Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/HethrirBot

+Bot

I have compiled a list of thing that it can do on HethrirBot's User Page, now it simply does cosmetic changes, but could do any of the things on the list such as fixing spelling errors, and mass moving/removing of pages/categories among many other things. It has shown to flood the recent changes horribly, changing small things in cosmetics. I will be monitoring changes by my bot, and will take full responsibility. I can disable/modify certain parts of the tasks. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Support Though we will want to be selective about the type of work this bot does, I fully support granting the flag. I typically monitor RC including bot activity, so it's not like the changes will be unmonitored. It will be very nice to be able to suppress this bot's activity in RC though, as it can flood it quickly making it nearly impossible to monitor for vandalism. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Oppose I think you don't understand English Wikibooks enough yet to use the bot responsibly. The bot has made many mistakes, such as editing user's pages, converting html tables to wiki tables in templates when it shouldn't, adding redirects instead of fixing links, and perhaps other things I haven't noticed yet. I'm concerned based on the list, you could have the bot improperly fix spelling errors, references, add pages to a category, move pages, or replace one template for another. The edit summaries the bot makes are generally non-descriptive as well, forcing a look just to see what the bot actually did. --darklama 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment I have stopped the bot from going into user space/template space and I can have it not do redirects. I will test out the tasks before trying them to make sure they work properly. While I am somewhat new to wikibooks, it does not seem difficult to use, nor to moniter the activity of my bot. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment I think your "easy to use" comment demonstrates darklama's point actually. Wikibooks is not homogeneous. We often compare Wikipedia to Wikibooks by saying the whole of Wikipedia is like one book here. That means, for example, while Wikipedia has one manual of style applicable to every page, here many books have their own individual manual of style. This means you can't generically "fix" things across the whole project. Rather you need to read and understand the specific style used in each book to determine whether the cosmetic changes you are planning to make are actually applicable to that book or if they will violate its manual of style. Even when it doesn't have a documented MoS sometimes it has an implicit one developed by the authors that shouldn't be altered without discussion or at least notification in advance. In general bots have problems here because there is very little that can be automated across the whole project meaning the volume of change is so low it might as well be done manually. QU TalkQu 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment More or less the same rational of Darklama with the same understanding that from the actions listed at the bot page I don't see an action that I would consider safe to be done without a direct request from an editor that would validate the work done. I wouldn't mind granting the flag if you assured that the bot will be used only on request of reviewers or someone requesting work in its user space. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment I agree to those terms. I will only work when requested, or on books that I am heavily involved in. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Support therefore I have no more concerns about granting you the flag and fearing that no one will notice errors. Have you considered the issue mentioned by Darklama in regards to table structures and redirects ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment Yes, I can make the bot not edit templates, and stop trying to fix redirects. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment My understanding is that the changes made to the bot (upon request), Hethrir openness to dialog and ability to comply to our necessities have demonstrated that there is no longer negate the bot flag. Especially since the bot will work only upon request, this puts the burden of verifiability on the requester and should prevent errors. I would ask Hethrir to request a reevaluation by Darklama of his now addressed objection and to respond to any lingering concerns so we may close this process. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Since I (19 October 2011) and Hethrir (on darklama's talk 31 October 2011) have requested reevaluation, and no answerer was given, I propose that the single objection needs be surpassed as outdated by what have already been said. Last edit action by darklama was on 15 November 2011. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[]
The bot still makes mistakes even after my request to reevaluate. Since October 4, 2011, the bot has added and removed links that might be appropriate for Wikipedia, pointed links to Wikipedia when the link isn't relevant to a book's topic, changed contractions which may not be consistent with a book's manual of style, spell checked pages which may not be consistent with a book's manual of style, and removed external links that may help verify information. --darklama 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment Everything I do is per request, the bot has made no mistakes, and has only fulfilled what was requested by someone who is a author or creator of each wikipage my bot has made edits to.Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Comment I am a bit concerned how this will effect some of the HTML formatted math expressions, especially where it attempts to clean up "useless spaces", what is the algorithm for determining when a space is useless? Similarly I am not particularly in favor or resolving HTML entities, as I find them a bit easier on the editing side of the wiki, and they don't effect appearance on the viewing side. Thenub314 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Oppose per this diff. It isn't quite converting to Wikisyntax correctly, made some of my examples disappear. Better for the bot to be watch for mistakes. Thenub314 (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Comment I have stopped doing large changes, and now only do work per request, as noted above. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment Perhaps I am confused. If it is working by request, it presumably will be monitored by those requesting and not active often enough to cause problems with flooding the RC/watchlists. Do you need the bot flag? Where the bot occasionally makes mistakes, I feel more comfortable to see the changes as they occur. Thenub314 (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]
The bot will (I suppose and expect), continue to monitor the works that have requested bot action. In any case imagine that I requested a bot action on a larger book lets say the C++ Programming book, how would the daily log look like and to what use (since the only people interested in the alterations would be the book's editors and the person running the bot)... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]
I would also strongly support having the bot rewikify (by default) all pages that are trasnwikied, in place of the normal dewikification. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment I still support granting the bot flag. It is inconceivable to me that this bot would make errors that its operators would miss. If they need to use it on a massive scale, I want to be able to filter out its edits on RC. As I said before, without the bot flag, it is nearly impossible to detect vandalism when this bot is operating. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment Perhaps your correct, my point with the diff above was that the bot did make an error and the error was not caught until I looked at its first page or two of its contribs. But if it does start doing a lot of work, then your correct that it should be given the bot flag to aid rc patrolling. I have not done a lot of RC patrolling in recent months, so I think about this more. There might be more uses of the bot I would like to restrict. Is it possible to remove the functionality of welcoming new users? (Also how does it intend to delete large numbers of pages, as it doesn't have the appropriate permissions?) Thenub314 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]
My understanding by the dialog I and others have been having with the Wikibookian that is running the bot is that some of the functionalities were from the original code of the bot, Hethrir has been tinkering with it to provide new features and tweak others. I have myself requested some additions and changes and there is even a list of functions that would be interesting to have for Wikibooks (posted on Hethrir's talk). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Oppose Still not convinced. Bot owner needs to clear state when and how the bot would be used and whether the tasks are necessary. Having seen a few of the edits I am not convinced that giving it bot status would be useful because such edits would be hidden from RC. Once we have seen a steady stream of 100% correct edits then a bot flag can be given. I patrol RC regularly and so it's not a big problem for us to check every edit and there's no need to do huge numbers of consecutive edits anyway. Nice and slowly does it!--ЗAНИA talk 00:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Comment That seems fair, also for future reference, I closely monitor changes made by the bot, and test it, as of now I only do specific tasks that are requested, I am also open to any requests for tasks, bots are extremely useful for tedious work. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 04:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[]
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.