Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/wikignome

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

Withdrawn by operator.

wikignome

Operator: Mabdul (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 12:47, Wednesday April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised and manual

Programming language(s): JavaScript, see WP:AFCH

Source code available: User:mabdul/afc beta.js

Function overview: Mass reviewing of AFC submissions on Saturday and Sunday

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a

Edit period(s): this Saturday and Sunday

u number of pages affected: ~1000, hopefully more

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: I will reviewing many AfC submissions on Saturday and Sunday to

test the beta status for being able to push that version to the live version (Gadget)
find bugs and resolve them (hopefully) and
to clear (or at least decrease) the backlog.

i I will try to review 1000 submissions and depending on my time and faith. I simply don't want to flood the Recent Changes and thus want to get the bot flag for my public account (wikignome) for Saturday and Sunday. Every accept review generates 3 edits and one page move and every decline review generates 2 edits. mabdul 12:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Flag a crat on IRC or BN when you're ready to begin to give you a temporary flag. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the task. You will be manually reviewing AFCs, and you want a bot flag so that they don't appear as recent changes? Why don't you want them to appear in recent changes? I don't see the benefit. -150.135.133.2 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large amount of similar edits do require a BFRA per bot policy. The bot flag was invented for not flooding the RC. Recent changes was invented to check the latest edits against vandalism. My edits won't include vandalism nor will I use the flag to any other kind of edits - the reason why I'm using my public account and not my main account: I can still edit with my main account (e.g. for responding on a talk page request) without doing this with the flagged account! mabdul 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that this would be on your public account. However, I do disagree with flagging your public account as a bot, unless you agree to make nothing but the bot task approved edits with that account, in which case you require a properly named bot account, and newly created or moved articles may not be vandalism, but they belong in recent changes. What you want, simply to remove your afc edits from recent changes should be dealt with there, not by creating a nonBot bot account. -166.137.210.47 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would also have to agree that you would not, for security purposes, use your public account like a public acxount. This bot is a run around recent changes, bot accounts and public accounts. Using a bot to circumvent AFC esits appeaeing in recent changes should be dealt with at AFC and recent changes. Having a nonBot name requires a discussion here. If you uave a public account that you do not intend to be a public account, but rather a bot, then you must never use it as a public account, so it is simply an alternative bot account, and it should have the bot name. This is not the purpose of a bot account, and this RFBA should he simply denied and the flag on this account, if obtained should be removed, and the trial should be stopped. This is not the plqce for approving a nonBot public account to remove AFC from recent changes. -166.137.210.26 (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with using mabdulbot (talk · contribs), but as described it is simply not automatic nor a real bot. I don't want that my main y get flagged because I will use another web browser logged in with the main account to fix the script or for discussing / doing other edits placed at my watchlist.

I have already used the account for public use and for using it uploading images / moving images to commons with WP:FTCG.

This is not automated: I review them by hand (but fast and many) and only doing edits using WP:AFCH. Most edits to the drafts/articles get reviewed checking for bugs in the beta script. Again: the Recent Changes are for checking vandalism!

"Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." (Source Wikipedia:Bot policy) Moreover I'm doing this BRFA after the big ARBCom case.

mabdul 14:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not automated, what does that have to do with it being a bot or not? I disagree with the entire premise that AFC edits should be removed from recent changes. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) I only want the flag for Saturday and Sunday.

b) Most of the edit is automated: I only click on review, accept or decline and hit fire

c) Rich was exactly err "banned" for such kind of edits... I only want to make sure that I don't get any problems

mabdul 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a)Why does it matter what day of the week you are flagged? If you shouldn't be using it weekdays, then you shouldn't be using it weekends.

b)Reviewing articles takes so little work you can do it automated?

c)Rich's situation was a lot more involved than that. And, if we're going to discuss him, be sure to invite him.

-68.107.137.178 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) Because I only have enough time to do many reviews yesterday and today.

b) not automated. Script assisted.

c) No, I don't want to discuss his situation. I only wanted to explain that there are good reasons when doing many assisted edits for not getting any sunctions.

mabdul 06:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this task doesn't fit precisely within the four corners of the policy, but it is the type of thing we want to keep out of recentchanges and the grant will be a temporary grant only for the duration of the test, so I think it is acceptable. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 12 April 2013 (U

I thought I asked why we want it out of recent changes? Why is reviewing an automated task? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, MBisanz declares community input does not matter and sets up to allow an out-of-policy situation that is not within the realm of RFBA, and really lets the community member giving feedback know exactly where community members stand when it comes to bot participation: nowhere. -166.137.116.38 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO I don't see anything wrong with mabdul's request. While it isn't a conventional bot request, it makes sense to give a temporary flag so mabdul can mass-edit without flooding recentchanges. On some other wikis, sysops have access to a "flooder" flag which is supposed to be temporarily used for mass edits. enwiki doesn't have that, so mabdul requested the next best thing, which is a bot flag. Legoktm (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there is no community consensus for it on en.wiki, so BAG members have created an end run around the lack of community consensus and MBisanz implemented this? -166.137.116.37 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@mabdul: To mark an edit as bot, you need to add a "bot=1" parameter in your API request, which I didn't see in your code... Legoktm (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the task was approved for an inexperienced bot editor for an unlimited number of edits and not monitored? -166.137.116.16 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the issuing of the flag at the BN. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this task approval nicely fits within WP:BOTASSIST, WP:BOTDEF ("Note that high-speed semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases, even if performed by an account used by a human editor. If in doubt, check"), and the first paragraph of WP:Botz (indicating that some bots may be semi-automated). I am not aware of a blanket prohibition against the use of the bot flag in the same manner as the flooder flag on other projects and I read it policy as leaving it to BAG and the crats to determine when a given task may or may not use the bot flag in cases of semi-automated, assisted editing. MBisanz ^talk 20:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You agree above that the task does not fit within policy, but then you simply approve the task by getting a bot flag and approving an extended trial, which is the task, because of what you think policy is? To hell with community consensus or input or the purpose of this board, just go ahead, help get flag, approve task, now it is done, too late for community input? Why bother with this board, community consensus or input, when we could just have MBisanz chat? You keep doing this, deciding that only your decision matters, not community input. -166.137.116.38 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The task was open three or four days, besides the form, has anyone shown there is a technical problem with mabdul's code for reviewing AFC submissions or a lack of community consensus to him reviewing large quantities of AFC submissions? Pakaran actually flagged the account and Legoktm commented in support. You and IP 68 (I assume you're different people) objected to the form of the BRFA, but you haven't actually commented on the task itself. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same person. Ihave commented about the task: get consensus at AFC and recent changes, this is not the proper use of an rfba without consensus there, and your extended trial was actually full approval. I get to make my comments here, not just pre-approved MBisanz inpit. -166.137.116.47 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The script has already been discussed without objection at Wikipedia_talk:AFC#I_want_you.... MBisanz ^talk 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I seem to have missed that in the links to relevant discussions. Let me go back up there and click and read it and then, since this is only in trial, I should still have time to comment before the task is approved, right.... -166.137.116.15 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this thread. My weekend is over:

I decreased the backlog at least a bit,
I found some bugs in the script,
I missed to add the bot parameter for the URLs (thanks Lego), and thus this whole discussion was wasted time :~/
I won't redo any BRFA, because some users/editors at enwp don't understand WP:BURO...
I will flood next time simply RC (by using the newest submissions and not working from the end of the backlog) and hoping not get trouted for such stuff.
some more reasons

mabdul 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.