Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WenliBot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Symbol delete vote.svg Denied.

WenliBot
Operator: —  Wen li  (reply here)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP (CLI)

Function Summary: Watches RfAs. Updates the vote count (0/0/0) and removes blocked/anon/duplicate users from the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Edit rate requested: No more than 3 edits per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No.

Function Details: The bot first obtains a list of RfAs using the MW API. For every RfA, it:
 * 1) Uses RfA Analysis Library to analyze the RfA
 * 2) Updates the vote count at the top of the RfA if it is incorrect.
 * 3) Indents votes made by anons and blocked users (using the API to determine if the user is blocked)
 * 4) Indents duplicate votes (two or more votes made by the same user)

Discussion
Maybe it should move the anon votes the the "discussion header".  Ρх₥α 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This, potentially, is a very nice and useful bot; but given the fairly large disruption that would happen if an RfA page is messed up, we'll need to see the code and hammer on some faux RfA in user space for a while. Is the code already in a state where it can be tested, or were you looking for prior approval of process? Here is what I see to be the important stages for approval of this bot: How does that sounds? — Coren (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this works...there has been a lot of talk about a bot like this. Have you mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:RFA? — H 2O —  03:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Get some code working;
 * Have it play with simulated RfA pages in userspace for a while; so that we can throw "hard" cases as it and see how it works;
 * One we have a good behavior, and some diffs to show for it, run this by Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and possibly Bureaucrats' noticeboard to see if there is general approval for the task as perfomed;
 * A trial on a couple of real RfAs; then
 * Profit! approval.

I can already think of some pitfalls we have to watch for: Discuss. :-) — Coren (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone breaking the "normal" formatting - how will the bot fail?
 * Users becoming banned after voting
 * Stricken votes


 * Have you started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:RFA? Are you aware that a similar bot was proposed to do similar tasks to this a while ago (see discussion), and the idea never went ahead? Have you contacted Tangotango to tell him that you'll be using an automated tool to get data from his tool? ~  Sebi  03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now there is. I think this is potentially a good idea. I think blocked users comments should be struck, IPs moved to the discussion header, and duplicates should be removed only if for the same argument. I've seen some editors put one (!)vote in support and one in oppose. Those should be handled manually. J- ſtan TalkContribs 04:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The bot will not be taking data from Tangotango's tool. I'm merely using code created by him to help analyze RfAs. —  Wen li  (reply here) 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look at the archived discussion. —  Wen li  (reply here) 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the bot does not detect the normal RfA format (using regexp), it will skip that page. Now, we need consensus on how the comments should be dealt with (struck, indented...) so that I can implement them. —  Wen li  (reply here) 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus about the removal of blocked users' comments at RfA (see BN archives from last month). Any bot which does this will be rejected, because of the lack of consensus and also it's a decision which requires discretion (and is often referred to the b'crats).  Daniel  11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least it should be limited to indef blocked users only. I think the comments should be left; if other users feel the need to remove/indent/strike the comments, that's their prerogative. Mr.  Z- man  03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of removing comments, it could leave a note directly below the comment informing other users that the user voted twice or was blocked. I think that comments made by anons should be moved to the discussion section. —  Wen li  (reply here) 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not need a tally bot. RFA is not a vote (most people use !vote which means "not vote"), so there's no need to count it.  Majorly  (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it's been often said that if there is a tally at the top of the page, it should be as accurate as possible. That does not mean it's not a good idea to remove the tally entirely. — Coren (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone would like to see the regex that is used to update the tally, I can post it here. —  Wen li  (reply here) 00:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against approving this bot; first, discounting remarks by blocked users is not something that should be done by a bot as it requires deeper investigation of the situation. Second, the edits made to update the tally are of no value and serve only to clog the history of the RfA; since the tally can at best provide a vague sense of the progress of the nomination, increasing the accuracy of the tally does not add meaningful value -- at least, not enough to justify bloating the history of every RfA by 20-50 edits. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) I, for one, do not like this bot proposal. The tally means nothing, so it makes no sense to update it. There should be no striking of comments from any automated process. In general, striking comments should be left to bureaucrats; either way, bots should certainly not be doing it. --Deskana (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this bot. We urgently need a bot to update the tally; many people are simply too lazy to do it themselves when they vote (as everyone should do). WaltonOne 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the tally is updated by a (flagged) bot, that will reduce the clutter of the RfA's history. — Coren (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bot flagged accounts still show in the history like all other edits, they are maked from recent changes and watchlists. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who like the tally on RfA's, I don't see that there is a compelling interest to ensure that these MUST be accurate, or the urgent need for it. Can you link to a decision at Wikipedia talk:RFA? —  xaosflux  Talk 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that there hasn't been any formal decision in regards to whether RfA tallies must be accurate. —  Wen li  (reply here) 02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a request earlier on in the year at the WT:RFA archive where they talk about SpebiBot.. — E  talkBAG 22:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, the linked discussion doesn't seems to be in favour of such a bot. IMHO, putting a bot to update the tally does somehow recognize its importance, something I believe we shouldn't do.
 * I respectfully think that no vote should be striked, but only indented. And no, not by a bot. I have never been and never will against using bots, but only if they're needed. RFA is enough complicated now, no need for a bot to step in too.
 * It should be up to the 'crats to ignore votes by banned users, but it's not that simple. Just because a user have been banned/blocked doesn't mean that his vote should be ignored. Only in specific occasions this should be done.
 * In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with the idea of a bot stepping in at WP:RFA, which is already seen by some as a vote, even without encouragements in this idea. Happy editing,  Snowolf How can I help? 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (per conserns voiced by Deskana and lack of consensus. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.