Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StraussBot
- 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
Denied.
Operator: DrStrauss (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 08:22, Wednesday, June 14, 2017 (UTC)
NB: per WP:IAR I have decided to submit this BRFA from the bot account. This is because I am currently blocked but it is a self-requested block. As BRFAs can, from what I have seen, take a while, I thought it would be a good idea to start the process now so that StraussBot can be in action on the 27th June 2017 when my block expires. Thank you for your understanding, any queries: I'll be in #wikipedia-en. DrStrauss 08:22, Wednesday, June 14, 2017 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic.
Programming language(s): Perl.
Source code available: Link.
Function overview: StraussBot declines completely unreferenced Articles for Creation submissions and notifies the page creator.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Nothing that I am aware of.
Edit period(s): One-off run on the whole AFC backlog if approved and then continuous run at least twice daily on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago in order to capture submissions from all time zones. Task Scheduler on my PC will enable the bot to keep to a regular timetable.
Estimated number of pages affected: Approximately 30 per week (15 submissions and 15 user talk pages – figures based on tests I have done whilst programming the bot).
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No.
Function details:
Problem: rising backlog at Articles for Creation with approximately 15 completely blank submissions being created per week. Such drafts can be declined straight away per WP:V, enabling reviewers to focus on sourced drafts.
Solution: StraussBot declines completely unreferenced Articles for Creation submissions using the same template syntax a human reviewer would use with AFCH. It does not add the declined template to all drafts in the draft space: it only looks at pending submissions.
“Completely unreferenced” is defined as a submission not containing “http”, “www”, “ref”, “bibliography”, “source” and “cite”. Therefore, some unreferenced submissions may be skipped if they contain such words in a different context but further coding to tackle this can be done in due course (see test data set 2 below).
It also notifies the creator on their talk page that their submission has been declined.
A count of how many pages it has declined is also programmed in and this count will be displayed on its user page.
In my opinion, the bot should not be exclusion-compliant merely because AFC creators are unlikely to know about the template exclusion system and even if they did there is the potential for abuse by creators indiscriminately putting the template at the top of their submissions. An emergency block button will be provided or if bugs do arise I can merely remove the bot from my task scheduler. I see no reason why draft articles should be considered risky for bot operations and StraussBot would pose no risk to other pages as it would not have the need nor the capability to edit them.
Here are some test data sets which may be of use:
Set 1
|||John Smith (1954-1996) was a maths teacher who killed his wife Penelope. |||
The bot should decline this submission. The submission is unreferenced and contains none of the skip-words.
Set 2
|||John Smith (1954-1996) was a football referee who killed his wife Penelope. Whilst in prison, he invented the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HtTp).||| This is a poor submission because it contains no references but it does contain the string “ref” and “HtTp”. |||
The bot should skip this submission as it is currently unable to discern between the contextual usage of words such as “ref” and “http”. Improvements in the coding in future should allow the bot to decline this. Note that the bot is case insensitive.
Set 3
|||John Smith (1954-1996) was a Catholic priest who killed his wife Penelope.[1]|||
The bot should skip this submission as it is unable to evaluate the reliability of sources. It merely detects whether any sources are present.
Set 4
|||John Smith (1954-1996) was an American lawyer who killed his wife Penelope.[2]|||
The bot should skip this submission as it is unable to evaluate the reliability of sources. It merely detects whether any sources are present.
Discussion[edit]
Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- NB: for the record please see header paragraph. StraussBot (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This bot has edited its own BRFA page. Bot policy states that the bot account is only for edits on approved tasks or trials approved by BAG; the operator must log into their normal account to make any non-bot edits. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Denied. To save some time (at the pain of borderline BURO), I think it's safe to say we're not going to jump through hoops trying to communicate with you and ask/answer questions people will have through your bot account. My first, foremost, and "blocking" (as in before a trial can start) request is for you to contact the Wikiproject in question and ensure there's consensus for this, mainly because it's depersonalizing (presumably something AFC seeks to avoid), more likely to be prone to error (as you rightly are alluding to), and will require extensive testing—if they even want it. On top of that, as part of a trial (and general bot operation as a whole), you'd need to be able to respond to issues arising in conjunction with the responsible operation of your bot. Of course, you can't do any of that when you're blocked, and it'd be unfair to ask the rest of us to edit by-proxy for you and/or deal with a bot posting to talk pages (SineBot's occasionally territorial, after all :P). Anyway, this is part of the reason why we normally don't entertain self-block requests. While I understand BRFAs can take a while, it isn't a magic process that can just happen in the background and be done like an egg timer going off. It requires two-way communication, or at least the option for it. Feel free to reopen or start a new one when you sort this out. --slakr\ talk / 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.