Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InputInit's functional details section

Hi. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InputInit puts functional details at the bottom currently. I think this is a bit silly. When reading a bot request, I care much more about what a bot is trying to do and why, rather than what it's written in or who its author was (which is usually obvious from the bot name, honestly). Consequently, I think functional details should go at the top (directly below the section header). The meta-data would follow, then the discussion section.

The note above the functional details section is also kind of insanely long (pasted below). Nobody reads this shit. Can we cut down to something reasonable, please?

<!-- List full and complete function details here. Please be precise and explicit, describing all changes the bot would make. Bots cannot be approved for open-ended tasks, so ensure the details cover all cases. Consider making several BRFAs for tasks with large independent changes. Vague or incomplete details can delay the BRFA process. Straight-forward details and examples will speed up the approval. If you need to modify these details after a discussion starts, it is recommended that you use del tags – <del></del> – to remove text and ins tags – <ins></ins> – for additions (this preserves coherence of the discussion), or show/hide boxes as you see fit. -->

Thoughts, comments, criticisms, &c. all welcome. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think putting them at the top would be even more silly. The function details, if they are really "full and complete", may be several paragraphs long and often contain bulleted or numbered lists. I'd prefer the short fields at the top, as they are currently, with this long field just above the discussion section, in the ideal place to be discussed. Moving it to the top would mean we have a long section of function details, then all the other information about the bot is lost somewhere between that and the discussion section.

As for the length, while the current note is a bit overlong I doubt people who don't read it would read a shorter one either. But feel free to propose new wording for discussion. Anomie⚔ 05:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose:

<!-- List full and complete function details here. Please be precise and explicit, describing all changes the bot would make. Straight-forward details and examples will speed up the approval. -->

I think this is sufficient. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the shorter comment is much better. I do agree with Anomie, the function details can sometimes be very long, so it makes sense to have them at the bottom. Perhaps moving the "Function overview:" to the top would be better? --Chris 06:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. It occurred to me yesterday that the whole layout just kind of sucks. Generally, I find it difficult to read. Maybe in a table it would be better. Or something similar to make the labels and the answers clearer and more distinct. It'd help if it were using a template. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not also adding a note that for every task the bot needs another BFRA? mabdul 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The long/redundant/winded text ("Consider making several BRFAs for tasks with large independent changes. Vague or incomplete details can delay the BRFA process. Straight-forward details and examples will speed up the approval.") is there exactly because people kept posting one-line explanations for complex tasks. BAGgers just ended up writing the same thing themselves to every BRFA like that. While it may not look like it, the long version is more reasonable when you consider some people have no idea detail means detail and not the briefest of summaries. Now this bit " If you need to modify these details after a discussion starts, it is recommended that you use del tags – – to remove text and ins tags – – for additions (this preserves coherence of the discussion), or show/hide boxes as you see fit." I don't think is needed (as I've said when this was first added). Regarding putting details at the top is not a good idea. Function details are supposed to be long and explanatory, so it makes sense for it to be the last field. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please review my request?

I'm not sure where to ask this, but no one has edited my application for LyricsBot since January 3rd, over a week longer than any other open request. Could someone please take a look? I'm not sure how long these things usually take but it's been 11 days now with no activity at all. Thanks. Dcoetzee 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done It's a function of BAG being understaffed. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If it happens in the future, if you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. Good luck with the bot! GoingBatty (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject naming

Hi there, I have started a discussion at on WikiProject naming at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Should the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be reserved for "full projects/sub projects/task groups" or any gathering?. The responses to date have all been along the lines of "leave it open slather, it doesn't hurt, who gets to decide anyway". My thoughts for suggesting a restriction lie mainly in making it more consistent or standard for bot/tools operators. So if any of you who have actually utilised the WikiProjects in your bot or tools work have an opinion on whether it would be beneficial (ie auto fill the input files from a prefix search) or if it will make no difference (ie, it's all opt in, or needs a manually checked list anyway), please leave your opinion at the Council page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

KLBot2

KLBot2 just deleted an interwiki on Quách Bốc. It did it within seconds of me creating a WikiData entry. I'm not seeing any approval for KLBot2 to be doing this. I'm only seeing a request to add Spanish interwiki links. Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be blocked for running an unapproved task. I'm leaving a message at the botop's talk page.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#User:KLBot2 Werieth (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe IAR applies. We already have an approved bot that does this and all bots require approval for any task that edits outside of it's userspace.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• It appears the bot is globally approved for this task here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right place?

To request a bot apply Template:COI editnotice to Category:organizations (using a trial first like organizations based in Idaho or CA) based on the rough consensus here (15 supports for the trial and 2 opposes).

The idea started in the Idea Lab about 6-9 months ago and morphed over time into a simple 2-sentence tag with a Click Here button on how to request a correction, etc. for PR people. As a PR person myself, I felt it would be useful, and so did others. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in this task and will start coding it later today. For next time though, please use Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- Cheers, Riley 18:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!! Someone also mentioned if it's not too much coding work, we should exclude Category:Defunct organizations CorporateM (Talk) 14:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :). Please comment and/or ask questions at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 11 instead though so people that our following the task can see. -- Cheers, Riley 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 20

Jheald has raised concerns that my close was both incorrect and inappropriate. There's already a thread on WT:NFC discussing the policy issues, however I would like input from other BAGers (and non-BAGers), on the close. I understand this is a bit of a thorny one, but that just makes this kind of input and review all the more valuable and important. --Chris 03:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing that request was a correct action. NFCC is a notoriously thorny area, which means that we need to be even more careful than usual that there is community consensus for the bot task. Really it should probably have never proceeded to trial without having a discussion at WT:NFC (let's ping @Addshore: for a response on that). But it did get a trial, and opposition then showed up, so at least the trial process worked. I suppose the BRFA could have been kept open while the RFC runs, but on the other hand if the RFC clears the way for the bot then the BRFA can always be re-opened so there's not really any harm done there.

However, in my opinion your close rationale missed the mark. It's very well written and clearly describes the problematic issues, but it's too heavy on "deciding" rather than simply pointing out that there isn't consensus. This is especially so since NFCC#8 is so vague (How do you determine if some image would "significantly increase readers' understanding", or if leaving it out would "be detrimental"? What fraction of readers? And how significant of an increase is needed, and how detrimental must the detriment be?) that I find it basically useless for all but the most blatant cases. An equally-strong rebuttal to your NFCC#8 argument could be made (and has been made at the NFC discussion) that the community has already decided, through common practice and through the TfDs for the rationale templates and through explicitly stating so at WP:NFCI, that a single infobox image for identification does "significantly increase understanding" at the least for the type of reader who recognizes these things visually rather than by title.

And since I'm opining on everything here, I'll point out that Jheald's message on your talk page missed the mark too. True, Masem and other long-term editors supported the bot. But there are also some long-term editors who vehemently opposed. So among this small group we have no consensus, for which the solution is to ask a larger group. If it hasn't already been done, that NFC RFC should be advertised on WP:VPP and WP:CENT so that, when it is closed, we can be reasonably confident that it does actually represent community consensus.

HTH. Anomie⚔ 12:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No real further comments from me, everythis that should have happened has happened. At this stage there is indeed no consensus for it. If consensus appears from somewhere it is easy to reopen the request! ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Help!

I am trying to fill out the "request for approval questions" and I don't know what to do when it says to enter a source code. Please help! Castigonia (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the problem is (elaborate, please?), but I'm pretty sure you just provide a link to the bot's source code (whether you stored it on a website like github/pastebin/etc, or your own userpage). No need to paste the entire source code there. Ginsuloft (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Provide a link to the sourcecode or say what framework / code your using to run the bot :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 16:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

Approval should be revoked per ANI discussionNE Ent 01:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this the proper process? If necessary I can construct a structured explanation of what the problem is here. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically yes. Legoktm (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still confused, if the main issue is edit warring (what I picked from skimming the ANI discussion in 30 seconds), why can't people just use {{nobots|deny=Cyberbot II}}? Legoktm (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not the only issue — it's a poor idea, acting beyond the scope of approval, the bot operator is reacting rudely and defensively to community feedback, and it's doing a task that does not have consensus in the community. However, if applying that template to the article page would prevent the bot from re-tagging an article then I'm fine just doing that to articles I review where the link in question is not in fact spam. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In my brief skim of the ANI discussion, I didn't see that there was an overall consensus that it was a bad task. If the bot op is acting rudely (I'm not saying that he is), that doesn't automatically revoke the approval. There's a procedure for dealing with incivility. I believe it's WP:ANI ;-) I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with a bot op defending their code.

According to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4, it says the bot is exclusion complaint so the nobots template should work. Legoktm (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The burden is to show consensus for adding tags, not to show consensus for not adding them. AN/I is not the place to build consensus for a bot task or for dealing with uncivil bot operators. You guys administer bots over here, right? That suggests a certain amount of policing after unleashing a bot on the rest of the project. I hope you're holding operators to a higher standard of civility than avoiding blockable violations, and a higher standard of cooperation than making accusations and telling people they have to file an administrative petition if they disagree with what the bot did. If an experienced editors says your bot is messing up my article, the response ought to be polite, helpful, and responsive. Taunting people who have a grievance is no way to behave. Anyway, I'll go back and try the nobots approach. Not a perfect solution but it could work as long as people don't lose their cool. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Legoktm, two points. I (and I assume most editors) did not know about the nobot template, unless there are explicit instructions that one may do that accompanying the tag I find it a mute point. The second is, if a template is added by a bot, and subsequently removed by a human editor as inappropriate, the bot should not edit war by adding the tag every 12 hours (or sooner). As I have said many times, the specific problem with this tag is that human editors will be inclined to remove the link without properly examining if it should be removed or whitelisted, this cannot be undone, and the links removal may become obscured. It becomes more problematic when a human user is trying to remove the tag in order to preserve the link while waiting for a whitelist process, if a bot is continually readding the template to the page, asking for action. I don't oppose the bot per se, but I strongly oppose the way it operates (it should tag pages far less frequently), and am uncomfortable with the template it tags pages with. Liamdavies (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this is completely unacceptable behaviour on the bots behalf. It should absolutely, under no circumstances, tag a page that ISN'T blacklisted with the tag. Especially not if that also means editwarring a human editors. Liamdavies (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

He meant that it might retag that page ONE more time, because it was in the middle of a run when the link was un-blacklisted. It definitely wouldn't edit-war in that case. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Liamdavies that the biggest problem is that the tagged links are getting removed by human editors, and this is very difficult to revert if inappropriate. I waited nearly two months for a link I felt inappropriately removed from Breast reconstruction to be whitelisted (I made the request on August 13th, and it was approved October 5th, and I reverted the link removal later that day). And I actually think the whole site should be removed from the blacklist, but boy am I discouraged from pursuing that. While the claim is repeatedly made that this is a problem with the black/whitelists, and not the bot, the combination of the two is clearly causing good links to be deleted. IMO, this process is broken until (a) the black/whitelists are fixed to significantly reduce the number of false positives, (b) the process for updating the black/whitelists is significantly improved (both in complexity and time), and (c) we come up with some way to leave the information in place while (b) happens. A second problem is that the excessive false positives from the blacklist are preventing good links from being added, although I've not seen any numbers on how much is being rejected, and again, the appeals process is grossly inadequate. Some sort of fast appeal is needed (at least to create a temporary approval). I'd also like to comment that I don't blame the folks working the whitelist, they appear pretty understaffed, and the process itself is unwieldy. A blacklist is clearly necessary, but it has to be more responsive. As an aside, this bot ought to be a useful tool to help improve the content of the blacklist by searching for existing links that are blacklisted as it has been, so long as we somehow get people to *look* at the links instead of blindly deleting them. Rwessel (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Rwessel, just replying to your points: a) for what I have seen, true false positives are just 1 or 2 requests, most are untrue false positives, the link blacklisted was indeed to be caught by the rule, but the link is a whitelistable exception. B) that is one of the recurring themes, XFD's are more cool, that is what admins do, and what they are selected for, c) is provided, ask for whitelisting and Cyberpower is excempting the page in the bots tagging (also resulting in tag removel by the bot).

By the way, if a page gets tagged, one can also just 'disable' the link while waiting for whitelisting. That keeps the info (it is just not clickable),results in removal of the tag, and one has all the time to ask for whitelisting.

So I think we agree .. We need more staff there, which, actually, could be also non-admin editors who dig a bit deeper into the reasons for blacklisting, considering alternatives and appropriateness etc., and give suggestions to which we merely have to respond.

One line of defence the other way, we regularly get misformed requests, e.g. Not stating the exact link, and the requester does not return for months .. Just to put things into perspective regarding that the whitelist has to be more responsive, there are no deadlines ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

At Ani there was certainly no consensus for removal of the bots approval. The main point is that these links should not be anywhere on the site and if the link is on the blacklist and if that is justifiably wrong then a request for removal from the list should be made via the links provided. If you request whitelisting or removal then cyber is adding that link to the bot exception list meaning it wont tag why that process is happening. This is all that can be reasonably asked of the bot creator given that this is an extremely legitimate task as these links shouldn't be on this site at all. The main problem here isnt the bot or the operator its peoples concerns re links being on the blacklist and in addition that certain links are on blacklist by mistake i.e. collateral damage and thats something the Wikimedia foundation need to look into not the bot operator. I also don't think Cyber has been unhelpful really and I've seen him point people in the right direction and he is correct the blacklist isn't something he has any control of at all.Blethering Scot 17:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is a conscience a majority only? In the ANI there have been 3 editors who support discontinuing, 5 who oppose it, and 10 neutral, with 2 leaning to discontinuing.

I have not counted Cyber or myself, we balance anyway, both of us also have been rude.

Of 5 opposing it, 2 have been strong and regularly, 3 have supported (excuse me, opposed, I can't line through) occasionally.

This has been a long and heated discussion, some time should be put into analyzing it? I can provide names, if needed.

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion is not a test for whether the bot should be running, it's a request for immediate administrative intervention, which was given, then withdrawn. A bot needs more than mere absence of consensus to shut it down in order to be making mass edits. When a number of experienced editors protest vociferously that the bot's mass edits are a bad idea, making mistakes, going against policy and consensus, etc., it urges some action. I'm still not sure what the process is here. If this talk page isn't the right place for dealing with a bot problem, please direct us to where is. I still haven't presented the full argument for what's wrong with this task. Again, I'm not sure I need to if I can just keep the bot off the pages I watch (and that I will review). Is an RfC the next step? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the situation. There was consensus, so the task was approved. At this point you're basically forum shopping. Legoktm (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That's unresponsive and unhelpful. Exactly what do you claim I am misrepresenting? You're making accusations against me without my even having outlined the problem with the bot function. No matter, I am one editor among others with serious concerns about a bot task. If this isn't the place for a hearing, and you can't tell me what is, I'll just undo the bot's actions where it appears to have made bad edits and/or file an RfC. That's reasonable process. Stonewalling is not. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the situation in that your original post here implied there was consensus to stop the bot, when in fact there was not. It's forum shopping in that it was posted here and at ANI. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(responding to a differently-worded version of the above[1]) Wrong, and wrong. I did not start the thread here or claim any consensus at AN/I. Forum shopping is a red herring because anyway because AN/I is not a forum for establishing consensus, and I'm trying to ask whether this talk page is either — is this talk page the most appropriate place where a bot task can be reviewed on the basis, among other things, of whether its article edits reflect what the community desires? I asked the question in the first place because the discussion seemed a little out of process. I have not heard a clear yes. Legoktm said yes to something, but later said that the original approval precludes an examination of consensus. In other words, no. I believe the correct procedure if one is in a forum that is not setup to address a particular question is to find a forum that is, and if none, follow standard dispute resolution process, which looks like it may be BRD, EW, and RfC. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you started the thread. I said your original post here: That's not the only issue — it's a poor idea, acting beyond the scope of approval, the bot operator is reacting rudely and defensively to community feedback, and it's doing a task that does not have consensus in the community. However, if applying that template to the article page would prevent the bot from re-tagging an article then I'm fine just doing that to articles I review where the link in question is not in fact spam. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC) (emphasis added) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, got it. I stand by my comment and it has nothing to do with AN/I. You may disagree but I think you simply misinterpret. It's pointless to belabor this, if it comes time for me to detail why the task should be suspended I'll do so in the appropriate forum; meanwhile I simply laid out the basis for concern. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, so the simple answer to all questions in the form of why can't editor's do X to keep the bot from doing what it shouldn't be doing is -- it's not their job and they shouldn't have to. This is not company where folks get paid to edit, so imposing rules on other folks for any individual pet peeve is counterproductive, and most of Wikipedia works that way. Don't care about Afd? Don't participate in Afd's, etc. Using a bot to sledgehammer editors into doing "the right thing" vis-a-vis bad links is the wrong approach and will destructive in the long run. The bot edit wars, that's against policy, should be stopped, period. NE Ent 14:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, if you don't care about blacklisted links on pages, just ignore the tag. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, if you do care about spam and you are a human editor, you use your discretion to review the content of an article and determine whether a link is in fact spam or not. The blacklist has to date been designed to prevent adding suspect links to the encyclopedia absent permission granted through a whitelisting process. It has never been about the wholesale removal of links that were added in the past and have so far survived the editing process. NE Ent has crystalized one process objection, that human editors should not be forced to chase after bots. A any rate, this appears to be heading towards an RfC, we can assess the policy concerns and state of consensus there. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you think here is the best place for the RFC/discussion? It seems a little odd; I would have put it on the talkpage of CyberbotII but it doesn't seem exist. But I am not sure where else.... Any suggestions? Slp1 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps on a whitelist or blacklist related page. That signals that this is a broader question of what to do about historic links that were legitimate at the time but are later placed on the blacklist, rather than a simple question of what the bot is or is not approved to do. We ought to be careful here, as most things that look like spam are spam and can be easily and uncontroversially dealt with. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Let's start an RfC on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, the home of the faulty blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs)

I'll be honest and say that this response greatly concerns me. Is it really only a problem of a "faulty blacklist"? That's not my impression.Slp1 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

To get a link put on the blacklist, it generally has to not only be considered spam, but also of minimal value to the encyclopedia. They don't necessarily need to be removed wholesale, but they should definitely be reviewed for appropriateness. In a few of the random cases I looked at in the bot's recent edits, questionable links like user-submitted pay-per-click "news" articles (examiner.com) were being used as references. Some showed potential issues with overly broad regexes that could be preventing users from adding legitimate links. Removing them all is not the solution, but neither is sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending there's no problem at all. As for the location of an RFC, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is a busy page used to discuss additions and removals and is probably not an ideal location for a long discussion. An RFC subpage would probably be better, since this involves multiple policies (bot policy, spam policy, RS). Mr.Z-man 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that I think we are all mostly agreed on much of this, and personally I think with a few tweaks this bot could play an important role in fixing the problems. I have some fairly simple suggestions that might help solve the issues for everybody. I think I will post my proposal together here and see what happens.Slp1 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for Cyberbot II - blacklisted link task.

Let's start with the stuff I am sure that we agree on.

• Cyberpower678 has done a lot of work on this bot and has the best intentions of this encyclopedia at heart
• On Wikipedia there are links from blacklisted websites, and these problematic links need to be brought to the attention of editors for action, one way or the other
• Cyberbot can have an important role in helping to accomplish this task.

However, several problems have been identified with this process by multiple editors, in multiple places and over more than a month. e.g [2][3][4][5][6][7] Note that some of these are related to the bot and the template, but others are not. Some are technical and some are process oriented. These have included:

• Incorrect tagging of non-articles spaces
• A large tag placed on article, likely disturbing our readers' experience.
• Some errors on the blacklist itself
• Confusion about how to whitelist/request deblacklisting; daunting process requiring notification in two places if one wishes to avoid the bot replacing the tag.
• Bot does not respect nobots tags or human removal of tag, and retags pages.
• Slow process of whitelisting/blacklisting means that tags may remain on articles for a long time, even when they are reported.

So here is my suggestion:

• For a period of, say 3-6 months, the bot should tag the talkpage of articles, as well as adding an inline tag to the specific problematic link. This tagging of the talkpage is in keeping with certain other bots identifying problems with articles and seeking to get interested editors to act e.g. User:CommonsNotificationBot. It is also in keeping with the majority opinion here in this discussion. The advantages are that this approach will be:

• Editors who have these pages watchlisted - as well as others- will know about the problem and can act.
• Detailed instructions about the methods of whitelisting etc can be given on the talkpage - ie it can be as large and informative as needed, so that editors know exactly what to do without having to follow links etc.
• Time is given for those working with the whitelist/blacklist to process the requests and clean up issues there
• Time is also given for consideration of some of the wider issues about which of these historical links should remain and which shouldn't.
• Editors who are interested in a more general clean up these blacklist problems can find the articles listed all together.
• Our readers are not faced with a large, complex tag, which most of them can and will do nothing about.
• The problem of the nobots or editors removing the template and the bot retagging the page will be non-existent (or perhaps almost non-existent)
• No need to report the potentially good links to two places.

After this 3-6 month period - hopefully after all or most of the blacklist problems have been resolved, the bot would be allowed to be a bit more insistent: e.g. tag the article page itself. I think this solution would allow the problem itself to be worked on quickly and efficiently, while still respecting our readers and human editors. I would also like to see Cyberpower678 consider working with an experienced bot programmer to check the code - it would be good to be sure there won't be any future mistaggings etc- or at least as much as possible!! Slp1 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it's been established the bot was ignoring the nobots tag?

Otherwise, support bot functioning as suggested indefinitely.

Do not support the bot ever becoming "more insistent." NE Ent 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Re nobots tag, this edit was offered on the template page. Slp1 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the nobots tag, a better solution would be for the bot to simply record which articles it has tagged, and then not retag them in X weeks/months. This will allow people time to remove the template and request whitelisting, rather than just slapping nobots on and acting like there's no issue at all. Because there is an issue. If it's actual spam or an unreliable source used in a ref, it should be removed. If it's a generally legitimate link, it should be allowed on other pages and removed from the blacklist. If it's specific to that page, it should be whitelisted to avoid problems in the future. I believe that if the link is removed for any reason, even just vandalism, it won't be able to be restored if it hasn't been whitelisted.

But I agree that this is not quite as urgent as the actions of the bot have been making it out to be. The problem with nobots is that it was used to fix the issue with edit warring, but I'm concerned that in many cases, the links were not addressed. Mr.Z-man 19:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps even better, if the tag is on the talk page it may stay there indefinitely, perhaps in collapsed form, and permit editors to discuss why the link is or is not appropriate. The bot can keep doing its work, and simply avoid double-tagging the talk page if it is already tagged. By adding suitable categories and possibly template parameters, editors who have a particular interest in dealing with spam links could find articles to work on and comment on the outcome of their review. Incidentally, having reviewed the blacklist pages and process, the blacklist is a behavioral process to deal with editors adding spam, not a content decision to scrub certain pages and sites from the project. This would be a moot point, except that a lot of potentially reliable sources that have been in articles for years (I am personally aware of examiner.com, gayot.com, and links from articles to their official websites) are getting caught up in the scheme. The "remove unless whitelisted" approach is absolutely not supported by the guideline, or the logic behind the blacklist. Whitelisting is a bureaucratic process that reverses the normal model of encyclopedia-building here, which is letting content editors decide what ought to be in an article instead of making them apply to process gnomes for permission to keep content. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not a reliable source. Articles are written by people who are often amateurs and there is minimal editorial control. It is effectively a blog designed to look like a news site. It's on the blacklist because of that and the pay-per-click model they use for authors encourages them to spam it on high traffic sites like Wikipedia.

I agree that whitelisting is unnecessarily bureaucratic. That does not change the fact that from a purely technical standpoint, an article relying on a blacklisted link is just a problem waiting to happen. There isn't a particular hurry to do it, as I noted, but it should be done eventually. But with no tags or categorization anywhere, the process-gnomes who might want to help do that can't find the pages that need it. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If we have a particular consensus on what to do about examiner.com articles, so be it. That will be different than consensus (or case-by-case judgment) for sites that are on the blacklist for other reasons. Wikipedia will likely be facing a more subtle and pervasive dilemma as sites far less spammy than examiner are developing alternate models of crowd sourcing, e.g. medium.com, and sites that used to be pure journalism are experimenting with multiple models, often hidden, of repurposed, crowdsourced, and sponsored content. A tag is fine, a massive tag on the page of articles, including high traffic articles of general interest, that can't be altered or removed and that encourages process-gnomes to engage in indiscriminate deletion of sources could be a problem. The process can be modified to encourage a more constructive approach. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Z-Man: if the bot tags the talkpages then the process-gnomes (as you put it) would be able to use the Category:Pages containing blacklisted links. But I have come across another reason why this whole process needs discussion, and why encouraging whitelisting of some "appropriate" links might actually be a bad idea. A whitelist listing affects the whole encyclopedia- ie once a page is whitelisted it can be added anywhere. There may well be links to blacklisted websites that we might want to have on their wikipedia page, but only on that page. For example the nambla.org - a pedophile organization- might be appropriate for use on its own article page NAMBLA, but we probably wouldn't want to be whitelisting it as it could then be used elsewhere in the encyclopedia. In this case, the status quo (or what it was until an editor deleted the link because of the blacklist tags) is to be preferred: the link in the article but the website fully blacklisted. Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine that's a particularly common scenario. It would basically be limited to sites that are used for spam and vandalism, yet are also notable enough to get their own article. There are also alternate ways of dealing with things like that, such as User:XLinkBot, which can be set to only remove potentially bad links added by new and unregistered users. Mr.Z-man 22:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be more common than you think, as I can think of two in this situation off the top of my head! And examiner.com has just been whitelisted so that makes 3. Yes, we could I guess add another layer of complexity by incorporating XLinkBot, but the simplest thing in cases like that would be simply to get consensus that the link is appropriate in one specific article, and inappropriate anywhere else, note this on the article talkpage, and in some way inform the bot of that decision. At the very least it is a good idea to sit back and the consequences of what gets done. Slp1 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That is what the WP:WHITELIST is for, if its whitelisted the bot doesnt tag it. Werieth (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you have missed what the concern is... that a whitelisted link can be used anywhere on WP, and that isn't what we would want in certain cases e.g. nambla.org . It would be appropriate on their article page but nowhere else. Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Both the blacklist and the whitelist use regex, which means we can allow links to certain pages on a domain, which is what we do for examiner. Only a few specific links (that I'm assuming were verified to be reliable) are whitelisted as well as the examiner.com homepage. The vast majority of articles are still covered by the blacklist. So again, the only cases in which this will be a problem are where the subject is notable enough for an article, but their website is so spammy or bad that we can't link to even a single, specifically defined, page of it anywhere except the one article. For example, we don't allow links to URL shorteners because of the potential for abuse, but there's no problem from linking to the tinyurl home page. In the case of NAMBLA, we don't even link to it in the article. So using an existing bot for it's intended purpose is adding too much complexity, but modifying a new bot to do something different is fine? And that still doesn't change the fact that if someone removes it, you can't put it back. Mr.Z-man 00:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point!! The reason that NAMBLA home page isn't linked in the article is because it was deleted as a direct result of the bot's tag [8] Now it cannot be readded unless the homepage is whitelisted. Which we don't want, I think you'd agree? I don't know about tinyruls, but in this case, by far the simplest thing would have been for human editors to decide, after a discussion, to simply leave the website link on the article page, to leave the blacklisting as is, and to tell the bot that humans had made a decision that it should respect.--Slp1 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you've yet to provide any examples other than that 1. My point is that the blacklist/whitelist is much more flexible than you seem to think that it is. In a significant number of spam cases, we can safely link to the homepage of the website, because only articles or other pages on the site are actually used for spam or vandalism. And the blacklist allows us to to do that. For TinyURL, the blacklist entry is written so that we can link to the homepage (anywhere, because it's useless for spammers), but all other pages on the domain are blocked. Examiner.com is the same way. The bot would not have to make an exception to link to it on the articles about their respective sites, because those links wouldn't be blacklisted. Mr.Z-man 02:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

One example is usually all that is needed to show where a process can be flawed. I am sure that you are correct that in a "significant number of spam cases, we can safely link to the homepage of the website" but there are obviously other cases which aren't so clear cut. As a further example, the Canadian Children's Rights Council is another case where we should probably keep the status quo; the site blacklisted (past history of spamming (including homepage links), copyvios, falsified material etc) but the homepage allowed on their WP article. If I know of these two articles because they are on my watchlist, I can pretty much guarantee that there are other similar cases where human editors need to consider other options beside whitelisting and blacklisting. But I really don't think we disagree that much... it is obvious that there are a variety of different situations with the blacklisted links and often these are quite simple to fix, but sometimes there are more complex issues to consider; there are a variety of different possible solutions including perhaps tinyurls (though based on my experience, I don't actually agree that homepages are always useless for spammers etc). At the moment, none of these are documented or discussed as options in the documentation attached to this bot. There is no opportunity for experienced human editors to consider best options for the specific situation. Slp1 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so there are a few cases. Yes, in many cases the homepage is also used for spamming, but how many of those cases are by notable websites/organizations that have an article here? But I guess the original point behind this thread is that telling the bot to ignore certain pages would only effectively hide the issue until the links get accidentally removed. It's certainly an option. But it's far from an optimal one. Short of having the blacklist extension modified to allow whitelisting on specific articles only (T14963), XLinkBot would probably be a more "stable" solution. Mr.Z-man 02:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many articles there are in this situation: even two are enough to say that there needs to be discussion of what is "optimal" to do. I'd agree that the whitelisting of specific articles is the best option, but I don't think that's going to happen fast, do you? Your point about accidental removal is a good one, and one that I hadn't thought of. Xlinkbot seems an option too, but how does that get set up? And it wouldn't deal with confirmed users either, would it? That's really the whole point: there are a variety of problems and possible solutions, none of which got considered, discussed, let alone resolved, before this bot started tagging articles, with documentation that only offers two options: whitelist or removed. And now the bot operator is on break so we are apparently stuck with this situation for at least a month. Frankly, I am not sure why we are dancing around a bot: we need to determine the problem and the solutions, and then see how the bot can help. Slp1 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just regarding Nambla.org - get an appropriate index.htm or, sometimes better, about.htm (sometimes the frontpage can be abused in the same way and/or is NSFW, the about.htm serves the same function to identify and at least, generally, can not be used as 'shock' (I am thinking vandalism where the official homepage of a site is replaced with the frontpage of a porn-site) whitelisted for use there - regard all further abuse of that site then as a uw-...4im-level offense (do it again and you will be blocked - especially for spam cases). Thát is exactly what the whitelist is for. There are only very, very few cases where even that can not be whitelisted - and remember, having the homepage of an organisation listed on the wikipage of the organisation is not a must, it is an overrule/exception (per WP:IAR) to WP:ELNO/WP:ELNEVER.

When the link is whitelisted and linked, the bot would ignore it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've closely followed the community feedback for this task during the last three weeks (I came across it as a reader, by pure chance). I agree with Slp1 that moving the initial notification to the talk page (as a tag or message) is an important and necessary step, it would alleviate many of the current concerns and problems. Next on my list would be 1) Proper landing page to instruct editors what to do, 2) Bot must never tag based on hours or even days old data, 3) robustness.
FTR, I would be available and willing to cooperate with Cyberpower678 in developing suggested improvements, and have no particular interest in maintaining this task so as far as I'm concerned Cyberpower678 can certainly continue to run it if he is still willing. However, I'm not sure whether Cyberpower678 would be open to that and how well we can work together (for one, we sometimes have fundamentally different opinions on how bots should operate).
Amalthea 21:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Amalthea for your offer and thank you Cyberpower678 for accepting this on your talkpage. I am feeling very encouraged that we will be able to work this out. Slp1 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A few comments (and an apology for running on so long):

I’m one of the editors who’s expressed frustration with this entire process, and while I agree with the general goals of this bot, and do appreciate the author’s efforts in this, issues with the black/whitelists, the processes related to that, and the apparent immaturity of the bot’s code are issues. The last, at least, should be a temporary thing solvable with more testing, and perhaps some additional development resources. I partially agree with the bot’s author that many of the problems are not directly caused by the bot, but nonetheless these problems, in effect, break the bot – this is not directly the author’s fault, but it’s still broken. So the author’s good intentions and the general worthiness of the idea are insufficient until the underlying problems have been dealt with.

I also agree that articles with blacklisted links are a problem, and that dealing with them sooner rather than later is a good idea. *But* I think questions about the contents of the blacklist itself also exist, and those should *also* be dealt with sooner rather than later.

One of questions is just how big a problem blacklisted links in existing articles are. I know I’ve seen a few tags from this bot, but I don’t know how big a net the trial runs have been casting. If there’s only a few thousand blacklisted links, this shouldn’t be much of a problem to work through one time, especially if we end up with a category to search. If it’s a much larger number, whatever happens will need to be workable in the context of general editing for a fairly long time. Would it be possible to run the bot and just generate a list of positives for review? Just to get an idea of the scope of the problem?

As regards the black/whitelists themselves. Clearly the procedures for changing those are far too arduous. I can’t see more than a tiny fraction of editors willing to slog through that, as things stand. This is not only an issue for articles with existing blacklisted links, but an issue for newly added links. Who knows how many edits are discarded (or truncated) because they can’t be saved because of a blacklisted link. Even reverts get blocked.

Clearly most of the flagged links *are* inappropriate (IOW, most of the hits from the blacklist are good hits), but a noteworthy fraction are at least questionable. Some *easy* way to get them whitelisted and into the article is, IMO, essential. I don’t think the process can involve anything like the current process where a completely separate whitelist request is made and processed, before the link can be added. In almost all cases that will just result in the task being abandoned, even if the whitelisting only took a few days (FWIW, a request I recent made took nearly two months). Perhaps some way of embedding the whitelist request in the article itself (perhaps something like {{whitelistrequest|http://blacklistedlin.com|why I think this should be whitelisted}}), adding a category, etc., so that a group versed in the process can take a look at these things. Perhaps this tentative link could render as “***link being reviewed***”, or something like that, so that general *readers* of the encyclopedia don’t see the questionable links. Making them initially invisible would also deter spammers from using these tags to insert their spam – after all, the links will not become visible until reviewed and approved, hence eliminating their utility to the spammers. But having them inline, and in place *does* allow the editing process to continue without loss – I think this is especially important in the case of wanting to revert an overzealous removal of a tagged link (in the case I mentioned above, I wanted nearly two months for a whitelist request to complete before I could revert such a deletion – fortunately the article was not particularly busy, so reverting was easy – but on many heavily edited articles reverting a two month old edit is much more difficult, and can often only be done as a “new” edit). This bot should, of course, ignore links in a “whitelistrequested” block. Perhaps some time limit should apply, after which the link is automatically redacted by a bot (although if they are invisible to readers, having them remain for an extended time shouldn’t pose much of a problem). A bot to automatically remove the “whitelistrequested” (and leave the link) if a whitelisting has happened would be good too. Policy-wise, I could see “abuse of the whitelistrequested template” as being an actionable behavioral offense (IOW, blocking of editors who repeatedly use it inappropriately). The edit warning when trying to save the offending link should adequate explain the procedure for requesting the whitelist.

As mentioned above, page specific whiteslist entries are an excellent idea. A similar thing is done for MediaWiki:Bad image list.

I would also support putting the bot’s tags on the talk page, at least initially. Once the initial pass is completed, a more obtrusive entry on the article page might be reconsidered.

To summarize, I really want to be able to continue the “normal” editing process, *including reverts* while a link is being reviewed, without removing the link wholly from the article. And the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that something like a “whitelistrequested” template would eliminate all of my major concerns.

Rwessel (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I support these proposals, but have a small request to make. Would it be possible to integrate a script into the template so one could automatically request a whitelist, I'm thinking something pretty much the same as the delete script. This would make it far easier for users to actually lodge a whitelist request, the current system is a little confusing especially for a new user and this should avoid malformed requests.

I do however have a few things to say about this process. The blacklist is to stop spam, it seems however that it has been used to enforce RS and sometimes not as a last resort; this is improper. If someone uses a valid link in a page, and other links from that site are later spammed that does not make the original link spam - it may be, but just because the site is on the blacklist does not make it spam automatically. I think this point has been neglected with many saying that these links shouldn't be there because they are on the blacklist. The site being on the blacklist stops the spam problem, that is all the blacklist is designed to do, I see no requirement to remove links retrospectively, and that is in essence what this bot has been designed to do, I fail to see any consensus for that.

For this reason I suspect that a task force working through the list of links is the best way to do this, not direct page tagging, a venue such as Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups, it would assess whether these links should be included or not from a content perspective, not because a list says so. With double checking (two sign off that a link is OK) the whitelist process could be almost automatic and the list processed much quicker, by a team much more apt to deal with it, yet again from a content perspective.

I would also add that from a procedural point of view www.historyandpolicy.org should never have been on the blacklist, yes it was spam, but there was no effort made to stop the spamming, a requirement of the blacklist. After news surfaced of their link spamming a request was made, but there was no post on the users talk page, no block, and the editor hadn't made a contribution for about three months. Without being told the user may not have know what they were doing was wrong (WP:AGF), and may very well have stopped (if they were to return) after being alerted to the fact what they were doing was not permitted. It seems to me that a website had improperly been on the blacklist for quite some time until someone removed it recently, this is not within policy which stated at the time (and still pretty much states):

However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers. You should consider the following before requesting that a URL be blacklisted.

* Can protection solve the problem? If so, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

* Will blocking a single user solve the problem? If you have given appropriate warnings to a spammer, you should report them on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where they can be blocked by an administrator. Open proxies used to spam should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies so that they can be blocked.

* Will blocking a small number of users for a short time to allow conversation help?

* Can the problem be controlled by other means such as User:XLinkBot?

* Would the edit filter work better?

None of those other recommended remedies were tried, and this brings me to my question: how did this get on the blacklist - completely against policy of the blackilst - and how many other entries are in the same boat? Liamdavies (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if an editor could have an easy way to request an alteration to the status of a link, but we have to face reality—Wikipedia is a major target for blatant and subtle spam, and people do it for all kinds of reasons (including simple financial gain as there are essay websites which pay the author per number of hits to the author's essay). While many editors will quickly revert spam, few admins have the skills or interest to do background work such as working out whether a link warrants listing. Even fewer want to spend days arguing with an enthusiast about why a link to their favorite essay should be whitelisted. Providing a "click here to request whitelisting" button is very likely to be abused, and it would overload an already congested system. There is nothing at Wikipedia that is always correct and problem free, so finding a few blacklisted links that perhaps should be unlisted does not show there is a significant issue. Bear in mind also that the admins who do the thankless task of reducing spam see a much bigger picture than those of us who engage in just a few articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying there are problems, we should deal with them, but not make it too easy? I see no reason why a whitelist request shouldn't be as easy to open as a deleterequest or moverequest (Commons), sure it would require admins to staff, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, a good link shouldn't be excluded because someone else spammed wiki with links. This is why I suggested an easy way to request a whitelist, the other option, which I prefer is to go through the links one by one and assess them for suitability, this would require the bot to routinely create a page that lists articles that have blacklisted links and it would be processed. That way editors assess links and admins place them on the whitelist if two trusted editors concur that they should be included/whitelisted, otherwise they get removed. This is quite similar to how copyvio investigations and other problems are dealt with, it would deal with the issue of blacklisted links on the project while removing the potential for harm by having good links removed. Liamdavies (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this could work too. The conflict here seems to stem from the fact that most users don't want to have to deal with "backend" processes themselves, which is fine because we have plenty of people who are willing to do it. I think generating a list somewhere would work okay, as long as it's actually in a place where people will read it. Though it may be useful to still tag or leave talk messages in certain cases, like articles using known unreliable/spammy sources as actual references. These types of problems would be better dealt with by people familiar with the topic as it will require checking that the information is true by finding a more reliable source. Mr.Z-man 15:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I still support tagging the talk page and placing a tag like next to the link in question, I just see the best way to get through this backlog of pages is systematically. There are obviously links that are both good and bad throwing up a blacklist alert and we need to sort through this, I feel my proposal aids the whitelisting process by giving trusted editors more control and leaving the whitelisting admin as more of an overseer, rather than having to do all the research alone. I would also note that we could be more sympathetic with the links the bot has highlighted as in almost all cases they precede the blacklisting, and are likely not spam, although many could be unreliable sources, which from a content perspective should be removed. Liamdavies (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• I made an announcement on my talk page, in case anybody hasn't noticed.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is verging on WP:TL;DR but I have one comment to make, maybe already covered. Black & white lists are pretty meaningless to our general readership and therefore have no place in mainspace. As a user of Wikipedia - not a vested interest editor - I find it off-putting, confusing and irrelevant to my article research to see a large banner message warning me about stuff I simply do not comprehend. Blacklists & whitelists fall firmly within the eye-glazing, lose the will to live category and will be totally meaningless to lay readers. It is not only lay readers (our target audience, after all) who find such text hard to swallow. I have been here for 7 years as a content contributor and I'm completely clueless about black and white lists. Nor am I sufficiently interested to find out. These messages, if helpful, should be confined to the Talk Page where willing & able editors will resolve the potential problems identified by the Bot. There is no similarity between this, essentially technical, insider-targeted message, and banner messages that warn about neutrality or other reader-worthy issues within the article. Giving the lay-reader a warning that an article may be suspect in some tangible respect is helpful but warning about our infrastructure lists is not. Leaky Caldron 10:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Mark the links on talk page, put into a category and those who care can fix it. NE Ent 10:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

By that same logic, as a user of Wikipedia - not as a vested interest editor - I do not understand the {{wikify}} or {{unreferenced}} either - still we do not put those on the talkpage, do we - in fact, for some 'bad' articles, we have sometimes 5 of those 'maintenance' tags on the page - why is this maintenance tag even less meaningless to lay readers than a {{wikify}} tag? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the worst that a lay user could do with a wikify tag is create bad links, with the blacklist tag they could erroneously remove a good link that then couldn't be put back without having to go through a laborious process. The ideal solution is to process the links showing up on the blacklist and assess if they be removed, or whitelisted. If this was done by a trusted team of users there would be no need for the admins to scrutinise the links, but simply add them to the white list (I would suggest that two trusted users sign off on a link being 'good'). This is why I suggest the bot compile a list regularly, and a 'task force' of trusted users process said list; no tags, no danger of good links being removed, no creating a huge backlog at the whitelist request page, and we would then be able to remove this problem quickly. Liamdavies (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If the user is creating bad wikilinks after the {{wikify}} you revert and repair - if a user is removing the 'bad' links, you revert, handle and repair, in the worst case, you make sure the link gets whitelisted and then repair (intermediate solution is to revert with <nowiki>fication of the link so it does not trip the blacklist). It is exactly the same, except for timescale. I enjoy the idea of a taskforce, I have seen those suggestions before, I've even been part of such 'taskforce', it never works and the problem stays. The problem with taskforcing: to say that a link needs whitelisting you need someone with knowledge of the subject, not a random member of the taskforce who may not be knowledgeable in the field, and the only way to attract those are to tag either the talkpage (which gets ignored), or by putting an appropriate maintenance tag on the page (I know, gets equally ignored, but for some reason this tag pisses off people enough to actually complain about it and wanting to remove it at all costs). Moreover, if someone of a taskforce removes the link because it is bad they will get all the shit storm on their head (just as now the bot gets the shit storm on its head) because of the decision they made, just because they are not a specialist in the topic. Making a list has a similar effect, as that just generates, in principle, a backlog of whitelist requests by default (that is what needs to be done in the end), and for most, input from a knowledgeable editor on the topic of the subject is needed, the bot can not represent that, nor the taskforce. I get a massive feeling of deja vu here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What was the outcome of this?

Are we still contemplating meaningless (to the lay-reader - the ultimate target of our work) messages about blacklists appearing at the top of articles? Leaky Caldron 13:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. The bot ought to be suspended pending a consensus decision on how to proceed. Currently it's leaving a message on both the article and talk page, ignoring the nobots tag, and per the message on the talk page, threatening edit warring, so most of the old problems. I've asked the bot operator to participate in the discussion. I hope we can deal with this in a mature collaborative fashion this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot has been modified. The tag will be placed on the talk page and can be hidden by setting the invisible parameter to true. The bot will not edit war that.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that is appropriate, without a proper closure of this I don't think it should remain tagging the main page. My reading of this discussion is that the talk page should be tagged instead of the main page, not as well and that the bot shouldn't edit war the tag; not just obey its own command. Liamdavies (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine enough for me then. Sorry to get alarmed. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So is it, or is it not, tagging ONLY the article Talk Page and leaving Mainspace completely alone? Leaky Caldron 12:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's tagging both. The main page puts it in a category and the banner can be suppressed, using the invisible parameter. The talk page gives information on what to do.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 12:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for that? Can you provide a diff. to the relevant discussion confirming that Mainspace tagging was agreed? I understood that preference was indicated for Talk Page tagging only and NO action for this BOT on the customer facing article? I would like the operation of this BOT in making changes to mainspace to be halted until such time that there is clear consensus. Also, looking at your talk page just now, it looks like it is once again mis-tagging articles. Can you please list here the errors and problems you have had reported since you re-activated this BOT yesterday? Leaky Caldron 12:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The only error is that the bot sees it's own link in the tag when it looks at the article.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 13:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What about the answers to my other points, above? Leaky Caldron 13:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The bot was approved initially, so the burden of proof is on you to show consensus against it if you want it to stop. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Given all the discussion that has arisen from this bots operation, from day one, I don't hold much faith that the original bot approval adequately represents the views of the community. This bots operation should be based more on the opinion of only a few people that frequent here. I, and I'm sure other lay editors, do not frequent these parts of Wikipedia, saying you didn't object in time is a bit weak here. Liamdavies (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that the mainspace article should not be tagged - I do not see that either. I do see some complaints about it, but I also have seen reasons for having the tag on the mainspace page (and I am a proponent of that as well). These tags are not different than {{cleanup}} and {{unreferenced}}, and these actually show a possible damaging problem with the page (unlike the cleanup tags). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus either way, please see above. Liamdavies (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And if they are really meaningless - then solve the problem and the 'meaningless' tags will go (just like the meaningless, to the lay-reader, {{wikify}}; articles are perfectly readable when they are not wikified). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This bot still has issues listening to NOBOTS (diff 1 diff 2). The bot's userpage claims this shouldn't be an issue. If the bot continues to edit war and ignore the exclusion, I will stop it. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that there's an invisible parameter, why would you want to remove the tag, or set nobots? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why remove the tag and not solve the problem? Are you also going to insist to remove {{unreferenced}} on a page without references without adding references when others add it<sarcasm> - oh, wait, no-one would try to remove that tag because it is showing a true issue with the page, right?</sarcasm>? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No-one has problems with having a maintenance tag on an article for 1 year, why is it an issue to have this template there for a couple of weeks? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You've been singing the same tune for over two months now. As to the idea that "No-one has problems with having a maintenance tag on an article", see Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page, where there is an emerging consensus to banish the longstanding {{Orphan}} tag—or at least the visible display of it— into oblivion. And some editors want to remove more maintenance tags from articles than just the orphans. I'd guess that if {{Blacklisted-links}} were taken to the village pump you might find a similar consensus on that.

But what really makes this tag unique is that one really needs to be an administrator with knowledge of regular expressions to effectively deal with it. The request to remove cbronline.com has been pending since the end of September. How much longer do we need to wait for a non-involved admin to come along and make a determination of consensus and close it out? I attempted to dig into the archives to determine the evidence and rationale for why this site was ever blacklisted in the first place. Not an easy task. The tools used to find "evidence" generate so much link crud that apparently the expansion limit was exceeded, requiring the archive to be split. Best I have determined is that it was a local consensus among a very small group of editors, who seem to have skipped the first resorts in the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist instructions and went straight to the last resort—the nuclear option. So, stymied there, I tried the whitelist, where I have three requests which have been listening to crickets for more than the couple of weeks you claim it should take to deal with this. This is just the start of my expected whitelist requests. It is extremely tedious to make these requests under the current system, which requires that they be made one-at-a-time, when I probably will have dozens of requests to make for that site. The "magic formula" for successful whitelisting eludes me. So, what's the point of all this tagging if the only option realistically available to everyday editors is to permanently remove the reference link from the article? Why not deal with the problem by automated removal of all the black-links, as Kww is planning on doing with MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#archive.is? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dirk, hey I just noticed that while you've been sitting on my three requests for over two weeks, you let these sail through within a day! What's up with that, are you punishing me for having a bad attitude? Now I have a template for further requests, I see that they can be combined into a single request for multiple links to the same site, I don't recall the instructions saying how to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I should make it clear that I believe that you are a good-faith administrator who means well and I do appreciate the need for sometimes blacklisting sites. But this area needs to be more approachable for ordinary editors. For example, I see that this editor stumbled into how to format their request and you had to fix it for him (diff). If it were more clear, that shouldn't be necessary. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Then, Wbm1058, get that consensus that ALL maintenance tags should be on the talkpage - now the general consensus, or at least the common practice, is to have them on the top of the page, and only for the orphan-tag there is an 'emerging consensus' to send that into oblivion. Expanding on that: {{coi}} has gone through a number of such discussions, and no consensus to move it to the talkpage was ever reached. I also doubt if you would manage to find that consensus for {{unreferenced}}, {{wikify}} or {{primarysources}}. The reason it may work for the {{orphan}} tag is that it does not signify a problem with the page itself (well, only in a subtle way if you want), where {{coi}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{primarysources}} (and most others) do signify a problem with the page itself that needs to be solved, and some even a problem that a reader (who is in the end a possible editor!) should be aware of (if the article is unreferenced, the reader should keep that in mind when reading the text, it may be all fabricated, irrelevant, promotional, &c.), a reader does not have to keep that in mind when there are no other articles linking to it. So I stand with that statement that maintenance tags stand for months, years even, and that no-one seems to have such a problem with it that they resolve the issues (or remove it without solving it!), and that that is no different from this one (you could basically just ignore it being there, just like happens with an {{unreferenced}}, and accept the status quo that the article had before the tag was added).

No, the most important person is not an administrator (on the contrary even, I do not want to make a content decision that is signified by this tag), it needs a specialist on the subject, a regular editor on the page, or even an interested reader. They can see whether the link was really spam, forgotten to be removed when the domain was blacklisted, whether it is good, whatever, and whether asking for whitelisting is appropriate, and request that (similar to e.g. {{unreferenced}} - though everyone could resolve that by trying to find them, it is easier for a specialist in the subject). That same editor can then hide the tag. That does not need an administator in any form. The final whitelisting/delisting is something that indeed needs to be done by an administrator, and this is an area that has been gravely ignored by almost everyone. Similarly, it also does not need an administrator to ask for a speedy deletion of a page, only the final deletion is done by an administrator, who is making the judgement whether the deletion is justified or not (as here, the administrator is making the final judgement whether a link should be whitelisted in the end). Those two are exactly the same, and it is not something that makes this tag in any form unique. Actually, whitelisting is worse, since no-one is participating in a discussion whether a link is whitelisted, that is ignored so much that 'consensus building' is there impossible.

In all cases, other methods were not skipped, with spamming of significant scale, the other methods are plainly futile (if there are 10 socks spamming, do you think that blocking those 10 socks and hoping the spamming will stop helps, or whether reverting by XLinkBot will then be helping - spamming pays their bill, they will continue, reinsert, make new socks; I just last week found a company (or an SEO company that they pay) that is, 5 years after the majority of their sites were blacklisted, apparently still at it on Wikipedia - again, it pays their bills!. No, you may block the spammers, but you blacklist the link, because only blocking and waiting for it to continue (which, by the way, is often done as well as one of the main spam-identifiers is not an admin!) is just causing more disruption (and work).

Some of the links are 'accidentally' blacklisted (mistake in rule), some were added outside of a spam-campaign, some were forgotten to be removed, and some blacklisted links do have a, albeit very limited, use (porn-sites sometimes have a Wikipedia page ..), blanket bot removal is NOT an option, it would amount to damaging pages where links were appropriate.

I totally agree that whitelisting takes too long. WP:AN and WP:RFA to attract more knowledgeable administrators are a good place to start (done that, got a T-shirt). Leaving blacklisted links stand and not asking for whitelisting is certainly not going to speed up the process, and as I explained also before, having blacklisted links on a page damages Wikipedia by, albeit in rare cases (I personally ran into one last April, others must have had the same), interfering with the editing process (when a blacklisted link gets 'accidentally' removed and a subsequent independent edit is performed, the blacklisted link can not be reverted back in, leaving the page in a damaged state, which then needs 'emergency' response by an admin, something that could easily have been avoided by notifying the problem early on).

Regarding speed of handling a request - some, like cbronline, are difficult cases, those were (sometimes massive) spamming campaigns and actions should be properly considered, others are easily identified as accidental blacklistings or limited spamming etc. Like the consideration of whether to add things to a blacklist, also de-blacklisting is a considered process, and not always just handled by one administrator, I often wait for a second or third opinion on it (which, again, does not necessarily need an administrator, opinions can be given by other, non-admin, editors as well, only the final action, like deletion of a page, has to be performed by an administrator).

Basically, your problem is not with the tag, your problem is with the editors ánd administrator corps who does not solve whitelisting in a quick manner, because a) most adminstrators are not knowledgeable enough in the situation, b) it is not as popular as XfD, and c) those who are are interested are also just volunteers.

Thanks for the heads up. I've been asking for that help more often (even tried to see whether RFA-candidates were interested - got bashed down on thát in a way that exactly showed the problem: "don't ask questions about blacklisting, this editor is not interested in that, they should be asked about XfD, because that is what Wikipedia is about and what they should be interested in, even if they are not - if this editor is making havock, it is going to be by rogue deletions, not by altering the interface by editing the MediaWiki namespace"). Regarding the diff - mostly it is a case of RTFM on the whitelist. It is only 2 (+ 2 somewhat optional) lines - 1) give the whole, disabled link you need, 2) tell WHY you need this link (and somewhat optionally: 3) put the domain in a {{LinkSummary}}, 3) if you can, find why it was blacklisted (use the links provided by {{LinkSummary}}, and consider if that may affect your request) - most even fail on the first one! That is the only reason for me why I add the 'tracking' LinkSummaries all the time (it helps me find out more about the domain and why it was blacklisted). It is in a way not more than filing an XfD - link to the article, tell why you think it needs to be deleted (optionally add a link to a Google search to show that there are hardly any results), start discussing. Maybe an interested person (<looks around, sees all desks empty>) should write a thingy into Huggle that can file a request for whitelisting for you .. guess that most editors will be just as interested in doing that as in the interest to help whitelisting (or even worse, help blacklisting the spam that we do not get to, as I said, just last week I found a company that is, 5 years after blacklisting their links, still at it - as Jimbo said, paid advocacy should be banished, but we do not even have the manpower to do just thát). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, how does a link that most likely isn't spam affect the quality of a page? Sure the link may be blacklisted, but: 1) The link existed before the blacklisting, and 2) If the link were part of a 'spam attack' it would have been removed by the nominating user. The simple fact is that most of the links highlighted by this bot probably are not spam as they precede the blacklisting and weren't removed as part of the blacklisting process. Also, please directly answer my point above regarding consensus for this bots operation. Liamdavies (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We have a Blacklist for a very good reason and these links should never of been allowed to creep in to articles in the first place. Other than removing these links automatically (Which I'm strongly in favour of) the only solution is to notify editors to the page that this is occurring via tags, by tagging the main page (thats the common & consensus driven system on wiki) and also notifying the talk page, which is the best solution as main page tag can be hidden leaving in category. Just because they are not automatically removed is not a reason for certain editors to simply ignore via a no bot tags and the like and they should then be going through the proper channels and requesting removal from blacklist or whitelisting them. Simply ignoring it because you can isn't on. This bot is doing the best of what is an essential and clearly thankless task. Spam is the issue, editors choosing to ignore and previously edit warring is the other not the bot. Blethering Scot 16:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You do understand that just because a site is on the blacklist that does not make all of its content spam or unreliable do you not? There are a variety of reasons why websites are listed, one of these of particular concern to me is a blacklisting as a result of self promotion. Links added from a site such as www.historyandpolicy.org are (and always were) perfectly valid, the site was (in my mind erroneously) blacklisted for self promotion, that does not mean that all links add prior to said self promotion are 'bad' and should be removed. You seem to blindly believe that all links to sites on the blacklist are automatically 'bad' for the project and should be removed; this is wrong, if it were true we would not need or have a whitelist. My ongoing point is that at the time all these links were added to the project they were not 'bad' the sites were not blacklisted (hence why they are on the project) and to automatically remove them, or through careless action have them removed is 'bad'. It is for this reason, and because the removal of the links cannot be easily reversed, that I oppose tagging the main page, I do however support tagging the talk page, creating cats, and dealing with what in reality is a backlog of possibly bad possibly good links - they are a little like Schrödinger's cat, simultaneously good and bad until we check them. Do you actually understand my point? Or do you think I just blindly for no reason hate this bot and love spam? Liamdavies (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to strenuously disagree with Blethering. *If* the blacklist were solid, and had essentially no false positives, I could see almost unconditional removal. But it's not, and the procedures for getting the blacklist changed, or a whitelist entry added, are onerous. It took nearly two months for a whitelist request that should have been completely uncontroversial (in fact it was - no objections to the whitelisting were raised at all) that I did a few months ago, and I did that just so I could revert a link removal that was made by an editor in response to one of these tags being added. This is a worthwhile task - but we need to fix the blacklist/whitelist/whatever procedures so that we can work on links that we might be erroneously blacklisted in a reasonable fashion. Rwessel (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all there is a Whitelist for a very good reason and that should be used rather than being simply ignored because to quote It will never be whitelisted, if thats the case the links are highly likely unsuitable for use even singly. We have a process for a reason and how long it takes is a non issue, the process should be followed regardless. I do think to answer User:Liamdavies that yes you do seem to have major issues with this bot that mostly aren't issues with the bot itself but with Wikipedia processes. The bot nor Cyber (who has taken the brunt of the backlash which was entirely OTT given the majority of it came from issues caused by the actual blacklist not the bot) are in anyway responsible for the Blacklist or the whitelist or how long these processes take and they are entirely separate issues. I would stress that not all these links were added after blacklisting, thats a slight myth. I stand by my comment completely and I'm not alone that these links should be automatically removed or hidden (probably better) pending review of their entry on the blacklist or whitelisting. Given you all wish to improve the blacklist or whitelisting process I'm sure people would be willing to review the processes used if you put forward a compelling argument.Blethering Scot 17:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please elaborate on what you mean by: "I would stress that not all these links were added after blacklisting, thats a slight myth." I have said that they were mostly placed before blacklisting, and that would mean that they were most likely not spam, but bundled up due to the actions of other contributors, in these cases they are most likely fine, regarding spam threat. They may of course not be a RS, or there may be other legal concerns vis-a-vie copyvio concerns, but they need to be assessed. Tagging them with a nagging template that, essentially, demands there removal - due to a unbelievably bureaucratic and arduous process - is not useful. Liamdavies (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never suggested there was not a need for a blacklist (and a whitelist). I've even pointed out that much of the backlash against the bot is not directly the fault of the bot itself (and since yelling at the bot is pointless, we yell at its author). But the broken (IMO) processes are causing the bot to be broken. So it's not Cyber's fault, fine, I've actually said that. The problem is that the bot is still broken by those external forces.

As to stashing the links pending review, I suggested something like that too - wrapping them in a template like {whitelistrequested|somequestionablelink}, which would toss them in a category so that we can stew over these, even if the process is slow-ish (although right now it's too slow). The link could render as link under review possibly with a link to an explanation page, or even a way to display the questionable link (or just let sufficiently interested readers look at the source, whatever), but it would not present a valid click-able link. And a bot to come through after some interval to delete the questionable link (probably leaving something like a {whitelistrequesttimedout}, which would be left for manual cleanup). Another bot function would be to periodically match the whitelistrequested links against the black/whitelist, and auto-enable them should the lists be updated to allow them. There should also be instructions in the blacklist hit message when an edit is saves as to how to do the "whitelistrequested". This prevents regular readers from seeing the questionable link, it allows editors to work on this without ripping things out of articles while the blacklist/whitelist process runs its course, and it removes most of the incentive for spammers to insert the links - they won't render anyway. A reasonable time for auto-deleting whitelinkrequested's would perhaps be 30 days, except that the black/whitelist modification process takes longer than that - we must make that process fast enough that people will be willing to slog through it. Although even a lengthy process is going to be hugely more palatable if you don't lose the edit/whatever while process goes on.

Perhaps this bot could directly convert the links into {blacklistedlink|somequestionablelink|date=13-Dec-2013}, which would also render as link under review and the deletion bot would automatically delete those in 15 (or whatever number) days. An editor would seeing that could either agree, and delete the link (and, very importantly, that action could be reverted), or change it into a whitelistrequested, and start that process (and there should be a good link to how to do that). An issue I have with allowing the bot to do those conversions directly, is just how many links are going to be hit? If it's a few thousand, not a problem, but if it's a hundred thousand, marking them all at once will utterly saturate the whitelisting process (assuming there are many disagreements about the links status). That could be dealt with by leaving a longer interval, perhaps only initially, for the whitelistrequested process.

Frankly, the above would, as I've said before, pretty much eliminate my concerns.

As a related item, a page specific whitelist entry would also be a good idea, the way the "bad images" list works now.

I *want* to remove most of the links that match the blacklist. But I want some reasonable way to discuss the matter first if an editor feels the blacklist hit is questionable. I want to be able to revert a removal of a link I think is questionably blacklisted. I want users to be able to not lose edits because a link they inserted hit the blacklist. I also don't want these to hang around forever.

Rwessel (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This sums up my concerns very well, and gives positives methods of dealing with the problem of blacklisted links within articles. Although I think that deletion of the link after any set time would be a bad thing, the link should be deleted after an assessment, not after an arbitrary time limit. Once the backlog is dealt with maybe, but at the moment it would just end up with thousands of links been deleted due to the currently slow process. Liamdavies (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

While all this remains speculative, I think some reasonable time limit for conversion of a blacklistedlink to a whitelistrequested is not a big problem - this would be done by people watching those pages. As to the whitelistrequested links, probably some mechanism could be devised to leave it in place while an active whitelisting request was in progress, no matter what. Perhaps the bot could simply monitor MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, and ignore entries matching entries in the "Proposed additions to Whitelist" section. If 30 days (and that's perhaps too short, at least initially) have gone by and no one has even started the process, it's probably time to toss the link. Putting these in a category is important too, so we can find them. The "Denied requests" sections could be monitored too, to promptly delete those links. I *do* think something of an enforcement mechanism is a good idea, although again, making the whitelisting process reasonable is important too. Rwessel (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is approval needed for this task?

I'm writing a program to monitor links on a series of templates and create a table of basic parameters on those articles - length, whether it has an infobox, assessment class, etc - to monitor progress on a series of articles. Currently the program just reads pages and dumps the output to a text file which I use to update the on-site tables manually, however I'd like to automate this. My question is do I need to go through a BRFA before allowing it to edit, or not since all edits will occur within my own userspace? --W. D. Graham 12:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as the number of edits is reasonable, you don't need full approval to edit your own or bot's userspace. If you want a BRFA on record, it can be speedy approved. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Hellknowz:. Request made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AstRoBot 2. --W. D. Graham 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

PoplLyricsBot - Requiring reconsideration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all. I wish to add a new and useful bot - PoplLyricsBot. I've filled out the form as required, but according to the response I need to show editorial and technical experience. The best way to show this expertise is by contributing the bot I've suggested. I have only good intentions. I would be most thankful if we can advance and discuss the actual bot I suggest, rather than my Wikipedia user's age. Thanks,

Asa.zaidman (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hellknowz on that one. The community here on the English Wikipedia expects bot operators to be familiar with our policies and guidelines, and you haven't yet been around long enough that we can know if you have that familiarity. In addition, the particular task you proposed is something that has been discussed in the past; although I don't recall offhand whether there was consensus for it to be done by a bot, you didn't link to any sort of discussion which indicates that you are not yet familiar with the sort of things that can be controversial here. Anomie⚔ 16:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, I agree with this approach. Following your comment, I have researched this issue thoroughly. That's why I haven't responded at the request page - I wanted to make sure first my request is legit. And indeed, such a request has been discussed and approved in the past - please see the discussion in Village Pump. The exact same idea was discussed and approved for a specific legal lyrics provider (MetroLyrics). Therefore, I believe there should be no reason to decline having such a bot also for another legal lyrics provider. Since the Wikipedia policy of releasing a new bot includes a close follow-up on the process, you can be sure that I will not damage Wikipedia in any way - on the contrary, it's beneficial for the community. I will be most thankful if my request is approved and I could advance, step-by-step and with the required approvals, to implement it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asa.zaidman (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you could have become familiar enough with our practices in such a short time. You edited the BRFA with bot account, you didn't list it proper, you didn't reply (in fact, you haven't ever edited the BRFA page), you didn't provide examples, you only made a few article edits most of which at best needed {{official}} and not a bare link, your content edit needed fixing by another editor, here you don't address BOTPOL or BOTNOTNOW concerns raised at you, you even forgot to sign. You say it yourself -- "my first steps in Wikipedia". And you didn't reply because you were "researching the issue"? I find this very unlikely as you were explicitly told the BRFA will be denied if you don't reply. These aren't major issues in themselves, but they add up as they are almost all of your edits. With so many telltale signs, there is now way I can endorse this. We never approve a bot that's going to edit tens of thousands of pages for someone with so few edits, because there is no way you are familiar with even a fraction of things we would like you to be familiar with. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As you wrote, the issues you've raised relate to myself being not experienced enough according to your criteria, but not to the bot itself. The bot's goal is good and valuable, as already agreed by the community. If I offer a code which is accepted and approved by the community - should my familiarity be a parameter? If so, then it's an ad hominem claim, since one relates to the person rather than to the idea and its implementation. I only ask to let me offer a bot. If the conclusion would be that the implementation of the bot itself is problematic, then naturally I wouldn't even dream of executing it. But let's discuss the bot, not me. It's far more attractive. Thanks.

Asa.zaidman (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"should my familiarity be a parameter?" Yes. And it is not an ad hominem, it is common sense. "Task" and "running a task" are not the same thing. To put it another way, just because brain surgery is a beneficial task, it doesn't mean someone without doctor's degree gets to do it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Asa.zaidman: The comments about PoplLyricsBot that have occurred so far are only the very tip of the iceberg. If a person or program were to ever start systematically adding "links to websites which legally provide copyrighted lyrics" there would be an uproar from those of us who do not like spam in any form. This page should not be used to debate whether the proposed links (I don't see any examples) should be described as spam—I'm just reporting what would happen. The first step in a proposal like this is to get general community support for the idea, as mentioned at the request. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How does this differ substantially from LyricsBot?—Kww(talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• qtrax.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• One point I thought I should make, is that the bot op has direct ties to the company that runs the website. (This is would be basically approving a COI promoting bot) Werieth (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• • LOL! Here is a handy link: Special:LinkSearch/*.qtrax.com. That shows discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#qtrax.com and User talk:Lilamey2013. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding myself: I do not hide my connection with Qtrax, on the contrary - my username is my full and real name, and I'm fully aware that a quick Google search will show I'm connected with the company. Regarding Johnuniq's comment - the basic idea is already in the first bullet at WP:WikiProject_Songs#External_links and was discussed in Village Pump. So to my understanding, the community has already expressed its support. Regarding Kww's comment - the idea is the same, but I'm aiming at having links to Qtrax's website as well - in order to cover songs which are currently not covered, and since Wikipedia should not be biased (one source should be equivalent to the other). The initial step was approaching LyricsBot's op - Dcoetzee - more than a month ago, for a few times, offering him access to our DB and empowering his bot; no reply was received. Therefore, I'm offering to code this bot myself. Asa.zaidman (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but take a hint. The community doesn't want to link to your site, the fact that you are attempting to force those links puts a very sour taste in quite a few people's mouths. Re-iterating the COI issue is fairly important in this case as the impact of the bot approval would be a milestone landmark case. Given your aggressive attempts at forcefully adding links, the community both asking and then telling you to stop, I am actually surprised that qtrax hasn't been blacklisted. Ive seen less persistent marketing teams get banned for less. Werieth (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Werieth, from what I've seen so far, the beauty of the community here is that it acts according to its rules rather than want/don't want and tastes. And the community rules here were already set. Once again I must point to WP:WikiProject_Songs#External_links where it says that among the material that can be linked there's "officially licensed lyrics that follow the copyright policy", with examples of sites which are included (but not limited to). You shouldn't worry that approving this specific bot would be a landmark case, since it was already done with LyricsBot, which promotes only MetroLyrics (owned by CBS Interactive). I'm not trying to add anything forcefully - I'm trying to create a bot according to guidelines that were already approved. And again, I request to discuss the actual bot I'm offering rather than personal taste. Thank you. Asa.zaidman (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those rules are two sided, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:SPAM,WP:NOT and others. The bot, LyricsBot has little to do with your bot. The operator has no ties with the site that is being linked. The site that they are using is tied to Gracenote which is one of the biggest resources for music on the net, your site on the other hand is very unheard of. This would be landmark not because its adding links to lyrics, but because its adding external links to website where the bot operator has a direct financial tie. The community has stated that they really dont want your site mass linked to, actually to the point of requesting it be blacklisted. Werieth (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, about the bot. We will not permit it to function here because its operator is not experienced with Wikipedia and its inner workings. With their amount of contributions, it's too early to consider them to truly be part of our community. Period. There is nothing related to your conflict of interest - we routinely deny BRFAs for that paticular reason. Max Semenik (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.