Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

You should have a bot...

...or something, that updates the number of articles that bots are maintaining, because it's ridiculous that people should update that manually. Either loose the exact numbers in this article or make them automatically updated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.228.141 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Artikles

Hi you writte me abóut the articles about Imed ketata,Ezzedine hadj sassi and Mohamed trabelsi! But what i must do now???

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

can u explain me what is bot user?

what i know about bot user is that

-they can develop the page iteratively -they have rights to do that with permission of administrator.

pl send me some more information on the same page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.75.67 (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A bot user would be an editor who operates a bot I guess. A bot user would have their usual user page but they will also operate the bot user page since the bots have their own user accounts. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Noone "operates" a bot, that's the whole point. Bot is short for robot, that means it does stuff by itself ( after it's programmed ), in this case that would be adding some templates and stuff. MadSkillz1o1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.133.17 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Multi language entry bot

Is there any bot code/template for multi language link entry for non programming prof of wiki contributor? This function is very general and very time consuming for doing manually. Could you Mods please make this type of bot available for any level of wiki contributor? Orgio89 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean interwikis? Sure, we have a host of bots that find interwikis and add them (because they're just spreading them from one Wikipedia to another), but I think automated - or assisted - creation of new ones is not really encouraged, as laziness could be a killer: if they're not checked properly, and then spread, they can be very hard to get rid of. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Carried out

Perhaps "out" should be inserted after "carried". Unfree (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Anomie⚔ 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Java bots

Can someone give me a list of (or at least examples of) wikipedia bots programmed in Java? I tried looking in Category:Wikipedia bots for a sub category for this, but didn't find anything. ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This search may help you find some. Anomie⚔ 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah... thanks a lot. ≈ Chamal ^talk 14:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

can we turn this thing off (Erik9bot)

Is it possible to turn this thing off Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot)... I come across its stupid auto tag in one in 5 articles i read lately .it places {Unreferenced} even if all is ok with notes..it has tag almost 150.000 articles since june of this year..... {{Unreferenced}} The last thing Wikipedia needs is all there articles looking invalid. We already have a problem with new users spending hours a day tag with {Unreferenced|tag} for no reason at all..and not really helping wikipedia with real contributions but spamming tags..i see that this bot has gone crazy.

As more and more of this tags are added the less ans less reliable wikipedia looks in the eyes of the world...i\I can tell you that when i first starting reading wikipedia i would not read an article that had {Unreferenced|source tag}...now i see them every were. Pls stop this thing and i also think that {{Unreferenced|source tag}} should not be the header of any article...if article is that bad it should be deleted. Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot (Erik9bot) which maintained this list no longer runs, because the operator was block for sockpuppetry. It's currently under discussion whether the category should be kept or not, and your thoughts would be welcome at this thread. However, your main problem seems to be that the templates make pages look messy, or make readers think that Wikipedia is unreliable. But the whole reason the bot adds a direct category (Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot)) rather than the template ({{unreferenced}}), is because this hides the tag from the average reader. The category is a "hidden category", so user's who do not have their preferences set to view the category can't see it (and users without accounts (i.e. readers) can't see it whatever)). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

tks for quick answer..dame i put(spammed) this same message in another place, was thinking noone would see it here...Ok i understand it must be my setting ...as i have recently change things...I will comment of the right page ...i will comment more on the topic after i look at my settings on the page you suggested... Again tks nevr though anyone would see this here......

Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

fwiw not everyone thinks it makes wiki look unprofessional to flag poorly sourced articles as just that because i don't so by definition that's true. It's quite irritating to read professors and uni sources banning students from using wiki instead of pointing out they should check the citations, even more so to read when law bodies like the UK CPS recommend to use wikipedia WITHOUT saying to check sources. wiki is like a big student essay as much as an encyclopedia, while i can see it shouldn't be sold like this, it's exactly how everyone should look at it. flagging the poorly sourced articles as such makes it look like wiki has noticed a weakness and is working to fix it, of course there are a lot of people who won't see this (the ban wiki brigade, the use wiki as evidence for court cases without checking citations brigade (!!!)) but not everyone failed skeptic 101 82.132.136.202 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not server-side?

Shouldn't some of these things be server-side?

User:SmackBot - corrects ISBN numbering, adds a date parameter to maintenance tags, adds missing reference sections

So you have an account receiving a feed of all changes (consuming resources) to do somethings which could be done when a page is committed. You might want to keep the code clean to avoid "feature creep" but surely things like adding references lists, enforcing comment signing and dating maintenance tags (though perhaps not ISBN number fixing) should be in the core on a filter of some description.

Would it ever make sense NOT to do those above things? Perhaps there should be a place to incorporate non-complicated changes which should have been in wiki core from the beginning into wiki making some of the (simple, not complex) bot tasks redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.85 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An old query, but one that should probably be answered for posterity. The main reason is because MediaWiki is a generic wiki software. A wiki can be about anything; it doesn't need to be an encyclopedia, and often isn't. This limits what should be put into the server software. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And you can, via extensions. But the additional load on every save is a serious consideration. Josh Parris 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request another bot to speed things up?

I notice that there are currently just under 18,000 images listed in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. Looking around (not very intensively), I see at least one bot created to handle this task and I applaud the creator of the bot for doing so. But the user is multi-lingual, is using the bot across many different wikis (exponentially increasing the user's workload), the bot has been around since 2007, is manual, and still there are an enormous number of images to be moved from the English wiki (ignoring the other languages for the moment). Is backlog reason enough to request another bot for this task, or would it be rejected outright for the same reason? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What reason would it be rejected for? I recall approving one bot for this task recently, but it is a place that could use more bots, so it would likely b approved, as long as it meets bot policy of course. There's nothing wrong with two bots doing the same task, especially in a case like this where the more bots the better. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just thought I'd ask instead of requesting and getting a cold-shoulder answer like, "There are already many bots that do that". Thank you. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

RecentChangesLinked in API?

I looked, but didn't find Special:RecentChangesLinked in the API. Did I just miss it? Is there a way to query this through the API? Here's an example query using RecentChangesLinked. tedder (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The technical village pump is really a better place for this question. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MZMB. Copying and pasting over to there :-) tedder (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

URI

How is the URI determined...is it simply http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ ? I'd like to know the URI of wikipedia, the secure wikipedia and also a wikia http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia . Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DASHBot's BLP spamming

User:DASHBot is spamming. It's going around leaving messages about unreferenced BLPs on the talk pages of even editors with only the most minor edits to the article. See this revision for instance: [1]. It's complaining about articles that I made a handful of minor edits to years ago. Even worse, it complained about the article Ryan Dusick being unreferenced; as a redirect, of course it's unreferenced! The notifications this bot leaves should be an opt-in process; when it goes around bugging everyone like this, its behavior becomes spam.

Numerous other users besides me have raised complaints on the talk page of the bot operator at User talk:Tim1357; see revision [2] for instance. I'm raising the issue here because some of Tim1357's responses there just seem to be "you deal with it", when the bot shouldn't be behaving the way it is. That's not good enough: that is like telling targets of spam that they can just delete the spam, which is true -- but the fact remains that the targets shouldn't be getting spammed in the first place. Please stop this bot, or change it to an opt-in bot.

—Lowellian (reply) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I realize your concerns. I have stopped the bot, and will restart it only when we reach an agreement to do so. The way it looks, you are upset because the bot has been spamming people? I wrote the template (with some help from others) to be very un-spammy. More of a gentle reminder. You are more then welcome to change it, if you feel the need, at User:Tim1357/temp. I have tried to keep my responses a bit more substantial then "deal with it" offering, at least what I thought to be, reasonable answers to concerns/comments/questions. I am a bit surprised by this, actually, because this user has made no other effort to try and get me to change. I think if you look at the revision history of my talk page, you will see that I change the things that people ask me to change. Please give me a reminder if anyone replies here. Tim1357 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I realize the problem here. I will work to fix the code so that only editors who created non-redirect articles are notified. Hopefully this is all that it has to come to. I somewhat naively hoped that these kind of things would not come up. It was rather stupid, looking back, there were plenty of warnings that should have told me to slow down, and find real answers to the concerns that people had, rather then just saying "sorry, it happens". Hopefully I have not stepped on too many people's toes. Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Solution?Ok Lowellian, I think I have our solution. I found an efficient way to tell how much the user contributed to a page in bytes. If the page they started is less then 300 bytes long (a small stub) and/or has the word "moved" in the edit summary, the bot will skip the article. The bot totalizes all of there innitial edits (i.e. all of the edits they made before someone else made an edit) to use as the size. Also, it checks to make sure the article is not currently a redirect. (That was a simple one, should have done that one much earlier on). I am sorry that I bothered people, and only wish I had come to this step earlier. Thank you for your patience. For those who care, the API call is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=(TITLE)&rvprop=size%7Ccomment&rvdir=newer&rvuser=(User)&format=xml Tim1357 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks like it will identify non-tiny, non-redirect creations of an article. It would have prevented the David E. Kendall mis-hit. Josh Parris 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; checking level of contribution to the article is a nice step in the right direction. However, that is not the only issue.

Specifically, another thing that really bothers me about the bot is that it makes a user forever responsible for any article that the user created or edited. The situation is aggravated by the bot leaving a message that seems like an accusation that the editor doesn't reference articles.

If I created an article six years ago and haven't touched it since, as happened in the David E. Kendall case, I don't want the bot to be bothering me about it. User:Rrius similarly complained, over on User talk:Tim1357, about a nine-month-old article. The bot shouldn't be notifying any editors who have not edited the article recently.

Next, if some editor made substantial contributions to an article while it had references, and later, another editor or editors removes those references, the bot shouldn't be leaving messages about lack of references, because the lack of references is not that editor's fault.

Ideally, the bot would be opt-in only. At the very least, however, an opt-out feature is needed.

—Lowellian (reply) 05:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it continue to bother users, or is it a one-time thing? Does it obey the bot exclusion, so you could keep it off if so offended? It seems like a good step to help active users fix articles they may have forgotten about, and hopefully we can raise the bar on article quality that way. And the creation of the bot was heavily discussed, IIRC. tedder (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If I remember the BRfA correctly, this is a one time run, and multiple articles are combined in one message (?) if that is so opt-out would not be needed (although the bot does respect {{nobots}}, so opt-out is already possible). Also, the bot isn't making you responsible for the article, and isn't trying to blame users for unreferenced BLPs, that's not the idea at all. Rather it is simply looking for users who may be able to improve the article's sourcing, if you don't want to improve the article, that is absolutely fine. Regarding the time since users last edits, this was discussed at the BRfA, and the time is not taken into account, because users may have created the article before they knew how to reference, and it would therefore be a good idea for them to go back and fix it now that they do. As to your second scenario, yes that would be true if the bot was blaming users, but it's not. In this case it's a great time for the bot to leave a note, because the user can then go back and re-add the removed references with minimal bother. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A question: is User:DASHBot written to obey opt-out with the specific argument "{{bots|optout=bettersource}}"? —Lowellian (reply) 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be, Ill put that in there. Lowellian, are you satisfied with the agreed upon method? Tim1357 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you should put it there. It isn't really fully compliant with Template:Bots until it obeys "{{bots|optout=bettersource}}", "{{bots|optout=nosource}}", and "{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}".

I'll be satisfied if you implement a time limit of some sort (e.g. only notifies users who have edited the article within the past six months, or, at most, the past year or two). I really don't think it's reasonable for it to go for users who last touched an article many years ago.

—Lowellian (reply) 14:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Lowellian. If you created the article or were a significant contributor, it should notify you. Part of the idea is to find stale articles that have never really been improved. tedder (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The intention was to notify contributors who may have forgotten that they wrote that BLP way back when they were new. Tim1357 (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to the time-critical nature of the bot's work, I'm restarting this now and will be closely monitoring this page and my talk page for any further objections, Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked earlier whether the bot obeys "{{bots|optout=bettersource}}", "{{bots|optout=nosource}}", and "{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}". You said you would be willing to make it obey the first of those three argument settings. Could I get a response on whether you'd be willing to do the same for the other two argument settings? Thanks. —Lowellian (reply) 00:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Im done with the messaging anyway. Tim1357 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot matrix

Perhaps the number of bots has grown to the point that, instead of just having a category, we should have a more detailed box matrix, much as we have an extension matrix? "Bot matrix" makes a good pun too. :) Tisane (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a regular expression bot?

Is there a bot that searches for and replaces regular expressions? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any bots which have blanket approval to make any replaces, but there are bots which use RegEx to make replacements (e.g. renaming categories, templates etc.). AutoWikiBrowser also has a RegEx replace function. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean a bot or a script? meta:pywikipediabot contains a script for that purposes, it is called replace.py emijrp (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-WP interwiki bot

Greetings, a rather strange request I guess but I'm looking at the available bots and wondering which would suit me best. I'm working on a new version of a multi-lingual reference website for a particular subject (football) and want to be able to link to corresponding wikipedia-article in the corresponding language. What I would like to do is to be able to feed the bot a starting address in one language and then allow it to find all the interwiki links and add them to my database, while not editing the wikipedia-pages. That way I'll never even show up on the logs to clutter them and annoy editors. My backend is in MySQL if that matters in a selection of a bot. Any of you able to point me to a bot that would be least difficult to modify to satisfy my needs in this manner? --Stalfur (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporting bots

How do we report mis-behaving bots? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what the misbehavior is and how urgent it is. Various places are the bot's talkpage or the operator's talkpage, the the bot owners' noticeboard, or the incidents section of the Administrators' Noticeboard. --Carnildo (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's low priority as the bot edits are not mainspace. The results it returns are far from reliable although sometimes more helpful then nothing. The bot operator is not responding to talk page requests, and thus the bot cannot be made to work correctly. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BON should always be the place to post "reports". Even if you post at AN/I for a quicker response, it's best to make sure that you mention at BON that you have done so. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a bot for......

Is there a bot to calculate what images are being uploaded related to a certain subject? For example, I would like to see NASCAR related images have been uploaded since July 1, 2010. Is there a bot doing that? --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No. A Toolserver tool could be probably be created (or might already exist) if there were a specific category that identified all NASCAR-related images. You could generate a list of images in the category and list them by upload date. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Want to react to events on the wiki? Try Recentchanges via XMPP

Hi all! For a long time I wantged a decent push interface for RC-Events. Parsing messages on IRC is unreliable, and polling the API sucks (and is also unreliable, see bugzilla:24782.

So, I have written XMLRC and set up a prototype on the Toolserver - have a look at meta:Recentchanges via XMPP for details. Basically, you point any Jabber client to the chat room enwiki@conference.jabber.toolserver.org to see the change events, like on IRC. However, if you use a client aware of the extra data attached to the messages, like rcclient.py, you will get all the information you can get from the API (in fact, you can get the exact same XML tag).

Try it out and let me know what you think! -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot needed for Article Feedback Pilot

For the upcoming Article Feedback Tool pilot (see description from the Signpost, we need to add every article in WikiProject United States Public Policy to a hidden category, Category:Article Feedback Pilot. I was hoping a bot operator could help; it should be a pretty trivial bot task. Anyone up for it?--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests is probably a better place to ask, since it is more heavily watched (has approx. double the watchers). - EdoDodo ^talk 18:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on BAG comment on BRFA

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HersfoldCiteBot has been up for almost two weeks, with a {{BAG assistance needed}} template on it for the past four days. So far, I can't tell that any BAG member has so much as glanced at the page. When can I expect to get some official comment on this request? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Approved for trial. Sorry for the delay. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gazetteer content discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:N#What is the consensus on City articles?. patsw (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Anti-vandalism bot census

Hi. I'm creating an anti-vandalism bot census and I need your help. If you know more anti-vandalism bots (active or inactive), please, notice me. I'm compiling info about them. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what was the first anti-vandalism bot? emijrp (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I a bot?

I frequently use WP:AWB/T and WP:TSN on a large number of articles, which often sums up to almost 100 edits per hour. User:Rd232 suggested that I should create a bot account for this work. Do I have to? —bender235 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Assisted_editing_guidelines. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

100 edits per hour is less than two edits per minute, which gives you plenty of time (more than 30 seconds) to review the changes you are making, and is therefore not considered automated editing. Problems generally arise when people start passing 10 edits per minute or so, which means that they have less than 6 seconds to review edits - this is often considered as automated editing. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So I'll continue typo fixing as a non-bot. ;-) —bender235 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BAG nomination

Hello! I invite you to comment on my BAG (Bot Approvals Group) nomination: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/H3llkn0wz. Thank you. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox

Hi, this might not be the most obvious place to ask but we're looking for anyone with a programming bent that might be willing to take a look at Template:Automatic taxobox to see if there are any ways that it could be improved (either in functionality or performance), before it is rolled out more widely. Comments would be very warmly received at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#request_for_comments. Thanks! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Run-page-shutoff

{{Run-page-shutoff}} has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in this issue. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Film robot

Film talked about getting a bot setup to do some minor editing. It was discussed and some specifications were written for what they wanted. I think I have to get a proposal accepted next? I would really appreciate some guidance. Thanks

I forgot to say that I'm going to write the bot myself, I already have some written. --Peppage^tlk 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Peppage has not been active since last May. I am wondering if anyone else could help with specifications? They can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Bot requests. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you try contacting him by email to see if he might be coming back? Peppage did start working on the bot. If he isn't coming back we'll need to get someone to continue writing it. He left the source code here. - Kollision (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I went ahead and emailed him. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting advice

Recently the archiving bot MiszaBot III removed some material from the talk page of a blocked user's talk page. It removed two {{unblock reviewed}} templates, even though the template explicitly says "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked." The user is still blocked, and so should not have removed the unblock review; meaning that either should a bot. I left a message on the bot opperator's talk page, but s/he has not relied and seems to be inactive. What should I do about the problem, and what should be done about the block review templates that shouldn't have been removed? — Fly by Night (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, you could always remove {{User:MiszaBot/config}} from the talk page, or follow the instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Delaying or preventing archival of particular threads. Anomie⚔ 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot trials without discussion and RfBA instructions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Bot has been approved, nothing more to discuss. —SW— ^chatter 14:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

---

"During the approvals process

• After a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot and move the request to this section."

Seems that a BAG member approves a trial in 4 minutes,[3] not after "a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input." Then other BAG members scream sock puppet! instead of addressing the failure to use stated process[4]. And you wonder why there is so little community input? Your antagonism towards commenting members of the community speaks.

Please remove this false statement from its current location in [5] and provide factual information about the process, namely: the bot will be given a trial within a couple of minutes to remove it from appearing to be available for community input as soon as possible.

Or, as an alternative, ask BAG members Anomie, H3llkn0wz and others to follow the stated process.

Go ahead, make up your minds.

--68.127.234.159 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• [6] Did you have a specific objection to the task itself, or just that it was speedily approved for a trial? –xeno^talk 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did, and I posted that, and I am being ignored, as is frequently the case for non-insider comments on wikipedia boards (hence the need for having a sock puppet cry). But here I have a specific objection to the speedy approval for a trial contrary to the directions on the BRfA page. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I updated the directions, see the diff linked above. I've skimmed the BRFA in question and I'm not quite grasping your concern. Perhaps you could restate it now that your procedural objection has been addressed? –xeno^talk 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • "Typically?" No, not typically, because I got it for thinking that a community discussion would be had before the trial. Please don't set up wikipedia community members for getting accusations thrown at them by BAG members like Anomie, H3llkn0wz. Either allow time for community discussions or drop the pretense that the wikipedia community is any part of what goes on at BRfA.
      • And, now, where is the trial discussion?
        • TTObot (tasks • contribs • actions log • block log • flag log • user rights) (Trial approved)
      • Insiders only? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Typically, time elapses prior to a trial being approved. But sometimes - as in this case - trials are speedily approved. And sometimes bots are speedily approved, without a trial. So - the directions were wrong, thanks for pointing that out - now they are fixed. –xeno^talk 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • You mentioned me explicitly implying I accused you of something in any of my replies ([7][8][9]). I have so far politely explained any and all of my actions. And when you brought up the issue of BRFAs in trial appearing to be out of discussion, I brought that up as well: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#BRFA discussion transclusions. I would really prefer if you would not accuse me of accusing you of anything. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear the the purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated. It's not taking the pages for tagging from a list or category or anything that indicates these are pages that were already nominated. This was it's initial function, "Tag pages en masse with a certain tag (initially {{tfd}})," then an elaboration about it being for mass nominations, not for tags on templates already nominated for deletion. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied to and replied at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TTObot. –xeno^talk 23:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do run me through the instructions on how to find the community discussion for this bot, by the way. Maybe you could post that on the BRfA board, how to find discussions about bots speedied through the community discussion process and on to trials, even a link for community members out of pretend respect?

"My objection is the blanket request for approval for tagging en masse, initially with tfd, but if BAG gives approval for this bot, what unspecified other tagging en masse is this granting permission for? So, yes, I disagree that a personal bot for tagging en masse should be given permission to operate on wikipedia."

My objection to this bot is sound, and I can't believe that BAG was irresponsibly considering an approval for "Tag pages en masse with a certain tag (initially tfd)" for a bot that had no! community discussion, "The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there." --68.127.234.159 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the bot's purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated for deletion. Prior to this bot, sometimes pages would be mass nominated but not actually tagged for deletion, because it is such a tedious task to do so - this bot seeks to remedy that. Not to mass tag pages as the whim of the operator. –xeno^talk 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Move along people, nothing to see here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The usual name-calling dismissal. There it is in black and white (or whatever), the instructions that say one thing, and the contradictory behavior by BAG members. Can't address that, so name-calling is appropriate: "sock puppet," "troll."

How many more BAG members can call a community member names? And, still, BAG asks, why don't community member participate here? Names called? Check. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

← I've copied my reply to your objection to the BRFA page [10]. Discussion regarding the specific task should continue there (I've copied your subsequent reply there as well, and replied). To the extent that there was a discrepancy between practice and the written instructions, I have remedied that issue. –xeno^talk 22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems you copied yours and removed mine. But, well, you did leave the name-calling.

There's no stated reason for a speedy approval ("Approved for trial (50 taggings)"). If it is "typical" for a community discussion to be had, it's atypical for one not be allowed, and some reason should be stated for the approval without community input or discussion.

It seems that BAG members act on their whims and without explanation.

And, where exactly is the link and directions to that discussion? It's not listed anywhere on the BRfA page. It's not when I click on the bot in the trials approved section. If you want community input, why the quick move and hide of discussions? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say they speedily approved for a trial it because the task is something that is already required by the deletion policy and thus it does not require community input as to the desirability of the task - the task is already desired by the community and written into the relevant policy/guidelines. BAGs role is thus to ensure the bot's operation is technically sound - for this, a trial was needed.

The link is at Wikipedia:BRFA#Bots in a trial period, click "tasks".

Why not a link to the discussion? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is a discussion ongoing to transclude all open bot requests: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#BRFA discussion transclusions. –xeno^talk 23:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Deciding to mass nominate templates en masse for deletion is not a task "already required by the deletion policy." Read the policy yourself, and try to find that anywhere. It's not. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Then the policy needs to be updated to reflect practice [11] [12] [13]. Policy is descriptive. –xeno^talk 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Then update the policy instead of misquoting it. Same with BAG members throwing the contradictory BRfA instructions at me then calling me a sock puppet and troll for requesting the policy be followed. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You're quoting AfDs, not TfD. I guarantee there's an interested community to discuss this bot for mass templating Articles for Deletion, and if that is the intention, the community should be immediately notified.

I believe there is a better BAG associated exampled of mass AfDs: a BAG-approved bot that created 1000s of eukaryotic bacteria articles. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Those searches were for all project and help pages where mass/batch/group nomination was mentioned. See [14] for just TFD. –xeno^talk 23:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

On to templates; but I'm see old ones (2006) and inappropriate nominations where templates should not have been nominated en masse because they were too different, resulting in keeps. Maybe you could pick one that shows the usefulness of this bot? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The proximal issue/TFD that lead to the proposed bot? –xeno^talk 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize that the only thing this "bot" is going to do are things that other editors would have done manually anyway, right? It's not changing anything, these tags would have absolutely been applied regardless of the existence of this bot, the bot just makes the task of applying and removing the tags easier. What objection could you possibly have for such a "bot"? And the reason I put "bot" in quotes is because this really isn't even a bot in the true sense of the word. It's someone manually running a script from an alternate account. There is no autonomous prgoram that is operating 24 hours a day, mass tagging any group of thousands of articles that any editor asks it to. I think you might need to read up on exactly how these deletion processes work, and exactly what the scope of this bot is. —SW— ^confer 23:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I did read the deletion processes (see below or above where Xeno implies that mass deletions are the will of the community). It's not internally consistent, the BRfA, so the scope is not clear. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the instructions for nominating an article for deletion at WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD etc. They all instruct you to add a template to the top of the page you are nominating, e.g. {{Afd1}}, {{Tfd}}, {{Mfd}}, {{Cfd}} etc. These templates notify anyone who visits the page that it has been nominated for deletion, and provides a link to the deletion discussion page. If you are nominating multiple articles for deletion, then it logically follows that you will add the appropriate tag to each article you are nominating. If you are nominating 500 pages for deletion at once, you can either go through and spend 3 hours manually adding these tags to each article, or you can talk to this bot owner who has been nice enough to write a bit of code to help you out. It's really quite simple and not worth all the wikilawyering and drama. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus anywhere for a bot that will tag 500 articles for deletion at the the request of a single editor. I will post a link to this at AfD, since, from what you and Xeno say, this appears to be moving towards approval for en masse tagging of not just templates, but articles for deletion. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There will be no bot which "tags 500 articles for deletion". The articles will have already been nominated for deletion by an editor, but instead of 500 different discussions on the articles, the nominator will have created only a single discussion listing all 500 articles. Then, since that editor is required to post a notice on all of the articles he has already nominated for deletion, he can either do that manually or he can use this bot. Either way, the articles will get tagged with a notice. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the deletion process. Articles are not nominated for deletion by placing a tag on the article. They are nominated for deletion by starting a deletion discussion in the appropriate place. The tag that goes on the article is secondary, and only serves as a notice to interested editors that the deletion discussion has started. So, the bot is not automating the process for nominating articles for deletion (although automated tools already exist for this purpose and are widely used, see WP:TW), it is only automating the placing of notification tags. The functionality in this bot request could easily be added to a tool like Twinkle without requiring any kind of formal request, so this bot request is really just a courtesy. —SW— ^confabulate 01:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• 159, you might want to read WP:BURO. If a bot request is common sense, no one is going to wait a month just for the hell of it. Also, approving a bot for a trial is far different that final approval of a bot. Discussion can continue during the trial, and usually does. If you have concerns about the bot, why don't you just state them on the bot request page, rather than complaining here about your misunderstanding of the process. On another note, if you want to be taken seriously in these more "advanced" areas of Wikipedia, register an account and use it. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's not the encyclopedia where anonymous editors must always be taken seriously. Finally, if you are going to make a complaint as discourteous as this one, then don't be surprised when you get dismissed and labeled as a troll. Try a little bit of politeness next time and see where it gets you. —SW— ^prattle 23:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the eukaryotic algae bot issue was initially raised by an IP. Thanks that most editors on wikipedia, apparently unlike you and the BAG name callers, work well with the substance of an issue and listened to and worked with the IP in that case to resolve a huge problem, rather than name calling and avoiding the issue. To each their own. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just telling it like it is. I'm only speaking for myself, btw. —SW— ^gab 23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the community does not participate in BRfA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Bot has been approved, nothing more to discuss. —SW— ^converse 14:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Because when they do BAG members call them trolls and sock puppets, refuse to answer questions, misdirect the answers, and do just about every uncivil thing that wikipedians as a group are routinely accused of doing to those who aren't in-with-the-in crowd at wikipedia.

Bot policy? Meaningless. BAG members? Name-callers who don't know bot policy or have any respect for community input.

Just keep asking. Maybe hell knows how to get more community participation, or headbomb will just blow through it, or Anomie will just throw out unfounded and unbacked sock puppet accusations. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The community does participate in BRFAs. However BAG decides what gets approved and what doesn't get approved. If something needs discussion, BAG will solicit it. If it's uncontroversial stuff, BAG will approve it. If it requires trial before approval, BAG will mandate it. We are not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. We use judgement over blind adherence to rules. Plus any one who wishes to participate in the BRFA discussions only have to click the "edit" button in the relevant BRFA page.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was a troll. Why are you feeding me? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't just click edit and participate. You closed the discussion to stop my participation. Is that because you couldn't answer my questions at the BRfA so calling me a troll was a convenient way to justify ending the BRfA?

Maybe community should push for a policy modification that once a BAG member starts calling community members trolls, especially if they're calling them trolls and having discussions with them, some other BAG member should decide to close the BRfA? You know, bias and all that.

Why such a hurry to push this particular bot through and shut me up, I still wonder. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I closed the discussion because, in my opinion as a member of the BAG, as supported by other BAG members, and by other people who understand what bots should and shouldn't be doing, the bot should be approved. It's both non-controversial, there was a trial period where objections could have been raised, H3llknownz gave a "one week" extension for additional feedback (which ended up being 10 days or so), etc... You said your piece, failed to mention a good reason why the bot should not be approved, completely missed the point of the bot, started Wikilawyering, yap about process abuse, etc... All of which are utterly irrelevant when it comes down to decide whether a bot should be approved or not. And so the bot was approved. Yes, despite your objections. That happens. Deal with it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And despite you name calling in order to interfere with the discussion? And in spite of another BAG member name calling in order to interfere with my discussing the issue? And in spite of another supporter providing only examples of where the bot operator improperly nominated templates for deletion en masse, got a keep and the advice to go do it properly.

If you had a proper reason for closure you would not have needed to call me a troll while closing. But you did resort to name calling in the closure. So, apparently you did not have a proper and well-supported closure. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Utterly uncontroversial and policy compliant, despite troll's claim to the contrary. Approved." "Utterly uncontroversial" doesn't require the adverb and name calling. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fbot task #5

Recently, Fbot was properly approved for a task to tag "orphaned" files with {{Orphan image}}. I happened across this task by way of a file I uploaded (File:Sheriff-flowchart.gif) being tagged by this bot. I believe the bot is acting on a false principal. A free license image does not have to be used in an actual article in order to be retained. WP:NFCC requires non-free files to be deleted if they are orphans, but not free licensed images. I agree that Wikipedia is not an orphanage, however the bot seems to discern no difference between (1) files not actually in use anywhere and (2) files that are in use, just not in the article space.

There are a dizzying array of free licenses images which are not in use on any actual article and are by the criteria of this bot "orphaned". Yes, quite a number of these could be moved to Commons. But, quite a number shouldn't be moved to Commons. Case in point, the image that brought me here, File:Sheriff-flowchart.gif. I could have uploaded this image to Commons, but it has absolutely no relevance anywhere else but on en.wikipedia.org. Uploading it here was entirely appropriate. Further, the fact that it is used in discussions (1 (expand the box) and 2) should have precluded its being marked as orphaned.

I'm also curious about how this bot handles images that are linked, but not transcluded.

I think this bot should be curtailed to only tag files that are not linked or transcluded. What it could do for images that are linked or transcluded is to place a notice on the page of the uploader suggesting it be moved to Commons. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't tag files with inbound links as orphan. –xeno^talk 14:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Hammersoft (ec) What exactly is the problem with tagging such files as orphans? If they should be moved to commons, they will be moved, if not they will be tagged with {{keeplocal}} and remain on Wikipedia. The point of tagging these images as orphans is to do exactly that identify them as orphans so people can easily review them and take action if needed. If the current {{Orphan image}} is misleading or unclear, it's a rather simple thing to update it (mention it on Template talk:Orphan image).

As for the other questions concerning what the bot does in the case of linking and transclusions, that should probably directed to User:Fastily, who codes the bot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with tagging such images is that it's unnecessary make-work. As for the rest, I placed a pointer to this discussion on the bot's talk page. Fastily is certainly more than welcome to contribute to the discussion here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed the same problem. If this is not going to be fixed so the bot will recognize any usage or wikilink that is not on a specific list of exceptions (e.g. I could agree with it discounting links from WP:PUI, WP:IFD, and other such "process" pages), it may be time to re-examine the approval.

Re Hammersoft, I personally don't see much point in spamming talk pages across Wikipedia asking for these images to be moved to Commons. The upload form now shoves people hard in that direction, so any such images newly uploaded locally were probably uploaded locally for a good reason. Anomie⚔ 15:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an example image link. An image link, from a technical standpoint, is created like this: [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|right|200px|This is an example image link]].

There seem to be numerous misconceptions about this bot. Everyone, if you have not yet read Fbot's FAQ, please do so now. Presently, for any given freely licensed image, the bot will only apply {{Orphan image}} iff the file contains no image links to the Wikipedia and Article Namespaces, as determined by mw:API:Imageusage (which, for the record, is entirely separate from mw:API:Alllinks). Anomie, I thought I had resolved your problem with the last fix, in which I virtually rewrote Fbot's code to ignore files with image links from both the Wikipedia and Article namespaces. Instead of whining without offering a solution, or assuming bad faith, perhaps you (or any other users) could list some namespaces you want Fbot to ignore. The way Fbot's library code has been written makes it very easy for me to pull and add namespaces. There has also been much talk of {{Orphan image}} being a deletion tag. So I'll say it again: {{Orphan image}} ≠ deletion tag! This tag categorizes Orphaned, freely licensed files in one category for easy maintenance and statistical purposes. While the tag does indeed suggest what could be done with the file (e.g. move to commons, send to ffd), that does not mean it should be done! All, please carefully read the wording of the tag before prematurely leaping to conclusions! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you would think that "Wikipedia and Article namespaces" would solve the problem I raised about images used in the Talk namespace, or wikilinks from the Template talk namespace. Also, I did give a list of namespaces just above: all of them, with possible exceptions for pages like WP:IFD or WP:PUI. You will also note that I never claimed that {{Orphan image}} was a deletion tag, just that it was being misapplied by your bot to images that are validly in use. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you either have not read what I said, or are simply too incompetent to do so. As I already said, I had assumed, that you, like the others, desired for the bot to ignore files with image links to the Wikipedia and Article spaces. I agreed to that and in good faith, spent time and energy to completely rewrite my code to meet those expectations. If I misunderstood your concern, I apologize. I know it's hard, but make an effort to assume good faith. Also, please note that Image links and Page links are two entirely separate entities. You cannot get the image links of a file by querying the API with mw:API:Alllinks and vice versa. As stated below, the bot has already been configured to ignore all files with <1 image link. And uh, for the rerecord, I never accused you of equating {{Orphan image}} to a deletion tag. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry your lack of reading comprehension led you to a complete misunderstanding and required you to make personal attacks and to fail to assume good faith. Have a nice day. Anomie⚔ 00:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks!? -GASP- Where?? Oh, and for your connivence: [15] Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"or are simply too incompetent to do so" sounds like a personal attack to me. And your addition to {{Orphan image}} goes against the instructions for {{bots}}, BTW. Anomie⚔ 00:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the bots definition of "orphaned" needs to be reconsidered. It is obvious from the numerous comments and complaints on the bot's talk page that this is not being understood by many editors. The template it is using is not helping with its implication that the image should be moved to Commons or deleted. Many of these images have good reasons to be here and good reasons not to be on Commons for which the existing templates are just not appropriate. SpinningSpark 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Fastily; I didn't assume bad faith. Far from it. I'm suggesting changes to the bot. That's not an assumption of bad faith. I can make suggestions to improve the bot without having to assume bad faith. I also never said that {{Orphan image}} was a deletion tag. I don't believe I've lept to any conclusions. It is a fact the bot tags images that are in fact not orphaned, "orphaned" being defined as in use somewhere. The file I noted as an example is in fact in use in the Wikipedia space which you say has been corrected. Fine, but that fails to address lots of other potentially legitimate uses of images in other namespaces that have no utility on Commons and which should remain here. Case point; our ACIP outreach program suggests by way of placeholder for a new user to upload an image of themselves (see example). If they do and they uploaded it here instead of Commons, then by your bot's definition of "orphaned" that image would be considered orphaned. I don't think that's right. There's not much advantage to tagging such images as orphaned, unless I'm missing something. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with the definition that an image is orphaned if it contains no inbound links whatsoever. Then consider expanding that definition when you've run out of images to tag. –xeno^talk 20:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's very doable, and it seems to resolve everyone's concerns. So, if there are no objections, I'll have Fbot Task 6 start untagging within a few hours. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that include images like File:Safariscreenshot2.PNG that are linked to from a discussion but not embedded in a page? Anomie⚔ 23:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No. While that could be done, it would require additional server queries for each and every file Fbot reviews and require additional method additions to Fbot5. It's irrational to add new methods and numerous server queries to Fbot's programming for a small population of <50 files which can easily be flagged with {{Bots|deny=Fbot}} -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Im going to call BS, and request that you un-tag all files that do not meet the zero total links/uses. I just spot checked 30 files tagged as orphan and all of them had at least incoming links, and some even had file uses. If you are worried about resources Ill set up a daily cron job on the toolserver to generate a list of orphaned zero linked files. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Humph. Very well then. I'll update my bot and run it during low site traffic hours. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And now done. Compiled and ready to go. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive got it updating now but tools:~betacommand/reports/orphaned_files2.txt is a listing of all zero linked files and tools:~betacommand/reports/orphaned_files.txt is a listing of all files that have links, but zero uses. Let me know a good time for you, and I can set a cron job to update them for you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is very convenient. I've downloaded a copy of both lists and will write up a 10 line program to make use of them. If you could update these once a week, that'd be great. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

When do you want it updated? I can do as often as daily. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you could, daily would be even better. Say around, 00:00 UTC? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive added it to my 0000UTC crontab, there are several things ahead of it so Im not sure exactly when it will be completed. check the /reports directory for a few days to get the exact update times. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for doing that! Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, my suggestions are referring to any links of any kind, including if I were to link to a file in my comment like: File:Example.png. –xeno^talk 01:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Automatic page creation criteria

Greetings. I am currently assigned as a go-between between WikiMedia Indonesia and the Lontar Foundation. There is discussion regarding the possibility of creating articles for Indonesian writers using a bot, then filling in details manually. Would this be in accordance with WP:N and WP:BLP? Would such a request be granted, conceivably? What articles are generally okay to be created automatically? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On en:wikipedia you will need a BRFA if you intend to create more than "about 25-50 pages". Botpol does not specify in what period. On other wikis different rules may apply. In terms of notability, if the article does not make a reasonable claim to notability for the subject, it risks being speedied. BLP requires that material about living people is sourced, and that should not be hard. Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

Bot Rights Alert

Very little evidence has been collected of this awful practice. This is because the Dark Side destroys most of it.

Dear Honorary Citizens of Wikipedia,
i must call it to your attention that one or more misguided editors have been mistreating members of the community known as bots. These bots have been bullied and forced to work on week-ends by the mean, lazy owners who refuse to do the dirty work themselves. These editors are difficult to apprehend because they are mostly distinguished members of the community.

Please intervene to help these creatures who never asked anything in return for their slavery. I propose on their behalf :

1. A Universal Charter of Bot Rights to be created, dealing with free health care, freedom, equality, peace, representation, days off, and old age pensions (for bots like this one).
2. A Bot Workers Union that they can join. This will help improve their working conditions on Wikipedia.
3. A Bot Police Unit to enforce proposal 1. Certain Vandal-bashing bots (like this one) are already quite good at kicking the hell out of transgressors.

I hereby submit this to the scrutiny of the community. I hope you will read this with attention and put your utmost effort into bringing the culprits to justice.
Yours truly, Benzband (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: more evidence shall undoubtedly be uncovered. I also call for relaxation on the part of H3llkn0wz because he (unwittingly) furnished evidence of this abomination. - Benzband (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the BAG has already been taken over by the Bot Workers Union, and they are forcing bots, who desire nothing more than to work to sit idle, through delayed BRFAs and other obstructions, while the Capos negotiate behind the scenes for kickbacks, free oil for their cronies, and unlimited cloud storage. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Oh, no! T'is going to be even more difficult… Thanks for bringing up this new dimension of the problem, as it was hidden to me by the corrupt Bot Cabal. - Benzband (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More evidence. benzband (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a notification bot

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

I'm looking for a bot that will auto-notify multiple WikiProjects when a new section is started at a discussion page. Does anybody know of a bot that will do this? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Bot requests next time; there are links for frequently requested tasks. Newsletter delivery bots are here (they're not only for newsletters, e.g. MessageDeliveryBot (talk · contribs)). — madman 14:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will freely admit that the bot pages are so unintuitive and unnavigable that I did not even see anything about a bot request page. Thanks for the pointer. I'll post my request there. Again, much thanks. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

IW bots going crazy

A cabal of IW bots seem to have got it into their head to link Wikipedia to the main page of a small WP, nv:. See e.g. the page's history I can't see anything on either page that would be causing this, so it suggests there's some problem with the data the bots are using.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because nv:wiki links back to en:wiki [16]. But they have edit protected the page, so we can't fix it. It's not really bots' fault, it's nv: fault. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename bots

Hi. Is there a bot that could automatically rename a bunch of pages? I've set up MiszaBot to archive Talk:Nakhchivan, which already had many manual archives, but the problem is that {{Talkheader}} would not display the links to the archived pages, as they have the names in the wrong format (Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive1 instead of Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive 1, the latter has a space before the number). It is good when the new archive is listed automatically, than to add it to the archive list manually every time a new archive is created. Looking at the history, I noticed that there was a page move bot that could fix the problem, but it's been inactive since 2006: [17] Therefore I wonder if there's another similar bot that could move all the existing archives for that page to the appropriate name format. Grandmaster 07:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

News story

BBC News cover an interesting story here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We're famous! -- Selket ^Talk 14:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ISBN (and other) checksums?

Hi all,

Someone asked me at a workshop yesterday if our ISBN-handling script checks for the validity of the number. It doesn't (and it isn't practical to, within mediawiki) but I mentioned the ISBN-hyphenating scripts/bots. Does anyone know if any of these check ISBNs, or any other checksumable codes, for validity? I had a quick look around, but couldn't see anything... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot used to, but there were complaints that it would repeatedly break citations it didn't recognize. I think the only ISBN task approved since it went inactive has been Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 11. — madman 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - so it's been done, but isn't active just now. Thinking about it, there are a small number of cases where an invalid ISBN is "right" (usually when it was published that way and no-one noticed for a year), but I think there's ways of detecting those - searching in one of the major catalogues for the invalid form, and if it's returned in preference to the valid one then it's likely something to leave. The problem (as with HPB) would be finding a way to mark this ISBN as "known invalid but leave", so we don't keep rechecking it. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)