Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rich Farmbrough (mass article creation)


 * 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 Symbol abstain vote.svg Whatever.

Rich Farmbrough (creating probably more than 25 articles if the bureaucrats don't destroy him first)
Operator: Not applicable. I am not a bot.

Time filed: 21:33, Friday October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): n/a it is manual

Source code available: n/a

Function overview: Create missing articles on notable people based on text from files in my possession derived from their public domain DNB biographies.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography

Edit period(s): Occasional

Estimated number of pages affected: 3,000 - 4,000 over three - four years

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): n/a

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): n/a

Function details: new articles will be created - not the stubs on which the VP discussion that botpol is based on was predicated. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

Discussion
Note: a parallel process is linking Wikisource DNB articles to existing WP articles, approximately 2000 have been linked in the past month. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Will the articles be created in a workspace first and then manually moved into mainspace after they are reviewed and fixed up? Or will the bot create the articles directly in mainspace?  The WikiProject DNB discussion seems to encourage the former.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 23:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter, they are not hanging around in an unfixed up form for days. I just paste a one or a few up and fix them up. I used to create them in my user space, but it essentially creates work of moving the article, and there is also a risk that someone else creates the same article when I have spent hours working on it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Given your current editing restrictions, the recent ANI discussion linked below and the resultant 1-week block, and recent proposals to outright ban you from Wikipedia (all in response to your attempts to automate the mass creation of articles) I think it would be a vast understatement to say that it would be wise for you to tread carefully on this bot task should it be approved. Regardless of how much extra work it might create for you, it would be ideal if the articles were created in a workspace first, reviewed and fixed up by multiple editors (perhaps the editors from WikiProject DNB would be willing to help), and then moved into article space once they are ready for prime time.  I fear that the mass creation of inaccurate and/or messy articles will only serve to get you blocked for a long period of time.  If automatically mass-creating articles is how you want to spend your time here, then the community has made it very clear that you need to put more effort into the quality of the articles.  An automated process can only do so much when it comes to mass creating articles, there has to be a significant portion of manual editing done to each article.  &mdash;SW&mdash; chat 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This bot has edited its own BRFA page. Bot policy states that the bot account is only for edits on approved tasks or trials approved by BAG; the operator must log into their normal account to make any non-bot edits. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dumb bots. For good reason this page was not under my name - since the process requires an entry of the bot name, and does not deal with the case where BAG has taken powers over the human contingent of editors. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

For anyone considering this, please check Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227. Obviously, if he gets approval, he wouldn't be violating his editing restriction, so that's not the problem. The problem is that his previous attempt at creating such pages ended with very poor results, as detailed at that section. They were also script-created and then "fixed", but the result was not something that should be recommended to be repeated over thousands (or even dozens) of pages. Fram (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also check who raised the noticeboard item - or just take my word for it that it was Fram. No ill thing befalls me on Wikipedia unless Fram is there, it seems.
 * Nonethless do please consider, if you wish, articles such as John Shipp (soldier) and Henry Walton Ellis which was featured on the main page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC).


 * No one claimed that nothing good came out of those creations, only that many of them contained serious errors. I don't see why it is relevant that I posted that WP:AN thread, it's not as if it was dismissed by others (in fact, it ended in a one week block for you. Note that Henry Walton Ellis, the one "featured" (as a DYK, not a featured article), contained, after it had gone live and after you finished polishing it over 19 edits, still things like "categories: 1783 births (−) (±) 1783 deaths", with the same two dates in the infobox at the top as well... Only after an IP corrected this in one place one week later, did you correct this at the other two places (ctas and persondata) as well. At that time, the page still contained other bot generated errors like an incorrect defaultsort and bolded name, and things like "4lst foot" instead of "41st Foot". All this from one of the best examples of these creations! The bot script you use to generate these articles is fairly buggy, and your manual work on them often inadequate. The minimum requirement, if this gets approved, should be that they are created in your userspace and only moved to mainspace after the blatant errors have been removed. Letting this bot loose on the mainspace is a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just checked, as far as possible, whether a problem with these articles, mentioned to Rich Farmbrough during that previous discussion, was actually corrected. The search may be incomplete, the articles created from the DNB don't have a common category (unlike other articles with text taken from PD works, see Category:Wikipedia sources), but at least seven articles created by Rich Farmbrough from the DNB still had the Category:Living people until I removed it just now... David Fisher (1816?-1887), John Barrow (fl.1756), Robert Barret, Thomas Barker (fl.1651), William Augustus Barron, William Gouw Ferguson and William Barret (fl.1595). Richard Farmbrough is making a request here to do this manually, "based on text from files in my possession". Does this mean that he will not use that dodgy script that created all these articles any more, or that the cats and so on are already included in the text files, or that he intends to use a script anyway? Thomas Barker (fl.1651) did not only have the cat:living people, it also had two wikilinks; an incorrect link to Thomas Barker (shouldn't have been linked, as the intended target was the subject of the article anyway) and a completely incorrect link to Lord Montague. Such articles don't give me the idea that the creation of thousands of articles, many of them of similar quality, (but no longer in article space but directly in mainspace, because otherwise someone might have created a probably better article in the mainspace in the meantime) is something which should be approved in this case. Fram (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned that this BRFA is essentially a back door around Rich's current editing restriction. The editing restriction is "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows BOTPOL."  Yet, this BRFA is not really a bot task at all.  The bot operator is listed as "Not applicable. I am not a bot." and the programming language is "n/a it is manual".  Additionally the estimated number of pages affected is "3,000 - 4,000 over three - four years".  So, approving this BRFA would enable Rich to mass-create articles from external sources at his leisure for the next 4 years, and whether his process is automated or not we can never really know for sure.  It would basically give him a blanket "consensus" to point to when someone claims that he's violating his editing restriction.
 * My opinion is that this BRFA should be denied on the grounds that:
 * It's not even a bot task, no automated task will be operating. Rich himself says that he's just copying and pasting from a source in his possession.
 * It would essentially give Rich a free pass around his editing restriction.
 * This is not the proper venue for Rich to establish a consensus regarding whether he should be allowed to manually mass-create these articles (unless I've missed a condition of the edit restriction which says that BRFA is the preferred venue for Rich to ask for permission to make manual edits).
 * &mdash;SW&mdash; spill the beans 20:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm stating this rather starkly, because the older PD edition of the DMN should not be used as the basis for articles, whether created manually or automatically. It is subject to the usual late Victorian UK biases, All sources require checking, interpretation, and analysis before use, and like all outdated sources, the material there requires particularly careful checking,  interpretation, and analysis. Rich is certain fully capable of this, but not if he uses automated tools. Nobody is.  People using this source need to supplement it by checking what is said about the individual in the current ODNB--whose policy is to include all people listed in the earlier edition--and in other recent sources.    DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until editing restriction is amended/withdrawn (and/or, I suppose, a different bot operator runs this bot) in which case I'd reconsider, but not necessarily support. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't care who is doing it or what the original source is, I don't want bots creating articles, and I don't want mass single source articles being spammed using non-bot automated scripts. I was vehemently against when Dr. Blowfeld did it, and I'm vehemently against you doing it now for the same reason; it is impossible to mass create articles at an acceptable level of quality, period.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This would fall under BRFA scope as "mass article creation", however there does not appear to be consensus for this task. The operator has editing restrictions, and BRFA is definitely not the venue to build consensus for alleviating/bypassing such. BAG cannot grant approvals to editors that are under editing restrictions. As BOTPOL is clear on this: "BAG has no authority on operator behavior, or on the operators themselves. Dispute resolution is the proper venue for that.". Both quality and restriction issues can be addressed by careful human editing of each article, but then that is no longer applicable as a "mass creation" BRFA. Before too much editor effort is spent on this page, I can only suggest seeking the proper venue for appealing editing restriction and/or granting exemptions. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:21, 11 October 2011 (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.

Note, this is not denied, per se, but a decision that approval is not within BAG's remit. Or so it appears, most of the comments seem to have no relation to the actual request, but are just moronic soap-boxing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC).


 * This is not denied, but BRFA is not the right place for this. However since you started the discussion here, I suppose you can advertise this broadly and then ask for a sysop/buro to close this. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It can juts be closed as ultra vires, I was not wishing to resurrect it. It is just that had I let it be remain labelled "denied" it would have been cited as such in the future.  Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Ah, well, there's only "expired" and "withdrawn" options, so "denied" was the most applicable. I probably won't close this again, but someone could cap it with a regular archive box. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're being a bit paranoid about that (I expect an objection based on "he filed this before and it was denied on procedural grounds!" would be quickly dismissed), but Symbol abstain vote.svg Whatever. Anomie⚔ 20:02, 5 January 2012 (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.