yours) did. I don't think there are any problems with the current system. Fetofs ^Hello! 03:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the archives, it was hardly "community" consensus, if I remember correctly it was consensus among less than 10 people which doesn't count for shit around here, and yes I do realize that I'm changing my stance from originally supporting it originally. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Some items copied from my talk page

Just wanted to let you know that I have removed references to the approvals group from both the main bots page and the approvals page. See Wikipedia Talk:Bots for my reasoning. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sour grapes. Rob Church (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not sour grapes, though part of this is the fact that the approvals group is acting cabalistic but there's also the fact that there is absolutely no consensus for it. It was recommended and inacted with only the support of a small group of people (several of which are now members of the group). Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon, then. I think with respect to consensus, and with respect to exercising common sense:

• The group who enacted it were those who monitor the bot procedures on a regular basis
• Sometimes things don't scale, and sometimes we need to consider common sense; a bot that's running out of control or running without our knowledge could cause some serious damage before it was noticed
• There was no intention for any hint of cabalism; care to elaborate?
• Consensus doesn't need to be large, nor does it need to have a poll or be heralded with banners and announcements. You demonstrated opposition to what was previously an unchallenged way of doing things; now we're pausing to hear you out.

Rob Church (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The approvals group is acting cabalistic in the sense that they are exercising absolute control with no hint of authority, also waiting to hear me out is nice but I get the feeling that one of your colleagues will probably end up reverting me before joining the discussion or without waiting the discussion out. I'm gonna try to keep the rest of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots for continuity. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Some further responses

Who gave you guys authority on whether or not to make a sound judgement call about whether or not a bot is harmful?

The initial group was comprised of people who are all experienced bot operators, or who have a strong technical background. The former are expected to be able to gauge the effects of a bot running automated edits on the site (having had to do so in the past for their own bots); the latter are expected to be able to have some input and advice with respect to the site.

As to the who; see the point below.

...it was a consensus of 10 or less people, which doesn't count for shit around here

That all depends on the scope. Consensus, I take to mean; "what people seem to agree upon." First of all; I don't think it would have been prudent to involve every single user, since this only affected a small group of people. Second; until now, when you announced your dissent, there was a consensus between the people whom the procedure affected.

I'd like to point out, and no doubt be bitten for doing so; that there are some things consensus shouldn't or can't determine. There are those items that affect us from above, and there are those which, through common sense, we can see need to be controlled. A bot, running out of control, or without the knowledge of someone, could cause a considerable amount of damage before it was spotted, depending upon the task and the locus of the edits.

I'd like to think it was obvious that a group of people exercising common sense are not deliberately harming the project, nor are they deliberately trying to be awkward or arrogant. They're simply aware of the number of hours of work that have gone into what we have in the main namespace so far, and they're trying to protect it from clueless idiots running programs, to state an extreme example. Rob Church (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know that they are well meaning but I would disagree that they are acting arrogant as can be seen towards the way I've been treated for bringing this up and for disagreeing with them. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the approvals group did have the right idea but I can see why people would object to it. I think the better way around this is more like of a group watchdog -- an auditing group to make certain bots are not running amuck.

The system I think it should be is for someone to say, "Hmm... this is a good idea. The user requesting this idea seems to be doing this with good intent and for the good of the project. Give a green light approval for a trial run. Anyone may object to this trial run." This is somewhat how I ran it, even though I had some the technical insight to see, "yes, this is a worthwild idea that won't be a system hog." --AllyUnion (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

WHile I agree with Pegasus that the approvals group is arbitrary, virtually self appointed, and has only lack of complaint rather than consensus, I had noticed, (at least a year, possibely longer ago) that the previous versions were also somewhat self proclaimed. And certainly the idea that anyone can black-ball a proposal is not good. I think that things have changed in the following ways since the original policies were set up.

1. Far bigger WP
2. Far more bots, editors, vandals and reverters.
3. Far more semi-automated processes.

So the potential problems posed by bots and automation have changed in priority. I see these as

1. Runaway bot syndrome

   What everyone feared to start with. But bots are blockable, and revertable, so not a huge problem. Also contrary to expectations, one of the advantages of true bots is that they can run slowly, because they are not consuming valuable human time. Perhaps we should have a revert bot or bots standing by in case of major problems. In general I think we need to be more permissive with bots - they can take a massive editing effort away from trivial tasks. We could also perhaps try to develop some bot standards - not prescriptive one, but useful ones, like a shared format for article whitelists (i.e. those that legitimately include a solecism).

2. Clogged Recent Changes

   To some extent dealt with by bot-flags, also by the vast increase in human editing.

3. Clogged watchlist

   More of a problem now than ever, I think there's a bugzilla request to be able to ignore these.

   This feature has been added. Rich Farmbrough 19:24 11 June 2006 (GMT).

4. Angry users

   Every edit has a chance of angering a user (Ryan's law: "All change, no matter how insignificant, unthreatening, or wholly beneficial, will generate controversy from somewhere."), however small (or not). As the number of edits increases, the amount of flack increases. Some percentage of this will be directed against the bot community as a whole. We need to be able to deal with these problems in a sensible and proportionate way.

OK, that's some of my thoughts, hope they're useful. Rich Farmbrough 11:07 11 May 2006 (UTC).

P.S. Another "Hmmm" - perhaps it would be worth having a shared bot-testing area - possibly off WP, where large scel bot-testing could occur. RF.

While this may not be currently possible, we should have it required once coding can catch up to this: A universal "revert" button for a date range somehow, either in MediaWiki or with the bots themselves. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Using TinyURL-Like Functionality

I recently updated an article and added several refences with URLs. I then notice that the article difference between revisions is now really ugly because of the long URLs. I had an idea that maybe a bot could make something similar to TinyURL functionality, but hosted by Wikipedia rather than TinyURL. This way, the final articles could still use the full URLs so that users can see the fully URL name before clicking, and articles could be much more please to edit and to compare revisions. Deet 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would take a dev to code an upgrade for mediawiki to do that. I suggest putting a feature request up at [bugzilla.wikimedia.org mediazilla] for one. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that is as feasible as you would believe. BTNH 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're annoyed with long URLs in diffs, may I suggest trying Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Fix diff width. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can force line breaks in extremely long links like this:

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/<!--
-->Kempling_v_School_District_No_28_(Quesnel)_and<!--
-->_Curr_(No_2)_2005_BCHRT_514.pdf

That might be a suitable bot-task if it doesn't get too many complaints, however, I wish there was a simpler method, such as the software automatically creating it's own linebreaks after underscores and slashes needed, but only in the diff views. — Apr. 24, '06 [22:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Flagging

As some of you may know, bot flagging (and deflagging) is now the responsibility of the local bureaucrats. Previously, requests for flags were made on Meta, with a link back to the relevant discussion here. Given that there is a new process in place for approving bots, I'd like to request those making the approved/denied calls (the approvals group or whomever is in charge) to place requests for flagging/deflagging on an easy to access and universally used page, to make it easy for those of us responsible for setting the flags to see what needs to be done.

I suggest use of something along the lines of Wikipedia:Requested bot flags, which I've drafted up for this purpose. My basic idea is, requests will continue to take place on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals just as they currently do. When a request has been approved, a member of the approvals group will list it on Wikipedia:Requested bot flags under "Approved bots requiring a flag," and a bureaucrat will assign a flag. When a bot needs to be unflagged, a member of the approvals group will request deflagging in the "Bots requiring flag removal" section. This should provide minimal intrusion into the process by bureaucrats, not require too much extra effort on the part of the AG members, and will make sure that bureaucrats see the requests in a timely manner.

If others have better suggestions, feel free to amend or abolish as necessary. My only request (and I presume to speak for the other bureaucrats as well) is that there be a single, easy to identify place where legitimate requests to add or remove flags be placed, so we won't be put in the position of trying to locate approved requests and determine whether a bot should or should not be flagged. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this like Wikipedia:Bots/Approval log?--Commander Keane 15:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding (from speaking to a couple of the approval group members) is that the approval log is not used universally. I don't mind checking there, I just want to be sure that it is going to be used; I don't want to have to search a dozen pages to find the approval note. Additionally, unless I've missed it, that log doesn't provide for us (bureaucrats) to remove entries as we perform them; I checked there and found one that was not complete, and two that were already complete. I don't have to check listusers to see if an RfA has already been closed, or if a username change has been performed; I'd like to have a convenient way of knowing what work still needs to be done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Support. The current process, which involves finding a bureaucrat and asking them to flag your bot for you is nice and personal, but rather unwieldy. It's also difficult and tiresome if one 'crat ends up handling all the flagging. Essjay's proposal nicely fixes these problems and brings the bot flagging process in line with other Wikipedia conventions. -- Tangotango 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Process Wonk Support. Anything that makes things more consistent and easier seems a good idea to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Support since it's the least of all possible evils and if I objected it's not like anyone would listen anyway since I seem to have absolutely influence here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Support per Tangotango. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there's now been support, and plenty of time to have seen; should it be assumed that WP:RBF is now the place to list approved bots requiring flags? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am ready to request bot flag for User:Zorglbot; should I inaugurate (or beta-test...) the page ? Schutz 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already set the flag, so no, but it should be the Approvals Group member who approved the bot that requests the flag, not the bot operator. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick ! BTW, User:Lightdarkness just mentioned on my talk page that I had to ask a bureaucrat to get the flag; thus, it may be worth clarifying who must ask for it (approval group member or operator). Cheers, Schutz 06:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to assign a flag based on a user request, unless there was evidence provided that the approval group had given consent. It strikes me that it would be easier for the AG member to just go ahead and request the flag. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, LD had endorsed the bot on the approval page before telling me to ask a bureaucrat for the flag... But indeed, instead of listing the bot on the list of approvals, the approval group could list it on the Requested bot flag page at the same cost. Schutz 06:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I had things reversed :P I'll make a note that the AG member requests the flag from now on :-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BRFA archival

As the number of "finished discussions" has become a bit large, I'd like to know what you think of an archive of WP:BRFA, as the current page only says to enclose with {{debate top}} and {{debate bottom}}. Fetofs ^Hello! 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cydebot

This bot hasnt been set up inline with the the CFD that it cites in its edit summaries. I have posted to User:Cyde but after 45 mins there was no answer, whilst the bot has continued, hence posted to Admin User:Husnock. I suspect that Cyde may not be monitoring Cydebot at the moment, hence before it gets too much further it might be helpful to block it. Ian3055 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? There's many CFDs on that page, and looking at cydebot's contributions its hard to pick out exactly what your issue is. Keep in mind he might just have forgotten to update the edit summary link too. --Syrthiss 11:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the CFD for automobile manufacturers, most of the contributors asked for Motor Manufacturers for the countries where this is local usage, yet the bot has used automobile. Ian3055 11:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a bot problem, he was only doing what the closing admin User:Tim! decided. You may need to discuss with Tim the outcome of that CFD, or take it to WP:DRV (but I'd ask Tim first). If there's a correction its easily redone with the bot. --Syrthiss 14:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I know it wasnt directly a bot problem but I wasnt getting any response from the bot owner. I'll take it up with User:Tim! next, it just hadnt been closed when the alterations were being made. Thanks Ian3055 14:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Modulatum

Has this user been authorised to operate a bot since the comments above? Look at the edit history of Gresham College and the user's other contributions. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unclear instructions on flags

The section after the intro is unclear: are flags needed only for fully-automatic bots, or all bots, even AWB or pywikipedia manually-driven bots? --maru (talk) contribs 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Flags are needed for any bot that generates a vast amount of edits in the contributions. Approval is needed for any bot to determine whether your bot is a resource hog or not, or whether your bot is necessary. The latter is in the event that someone feels it necessary to go around changing things like color to colour for all entries in the Wikipedia (or something similiar). A bot flag is treated as a flag of trust, much like a sysop flag. This flag is to be given to any bot that has been deemed reliably safe by members of the community. By safe, I mean that the user and the bot has been proven "harmless, useful, & not a server hog." Any bot that is making very minor changes, like one that makes changes every so week or month or whatever, should not necessarily need a bot flag. However, the Python Wikipedia more or less requires a flag so it is better to obtain one. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes and watchlist have "show/hide bots" and "show/hide bot edits" options, respectively. Yet of course bot edits still appear, as not all bots are marked as such. This doesn't seem to be explained in any obvious place. Brian Jason Drake 01:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated page

Whoever made the updated Project page with the tables, I would like to first say it's a very good job. Secondly, Special:Listusers/bot would be the best place to double check for bots with bot flags. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:M1ss1ontomars2k4bot

This unauthorized bot has been creating hundreds of redirects. Most are OK, but there are dozens and dozens broken ones; especially if there are (, ), # or other special characters in redirect target title. Anyone here willing to help fixing the mess? jni 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the one mentioned on that talk page it was OK. Rich Farmbrough 19:33 11 June 2006 (GMT).

Bobblewik is at it again (80 edits in 30 minutes)

Tried to discuss on the user talk page, but whatever I try, the discussion appears to be going nowhere, see User talk:Bobblewik#Date delinking --Francis Schonken 12:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He is using javascript, so its not really a bot issue, more a content dispute. Martin 12:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin/Bluemoose quit playing games - 80 edits in 30 minutes is not "waiting 30-60 seconds between edits", so if Bobblewik wants to do that he needs a bot flag.

A botflag has been denied twice to Bobblewik, so he shouldn't do that at all.

And, as for other issues, I'll promote wikipedia:semi-bots to guideline instantly, settles the issue too, so that these lame excuses about not having tools to check disruptive behaviour can no longer be invoked. --Francis Schonken 13:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Quit playing games? I think you need to sort your attitude problem out. All I did was point out that he is not using a bot. I don't give a monkeys about date links, I wasn't defending him in any way. We have plenty of ways of resolving these disputes, choose one of them. If you feel it is becoming disruptive then take it to WP:AN/I. Martin 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Which I did already (leading to a one-week block of Bobblewik).

But I insist this is a WP:BOTS issue too, while exceeding bot speed, and while Bobblewik was twice denied permission for doing these kinds of edits at bot speed. Or were these points irrelevant according to you?

Anyway, at WP:AN/I the comment by the blocking admin read "[...] Feel free to revert him, if you want". That's where you might want to come in. I know you're quite experienced with a semi-bot tool, the name of which I dare not pronounce. The contentious edits were the dates-involving edits by Bobblewik from 10:10 to 10:40 earlier today. Could you help out in reverting these edits, with respect for intermediate edits? thanks! --Francis Schonken 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, here's the link to his "user contributions" that lists them all (currently, normally for the next few days): [6] --Francis Schonken 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Or were these points irrelevant according to you?" - No, which is why I recommended WP:AN/I, which I see you had already done, and he was blocked, problem (almost) solved. Reverting edits en masse is very easy just with admin tools, so you don't need any sort of bot to do it, However I would rather stay out of this snake pit, don't worry though, someone else will do it soon enough, they always do. Martin 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well er, anyway (but I'm not sure you implied that) I'm not a sysop, nor do I have any intentions to become one in the short run.

Your confidence in what your co-sysops have as first priorities on their list, is not confirmed by the blocking sysop, nor by you. "They always do" assumes that the only sysop undoing Bobblewik's date delinking edits (as far as I know) is still around. Well, frankly I haven't seen or heard him/her for quite some time (don't even remember his/her name), and as far as I can remember there have been some problems with these reverts in that they overwrote intermediate edits (what's the technical state of affairs on that?) --Francis Schonken 13:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed name user:ambi → User:Rebecca. I'll leave a note on her talk page, anyway. --Francis Schonken 13:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reverting would erase intermediate edits, but a bot would suffer the same problem, unless someone made a really clever one that could factor in subsequent edits. In reality you just have to manually revert ones that have been edited since the edit you want to revert (which is generally very few). Martin 14:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So, anyway, I'm asking you to undo the edits, that is, without delay (because the longer we wait, the more chance there are intermediate edits - and rebecca appears to live in Australia, I don't think this is their usual time to be up and running).

Note that I'd have much, much preferred to work along the lines of what is described in wikipedia:semi-bots for this case, which *normally* would not have led to a user block, while the repetitive editor would have more clarity that his/her editing behaviour is unambiguously blockable, and that the only way to evade such block would have been to start reverting. And this would imply that you and me wouldn't need to devote a second of time to worry about by who and when the reverts would take place.

So, I'm asking you, you're a sysop, you can undo the edits, and take a bit care of the intermediate edits on these pages. tx. --Francis Schonken 14:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm content to leave this latest batch, as I've got better things to be doing today (law exams coming up, gah!), and I'd rather not fan the flames. That said, I've warned Bobblewik that one more repeat of this will see me request arbitration against him. He's had enough warnings, and yet he seems to start up again every couple of weeks in the hope that people won't notice this time. Rebecca 04:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not start one now? — May. 22, '06 [06:08] <freak|talk>

I'd rather he stopped of his own accord. Arbitration is a pain. That said, so is having to go through this every fortnight. Rebecca 06:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

→ Bobblewik:Editing at bot speed again? (that is: from the moment Bobblewik's one-week block expired) --Francis Schonken 22:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bot-maru

This bot run by User:Maru is continuing to spellcheck on talk pages including user talk pages and archives despite the fact that on User talk:Bot-maru there is clear and vocal concern about it and the owner is refusing to stop. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Spellchecker bots are very problematical. I'd be inclined to block the 'bot pending further discussion. Dlyons493 Talk 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the bot for a few minutes to get the attention of the editor, and have pointed the operator of the bot to the appropriate pages to seek approval. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this bot is still editing Talk and User space. The owner hasn't yet directly responded to my complaint, but from his contributions list I can see that it continues trudging on through Talk and User pages. (The bot is acting under his username, see: Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki) - Rainwarrior 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Add functionallity to StefanBot

Maybe I have been confused where to apply for what, so since I get no response at Requests for approvals I write here which seams to be the correct place according to WP:BOTS page (which I think is wrong but nevermind). I will update StefanBot to add conservation status to taxoboxes. All info about the bot and its new functionallity can be see at my two postings at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals. I will start running the bot with its new functionallity ASAP. This is just meet the requirement of WP:BOTS. If you plan to make any modifications to your bot, which expand the scope of its original purpose, please leave a note on the talk page regarding the nature of the change. This is to assert that no one has any problems with your bot, and such additions still make the bot harmless, useful, and not a server hog.. Stefan 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

New WikiBot

I have recently come up with a new idea for a Wikipedia Robot (MoleculeUploadBot) along with NoUser.

I propose one that looks on pages for crude language. One crude language is found, it would notify me. By doing this, vandialism could be found, while allowed "crude language" could be passed over.

How do other Wikipedians feel about this?

Thanks to all of you in advance! - MoleculeUpload 15:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see no problems with just generating a list of vulgar words for human review. Tawkerbot2 does do some of this automatically, feel free to go ahead and work on a "check bot" -- Tawker 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be much better to do it off a static database, and it would only take a few minutes. Martin 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is to do this on the fly as an anti vandalism tool, we only generate static dumps every month or so -- Tawker 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On the fly would mean checking way too many pages/edits, it would be too much of a bandwidth hog. Martin 16:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain the various methods you are dicussing? Also, is a bot on a server at Wikipedia, or on a private computer? Thanks! - MoleculeUpload 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A static dump could be used to create a master whitelist. This could be used by Tawkerbot2 or an AWB plugin or account Javascript to fix/alert as appropriate. Rich Farmbrough 19:37 11 June 2006 (GMT).

WikiBot Details

Could someone explain the various methods you are dicussed in posting above? Also, is a bot on a server at Wikipedia, or on a private computer? If it is on a private computer, does anyone know how to operate one on a Windows XP computer? Thanks! - MoleculeUpload 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WeggeBot: Automatic archival of talk pages

User:WeggeBot is looking for gullib^W brave persons, willing to test a brand-new feature, allowing automatic archival of user talk pages. The details can be found on User:WeggeBot/Archive. As this is a new feature, the bot willnot operate unattended in this function, until I'm satisfied that it will behave reasonably. Any questions about the specifics can be posted on my talk page or sent by e-mail. -- Wegge 23:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)