Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Approved.

Δbot

[edit]

Operator: Δ (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): core is pywiki based but custom coded

Source code available: Available upon request

Function overview: WP:SPI clerk bot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User:MuZemike/SPIwishlist is a wishlist from the SPI clerks. And I have discussed issues and ideas in depth on their IRC channel

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: All active WP:SPI cases

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No, there is no reason for it to be

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

Function details: Basic SPI clerk bot, Nixeagle was running the old version of this but he went MIA at the end of last year and has not been heard from since. (his bot has gone offline and they want a replacement). Right now I am manually copy/pasting User:Δ/Sandbox from a file to the wiki, as one feature that they have requested.

Discussion

[edit]

Based on your prior history and conduct of running bots, what actions will you be undertaking to ensure they [the bot's actions] do not cause issues due to how it preforms it's approved duties due to your prior history which resulted in the many heated community discussions and arbitration? Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the SPI clerks (I am one) will be able to keep an eye on the bot and make sure it stays within its mandate. In any case, such a bot would be very helpful, though I would prefer a different name if possible (maybe we should set up User:DeltaBot as a doppelganger?). NW (Talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried that a User:DeltaBot would get mixed up with User:DeltaQuadBot (run by User:DeltaQuad). It's common for bot ops to pick usernames for bots that are essentially their own username with the second word substituted by "bot", which would cause problems as above. — The Earwig (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of this task, I don't see much opportunity for the sort of problems Δ was sanctioned for in the past. Anomie⚔ 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a wise man once said, We must learn from history.... and I have done that. As for NuclearWarfare's request I was wondering about creating/redirecting both User:Delta and User:Deltabot to their respective targets, but was unsure of policy/procedures for that. ΔT The only constant 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Doppelgänger is the relevant policy: basically, you just create the account, stick {{doppelganger}} or something similar on it, and then more or less forget about it. The stumbling block here is that User:Delta exists and has an edit (6 years ago), so it may not be able to be usurped. User:Deltabot is unregistered. Anomie⚔ 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, but I think that the exceedingly minor edit from 2004 can be probably be overlooked as an exception. –xenotalk 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this request moving. Please create the bot's userpage with the information "suggested" in WP:BOTPOL#Bot requirements. The function details here are a bit unclear; I take it that an SPI clerk bot will only be editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and subpages, doing bottable things SPI clerks are responsible for according to WP:SPICLERK and subject to the approval and supervision of the human clerks and the checkusers? Anomie⚔ 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, The two things that I know that it will be doing is maintaining SPI queue's and updating my sandbox (which will be moved to the template namespace) status page. There will be more features added once I get this operational and the clerks and I discuss what they have on their wishlists and what is actually practical and bo-table. But this will be solely editing SPI pages and the status template. If at a later date the clerks/CUs want to add a method for tagging users as socks Ill file a new/addon BRFA for that. ΔT The only constant 19:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds straightforward and uncontroversial. I see you also created the Deltabot doppelgänger. Approved for trial (3 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anomie⚔ 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three day trial done at [1] worked well, ran across one issue that I have not decided how to handle, I will talk with the SPI team to see exactly how they want it handled. (previously open SPI case was deleted). but other than that it went without any issues. ΔT The only constant 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Rename concerning the renaming of and unsatisfactory communication from Δ, and Peachey88 suggested that the BAG be notified of it. I would have concern about any bot owner with unsatisfactory communication skills.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the request made there actually had any policy backing it, rather than a political move (basically their goal is to force me to wear a Scarlet A about my past), and not let me move on, I would abide by policy. I wont go into the issues that have been highlighted in Jeff G.'s recent contributions that would have landed most users on ANI, (but me trying to handle it lower key I refrained from doing so). I don't want the political games that users are trying to play to affect this request because it has no bearings on either this request nor are the pressures that they are attempting to place backed by any policy. ΔT The only constant 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The username issue has been addressed via ArbCom clarification [2], and I do not see it as a barrier to this BRFA. –xenotalk 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. But I do note that, before this bot request can be usefully approved, Δ must:
Anomie⚔ 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re #1: Yes, and I've noted this to them. I'm not sure if they want to see this actually approved first, or maybe just a nod that it will likely be approved would be enough. Of course, even in this trial phase, there are edits being made from another username.
  • Re the community-imposed restrictions: Indeed it may make sense to ping arbCom or WP:AN; the community-imposed restrictions were replaced with a ban, which was provisionally suspended later. It's unclear whether they are still in effect and at a brief glance, some people disputed whether they were ever properly carried in the first instance. –xenotalk 15:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re #1: I suspect that they'd want it explicitly requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for amendment. What terms they might impose I don't know, but I do note that at this point I as a BAG member see no reason outside of the editing restrictions on Δ not to approve this request.
  • Re the community-imposed restrictions: I base my comment on Kirill's response that the Betacommand 2 restrictions are still in effect. While that could be referring to just the ArbCom remedies and not the community-imposed restrictions, I don't believe we should proceed without having that clarified.
Anomie⚔ 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll update my post there. –xenotalk 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we just go ahead with this process? Once the bot is approved, I am sure that a discussion on AN can take place about the community restrictions, which would be easier to handle if the bot is already defined and approved for a specific task. NW (Talk) 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, with Betacommand's past history, I feel that it is unlikely that the community will be willing to accept any loosening of restrictions until they know exactly what they are approving. A provisional/suspended approval by BAG would go a long way in reassuring the community. NW (Talk) 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot will be clerking the SPI pages... There's not much more to it. Anomie indicated above that the restrictions are the only thing holding up the approval. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ. –xenotalk 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just editing a single page, then it's kind of making a mole out a mountainhill now. It's a single page. Get over it. (X! · talk)  · @708  ·  16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that BAG should ignore community-imposed restrictions and directives? –xenotalk 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that more should be done to get this task rolling. (X! · talk)  · @824  ·  18:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...which is why I posted the thread at WP:AN. Did you have a better suggestion as to how to solicit comment from the community as to the restrictions that prevent this task from being approved? –xenotalk 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what exactly would you have us do, X!? Anomie⚔ 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its currently only editing the status page but it will be doing more administrative tasks, (keeping the SPI queues organized) once I can get the green light. I dont want to move SPI to a new bot system only to have it hang in approvals for weeks. ΔT The only constant 16:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Per restrictions and previous behaviour, and to prevent further disruption, BetaCommand/Delta should not be allowed control of any automated functions or bots. Verbal chat 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, we have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ to determine whether the community agrees with you or not. Anomie⚔ 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this is a discussion, not a vote or !vote. Anomie⚔ 12:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No particular need, imo. It's already  On hold for all intents and purposes. –xenotalk 21:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no need. It doesn't hurt anything for it to wait here as-is pending external discussion. Anomie⚔ 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The community is allowing Betacommand to go ahead and create a SPI bot, per that AN discussion. NW (Talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty. Has anyone asked ArbCom to amend their unban provision #1 yet? Anomie⚔ 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very small group of people, mainly consisting of those that would directly benefit from the bot that they don't want to write themselves, has lifted the restrictions. Calling this community approval is a sham. Verbal chat
Excuse me, but Rd232, someone who did not participate in the discussion, who has no involvement with SPI or Betacommand, was the one that closed the thread. It was a fair close, now it's stick-dropping time. (X! · talk)  · @701  ·  15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: I just filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Betacommand 2. NW (Talk) 15:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AN discussion was closed improperly, the approval of this bot should again be on hold until that is resolved. Verbal chat 10:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions on this subject are nearing the point of diminishing returns; I would suggest you open an RFC on the matter if you feel that the WP:AN discussion was improperly handled. –xenotalk 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can "near" the point of diminishing returns. It'd be something more like "your comments are yielding (exceedingly) diminishing returns," surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Math was never my strong subject. –xenotalk 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor economics, apparently ;) NW (Talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if someone can write a detailed, clear explanation of what this bot does (or is supposed to do), I'd be happy to write the code for it myself. I've watched this "we have to let so-and-so do this because nobody else can!" nonsense too many times before. Other people are certainly capable of handling this bot task. Or, alternately (and perhaps concurrently), SPI's procedures should be re-examined to figure out why there's such a heavy reliance on bots. Something seems fairly off kilter in the current setup. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent points and a wonderful contribution. This man deserves a barnstar. Verbal chat 15:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I'm not trying to de-rail this bot request. I think Beta would be fine to operate this script, and frankly I've got 20 other projects that I would much rather write/work on/maintain. My comments are to underscore two issues I've seen in the past: (1) there should never be a single point of failure (e.g., only one bot op capable/willing/whatever); (2) (and this relates to point 1) if SPI is so reliant on bots, something is probably not working as it should. Point 2 doesn't really come as a surprise for a place like Wikipedia, but with all of these people willing to contribute commentary, views, insights, and opinions here and at AN, perhaps some of that brainpower can be put into re-examining how SPI works and whether it's as efficient/effective as it can be. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Both ArbCom and the community have expressed approval for Δ to run an SPI clerking bot (and only an SPI clerking bot). While I note there is a small contingent of editors who are dissatisfied with the community discussion, they are currently not taking any action toward trying to demonstrate a lack of consensus. While there are valid points raised that the SPI process should be reviewed to see if it is possible to modify it so bot work is not necessary, that is no reason to delay or deny this request; if that review does actually occur and does product results, Δ could easily stop the bot at that time or the issue could be brought to WT:BRFA for review.

Δ, I'm sure you are aware of this, but it bears mentioning: The community will be watching you closely, and will likely block you and/or this bot if you step out of line. If a new consensus discussion occurs at WP:AN or elsewhere and (as determined by an uninvolved administrator) demonstrates a lack of consensus for you to continue operating this bot, this approval will be revoked. Any additional tasks for this bot (or any other bot operated by you) must as always be submitted at WP:BRFA, and both the community and ArbCom must further except your restrictions before it may be approved.

I sincerely hope that you prove the doubters wrong. Anomie⚔ 11:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add a brief note about the flagging of this bot. I have done on the basis of BAG's adjudication above, the ArbCom motion and having read the community discussion at WP:AN. I note the controversy surrounding this approval request. For the avoidance of doubt, should this bot cause trouble in future, I would appreciate being notified of pertinent discussions. WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Δbot&oldid=1145853919"