Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hassan.m.aminbot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

User:Hassan.m.aminbot
Operator:

Time filed: 01:56, Friday, May 3, 2019 (UTC)

Function overview: The purpose of the bot is to add a null edit to a Wikipedia:VideoWiki script page such as VideoWiki/Polio if and when a human voice is added or updated via the VideoWiki tool. If a human voice is added to all of the video it will say in the edit summary " User:NAME added a human voice". If a human voice is only added to a specific or less than three slides it will add the edit summary " User:NAME added a human voice to section "name"".

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Nodejs

Source code available: Coming soon

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): VideoWiki meeting May 2019

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Currently the 22 in Category:Videowiki_scripts

Namespace(s): Pages are currently in Wikipedia space. Hope is that they will one day move to a new namespace called "Video". But we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Function details: The description of how it is to work is above. The reason for the bot is that we need a mechanism to prevent "human voice" related vandalism. Currently if a human voice is added or changed within a VideoWiki video there is no documentation of this on Wikipedia. For quality assurance we need such documentation.

Discussion
For clarity I have started the bot approval request on behalf of User:Hassan.m.amin and their User:Hassan.m.aminbot. Hassan is going to be doing the programming will I and a few others are going to be providing guidance with respect to required functionality. Hassan's work is being funded by the WP:VideoWiki efforts / Wiki Project Med Foundation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * if all that is committed is a null edit, the revision history will not be updated, so your mentioned edit summaries will not be saved. Can you expand on what is needed here? — xaosflux  Talk 16:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you point to an example diff of the human voice being added (the trigger for this bot)? — xaosflux  Talk 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Xaosflux Yes so this is what the bot would do.
 * The bot would be triggered when people click this.
 * And select adding a human voice over. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. So OK, this is not a null-edit, it is an edit that adds useless whitespace to the page. Can you point to an example edit where someone has actually done the "add voice" action? Are the edits being made going to be here or or commons? — xaosflux  Talk 22:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Evolution and evolvability added his voice to this video.. We simple need a way to add an edit summary to the history for a videoscript. You have other ideas on how this could be done? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * there may be - I'm just not following the big picture yet, forgive my ignorance of the new process! When someone "adds voice to video" - does that create an edit? If it does can you link to the diff where there takes place? —  xaosflux  Talk 23:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this gives you an overview of the basic functionality of the Videowiki tool VideoWiki/Tutorial
 * For a number of languages, including English, we have the ability for a machine to read the text.
 * We also have the additional ability for people to add their own voice to the video in question.
 * When someone adds their own voice it, however, does not create an "edit" to the script to notify those watching the script page that such a voice has been added.
 * What we are wanting is the Videowiki tool which facilitates adding the voice to also make a note within the history of the script page.
 * This is important for us to catch subtle vandalism to the videos. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * when someone "adds the voice" - where exactly is this being added? That is, where is this addition/change being stored? If it is on a WMF wiki, does it create a revision of some sort? (If so can you point to one of these revisions being made?) — xaosflux  Talk 01:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is marked here on Commons.. Edit summary there needs improvements aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * On an aside, would it be even better if the "script sections" were marked up in a reader-accessible way - to indicate if they "need audio - YOU CAN HELP!" (or something), and just have the bot mark those as done? It would be a lot more visible then something in the edit summaries. —  xaosflux  Talk 01:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hum that is a good point. We could definitely have a template that indicates if a human voice has been used or not and the bot we are requesting could make a change to that template. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding whitespace to a page to force a "null edit" is just sloppy and creates a mess out of the wikitext. I'd suggest using a subpage (e.g. VideoWiki/Gout/chagngelog) to record updates. - F ASTILY   01:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for answering all the questions so far! In a nutshell I'm reading the overview as:
 * When someone uses the videowiki tool to create a new voiceover enabled file version on commons, create a dummy edit with a custom edit summary on the "script" page here.
 * Presumably, if you want page watchers to see this, the edits should not use the 'bot' flag. If you want to stay with dummy edits the 'minor' flag may be best. Do you want to further explore the template/template updating option next? A bot could for example update a template parameter when a section is done. —  xaosflux  Talk 11:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes the minor flag would be better as a lot of people have notification of bot changes turned off. Would it still be a bot that makes the change though, but simple marks it minor and not bot?
 * Oh sure, and if it will do other things it can still have the account level "bot flag". When coding bots to make edits, you also have to specific if they will apply the "bot" or "minor" attribute to each edit (when using the API). — xaosflux  Talk 13:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect to the template, we will build something that includes, user name and date. And than having the tool update that template would be perfect. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, lets keep this on hold until that part is ready? — xaosflux  Talk 13:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * agree - I think where we left this is that actual useful templates would be in place, and the bot will just remove them/mark them "done" - the whole "logging via edit summary" is not ideal either. — xaosflux  Talk 03:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay we have the ReadShow template rolled out. The bot will than add the following to the top of the article:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this review will be a lot easier with some sample edits so lets see a trial . —  xaosflux  Talk 13:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect thanks User:Xaosflux will work on getting the tool created to do this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * D are you ready to start the trial? — xaosflux  Talk 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * no response from the operator. — xaosflux  Talk 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.