Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OKBot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: OsamaK

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Function Summary: Auto patrolling of New pages; For talk pages basically.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function Details: I've been running a python script when I was reviewing talk pages, using my user account, before I noted that it may fill the logs; and it may be bad for log reviewers; It is more stable now for running using a bot. It gets new pages, searches for some trust talk pages creators (list can be published, if anyone asks); marks them as patrolled. It helped filtering out these pages which need no patrolling.

Discussion

How are you deciding which users to add? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By eye, I'll select someone like Deucalionite, who has a good pages creation history.--OsamaK 00:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to use the API? Xclamation point 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get the new pages, yes. But AFAIK, I cannot use it to mark page as patrolled at the moment, will be applied soon.--OsamaK 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applied. Xclamation point 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll apply this as soon as I can. I'll run the bot from the toolserver 24 hours.--OsamaK 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think it could automatically patrol admins? Xclamation point 20:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are autopatrolled by the software. Mr.Z-man 02:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn I saw some unpatrolled admin creations... Xclamation point 03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? Looking at Special:NewPages for the talk namespace, it seems to be completly unpatrolled, except for automatic patrol of admins and bots. If nobody patrols talk pages, why do we need a bot to make it easier? We also have a bot that does this for mainspace, User:JVbot, it could probably be adapted to do other namespaces, if necessary. Mr.Z-man 02:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling talk pages is not less necessary than patrolling article pages. I do review these pages, and I think there are more users do the same. I built my bot before seeing JVbot, note that JVbot request adminship to edit its white list, which is not good for me, who runs a quick temporarily tasks. Anyways, we can always have more than one bot for the similar task. If you think it is not necessary to run it 24/7, I can run it only when I'm working on talk pages.--OsamaK 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That made like 20 edits, then went inactive. Xclamation point 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the patrol log... Mr.Z-man 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* Xclamation point 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your diff pointed to the addition of a wikiproject banner to talk pages. How do you equate that to patrolling? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By username. Some 'trust' users create too many talk pages for wikiproject, my bot will marks them as patrolled.--OsamaK 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of 'intelligence' will the bot use to determine the trustworthiness of a user? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said above that he adds users manually. Xclamation point 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a subjective way of patrolling? How useful is this bot then to the Wikipedia project? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helping WikiProjects is not the point of this bot. It is simply filter some selected users' auto/semi-auto created pages to help reviewing talk pages, which is garbage, by the way.--OsamaK 16:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase my question: What benefits do you hope to achieve by patrolling talk pages? Articles are actively patrolled because they are the selling point of the encyclopedia. We put up mainspace articles for deletion if the text is junk or unencyclopedic. But for a talk page? We dont delete talk pages for rants or unencyclopedic content. I'm sorry but I do not see the usefulness of the bot. Please convince me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do delete handers of helpless (unencyclopedic) talk pages, if you're an admin, please review my deleted contributions, many admins deleted tagged pages by me, or see ones on user talk namespace, where I'm noting page creator.

Talk pages are a vary important part of the encyclopedia, where people discuss pages' stuffs, and if they're 'garbage', an important part of Wikipedia become so. Let's care about the issue itself, not how many people do it.--OsamaK 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I see your point and the junk talk page issue. I have some recommendations for the bot.

1. Instead of just you determining the whitelist of users, could you create the whitelist of users as a javascript subpage eg /OKBot/whitelist.js? That way an admin can review the safe list and also contribute to it. This would mitigate possible accusations of bias.
2. Similarly, could you also create a blacklist? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'll apply the first one, but I didn't get the second one, would the bot add a list of possible vandalisms? I've already a smart vandalisms detector bot on arwp which adds possible-vandalized new pages to a list; Easy to apply on English Wikipedia as well. I think one list ('white list') of users is enough because the bot will works only on it, and will skip automatically other users without checking another list.--OsamaK 21:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is working now using the API, supporting whitelist and adding possible vandalisms to a list. It'll also be run on the toolserver for 24/7.--OsamaK 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "blacklist", he means a list of users never to patrol on. Aside from that, I see no problem with a trial. Xclamation point 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think this is necessary. In the last 15,000 patrol log entries (as of a few minutes ago), 1,685 were patrols of talk pages (NS 1), 20 of these were not automatic patrols. This seems to agree with my previous comment that "it seems to be completely unpatrolled," as only 1% of the patrolling is manual, and makes up 0.1% of all patrolling. Mr.Z-man 03:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I believe that talk page namespaces are miserable. But this is not a reason to freeze all works upon it, it is a reason to encourage users to be careful about this issue, I really think that, this task will help somehow cleaning talk: and image talk: new pages.--OsamaK 14:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further thoughts, I don't see the need of a blacklist, since there are only two states. No more issues. Forward to the BAG team. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. And by edits, I mean patrols, of course. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. See the log. Patrolled list is here.--OsamaK 21:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved.