Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/pContinuity


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied

pContinuity
Operator:

Time filed: 03:13, Thursday November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Yes, Once Completed (Will be posted on Github)

Function overview: Bot scan's recent changes to search for users who have made an edit with only a template that was not changed such as Italic text, Bold text , or Insert non-formatted text here. Users are then notified on their talk pages about edit tests.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous (Run every 2 minutes to scan last 500 changes made to English Wikipedia)

Estimated number of pages affected: 20 edits per hour, including messages sent to user talk pages.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Bot will scan 500 most Recent Changes on the English Wikipedia for a diff of Italic text, Bold text , or Insert non-formatted text here. On detection of the determined template edit test, the page will be checked against a whitelist of pages that the edit may be useful to, the user will be checked to see if they have previously been notified about edit tests, and the user's recent edit count will be measured to determine if the user has a decent history of knowing how to use standard wiki markup (not the best tool to determine competency but one of the better ones at this time). If the edit is considered to be an edit test, the edit will be reverted.

Question for the Public: Should a template be placed on the user's talk page about edit tests if they have not previously received one?

Discussion

 * This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, ment to add the BRFA tag to the Current requests for approval on this account. Piandcompany (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

-- Chris 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot would only be editing in the (Article) namespace. Piandcompany (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And very likely the 'User talk' namespace. ;-) mabdul 07:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it check only for Bold text, or any bold text at all? For instance, if I wrote this is a test would it still revert it if it thought I wasn't experienced enough? &mdash; Wolfgang42 (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "an edit with only a template that was not changed such as [..] Bold text ", so I'm assuming: no. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. I use wikEd, which doesn't have the placeholder text, so I forgot about the placeholder in the standard editor. &mdash; Wolfgang42 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Should a template be placed on the user's talk page about edit tests if they have not previously received one?" Yes? I don't see a reason not to. If a user vandalises or edit wars, they will receive a template independent of whether they had any messages before. This isn't an exception. On that note, does the bot handle the new sections and warning levels correctly? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This task sounds familiar, don't we already have a "test edit" bot somewhere? -- Chris 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go, its been inactive since 2009, so not a problem. A few things:
 * As a generally accepted rule for bots of this type, the bot should not revert the same edit twice (i.e. it shouldn't revert war with users).
 * Also, in the event that the edit contains both Bold text and a good edit, what does the bot do? (my suggestion is only remove the bold text)
 * ..And not post a warning (or a warning about accidental use). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I knew I approved another test edit bot somewhere - User:RscprinterBot (brfa) - seems to be running fine. How will your bot differ from this one? And what will you do to make sure they do not conflict with each other? -- Chris 14:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, per policy the username needs to indicate the account is a bot. -- Chris 14:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, did not know about this bot in particular. Piandcompany (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also User:28bot which seems to be running as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with task duplication, but I too would be interested in knowing how this differs, and if it has any advantages.Legoktm (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to raise a point with the username. Per WP:BOTACC, "The account's name should identify the operator or bot function. Additionally, it should be immediately clear that its edits are made by an automated account; this is usually accomplished by including the word "Bot" at the beginning or end of the username." This request has a username which could be any regular user. I might suggest PiandBot or similar? Also, regarding the task, we already have many bots (including my own) running this, and duplication is not needed in massive amounts because the existing bots only exist to help ClueBot which takes the brunt of the vandalism. A helper's helper? Nah, not for me.  Rcsprinter  (tell me stuff)  @ 16:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, I fall into the community input category, since I want to make a comment because I am quite a fan of User:28bot. It is indeed running and efficiently completes a mammoth amount of monthly work: in all the edit test categories that I am aware of.  Some the bot unilaterally completes all the necessary tasks:  logging, reverting or deleting, and placing user warnings; and some is logged for real life editors (of which I am one lowly volunteer) to take over those duties (if it appears there is the possibility of other vandalism needing attention). I can't see how another new bot that would be doing bits of these duties would be anything other than getting in the way.  Since I really don't know how this all works, I'll return to my seat now. ツ   Fylbecatulous   talk   19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hopefully, I fall into the community input category" you certainly do, everyone is welcome here. Thanks for commenting :) -- Chris 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You not only don't have to return to your seat, I wish you wouldn't, and you're not required to know how the approval process works in order to voice your opinion about a bot. I have had a couple of problems with BAG members (and non-members) about this last bit, but others have stepped up to make sure that everyone understands the need for community input. I feel that a lack of input about bots has led to problems in the past. --150.135.114.58 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously considering denying this task. I can't see any strong argument for duplication and I would consider this task to be somewhat "high risk". Its a difficult task to get right, and even small bugs or unexpected edge cases (of which there will no doubt be quite a few), could have damaging results. If you really want to go ahead with this, I'd like to see a more concrete overview of how the bot will operate, any differences between it and the bots already doing this task, and I'd also like to see a logging system similar to what 28bot has. -- Chris 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a published code could help us to see if it would work OK or better saying as intended. mabdul 12:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe also a reasoning behind this bot task? If more attention were paid ar RFBA to links to community discussions about a need for a bot, then there might not be proposed bots duplicating tasks--no one requested or discussed the bot, maybe because there is no need for the bot? But if the operator saw a need out of a failure on the part of the other bot and raised this issue with an interested community, the bot might be more focused on unmet needs. So, is there a discussion? --150.135.114.58 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, per another user above, is there some reason this bot doesn't have a proper bot name? --150.135.114.58 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't responded here for two months. Do you still want to do this task? mabdul 13:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to bots, I believe it is fairly well established that we need to be extra careful with "anti-vandalism bots", as they have the potential to scare off newcomers and are more likely to interact with people who aren't used to bots and automation on Wikipedia. However, when dealing with "test-editing bots", we need to be even more careful; because instead of targeting vandals directly, the bot is more likely to pick on newbies accidentally bumping buttons in the edit toolbar. Reverting a users first edit, and templating them with a warning--all completely automated--isn't a great introduction to Wikipedia.

A task like this needs to be operated carefully and monitored closely. It is not a bot that you can just leave in your crontab and let run. I have failed to be convinced that this task will be operated in such a fashion that does not bite the newbies. Simple questions about when a user will/won't be warned, and how much of an edit will be reverted, haven't been answered. The lack of any response in this BRFA since November (and the operators infrequent editing pattern) leaves me worried that new users asking for help on the bots talk page will not receive a response in a timely manner.

Finally, we already have a bot performing this task in a way that addresses all these concerns. In this case, I do not think duplication of the task is necessary, and is more likely to be damaging than beneficial. -- Chris 15:01, 17 January 2013 (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.