Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 17

message: If you look here you will see that this IP appears to be a bot. Presumably as it is an IP this bot has not got registration ("if their owners seek approval first"), but I'm not sure what to do about it. Any thoughts? --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked it pending more information, and left a note on the talk page for the IP address. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be User:YurikBot, seems to be running pywiki which has a habit of occasionally logging out.--Commander Keane 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was stated to be YurikBot on IRC, apparently a cookie problem had it editing as an IP as opposed to a username -- Tawker 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it shouldn't run logged out, and since it is continuing the edits as the IP address, I've re-blocked. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It happens, bots do get logged out sometimes. We have identified the bot, it shouldn't be blocked. Put a note on the IP talk page that this is yurikbot maybe. Mike (T C)  19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest following Yurik's suggestions, only block for 15 min to reset the bot. I've found my bot did this once, its weird but it happens. -- Tawker 23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP bot? 

message: Just wanted to let everyone know about  which is meant to replace , it is more specific towards bot pages and links to the Wikipedia:Bots page. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template 

message: I noticed User:YurikBot has been making a lot of bad interwiki links to ja: and zh:   A lot of bad links: contributions. Cburnett 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here's the problem.  By inserted unicode characters my browser can't render (Firefox/1.5.0.1) it shows them as blank lines.  Even doing a view source shows them as empty links.  I have to view the page source in a non-unicode environment for them to finally show up.  Is it just my version of firefox? Cburnett 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not the firefox, but the windows that needs to have all the fonts installed (If Windows is what you are using). In control pannel, Regional and Language settings, check both checkboxes in the Languages tabs. --Yurik 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YurikBot 

message: I see the bot shutoff button links to the Blockip special page... That means that if the bot gets blocked, I'm going to get blocked as well? Fetofs Hello! 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The emergency bot shutoff button is just a fancy link to the block page. If your bot is blocked, anyone trying to use the same IP will get autoblocked. In almost every case, this means that if the bot is blocked the owner's usual account will be too. So the answer to your question is yes.--Commander Keane 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency bot shutoff button 

message: As per the instructions on the bots policy pages in regards to expansion of bot tasks see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#User:Pegasusbot_expansion_of_usage in regards to expansion of the usage of User:Pegasusbot. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of usage 

message: As per the project page, I am requesting here that User:Curps be blocked until he shuts off his blockbot. It has caught me as a false positive about 8-10 times, and the last few times it has taken about 10 minutes to be unblocked. This is an obvious case of a bot gone bad, and should be stopped, as this has kept me from improving the encyclopedia as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois State Routes. This also introduces another divide between admins and non-admins, as the bot whitelists admins. Thus admins are able to make page moves as quickly as possible, but non-admins must guess at how much time to wait per move. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reasons for Curp's bot is pretty obvious IMHO, but I do think a whitelist would be of great use.  There is pratically no way that us poor admins can stop a WoW attack instantly, hence the autoblock goes in.  I'd support a whitelist but I wouldn't support shutting off the bot for the forementioned reasons -- Tawker 03:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, all admins are automatically whitelisted. Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To be fair, how many false positives has it really caught, besides yourself? --InShaneee 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, different people do moves in different ways. You're free to look through the stats if you want an answer. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm aware. I'm just saying that Curpsbot has done a lot more good than bad, so perhaps there is a solution (such as a whitelist) that's a little less drastic than outright blocking. --InShaneee 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Curps would be open to that suggestion, if you do suggest it I'd also suggest auto whitelisting accounts with the bot flag. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It might seem rather obvious, but maybe if you adjusted your modus operandi so that the bot wouldn't catch you, everybody might be a little happier. Is it absolutely necessary to perform each batch of moves within a single minute? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Curpsbot

message: Since the instructions say to post here if interested in helping I'd like to help out as part of the approvals group since I'm active on that requests for approval page commenting on bot requests and think I'd make a good addition. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval Group 

message: Bureaucrats can now grant and revoke bot status for users on the local project. This is in response to a long-standing request from the stewards, both to cut down their workload, and to allow local projects to have more control over what happens there.
Most of the technical details can be found here; but the short and tall of it is that this is accomplished via the MakeBot extension; a screenshot for the curious (and non-'cratted) can be found here. Rob Church (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if the log portion of that could be exported to a Special:Log page like all the other logs though I assume that would take a dev to do that.  Cool though that now it can be done locally so we don't have to bug the devs anymore about it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot status 

message: WHile I agree with Pegasus that the approvals group is arbitrary, virtually self appointed, and has only lack of complaint rather than consensus, I had noticed, (at least a year, possibely longer ago) that the previous versions were also somewhat self proclaimed.  
And certainly the idea that anyone can black-ball a proposal  is not good.  I think that things have changed in the following ways since the original policies were set up.
# Far bigger WP
# Far more bots, editors, vandals and reverters.
# Far more semi-automated processes.
So the potential problems posed by bots and automation have changed in priority. 
I see these as
# Runaway bot syndrome
#: What everyone feared to start with.  But bots are blockable, and revertable, so not a huge problem.  Also contrary to expectations, one of the advantages of true bots is that they can run slowly, because they are not consuming valuable human time.  Perhaps we should have a revert bot or bots standing by in case of major problems.  In general I think we need to be more permissive with bots - they can take a massive editing effort away from trivial tasks.  We could also perhaps try to develop some bot standards - not prescriptive one, but useful ones, like a shared format for article whitelists (i.e. those that legitimately include a solecism).
# Clogged Recent Changes
#: To some extent dealt with by bot-flags, also by the vast increase in human editing.
# Clogged watchlist
#: More of a problem now than ever, I think there's a bugzilla request to be able to ignore these.  
#:::This feature has been added. Rich Farmbrough 19:24 11  June 2006 (GMT).
# Angry users
#: Every edit has a chance of angering a user (Ryan's law: "All change, no matter how insignificant, unthreatening, or wholly beneficial, will generate controversy from somewhere."), however small (or not).  As the number of edits increases, the amount of flack increases. Some percentage of this will be directed against the bot community as a whole.  We need to be able to deal with these problems in a sensible and proportionate way.
OK, that's some of my thoughts, hope they're useful.
Rich  Farmbrough 11:07 11  May 2006 (UTC).
P.S. Another "Hmmm" - perhaps it would be worth having a shared bot-testing area - possibly off WP, where large scel bot-testing could occur. RF.
: While this may not be currently possible, we should have it required once coding can catch up to this: A universal "revert" button for a date range somehow, either in MediaWiki or with the bots themselves. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: As some of you may know, bot flagging (and deflagging) is now the responsibility of the local bureaucrats. Previously, requests for flags were made on Meta, with a link back to the relevant discussion here. Given that there is a new process in place for approving bots, I'd like to request those making the approved/denied calls (the approvals group or whomever is in charge) to place requests for flagging/deflagging on an easy to access and universally used page, to make it easy for those of us responsible for setting the flags to see what needs to be done. 
I suggest use of something along the lines of Wikipedia:Requested bot flags, which I've drafted up for this purpose. My basic idea is, requests will continue to take place on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals just as they currently do. When a request has been approved, a member of the approvals group will list it on Wikipedia:Requested bot flags under "Approved bots requiring a flag," and a bureaucrat will assign a flag. When a bot needs to be unflagged, a member of the approvals group will request deflagging in the "Bots requiring flag removal" section. This should provide minimal intrusion into the process by bureaucrats, not require too much extra effort on the part of the AG members, and will make sure that bureaucrats see the requests in a timely manner. 
If others have better suggestions, feel free to amend or abolish as necessary. My only request (and I presume to speak for the other bureaucrats as well) is that there be a single, easy to identify place where legitimate requests to add or remove flags be placed, so we won't be put in the position of trying to locate approved requests and determine whether a bot should or should not be flagged. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this like Wikipedia:Bots/Approval log?--Commander Keane 15:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding (from speaking to a couple of the approval group members) is that the approval log is not used universally. I don't mind checking there, I just want to be sure that it is going to be used; I don't want to have to search a dozen pages to find the approval note. Additionally, unless I've missed it, that log doesn't provide for us (bureaucrats) to remove entries as we perform them; I checked there and found one that was not complete, and two that were already complete. I don't have to check listusers to see if an RfA has already been closed, or if a username change has been performed; I'd like to have a convenient way of knowing what work still needs to be done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. The current process, which involves finding a bureaucrat and asking them to flag your bot for you is nice and personal, but rather unwieldy. It's also difficult and tiresome if one 'crat ends up handling all the flagging. Essjay's proposal nicely fixes these problems and brings the bot flagging process in line with other Wikipedia conventions. -- Tangotango 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Crazy Process Wonk Support. Anything that makes things more consistent and easier seems a good idea to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, there's now been support, and plenty of time to have seen; should it be assumed that WP:RBF is now the place to list approved bots requiring flags? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ready to request bot flag for User:Zorglbot; should I inaugurate (or beta-test...) the page ? Schutz 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already set the flag, so no, but it should be the Approvals Group member who approved the bot that requests the flag, not the bot operator. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was quick ! BTW, User:Lightdarkness just mentioned on my talk page that I had to ask a bureaucrat to get the flag; thus, it may be worth clarifying who must ask for it (approval group member or operator). Cheers, Schutz 06:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be reluctant to assign a flag based on a user request, unless there was evidence provided that the approval group had given consent. It strikes me that it would be easier for the AG member to just go ahead and request the flag. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, LD had endorsed the bot on the approval page before telling me to ask a bureaucrat for the flag... But indeed, instead of listing the bot on the list of approvals, the approval group could list it on the Requested bot flag page at the same cost. Schutz 06:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I had things reversed :P  I'll make a note that the AG member requests the flag from now on :-) --lightdarkness (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagging 

message: As the number of "finished discussions" has become a bit large, I'd like to know what you think of an archive of WP:BRFA, as the current page only says to enclose with  and . Fetofs Hello! 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BRFA]] archival 

message: This bot hasnt been set up inline with the the CFD that it cites in its edit summaries. I have posted to User:Cyde but after 45 mins there was no answer, whilst the bot has continued, hence posted to Admin User:Husnock. I suspect that Cyde may not be monitoring Cydebot at the moment, hence before it gets too much further it might be helpful to block it. Ian3055 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific?  There's many CFDs on that page, and looking at cydebot's contributions its hard to pick out exactly what your issue is.  Keep in mind he might just have forgotten to update the edit summary link too. --Syrthiss 11:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant the CFD for automobile manufacturers, most of the contributors asked for Motor Manufacturers for the countries where this is local usage, yet the bot has used automobile. Ian3055 11:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a bot problem, he was only doing what the closing admin User:Tim! decided.  You may need to discuss with Tim the outcome of that CFD, or take it to WP:DRV (but I'd ask Tim first). If there's a correction its easily redone with the bot. --Syrthiss 14:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it wasnt directly a bot problem but I wasnt getting any response from the bot owner. I'll take it up with User:Tim! next, it just hadnt been closed when the alterations were being made. Thanks Ian3055 14:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Cydebot]] 

message: Has this user been authorised to operate a bot since the comments above?  Look at the edit history of Gresham College and the user's other contributions. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Modulatum]]

message: The section after the intro is unclear: are flags needed only for fully-automatic bots, or all bots, even AWB or pywikipedia manually-driven bots? --maru   (talk)  contribs 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flags are needed for any bot that generates a vast amount of edits in the contributions.  Approval is needed for any bot to determine whether your bot is a resource hog or not, or whether your bot is necessary.  The latter is in the event that someone feels it necessary to go around changing things like color to colour for all entries in the Wikipedia (or something similiar).  A bot flag is treated as a flag of trust, much like a sysop flag.  This flag is to be given to any bot that has been deemed reliably safe by members of the community.  By safe, I mean that the user and the bot has been proven "harmless, useful, & not a server hog."  Any bot that is making very minor changes, like one that makes changes every so week or month or whatever, should not necessarily need a bot flag.  However, the Python Wikipedia more or less requires a flag so it is better to obtain one.  --AllyUnion (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Recent changes and watchlist have "show/hide bots" and "show/hide bot edits" options, respectively. Yet of course bot edits still appear, as not all bots are marked as such. This doesn't seem to be explained in any obvious place. Brian Jason Drake 01:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear instructions on flags 

message: Whoever made the updated Project page with the tables, I would like to first say it's a very good job.  Secondly, Special:Listusers/bot would be the best place to double check for bots with bot flags. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated page 

message: This bot run by User:Maru is continuing to spellcheck on talk pages including user talk pages and archives despite the fact that on User talk:Bot-maru there is clear and vocal concern about it and the owner is refusing to stop.  Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spellchecker bots are very problematical.  I'd be inclined to block the 'bot pending further discussion.  Dlyons493 Talk 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked the bot for a few minutes to get the attention of the editor, and have pointed the operator of the bot to the appropriate pages to seek approval. --lightdarkness (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this bot is still editing Talk and User space. The owner hasn't yet directly responded to my complaint, but from his contributions list I can see that it continues trudging on through Talk and User pages. (The bot is acting under his username, see: Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki) - Rainwarrior 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Bot-maru]] 

message: Maybe I have been confused where to apply for what, so since I get no response at Requests for approvals I write here which seams to be the correct place according to WP:BOTS page (which I think is wrong but nevermind). I will update StefanBot to add conservation status to taxoboxes. All info about the bot and its new functionallity can be see at my two postings at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals. I will start running the bot with its new functionallity ASAP. This is just meet the requirement of WP:BOTS. If you plan to make any modifications to your bot, which expand the scope of its original purpose, please leave a note on the talk page regarding the nature of the change. This is to assert that no one has any problems with your bot, and such additions still make the bot harmless, useful, and not a server hog.. Stefan 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add functionallity to StefanBot 

message: Could someone explain the various methods you are dicussed in posting above? Also, is a bot on a server at Wikipedia, or on a private computer? If it is on a private computer, does anyone know how to operate one on a Windows XP computer? Thanks! - MoleculeUpload 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiBot Details 

message: User:WeggeBot is looking for gullib^W brave persons, willing to test a brand-new feature, allowing automatic archival of user talk pages. The details can be found on User:WeggeBot/Archive. As this is a new feature, the bot willnot operate unattended in this function, until I'm satisfied that it will behave reasonably. Any questions about the specifics can be posted on my talk page or sent by e-mail. -- Wegge 23:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:WeggeBot|WeggeBot]]: Automatic archival of talk pages