Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CSDCheckBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Discussion: update |
m Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots. |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<noinclude>[[Category:
#DEDACA; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' The result of the discussion was [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|20px]] '''Request Expired'''.<!-- from Template:Bot Top-->
==[[User:CSDCheckBot|CSDCheckBot]]==
{{Newbot|CSDCheckBot}}
Line 73 ⟶ 75:
:A quick note, I've been programming here for quite a while. G1 and G3 are more related then not. I think if you did talkpage messages for mistakes where its G1 to G3, you would be getting lots of spurious messages, nonsense is taken as vandalism sometimes, enough so that a bot should not be sending messages based on the difference unless the bot itself can tell what is and is not nonsense. (probably is not happening). The idea when making a bot that is going to give talk page notices is to make it accurate, even at the cost of missing an item or two, else you will get swamped with complaints.
:The same principle holds for G2,G3 and G1,G2. Different people have different ideas on what is a test page. Sometimes a new user making vandalismish edits will have those pages tagged as a test, while its equally valid to delete as G3. The same thing happens with G2 and G1, nonsense by a brand new user can be taken as a test page, depending on the circumstances. :In short {G1,G2,G3} should be considered by the bot as the same unless it can tell with 99% accuracy what is a G1,G2 or G3. Failure to do so will result in a hit to the accuracy of the bot, and if its inaccurate then it might as well not be running. All the sets that are listed by Erik are important, the primary use of this bot is going to be letting taggers know that their tag was '''declined by an admin'''. That is a task that the bot can do with 100% accuracy. The rest of the functions are just icing on the cake. —— '''[[User:Nixeagle|<
::A suggestion, for the first task this bot does, could we consider narrowing it down to just notifying taggers if the tag is removed by a sysop? This is the only task listed that can be done simply with 100% accuracy. The rest can be tested and listed as separate tasks. —— '''[[User:Nixeagle|<
:::Additionally that is something that could be logged somewhere (who was notified, what they added, and which sysop removed the tag), and items should be logged regardless if they opt-out or opt-in. This is useful information to identify problematic taggers. Taggings done by users that are deleted for other reasons are not as bad, as at least the tagger brought the article to the attention of an admin. Again I suggest that the first task this bot does is solely notify users if an admin removes their CSD tag. —— '''[[User:Nixeagle|<
:(e/c)As for G1-3, if they're at all like me, admins and taggers aren't constantly flipping back and forth between newpages and the CSD policy to see what the exact wording of the criteria say. While not all vandalism is nonsense, most nonsense could be considered vandalism; the only difference being the lack of an assumption of good faith, which usually isn't obvious just by reading the page (and if there is an assumption of good faith, then it could qualify as a test page).
:On a side note, I refactored your main description a bit, so it'll hopefully be a bit easier to read. And, there are other [http://code.google.com/p/python-wikitools/ Python] [http://sourceforge.net/projects/mwclient/ frameworks]. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</font> 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 90 ⟶ 92:
Dycedarg, as far as the first edits this thing does, my suggestion about the admin removing the CSD tag is something you can activate right away without much logging to demonstrate accuracy (other then private logging you do to test it). I would like to request that while the bot edits and does notices and such, it also log somewhere as I described above. Again, notices on CSD tags removed '''by a sysop''' is something your bot can do and have 100% accuracy on notices. The only reason a sysop would remove a tag is if the sysop thinks it does not meet CSD criteria... something the tagger should know.
As far as your other features, please do log and test those. I have a feeling you are going to get a bunch of false hits, and I'd rather those get weeded out now before you annoy a bunch of users with notices. The groupings posted by Erik should be adhered to, as it does not matter much if you ''miss'' out on a mistake, but it matters if you notify someone when it was not a mistake. I would suggest to bag that then endorse a test run with the bot doing solely notices on admin removal of CSD tags... that can be tested live as I said without issues. —— '''[[User:Nixeagle|<
Sorry about this, but I was just checking out the frameworks Mr.Z-man linked to. Pywikipedia's speed (or rather lack there of) has always bothered me, and from my limited testing the wikitools framework is so much faster it's not even funny. I'm rewriting the bot to use this framework instead, and that will delay my having it ready. Fortunately the commands seem mostly analogous, so it shouldn't require any major overhaul. With any luck it should be done by the end of the week, unless life intervenes in which case definitely by the end of next week. I would appreciate any further comments people have in the meantime.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">ж</span>''']] 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 97 ⟶ 99:
:I'm not convinced that most editors ''want'' to be notified when an article they nominate for deletion is kept. If this were an opt-in system I'd be fine with it, but I think as an opt-out system this is going to bother a lot of people unnecessarily. Unless there's wide consensus that this is wanted, I'm not inclined to approve it. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
::I would take this as more of a teaching tool than anything else. Right now, declining administrators have to use {{tl|uw-csd}} to warn people of bad or invalid taggings and rationales. This has started to become a real problem, and I would definitely support making this opt-out rather than opt-in. With opt-out, newbies to NNP, who actually need the advice, will not know to sign up for it. I for one would definitely support this idea; though I would think of the groups to ignore as too similar as: (G1, G2), (G3, G10), (G11, G12), (G11, A7) and anything deleted as G7. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
::An editor who has mistagged an article for speedy deletion has wasted their own time and an administrator's time, and more importantly almost certainly offended and upset a new user, all for no purpose whatsoever. How would you suggest people learn to be more accurate except by feedback? As NuclearWarfare has mentioned, the people who most need these sorts of messages are precisely those who would have no clue where or how to opt in to receive them. Furthermore the experience of at least one admin who has informed many people of mistagged pages would seem to indicate that people don't mind this sort of feedback. Removing the message takes less than three seconds, opting out takes about the same amount of time. If you use the template method, they can even be done in the same edit.
Line 109 ⟶ 111:
:::::I agree with McBride that the frequency makes me uneasy; I think it might put off some taggers, and that's a bad thing, we need them. It wouldn't bother me for the notification to say something like "Click this link for information about your recent work with speedy deletions", and the link would run a filter tool on a page to show that user just the entries relevant to that user. They'd get notification the first time soon after the first such tagging incident, and then not again for say two days, if there's one or more incidents within the next two days.
:::::Also, it's often a complete judgment call whether it will be easier to justify db-notability or db-spam to the article creator; whether extra criteria should be added to a db-copyvio; or for that matter, whether the article should be speedied at all. I'm not sure what needs to be done about that, and that's not really an issue for the bot to solve, but the bot will bring this issue into focus, so more (two-way!) communication with taggers will be necessary. - Dank (formerly Dank55) ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
'''Wrong focus''' A couple of things: 1) BOTS should never ''warn'' but rather ''notify.'' A warning implied a mistake, error, or potential negative consequences. 2) The bot should not be informing of ''mistakes'', but rather ''differences''. The bot is not going to be forming an opinion as to whose action was correct. I don't know if the bot is using those words, but your use here makes me a little wary. 3) This should be an opt in only process wherein a separate page is used---eg not on a users main talk page. We don't want to clutter talk pages with "warnings" we also don't want this to feel like an attack, or be perceived by others who might come to a users page as an attack... it must be very carefully worded. The wording should include something to the effect that the message is being posted there so that they can keep track of their past CSD noms. I would sell it not as a means to "correct" others, but rather as a way that users can know if they need to follow-up on a CSD? Did an admin incorrectly deny it did the author remove the tag? Do they need to send an article to AFD/PROD? As such, I say leave the reason the way it is. If it was nommed G1, let them know that it was deleted G3. While the two do have overlap, if the article is deleted by a different criteria consistently, the receipient might start to learn, but the focus HAS to move away from "You made a mistake" to a means in "how can you do your job better." You can do you job better by being notified of how your CSD's were handled.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<
:One way to avoid the problem of the taggee getting a negative impression from the tagger's talk page would be to use a link to a tool as I mentioned; that way, if the taggee runs the tool, he or she may see that admins are agreeing with the tagger in a large number of cases, and it will support rather than undermine the tagger. Also, if the taggee sees that the tagger has only made 2 reports in the last month and they were both rejected, then I think it would be better for the taggee not to take the tag too seriously. Also (lot of also's), I see the valid concerns over opt-in vs. opt-out being less of an issue over time if this works right; I'm hoping the number of disagreements over tagging go down over time. And for the many taggers who only tag once or occasionally, I expect their percentages won't improve over time, but that's fine; then the goal becomes letting them know that we don't consider tagging good-faith attempts for deletion to be a casual thing that we'll always overlook, and letting the taggees know that they're dealing with people who might not know what they're doing, despite the scary and authoritative-looking deletion tag. However, I do agree with Spartacus's thrust that we're going to get an earful if we start implying that deleting admins are right and the taggers are wrong; it's the wrong tone. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
::My first thought when I read your idea of a report that people run like the reports that show how often a user supported/opposed an RfA or how many contributions a user had, I liked the idea. I mean, I could see a grid showing the number of articles nominated by criteria and the number deleted per that criteria. That would help people with knowing how their edits are being handled, but I think one of the purposes of this should be to help users follow the outcome of their CSD noms. Thus, a proactive response would IMO be helpful.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<
:::I do not recall ever having stated that the messages would be phrased like a "warning". Not once. I have referred to the messages themselves vaguely as warnings a few times because it's a word I associate with what the bot is doing (because the implications of that word are apparently less absolute to me than they are to other people) but I never intended for their content to be interpreted as warnings. Nor were they ever intended to state with any degree of certainty that the editor's action was a "mistake"; the bot has no way of interpreting who is correct in the case of a conflict between a tag and a deletion. The situations that the bot logs are referred to as "mistakes" because it is the easiest term to refer to them as, generally they will be a mistake on someone's part in the absence of editing between the tagging and the later removal/deletion. The focus was never on chastisement or implications of retributive action upon failure to improve, the focus was on providing useful feedback to people who would otherwise not receive it. Any implications that my focus was elsewhere were utterly unintentional. However, I'm not going to start using "neutrally worded notification" and "situation that the bot detects" as a replacement for "message" and "mistake" in every post I leave here, that far exceeds my patience for such things.
:::If people are really going to have such a problem with receiving messages for every instance of a denial/deletion for alternative criteria, I still think that the second alternative I mentioned would be acceptable. That being that the bot keeps a log of CSD errors and notifies editors when that has happened to them enough times in a certain period of time. Assuming I'm able to divine the mysteries of merging MySQL and Python, said log will be maintained in a database that will be accessible on a toolserver page by everyone.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">ж</span>''']] 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 141 ⟶ 143:
:The bot has been started logging again. I'm going to bed imminently, so if it crashes again I will be unable to fix it until tomorrow.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">ж</span>''']] 04:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Just an update: I'm presently working on rooting out why it's making mistakes, and that's taking a fair bit of bug-testing. I've got some other stuff that's keeping me busier than I would like, but I should be able to devote enough attention to this to get it sorted out by the end of the week.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">ж</span>''']] 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
{{tl|OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} How's it going? – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 14:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:Work is progressing. Some stuff came up and I didn't have any time to work on it over the last couple weekends like I'd planned, but I'm hoping to get it done within the next two weeks if nothing else happens.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">ж</span>''']] 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
*Further to my previous note, while I think this should be opt-in only, I would be OK with an optout version (but '''not''' with a non-optoutable version). [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 11:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
{{tl|OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} - Status? <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 04:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:I've been busier with work than I had thought I would be lately. I'd been working on figuring out a particular bug in the works, but not being able to work on it consistently made it rather difficult and I stopped for a bit. Now that this has been brought to the forefront of my attention again, I'm going to devote some time this weekend to it. I should be able to get it going. Sorry about how long this is taking.--[[User:Dycedarg|<span style="border:1px solid red;color:red; padding:1px;background:#000">'''Dycedarg'''</span>]] [[User talk:Dycedarg|'''<span style="color:#000000">ж</span>''']] 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Given the slowness of this trial (open for 2.5 months with no new runs in 2 months) and that the operator has had little Wikipedia activity lately, I think the BAG needs to consider Dycedarg's ability to maintain the bot in its decision process. This bot is supposed to run continuously and, as such, will require prompt maintenance for bugs, MediaWiki software updates, and WP:CSD changes. Also, as this bot will be leaving messages on user talk pages, it is bound to receive comments, criticisms, etc. in response. Its operator needs to be available to respond to those in a timely fashion. --[[User:JLaTondre| JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 23:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
:{{BotExpired}} Good call. I hadn't realized there had been no activity since July 17th; this entire request has been pending for quite long enough. This request may be re-opened at any time that the operator is more available. — <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[[User:Madman|madman]] [[User talk:Madman|bum and angel]]</span> 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
</div>
| |||