Wikipedia talk:Semi-bots

message: So, let's see if I got this right:
* Performing any repetitive task quickly garners the label of "semi-bot".
* Not actually using software beyond a standard webbrowser (define "standard", in any case) isn't a defense.
* Semi-bots are not to perform tasks with no basis in official(!) policy.
We're now neatly banning:
* Leaving thank-you notes after a successful RFA.
* Any type of manual stub- or category-sorting.
* Most of the work performed by the various cleanup projects.
* Any work related to conformance with mere guidelines.
* Pretty much anything else that requires repetetive editing.
Do you have any idea just how useless "official policy" is in editorial terms?  Most material governing actual article appearance is, at most, a formal guideline—and sometimes not even that! Kirill Lokshin 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you except for the bit about RfA's. Thank yous for RfAs are time consuming, take up unecessary resources and often involve pictures that put unecessary drain on the already stressed image servers. JoshuaZ 16:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brion has, IIRC, said the "drain" of userspace image use is marginal/practically non-existant. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this has recently pointed out to me Brion's comments in that regard (in a discussion about possibly discouraging such notes). JoshuaZ 20:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucratic red tape galore! 

message: Considering the only semi-bot you mention in the draft is AWB, I'll focus in on that:
#"...nor can semi-bots be used to perform tasks for which there is a broad consensus, but which need context-dependent interpretation for deciding whether a change is to be performed or not."  AWB requires human interaction to save (unless you are on the AWB's list of bots, which only admins can change and includes - I think - only flagged bots), and users that blatantly do not check their edits are usually warned and then removed from the list of allowed users.
#"Edit summaries of changes performed by semi-bots should be clear as well about the performed changes..."  So should AWB summaries state "heading fixing as per MoS and interwiki sorting and unicodifying and external link bulletting and wikifying HTML and bad link fixing and link simplifying and title bolding and self-reference delinking using AWB" just in case on of those happens to occur in that edit (all of which are applied by general fixes) or do you want the AWB to automatically append to the summary exactly what it does?
#"Operators of semi-bots... should be reachable and responsive on an en:wikipedia talk page..."  The AWB doesn't let the user edit if there is a "new messages" warning (of course, this won't work for users who receive messages on a separate accounts, such as bots).
#"Not being responsive within a reasonable delay of time (24 H), may lead to the blocking of the semi-bot account..."  24 hours?  If someone is using a bot and is away for 24 hours (with the bot still going, I presume) then they really should need a bot flag!  Going back to the AWB, though, why block the user?  Why not just remove him/her from the AWB approved list?
I understand that this policy isn't exclusively for AWB, but, if it was, why need this whole page?  I agree with Martin - it's too formulaic.  1, 3, and 4 I've addressed, and 2 can be changed by programming AWB to interactively change edit summaries as it edits - or, more simply, just leaving the edit summaries alone.  So, IMHO, the rules listed on WP:AWB alone should suffice. --M@thwiz2020 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary policy? 

message: This is entirely uneeded as many of the guidelines here are layed out on the pages of the tools that fall under the category of semi-bots and much of this seems to be pure paranoia against semi-bot tools. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not needed 

message: I don't think the definition of semi bot works so well, saying that it's an account is misleading at best since most people use their accounts mostly for non semi-bot work so it should be entirely redefined as the action of doing one of these things or better yet a style of doing one of these things since they can (in theory) be done in a non semi bot way i.e. if they happen as part of a bigger edit or are just random improvements in one or two articles (thus not qualifying as repetitive. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. A bot is not an account. Also a semi-bot cannot be an account. The term semi-bot itself is contentious. If you want you can also say that Firefox is a semi-bot under this proposed guideline. Too much weasel wording. --Ligulem 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thirded. I also strongly dislike the term semi-bot which is vague and general. JoshuaZ 16:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I on the other hand do recognise a certain type of edit that I've personally always called a "bot-like" edit. I think there would be advantages to naming this sort of editing as it is becoming more and common so it would be good to be able to easily refer to it! On the other hand, I don't mind what the name is and I don't think we need all this reams of proposed policy to govern bot-like bots (current policy is enough for me!). Pcb21 Pete 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bot vs action 

message: This proposal is overly bureaucratic and unnecessary.  The use of editorial assistance devices is necessary to keep up with the sheer volume of content in the encyclopedia; this proposal seeks to cripple editors from being able to do necessary tasks efficiently simply because one person objected to one type of easily-automated tasks for reasons having nothing to do with encyclopedic merit.  Kelly Martin (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I just had a thought, although some tools like vandalfighter and AWB force a tracer note onto edit summaries stating that's what being used many javascript tools either don't or indeed can't by their very nature do that (do to the fact that anyone can mod their own version of the js because it's by nature open to all) so this policy while it may technically apply to tools like popups is in reality unenforceable for any js plug and/or many other tools. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nth time, this isn't a policy proposal. --Francis Schonken 13:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter since many guidelines (i.e. WP:REDIRECT are treated as policy anyway, the point still stands as a guideline much of it doesn't apply to many of the tools used by people. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, again, I see this at guideline level, not at policy level. Guidelines need to be actionable, and I don't see why this one wouldn't be. Not all scripts are intended to increase speed of consecutive edits (e.g. the script run by AIDbot, to update a single page: it was never the intention of that script to "increase the number of updates" to that page). If an account not listed at WP:BOTS, runs a script that doesn't increase speed of consecutive edits, I don't see why that should be marked in the edit summary. If the account engages in repetitive edits, the semi-bot guideline would be actionable on it, without script-or-no-script discussion. The present guideline supports to be clear about scripts that are used, what is customary currently for the more elaborate auxiliary software types. It also reminds people that are using scripts that don't auto-generate edit-summary text that it is preferable they are clear about what they use. --Francis Schonken 14:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  traceability of tools 

message: The tool (semi-bot) that I have been working on, Citation Tool has reached a usable and useful state, I believe.  The purpose of this tool is several fold, but the main (and implemented) goal is the detection and guided correction of errors in m:Cite.php markup.
As of this exact moment, the tool does the correct diagnosis of two types of errors.  By later today, it should also be able to propose specific modified text that corrects the errors (sometimes requiring operator decisions).  The web page for the tool also links back to the edit page for a given corrected article.  Notice that any modification made based on the advice of Citation Tool is made under the user's own WP username.  The two types of problems currently identified are:
# Multiple <ref name=...> tags with the same name but different contents (hence hiding all but the first in the rendered page).
# Empty <ref name=...> tags that occur before ones with content.  Same basic problem, but this is especially easy to inadvertantly create if articles are reorganized.
These type of errors seem to occur quite frequently "in the wild".
The proposed changes made by Citation Tool do not change the referencing style or technology used on a page (currently: plans are underway to aid insertion of Harvard references as an adjunct to footnotes, where a mixed style is appropriate).  So as far as I can see, the changes proposed by the tool should be non-controversial.  The only possible issue I can see is that editors might disagree about whether a currently hidden footnote content is or is not better than the one that had been visible; but that's a pretty regular editorial/content issue, per article. 
Well... the other issue is that the tool might be buggy, since it hasn't been banged on by anyone other than me yet.  That's why I'd appreciate some other people using it, and paying attention to results.  If the diagnosis or proposed solution seems to be wrong for certain pages, that matter needs to be identified and fixed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help test [[User:CitationTool|Citation Tool]] 

message: There was a lot of worthwhile description taken out in the recent edits.  I don't think the guideline should be paired down nearly so much.  It's one thing to say the concern isn't strictly software itself, fair enough.  But readers should still have some sense that it is likely to be autmated tools that are often associated with repetitive edits; and the stuff about advice on the use of semi-bots is important. LotLE×talk 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that - I didn't origionally intend to take out so much, but I got a bit carried away. I was in two minds about forking instead - if you think I've taken out too much, revert me or add some parts back in. I copied the sections to the talk page to make it a little easier to add back parts if somebody objected. SeventyThree(Talk) 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large removals are a bad idea 

message: What's the problem withFor the practicability of this guideline, any user account using software which enhances the speed with which edits can be made (that is: faster than editing exclusively with a standard webbrowser installation), and that is not listed at Wikipedia:Bots, can be labeled a semi-bot.in the definitions section?
I have no problem with this. --Francis Schonken 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's far to broad. Not enforceable. Cannot be defined. What is a standard webbrowser? Given that this proposal here has already been rejected this discussion is moot anyway. Francis: how long will it take until you accept the fact that this proposal has not aquired consensus? Do we have to have such proposals forever, until those that said they disagree with ignore it? You still keep revert warring your personal POV into it. How long do we have to have this on our watchlist to make sure you do not slap a guideline tag once again onto it outside consensus? Francis, stop it now. --Ligulem 09:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is absurdly vague and broad. Tabs in a browser can speed up edits considerably, so, since IE is the most common browser by far, any user who uses Firefox is a semi-bot. Any user of popups is a semi-bot. And in most cases, the proposal has nothing to do with these users. Being able to speed up edits is not necessarily related to serializing edits. Even if we agreed on this definition, everyone would be confused about it, as most editors are with WP:SOCK, which labels every alternate account (including bots) as a sock puppet. --Philosophus T 10:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the problem with accounts using edit-accelerating auxiliary software? 

message: I only intended to remove the link to Radiokirk's copy of my script, as it doesn't seem helpful (there are numerous copies of my tools on wikipedia, some with minor variations and some verbatim  copies). I seem to have edited an old revision by mistake, though, but I don't have any particular views on the skirmish currently taking place. Lupin|talk|popups 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edit 

message: The Page moves section feels a bit like a personal attack to me. --HiddenKnowledge (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attack?