Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Re-examination of BU Rob13's bot approval (again)

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.

---

Regarding last discussion RU Rob stated that he is not planning to redo the task the same way they did so far. So, I think the task can be removed and Rob can reapply in the future hen he proves new consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_14#Re-examination_of_BU_Rob13.27s_bot_approval for previous discussion. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Fixing an error that popped up that wasn't originally discovered in the BRFA isn't a reason for pulling the entire thing. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The bug was never fixed. Primefac since you were so sensitive to close another discussion while a non-BAG member what about this too? I contest the task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Um... I never commented on the previous discussion, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac You closed the Dexbot discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I like you approach though. Same holds for many CHECKWIKI errors which I claimed fixed and then new errors appeared. Magioladitis (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't participate in that discussion either. Closed it due to a request at WP:AN. Still not sure what your point is. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My point: Put Rob's task on hold until he actually fixes the bug it was found. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

His replies at the previous discussion seem to imply that he was working on a solution to the problem and that he wouldn't be running the bot until it was fixed. As is generally the next step of the discussion - do you have any diffs to dispute his claims? Primefac (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If he fixes the problem I am fine. Did he? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please cite a single edit since the previous discussion that you find problematic to provide evidence that this is an attempt to address an issue rather than an attempt to harass me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 it's not about that. I claim(ed) that the problem is your method and that we should seek a different approach to avoid these errors. I would like to see AWB with custom module doing this task since it provides better built-in functions. Quitting the task for now and perhaps fixing it in the future is a good approach (and I have followed it in the past despite complains) but in this case I claim that the method itself is faulty. I think the task is one of the things bots should do but with different method and tools. We can cooperate and I can show you what I mean. Is it clear now? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already said I will not run the task until I've altered the regex to completely avoid that error. The community agreed that was a fine resolution and the approval didn't need to be changed. You were also admonished for not contacting the bot operator before opening the last discussion (something which you've done again here, not even notifying me of the ongoing discussion). If you think it's not possible to re-code the task using AWB to avoid the error, then you need not worry, since based on my promise, that means I won't run the task. I believe the task can be fixed (in fact, I know it can be fixed; it will just take a lot of regex that I haven't had time to write yet). Nothing has changed since the community determined it was fine with allowing me to fix the bug and continue running the task afterwards. If nothing's changed since the last discussion closed, I again ask, why is this being brought up now? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Guys please drop the stick here. If the bot isn't running until the issue is fixed, then that's perfectly fine. The bot isn't further disrupting the wiki at this point.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:50, 29 May 2017 (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.

Page display - exceeding template limit

Note: Page is currently in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and may not display correctly. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to clear out some of the backlog of requests that have been sitting unanswered for months. wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Now back under the limit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous BRFA Page

@Sasan-CDS: Yesterday it seems that you created Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CensusBot 2. It does not appear to be filled in as a BRFA and is not listed on the main [[[WP:BRFA]] page. Are you requesting an additional task with your bot? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagikCow: Hi, yes, I am requesting an additional task with my bot. Should I be putting this in a different section? Thanks. Sasan-CDS (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It was transcluded before the request was created but removed due to this fact. The request will need to be reformulated using the proper form for BRFAs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sasan-CDS If you want to request an additional task, its best to not create the request page unti you know all of the information to put on the page. Then, you should use the template that you are given when creating the page and fill in the correct details. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FrescoBot 13

I performed the requested test edits for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 13. I'm sorry for the long delay. Could you please reopen the approval procedure? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 17:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Basilicofresco: re-opened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

BAG appears to have fallen from the face of the Earth

It would seem BAG has dropped activity all of a sudden. I have no problems with this in general but there are still some BRFAs which need to be closed. So just a friendly ping and reminder that these BRFAs require attention of BAG.

@Xaosflux: Yobot 34, Yobot 56, and possible PrimeBOT 19 need your attention. :-)

@SQL: HostBot 8 needs your attention.

@Anomie: Yobot 55 needs your attention.

Cheers. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 06:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else from BAG is welcome to work on any BRFA I've touched previously. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a given that any BAGger can work on any BRFA, regardless who else has. Usually, it's just courtesy and workload-management that we don't. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it's because of this courtesy that I am bringing it up. I don't mind working on the other BRFAs. I just want to intrude.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Why would you think Yobot 55 needs my attention? My only comment there was to opine that it's probably not the best idea for that operator to take on that task in that manner after a few others had already done so. Anomie⚔ 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

End of summer tends to be a busy time for most, so this will probably rebound by mid-September. Thanks for picking up some of the slack in the meantime, Cyberpower. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reopen FrescoBot 13

Can you please reopen it? Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Magazines cited by Wikipedia

JL-Bot Task 7 generates statistics for WP:JCW. I have been asked to extend this to WP:MCW. The task will continue to operate in the same manner (parse a database dump file, extract citation templates, calculate statistics, and save statistics to the project pages). The only difference will be it now looks for magazine citations as well as journal ones and will save the magazine stats to the WP:MCW pages. I'm assuming this is a non-controversial change. However, double checking if anyone feels a new BRFA is needed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd speedy this personally, but I'm involved so I'll let someone else make a call if there's a separate approval needed for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@JLaTondre: Can you give a diff showing what the bot does for the existing project? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Diff from last run. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@JLaTondre: Can you submit a new BRFA for the magazines to document the approval? I'll speedy approve it; no sense in trialing if the code is the same and all you're doing is expanding what it looks at. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to Reopen Qbugbot

On February 3 I applied for approval for bot operation, and was directed to the Village Pump for more discussion. I started a discussion section at the Village Pump, received several suggestions, and implemented most. The project has received positive support at varying levels, with no explicit opposition. Updated project details are at User:Qbugbot.

Thanks! Bob Webster (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89, Jonesey95, and Cyberpower678: Is there something I should do to re-open or re-apply for bot approval? Bob Webster (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Edibobb: just open a new BRFA (#2) for your request, reference the first one and the discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment about Internet Archive Bot messaging

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disable_messages_left_by_InternetArchiveBot. Comments from anyone who reviews the suitability of bots for Wikipedia would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

TohaomgBot

Moved to WP:BOWN

— xaosflux ^Talk 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Creation of redirects

Moved to WT:BOTPOL

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

Please apply the folowing change :

Add {{BRFA|sys|Open}} below the folowwing line: ' SysEqLo (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added directly to the "denied" section, as I've closed the BRFA. Anomie⚔ 11:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Make new request button?

I can't figure out where the hell this button comes from, or why Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header doesn't show up upon transclusion. It displays for have a second, then gets replaced by the blue button on the left of the page. WTF? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. It's the <inputbox> in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Instructions for bot operators. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Its because you have the following line in your monobook.js:

importScript( 'User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js' ); // Backlink: [[User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js]]

--DannyS712 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:

The relevant line of code from the easy-brfa script is:

$( "table.collapsible" ).first().replaceWith( "<br /><a href='//en.wiki.x.io/wiki/" + TRIGGER_PAGE + "'><span class='mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive mw-ui-big' role='button'>Make a new request</span></a><br />" );

This replaced the table in the header with the blue button. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 8

I plan on changing the frequency of this task from daily to hourly so that everyone can see up-to-date information of the ISBN and ISSN errors if that is okay. This will run automatically through the WPCleaner command line. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks (from a non-BAG member). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hellknowz and Primefac: Shall I move onto hourly updates from now. I have managed to get the command line syntax working. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done There should be updates every one hour hopefully. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The 11:35 update is doing nothing. I fixed an ISBN in this edit which was on the list. Let's see if the 12:00 run will do something. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The hourly update through task scheduler is crashing my computer so I am updating the page 1-5 times a day. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

{{BRFA}} Fz-29 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done however @Fz-29: I've added a temporary confirmation override to your account so you can use the normal workflow. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I have updated the https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Current_requests_for_approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fz-29 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Extended content

SteiniBot (BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribs count SUL logs page moves block log rights log flag) Operator: Steinium (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search) Time filed: 14:06, Monday, April 1, 2019 (UTC) Function overview:to add a template to all pages in a category with too many pages Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic Programming language(s):AWB Source code available:N/A Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):N/A Edit period(s):Continuous Estimated number of pages affected:1000 Namespace(s):Mainspace/Articles Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):Yes Function details:My bot adds templates to all pages in a category and it watches over if any mistakes to certain pages └─Steinium  Talk  Contribs  14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Your account was created today, your bot was created today, and thus you wouldn't even be able to access AWB on your regular account much less your bot account. If you have an idea for a bot, please make a request at WP:BOTREQ. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Reopening a withdrawn BRFA

If I withdrew a BRFA and now want to revisit the topic, should I reopen the same BRFA or file a new one? Thank, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It's up to you. If the details are the same or similar and if you had any previous comments, it's probably better to reopen the old one. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: no, the reason I withdrew the last one was because I was approaching the issue all wrong, and all of the discussion was about that. I'll just file a new one (and link to the old one). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at BRFA

Hey folks, there's a growing backlog at BRFA. At time of writing, there are 7 requests in need of BAG attention, and 14 requests where the trial has been completed. Could we please get some attention on these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @Anomie, @BU Rob13, @Cyberpower678, @Headbomb, @HighInBC, @MBisanz, @MusikAnimal, @Primefac, @Slakr, @SQL, @The Earwig, @TheSandDoctor, @Xaosflux, @Hellknowz, @Jarry1250, @Kingpin13, @Maxim, @MaxSem, @Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 21:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod, Fastily. I have been tied up as of late in the "real world," but should have some time in a couple of days and hope to process what I can during that timeframe. I have issued a trial and approved a task so far, but am afraid that that is all I can do today as I am running against the real-world clock at the moment. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ditto the above, term just ended so it's been a mad rush of grading papers and planning for the last push of the year. Will get to things when possible. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Same here, I'm on the last week of grad school right now - so a bit backlogged. We have closed ~13 BRFA's in the last couple of days, thank you for your patience everyone! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor, Primefac, and Xaosflux: I don't want to be a broken record, but there is something approaching a backlog currently - its been 7 days since I marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 35 for bag assistance, and 10 days since I finished the trial. Is there any way to file BRFAs that saves you time and expedites the process? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, Just so you know, we're always looking for new BAG members.... SQL^{Query me!} 03:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: Um, I've only been here 8 months... --DannyS712 (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really, backlogs are everywhere; I try to stop by BRFA whenever I have some cycles to spare but normally prioritize getting trials started. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I would also make the argument that there is no deadline. We're all busy people, and when a dozen tasks get filed in a week there's bound to be a little bit of delay, especially when some of the tasks are potentially controversial or very complex. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Process for including cosmetic edits in other tasks ?

Hi. I've a few approved tasks for my bot, WikiCleanerBot, and planning on requesting for more. I'd like to add some cosmetic edits when my bot already does a non-cosmetic edit on an article, what's the process to apply for such possibility? For example, my bot can automatically remove whitespace characters after a title (CW Error #538) in addition to a non-cosmetic edit: this is clearly a cosmetic edit (only helpful for gadgets like SyntaxHighlighter which gets confused by the extra whitespace and doesn't format the title properly). This is only an example, but there are many other such edits that could be perfomed (CW Error #1: Template contains useless word Template:, CW Error #9: Categories multiple in one line...). --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the suggestion in Wikipedia:Bot policy#Cosmetic changes Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change would be a good idea. I.e carry out the cosmetic changes only if there is a substantial edit to be done as well. And of course, mention which proposed cosmetic changes the bot would do in the approval request so that people can review whether they are warranted or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been a number of edit requests lately that have just added "plus genfixes" when running. To elaborate a little on Jo-Jo's comment, it's not that the community has an issue with genfixes themselves, but rather when a genfix is the only edit to a page; if someone's moving in a new stove to the kitchen, you can hardly get angry if they wipe off the counters while they do it, but scheduling maintenance to wipe just wipe down the counters is silly. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note also that sometimes the genfix itself is contentious; the topic came up in an arbitration case a while ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Also note, "substantive change" is important - for example if you have a bot where the majority of the edit to the majority of the page is just "cosmetic" - there is much less support for such tasks (i.e. "backdoor" cosmetic bots). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As to the question, if you want to modify some tasks, due a BRFA, especially if the change wasn't discussed in the original task request. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. My initial question was really in order to follow the bot policy on cosmetic changes (when my bot already does a non-cosmetic edit on an article). I intended to start a BRFA for each cosmetic edit I'm intending to do (or a group of them), but I was rather wondering how the trial would be done: it's harder to demonstrate since I can't easily provide 20 or 50 edits for this cosmetic fix if it has to be done simultaneously with other non-cosmetic edits (hard to find the required number of articles that will have this specific cosmetic fix with one non-cosmetic fix I'm alread doing by bot). For example, suppose I want to add the cosmetic edit for CW Error #1 (Template contains useless word Template:), do I file a BRFA for it and when I have the go for the trial, I just activate it with my other bot fixes, and check the bot contributions for edits with this cosmetic fix, and report them when I find some? --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the task, but generally speaking, the last one is probably what would happen. You could also run the bot on pre-selected pages that you know those cosmetic edits would be triggered. Some might also be speedily approved, if it's obvious / already well-tested stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've submitted a BRFA for CW Error #1 Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WikiCleanerBot 6. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 08:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Midnight rollover fixes

Moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Midnight rollover

 – —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot - archive.org isbns

InternetArchiveBot suddenly started adding spam links to articles.[1]. Has this been approved? The links provide nothing useful; all you get is the cover of the book and a preview. They and serve no purpose other than to drive traffic to IA, so it appears to be spam. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678 and Kaldari: please review and reply regarding your bot. Pointing to a specifically approved task number for these edits would be the most helpful. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Operator talk messages left to see this discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, InternetArchiveBot task 3. Its approved to do so. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: this is newer behavior, following Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InternetArchiveBot 3 from ~2 weeks ago, approved by TheSandDoctor. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the utility of adding links to "limited previews" (such that the citation can't really be verified anyway) is here? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: was that really the intent here? For example in the edit above, following the link to the third party site doesn't actually let you "read" the book - it is just a picture of the cover - how is that helping our readers? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, readers can check the book out for free and read it. It's a digital library. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, in addition to that, you can direct the previews to a specific page. Given that these book references didn't cite a specific page, IABot couldn't direct the preview. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply @Cyberpower678:! @Hawkeye7: there was also an RfC related to this task - do you have any other issues? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Given that paperwork was filed, I guess not ... I did not see the RfC and the request is not listed in the table on the Project Page. Had I seen it, I would have expressed concerns. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• That article from PublishingPerspectives is nothing more than a hit piece by the publishing lobby who have decided that since they can't challenge the IA in court, they're going to attack it with their PR machine. IA's Open Library has been around for 13 years and operates on the same legal basis as dozens of traditional libraries that offer their works for free lending over the internet. IA is very careful to follow the letter of the law. They have archived physical copies of every book that they lend, and as xaosflux discovered, they only lend as many digital copies as they have physical copies. This is why IA feels free to ignore all the bogus DMCA take-down notices they receive. There's nothing legally controversial about what they're doing, although I'm not surprised that the Author's Guild is complaining about it. They tried to sue Hathitrust and other libraries several years ago for the exact same thing (digital lending of copyrighted works) and lost spectacularly. I would agree with Hawkeye though that we need to be careful about what we link to from our references. For example, I would actually support removing links to Google Books, as their model is more legally questionable (which is probably why Google settled with the Author's Guild rather than battling them in court). Kaldari (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  I only said I had concerns. I trust the judgement of my fellow editors. (It turns out I have an IA account. Don't know where it came from.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Echoing Kaldari: this doesn't look like spam to me, but an improvement over the links to Google Books -- a link to a digital library w/ full-text access to the source. And unfortunately, the 'Authors Guild' does not (despite its name) represent most authors, and has spent its entire budget for the past decade filing and losing a series of trolling lawsuits. – SJ + 17:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Hawkeye7, Xaosflux, and Cyberpower678:. My apologies for not responding sooner. I saw Xaosflux's ping last night but was unavailable to respond as I was out rather late & didn't have the chance. I am glad that this is all resolved. If you have any questions for me, please do let me know (and ping). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Neither Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot nor Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteiniBot 2 were ever transcluded here, and the operator is the sockpuppet of a CU blocked user (see User talk:JJBullet#Other accounts). Would a BAG member take a look and close them? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WongathonBot was created in April - the operator's 1 global edit was its creation --DannyS712 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

BRFA is backlogged

Hey everyone, BRFA is backlogged again. At time of writing, there are 8 requests in need of BAG attention, and 9 requests where the trial has been completed. Could we please get some attention on these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @Anomie, @Cyberpower678, @Headbomb, @HighInBC, @MBisanz, @MusikAnimal, @Primefac, @Slakr, @SQL, @The Earwig, @TheSandDoctor, @Xaosflux, @Hellknowz, @Jarry1250, @Kingpin13, @Maxim, @MaxSem, @Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we can always use help - but to be fair on the "18" - 10 of these are from just 2 operators, so the number of "people" waiting is much lower. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see how that changes anything. Even if only two people were waiting, that's two too many imo. -FASTILY 06:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I did 2 yesterday, next :D — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We're down to 4 with trial completed (and one of those marked for attention) and only 2 open. I would argue that waiting for a BRFA is a very likely possibility at any given point, especially when a single editor might put in a half-dozen requests in as many days. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Review request

Monkbot 16:

It's not clear that there is consensus for this task, there is a discussion at AN that is WP:SNOWing for a revert of the changes that make this necessary.

Even if the changes are approved, it may make more sense to add the changes to WP:AWB general fixes for a couple of years, before finishing off by bot.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC).

As closing BAG, I have read through the majority of the AN discussion and find that the consensus, while snowing, seems to be swinging away from "mass revert of everything" to only undoing those changes not specifically addressed at the RFC. Thus, I feel the changing-of-params change will stand and the task can proceed. I do appreciate the botop's voluntary delay of implementation, though. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, AN discussion has been closed and the conversion process can proceed. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BubbleArtBot

I just wanted to notify BAG of this BRFA for a bot without an identified operator and who is editing their own BRFA and other pages. --Trialpears (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: thanks, that BRFA has been closed, account is softblocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"BRFA" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BRFA. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

New non-standard BRFAs

Just wanted to tell the BAG about some new non-transcluded BRFAs. First Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KnuthuehneBot; a BRFA accidentally created here instead of wikidata. The author has now created a BRFA at wd. Secondly Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/terminator a BRFA empty exccept for the title terminator. I CSD it as a test page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

PearBOT II

Due to issues with tasks scheduled through tool forge being cancelled by running non-scheduled tasks through AWB or PAWS I would like to run my no-scheduled tasks on a second tasks on a second bot account, User:PearBOT II. This will be particularly relevant now that PearBOT 5 is approved which will edit a ton of pages through PAWS. Could I get a bot flag on this second account as well? I will redirect the user page of PearBOT II to User:PearBOT and explain the situation there. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: so you want to run some tasks under one account, and other under a second account? That is generally OK, it should be documented which tasks belong with each account. Can you mock up the documentation? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, done. There is now a short explanation at User:PearBOT. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: seems fine, do you want a bot flag on PearBOT II? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Yes I do. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Could AWB access be moved from PearBOT to PearBOT II as well since all AWB tasks would fall under PearBOT II? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Revoking all 3 previous BRFAs for Dreamy Jazz Bot

Would a BAG revoke the approval for all three BRFAs for Dreamy Jazz Bot. They don't / are unlikely to be approved by the community since they have been inactive since March and the portals landscape has changed a lot. I also have no plans to run these tasks again. Once this is done, could you also change the {{bot}} template on the userpage as not being approved on any task. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: The approval doesn't need to be revoked if you intend to voluntarily stop running the task. Revocations are normally used where the community or ArbCom is forcing the operator to stop. Is there a reason you want them formally revoked?

As for the bot's user page, you're free to update it as you wish. It does not seem to be protected. Anomie⚔ 16:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: agree, nothing needed on the BRFA side, and the bot is already deflagged as retired, starting any new tasks or restarting an old task would already require a new BRFA. I suggest you don't remove those from your task list, but instead just mark that they are "complete" or "former" or "deactivated". That way anyone looking at past edits would know what was going on, that it was approved, etc. This is certainly not required. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Anomie, the only reason would be just for a formality. I see what you mean, but it was more that these tasks were not going to run again, so I thought formally revoking them would remove any confusion. It was more that if the BRFAs were revoked, then the bot does not have the approval of the community so that inactive would need to be changed to unapproved in the {{bot}} template on the userpage. Thanks anyway. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that's our point, though; officially/technically the approval hasn't been revoked, you're just deciding not to run the task. There's nothing compelling a user to run their bots, so just say that you've finished with them and call it a day. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DaedanBot

Another untranscluded BRFA this one isn't asking for approval but that their bot account should be unblocked. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

BRFA Backlog

Hey folks, just a friendly reminder that BRFA is backlogged again, and we've got several requests which have been languishing for months. Could we please get some attention to these? Courtesy ping for active BAG members: @Anomie, @Cyberpower678, @Enterprisey, @Headbomb, @HighInBC, @MBisanz, @MusikAnimal, @Primefac, @Slakr, @The Earwig, @TheSandDoctor, @Xaosflux, @Hellknowz, @Jarry1250, @Kingpin13, @Maxim, @MaxSem, @SQL, @Tawker. Thanks, FASTILY 03:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The backlog is piling up again. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Per the notice at the top of this page, I'm going to make a note of this at WP:BOTN as well. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Heaven forbid. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That was quick! --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I was going through the list when I saw this note pop up. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, I guess you could say that was the prime factor in resolving the issue... I'll see myself out Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Re-activate request for JoelHelperBot

Hello, I started work on JoelHelperBot a few years ago and made a few edits with it, but then never got around to finishing the task. I've been reviving it recently, and am ready now to make the first full batch of edits. The original request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/JoelHelperBot, and description there is still accurate as to the bot's goal - some (but not all) of the improvements it aims to make have been made or more widely applied by others in the ensuing years. Thanks! The Human Spellchecker (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BOTPOL#activity, you'll need to file a new BRFA. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Will do. The Human Spellchecker (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Approval of InternetArchiveBot 3 has been contested

The approval of InternetArchiveBot 3 has been contested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Stop InternetArchiveBot from linking books. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

But the links are not considered illegal in any jurisdiction.--Moxy 🍁 03:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The question is not whether the links are illegal, it's whether they violate our policies and guidelines, which they seem to in multiple ways. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the complaint doesn't make sense to me. It seems to be driven by the smear campaign against IA in the public sphere. – SJ + 19:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Change of Operation - User:NoSandboxesHere

So I am looking at switching User:NoSandboxesHere from AWB to a always-running PHP script. It does exactly the same thing as the AWB process (just does a regex search on anything in the Draft namespace with {{User sandbox}} or {{Userspace draft}}), however doesn't rely on Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox, it uses getTransclusions from RMCD bot's version of botclasses, filtering by the namespace.

Do I need a new/replacement BRFA for this or can I go ahead and just switch it out. Example diff in my userspace is just here ({{Fuuuuuu}} is just an invalid template I added to the script to make sure the API calls were working) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

We are creating a bot to scrape information of Malls in United States from the Wiki pages. Mall Data Scraping Bot (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: User:Mall Data Scraping Bot: If you don't want to make any edits, see Wikipedia:Database download. If you want to have a bot make edits, a request must be made using your own, non-bot, account. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Approval for my pictures in an article

Hello, I have inserted two pictures, Dainikjagran.jpg and Hindustanarticle.jpg, in an article. Both are original and aren't copyrighted material. That's an extract from a newspaper, which is legal to use. But now both are nominated for speedy deletion. Please approve both the images back. Don't delete them. Enigmaticpravin (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bots/Requests for approval page, you may want to follow up with whomever you were discussing that with on their own talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

QEDKbot

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.

---

QEDKbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot on 20 May 2020, by @Primefac. The approval seems surprising, since there were several well-founded objections, and no community consensus for its functions. The BRFA was advertised at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/QEDKbot, but not at any page which concentrates editors who work on categories, such as WT:CATP.

The bot's function is to populate Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. That category was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Category:Empty_categories_with_no_backlinks, and the discussion is still open. I spotted the discussion yesterday, and while the bot owner QEDK has been prompt and courteous in their replies, I haven't been able to glean from QEDK any clear explanation of what purpose is served by filling Category:Empty categories with no backlinks with category redirects. Those categories are supposed to be empty and to have no backlinks, so this amounts to categorising them as "all OK" ... which seems pointless.

In July, this was raised at User talk:QEDK#Category_redirects (permalink)by @Mclay1. There were two replies from QEDK, who could offer no explanation for the utility of this category beyond It's for housekeeping[3], which tells us nothing. Exactly what "housekeeping" is facilitated by this category?

Anyway with the CFD open I was very surprised to see that the bot has still been running. The CFD was notified to QEDK at 18:27, 9 August 2020 [4] by UnitedStatesian ... yet 2 minutes later, at 18:20, QEDKbot made its first edit[5] for two hours ... and in total, it has so far made 207 edits since the CFD opened. (see contribs list)

When the category's future is being discussed, it seems perverse for a bot to continue to populate it. At best that's WP:RECKLESS; at worst it's a bit WP:FAIT.

So I have two requests:

1. Please can the bot's authorisation be revoked for now, without prejudice to any future new authorisation if there is community consensus that this bot serves some useful purpose?
2. Please can all deletions by QEDKbot be reviewed, and any category redirects restored. I see for example that on 27 Feb 2020, the bot deleted Category:Fianna Fail leadership elections, which I presume was a redirect to Category:Fianna Fáil leadership elections; if not, it should have been a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @BrownHairedGirl:, I of course endorse both your requests, and would add a third:

3. That no reauthorization be given until the operator demonstrates that a page loggging all its CSD tagging is fully functional, to facilitate review of any deletions, of the sort requested in 2. above or otherwise, by non-administrators such as myself and User:BrownHairedGirl. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that third point, @UnitedStatesian. On top of the general problem of the bot being pointless, it lacks transparency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

After my brief conversation about the bot with QEDK, I still don't understand the point of tagging category redirects, for the same reasons BrownHairedGirl pointed out. To me, it seems like the creator of the bot misunderstood the function of category redirects. They do not serve the same purpose as regular redirects, and they should have no backlinks. The category redirect function should be removed regardless of whether the bot serves some other useful function. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: A lot of misleading accusations here and there. So, let me address them in order:

• Re: no community consensus The bot was advertised at AN because it was an adminbot, it received quite a few comments on the BRFA w.r.t. its feasability - and a lot of the points were discussed and implemented.
• Re: why only category redirects? I have explained this multiple times that I need more time to actually make the bot work with other kinds of categories, and that category redirects were simply for demonstration. I have university and a part-time job, how easy is it to write programs in the time that's left?
• Re: no transparency How is this bot any different from other bots? ClueBot's all edits are found in its contribution, same with QEDKbot. MusikBot's protection actions are found in its protection logs. If you want to see what edits QEDKbot makes, see contributions, if you want to see deletions, see the Deletion logs. Even then, I still had written the code - I simply didn't get enough time to test it and it was buggy.
• Re: category redirects don't have backlinks Except they do. And the point of keeping them lying around is so that we can preserve the ones with some usage. In fact, a lot of them have a lot of backlinks (feel free to write a script and check this), the ones with no backlinks are basically pointless (in most cases, but in some cases, not).
• Re: bad deletions The bot only deletes categories in narrow circumstances, in the only example cited, the category was tagged by the owner and stated to be "created in error", so the point is moot.

That's all. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK:

1. feasibility ≠ desirability
   Yes, the bot does work. But that doesn't mean that the functionality is wanted or needed..
2. if categorising the redirects is simply for demonstration ... the you have demonstrated that the bot can do something with then. Demo over.
   Lack of time to create useful functionality is not grounds for running bot with no utility.
3. On transparency, UnitedStatesian has explained the problem several times
4. On the purpose of category redirects, you clearly have views on their utility ... but there is no sign that you have ever attempted to seek consensus for your view. You should not be running a bot in pursuit of a personal view for which you cannot demonstrate a clear consensus. Basically, this bot is preparing the ground for deletion of category redirects ... and there is no consensus for that.
   Also, note that your stated desire the delete category redirects contradicts your earlier statement about the redirects just being a demo.
   Your statement that the ones with no backlinks are basically pointless is alarming, because it shows a severe misunderstanding of how category redirects work and how they are used.
   • A category redirect which has no backlinks but is navigated by dozen of readers every day, is in your view basically pointless. That is perverse.
   • A category redirect which has no backlinks but is used by editors to categorise articles, is your view basically pointless. That is also perverse.
     Do you even know how category redirects help to categorise articles? If the editor is using WP:HOTCAT, then HOTCAT will automatically resolve the redirect before saving. And if the category is added by editing the wikicode, and HotCat isn't around to fix it, then User:RussBot will pick it up and fix it: see User:RussBot/category redirect log. Your intended removal of category redirects will break both HotCat and RussBot's functionality. There are thousands of category redirects which exist to resolve variations in language or typography, e.g, Category:Sinn Fein→Category:Sinn Féin or Category:German-Turkish relations→Category:Germany–Turkey relations ... but your only measure of their utility is backlinks which have not yet been fixed. That ignore readers and editors who use the redirects to navigate and to categorise pages.
     Similarly the ~14,500 redirects between the ENGVAR spelling variations of organisation/organization. The vast majority of them have no backlinks, but your seem oblivious to the consensus to mass-create them: see WT:CATP#Organi[SZ]ations_category_redirects (permalink).

You have clearly done a fine job on the programming. But I am annoyed to find that is really all about your desire to pave the way for mass deletion of category redirects, because you didn't state that goal upfront, let alone seek consensus for it. That is no basis for a bot, let alone one which is adding otherwise pointless categories to redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by mass deletion? The bot doesn't delete even one category redirect, it's up to another administrator. I don't think you understand, because I said they are G6-able, not that they should be G6-ed. And I very clearly stated, "most" of them are basically pointless as is demonstrated by the handful of pageviews that most of category redirects get, so your counterpoint is baseless because I am generalizing and you are cherry-picking. I have no intention on removal at all, in fact, I think you're really misconstruing my suggested actions as something I intend to do. And you go on and on about category redirects but don't really understand that what the bot does is fundamentally different from your claims. I didn't seek consensus for mass deletion of category redirects because the bot does not do that, is that not simple enough to get? I have no issue with category redirects being around but some of them serve no use and that usage can be tracked with backlinks to some extent, that's it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Grrrr. No, I am not misconstruing your actions. Your bot is not pulling the trigger, but you are making the hitlist for a pattern of deletions which you desire but for which you have not sought consensus. Despite being repeatedly asked both here and at CFD, you have not identified any utility for this bot other than creating that hitlist.

And I understand perfectly well what the bot does: it adds category redirects to your hitlist.

However, you still clearly do not understand the purpose and uses of category redirects, because backlinks are the least significant of their four main purposes. It just happens to be a usage which the bot can measure, but a little bit of logic shows that it is a completely bonkers, naive measure: if there are dozens of links to the redirects, and one or two new ones are added every few weeks, then when somebody cleans them all up your bot will see no backlinks and add the redirect to your kill list. A week, when someone creates another link, the redirect will be gone. We don't remove article redirects just because they don't currently have a hardcoded incoming link, and there is no basis for removing category redirects on that basis. Desired deletions of article redirects are discussed at WP:RFD, and category redirects at WP:CFD .... but you have decided to bypass the consensus-building processes at CFD, and instead create a hitlist for misuse of WP:G6. If you want category redirects to be culled in this way, then the proper way to do it is to open an WP:RFC. Instead you made a bot request to implement your kill list without even notifying WP:CATP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What "hitlist"? Can you demonstrate that this "hitlist" has had mass deletions? If you have no evidence for this why are you choosing this sensationalistic wording? I've explained the rationale multiple times (and it was done at the BRFA as well) so me not identifying any utility is your perception, not fact. You seem to quite interesting in translating a tracking category into a "kill" list but forget that administrators could choose to delete them anyway (and anyone could nominate them at CFD), the bot doesn't do anything other than "track" potentially useless categories. I have no interest in "culling" and I suggest you drop that narrative. No one is saying that they have to be removed, but that some of them can be - and that seems to be nuance you're missing. I've already stated that tagging beyond category redirects and logging are feasible, and will be done, I don't see what else I can do here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, please stop this evasion, and please own your own words. You have made it very clear that A) the ones with no backlinks are basically pointless (in most cases, and that B) they can be deleted by G6. So it is entirely clear that the whole purpose of this bot is making a hitlist to cull redirects. You have now made your goal crystal clear (which you didn't do at the grossly under-notified BRFA), and your attempt to cast that as my "narrative" or "perception" is a viciously nasty response: it's gaslighting. Please conduct yourself much better. I have seen this pattern before: -manipulation of consensus-formation (by woefully inadequate notification and lack of upfront clarity about goals) and then a belated admissson of the real goal followed by an attempt at gaslighting the objectors, It is very nasty stuff; please stop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Quit the virtue-signalling. The very person you're against, speaking out against you is a standard expectation, it's not gaslighting - and again, quit the sensationalism, this is a collaborative environment, not your primetime American talk show. You keep saying goals being made "crystal clear" and what not but have no evidence for any such mass deletion, what are you on about? The BRFA had 14 unique editors which is at at the higher end for a BRFA, and you call it manipulation of consensus, so I don't know what your words are supposed to mean. You also seem to suggest a pattern, so maybe you can point out the pattern for the visitors to this page? And I know you're quite into labelling detractors as gaslighters and what not, but using that word in such a minor context just takes away from the actual roots of the word, based in emotional abuse and gender inequality - which is not what any respectable editor in this community should do. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A shameful response. This is indeed a collaborative environment, which is why I am horrified at your manipulative conduct.

Yes, the BRFA had 14 editors ... but it didn't have any of the editors who do most of the consensus-building work on deleting categories and developing guidelines... because you chose to ignore the instructions at WP:BRFA point I, 2nd bullet to

If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task in the appropriate forums. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects.

You didn't notify the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects, and you didn't ask anywhere for any help in finding such places. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Can you please explain what you think constitutes a useful category redirect? In my view, categories are only used to categorise pages; whether or not there are any other links to those categories is meaningless. With category redirects, there shouldn't ever be any pages in them, and unless there's been a discussion about them, there probably won't be any links either. As I understand it, they're used to prevent duplicate categories and aid searches. Very few category redirects are just bad misspellings in the way many article redirects are. They're not automatically created from page moves. They're made deliberately. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that they are useful and it's also quite plausible that they are not, and having a backlink doesn't automatically consitute usefulness automatically but rather serves to prove that an unlikely redirect that has no backlinks is quite possibly not worth keeping around. Not all of them are created deliberately though and even the ones that are, might not be worth keeping around. A category is only as useful as the members it contains, we have C1 for categories that don't, but it's quite possible that some categories could be exempted from that which shouldn't be, that's as simple as creating pointless redirects from А to A (the former is a Cyrillic A) to something like Category:All deaths that have occurred in 2020 which is a long-winded name for a category that already exists and these would be exempted from C1 because they are redirects, but if they have no backlinks and this is checked by a bot, deletion of such categories is much easier to handle - especially because a lot of the categories we presently have are permanently empty and it's impossible to determine if all of them should be kept so anything that makes clean up easier has a rationale to be around, and none of this is mass deletion because an administrator will still have to review the category of their own volition at CfD/CSD before deleting it. This tracking category serves only to be an indicator of (non-)usefulness of an empty category, category redirects are but a small aspect of it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see how it makes it easier. If we're saying that having no backlinks makes a category redirect more likely to be useless (which I disagree with), on top of all the false positives and false negatives of that logic, there will be so many redirects tagged that no one is going to go through them all to check. Most of them will have no consensus to delete. It's much better to just nominate individual redirects as you find them. As you say, no category redirects are valid under C1 because they're supposed to be empty (and we have bots to automatically move any pages placed in them), so under what criteria would a "pointless" category redirect be nominated for deletion? I can't see how they could be deleted in any way other than a regular deletion discussion, and I can't see how the bot is making that easier. Do you have an example of a category redirect with a backlink that isn't from a discussion about it? I can see how it might be useful for empty categories that aren't redirects, though surely it would be much better to just track that and not have the tracking category polluted by all the redirects (which will greatly outnumber any others). But how many empty categories that aren't redirects are there? Don't we already have bots for patrolling that? There are a few tracking categories that are sometimes empty, but they are useful and are highly unlikely to have no backlinks. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mclay1: It was in the works and I pushed it today, so it's no longer exclusive to category redirects. And even though we have around 92k category redirects, only around 50k seem to have no backlinks. So, clearly there is a disparity and the "no category redirects have backlinks" claim is false if so many don't. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's quite extraordinary that after all the discussion on this page and at CFD, QEDK still persists in the false notion that a category redirect with no backlinks is somehow a problem which needs to be categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also quite extraordinary that when there are two current discussions in which all participants oppose the bot's work, QEDK's response is not to pause the bot and seek consensus ... but instead to expand the scope of the bot's work. That is not compatible with the instructions at WP:BOTISSUE that Bot operators are expected to be responsive to the community's concerns and suggestions. The collabrorative way to respond to objections is to pause and discuss ... but QEDK has chosen to do the exact opposite, by engaging a higher gear.

There are currently 53,145 pages in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, of which https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17146842 finds that 53,018 are category redirects. So 99.76% of the the contents Category:Empty categories with no backlinks are redirects, which shouldn't have backlinks. This is a useless set: it would be massively more useful to simply make a list of the 127 pages which are not redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I was demonstrating that the functions previously requested by Liz and US were dealt with. I was planning to disable it once I could demonstrate that, so I will be disabling it shortly. As I've stated before, it isn't a problem but it's being tracked because it could be an indication of a problem. The point of contention differs between all of you on the bot and category. That's not consensus but I understand the sentiment anyway. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, the bot has been revised to exclude redirects, so that we will get the list of 127 pages. It may be worthwhile to wait and have a look what these 127 pages actually are. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I hope that the changes will lead to creating a list, rather than the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

QEDKbot malfunctioning, bot owner not fixing

I just spotted that at 14:27, 22 August 2020‎, the bot added[6] to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, even though it is a disambiguation category.

https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17167124 shows that there are 441 categories which are in both Category:Empty categories with no backlinks and Category:Disambiguation categories -- presumably all added by the bot.

Note that at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/QEDKbot, WEDK pledged that: "If the category is tagged with {{Db-c1}}, {{Possibly empty category}}, {{Disambiguation category}}, {{Cfd full}} (Cf* to be accurate) or its redirecting templates, it will skip the page."

It isn't doing that: see also User talk:QEDK#please_fix_your_bot

I am pleased to see that QEDK says they have shut off this wretched disruptive bot ... but it seems very clear that it is not being competently run. Even if QEDK can't made the code work, they should at least be checking the bot's actions so that they spot these errors yourself ... and then fix them. Instead, nearly 36 hours later, these 441 errors are un-noticed and unfixed.

At 12:23 on 21 August, QEDK said[7] that the bot had been revised to stop placing category redirects in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, but too has not happened: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17167197 shows that 53349 category redirects are still in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which is over half of the 97,802 categories in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

This beaches at least two counts of WP:BOTACC:

1. "Bot accounts should not be used for contributions that do not fall within the scope of the bot's designated tasks."
2. "In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly"

Please BAG, can you just revoke this bot's authorisation? There is no consensus to support its declared actions, the bot owner is failing to:

1. make the bot work within its remit
2. check the bot's edits
3. fix the bot's prolific errors

Pinging some WP:BAG members. @TheSandDoctor, Headbomb, Xaosflux, and Primefac: please stop this bot. If it creates any more mischief, I will take this to ANI to ask for the bot to be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The bot has not edited for almost two days. There is no need to have the bot blocked. I haven't had a chance to look into this too deeply, but I will say that just from a quick skim there seems to be an inordinate amount of vitriol being thrown around. I know it's a subject certain editors are passionate about, but it's also part of the reason why I've wanted to see how things shook out before diving in. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

After review here, I see no grounds to revoke or even amend the scope of QEDKbot. QEDK shut the bot down while he investigates an issue with its behaviour. This is responsible bot owner behaviour. You don't get to ask for a block, jumping ahead in the steps outlined at WP:BOTISSUE, simply because a bot operator has a different schedule than yours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the above points by Headbomb and Primefac. Please review WP:BOTISSUE prior to making such requests. At this point in time, I am going to say that that request is  Denied under current circumstances. Bringing this to ANI requesting a block is certainly within your choice, but I would recommend against it at this time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor, Headbomb, and Primefac: the problem here is that QEDK promised to fix the bot to remove the ~50,000 category redirects from Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. Instead of doing that, QEDK set the bot off on a spree of adding further pages to a category which is up or deletion at CFD, including the cat dab pages ... and did not remove the category redirects. QEDK's statement below that they have identified the issue and fixed the code does not state what the revised code is intended to do. Will it untag the category redirects? Will it untag the cat dabs? QEDK gives no clarity.

There is also not commitment from QEDK to monitor the bot's operation: the flaws so far have been detected by others, not by the bot owner.

This wretched bot was approved without proper community consensus, and it is clearly running in experimental mode across the whole set of categories. Even if BAG is still happy to overlook the lack of community consensus for this bot's actions, it should not have gotten past trial stage until those issues had been resolved. And on top of that, the bot owner fails to communicate with clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts, and I genuinely am not trying to dump it all on you but I still haven't had an opportunity to really dig into the substance of the initial concern and all that has been posted here; I'm just replying to your latest statement. First, I seem to recall that the bot does not need to untag the categories in the "no backlinks" category, because when the CFD closes as "delete" a different bot will handle the orphaning. Second, you keep saying essentially "no one knew this bot existed, and it was approved lightning fast without any trial." It did go to trial (twice!) with 140 edits made to categories, and the process took four months from time of first trial to time of acceptance. As far as the "gotten past trial" comment re: the BRFA, every single time someone said "what about..." or "this is broken" the issues were dealt with; that's why we do trials (and second trials) in the first place.

Again, I'm literally just replying to your last comment, and I totally understand your frustration, but it's starting to sound like a reasonable issue is being blown out of proportion (though I do understand the juxtaposition of saying "reasonable" matched with 50k potentially problematic edits, more that it's a single issue). I'll do my best to take a proper look at this later today and give my full thoughts further down the page. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Primefac. The issue here is that more 50% of all en.wp's category redirects have been tagged with a category whose stated purpose is that they have a flaw which may merit speedy deletion per WP:G6 ... even though the alleged flaw is in fact an indication of a healthy category redirect. That is a real biggie: a potentially massive amount of damage to the category tree, which would have devastating effect on the ability of editors to accurately categorise articles. And since G6 requires no prior notification, the bot's tagging of the categories may be the last warning before deletion.

That's why I am so concerned about this ... and the reason I am angry about it is that the bot owner is repeatedly deceptive, evasive and gaslighting (if needed, I will provide multiple diffs to support each of those assertions). Quite the most unpleasant bot owner I have encountered since the dark days of BetaCommand, and I have no doubt at all that their appalling handling of objections is alone enough to leaves them totally unfit to run a bot, even w/o considering the other factors.

The underlying issue is that there is no consensus for the bot's purpose, because no category-related page was notified, so most editors who work on categories did not know about it (I didn't spot it until the category was at CFD). QEDK has explained that they were unaware of any relevant pages ... which, if true, would mean that they were unaware of WT:CFD, WT:CATP, WT:CSD, WT:OC. I find that highly implausible (an admin who doesn't even know that one of the XFDs exists?), but in the unlikely event that it is true, it was QEDK's responsibility to ask "where should I leave notices to catch the attention of editors specifically interested in categories". QEDK did not do that, and instead claims hilariously that he did due diligence. Sorry, but dunno + didn't ask ≠ due diligence.

With respect, I think you made a rare misjudgement (I truly do mean rare) in authorising the bot without any notifications on category-specific pages, let alone any prior discussions there. Compare and contrast with the extensive discussion at WT:CATP on pre-proposal of BHGbot 6 and pre-proposal of BHGbot 7. Editors there do play close attention to bot proposals, if asked ... but in this case there were not asked. And one of the things that really annoys me about this is that almost 100% of the work of WP:BHGbot 7 is now in the Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which QEDK regards as mostly fit for deletion. In other words, massive consultation led to BHGbot 7's output; but a stealthy proposal may wipe it all.

As the CFD, yes, you're right, if the CFD is closed as delete, then all it pages will be removed from the category.

However, the CFD is still open after 15 days, and even tho the !voters are 100% delete, a potential closer faces an unusual dilemma: how to weigh the apparent contrast between the CfD !votes and the fact that the BRFA was approved? How does this all fit with WP:LOCALCON? Any possible close there is problematic, because deleting the cat effectively kills the bot ... and not deleting the cat ignores the fact that at CFD, nobody backs the bot-owner.

AND QEDK has outright refused to remove the category redirects from the Category:Empty categories with no backlinks:[8] I will not be uncategorising category redirects because that does not fall within the remit of the bot's stated functions (and would thus be considered misuse of the bot)

That's why I think this is back in BAG's court. Revoking the bot authorisation allows the CFD to be closed. And a fresh BRFA at some future date, properly notified after pre-discussion, can consider whether there is consensus for any of the bots functions ... as well as whether this bot-owner is competent to run a bot.

But if BAG fails to revoke, then we will have a clash of two processes which will have to be escalated (to be clear, I will escalate if this isn't resolved, but I am unlikely to be alone). It seems to me to be vastly preferable to go back to the start and do the proper consensus-building rather than to plough ahead in an escalating drama. Sorry this has ended up so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Enough. I've removed both of your recent comments because neither one is at all helpful to this situation. You've both said more than enough about this situation, and you've long since stopped saying anything useful. Let me look over the damn situation and knock off the sniping. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, this has turned sour because of failings in BAG's oversight on two key issues: consensus for the bot's operations, and the failure the bot owner to uphold basic standards of effective communication, let alone the enhanced requirements of WP:BOTCOMM. I appreciate that you and the other BAG members are volunteers with limited time, but this does need resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per my reply to Trappist on my TP, I've identified the issue and fixed the code. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

BAG analysis

I'm not going to bother going into a lot of detail about my findings, because quite honestly there has been about 40k worth of text already dedicated to it. I'll do my best to summarize. The bot, as described in the BRFA, performs the following operations:

1. Goes over all existing category pages with zero members
2. Tags the page if:
   1. It is a category redirect with no backlinks (via the oft-mentioned Category:Empty categories with no backlinks)
   2. It is not tagged with some sort of "possible empty", dab, or CSD template (via WP:C1 nomination)
3. Deletes a C1-tagged page if it does not meet 2.1 or 2.2's criteria and has been empty for 7 days

From everything I've read, the only contentious part of this bot run is 2.1, which in hindsight is reasonable given the scale of the editing and the ensuing apparent disruption to those heavily involved in category maintenance. Unless I'm missing part of a discussion, though, tagging or deleting as C1 has not been a concern of this bot. And yes, I know that there were some issues with mis-tagged C1 pages, but those bugs have apparently been dealt with and are not concerns with the task itself.

In other words, I find no reason to completely revoke permission for this bot, only the revoking of subtask 2.1. Unless one of my fellow BAG members feels otherwise, or there is demonstrated consensus against the other subtasks of this bot, I will consider this matter closed. QEDK, in the interest of good faith, please do not restart this bot task until one of us (BAG) gives the go-ahead, if only to allow for any further discussion that might arise from other parties. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac. This is valuable progress.

Yes, the contentious issue has been the tagging of category redirects with no backlinks (via the oft-mentioned Category:Empty categories with no backlinks). Revoking that task is the key first step to resolving the dispute.

However, revoking 2.1 does not of itself sort everything. That would still leave us with a bot which populates Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which there is a currently consensus to delete. We just await the CFD's closure).

If the category is not deleted, then the ~50,000 category redirects need to be removed from it. QEDK has refused to do that ... so who will do it?

If the bot continue its WP:C1 task, it would better to create a report rather than edit the category. Many categories fluctuate around emptiness, and the bot's approach of categorising will lead to a significant amount of editing as pages are added to and then removed from Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. Other similar task create reports, and the objection to doing that in this case was based on the sheer volume of category redirects. That no longer applies.

When the catredirs and catdabs are excluded, we are left with about 1898 pages potentially eligible for C1 (see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17176395) ... but a significant proportion of those are WikiProject assessment categories, many of which which also fluctuate around emptiness and should be tagged with Possibly empty category. Those should also not be C1ed, and even excluding Category:Articles by quality and importance+subcats and Category:Wikipedia vital articles+subcats still leaves a set of ~600 pages of which about half are WikiProject assessment categories (see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17176443). I took those Petscan rosults offline to filter out the pages whose titles include "-Class" or "-importance, and was left with 503 pages. But that set of 503 still contains ~#100 subcats of Category:Articles containing non-English-language text, which should also not deleted when empty, plus dozens of need-infobox categories which should also be tagged as possibly empty ... and there are probably more sets of false positives.

In other words, even without task 2.1, the bot needs masses of ongoing tuning to resolve the wide range of false positives which it is generating. Its owner needs to work with the community to deploy Possibly empty category more widely, and to engage openly with the wide range of issues that raises. That is important in building a useful list, but if the bot is doing any automatic CSD tagging or deletion, then it is absolutely essential that such false positives be entirely eliminated.

Such fine-tuning of the bot's scope requires a bot owner with high communication skills who actively seeks out feedback, welcomes criticism, responds clearly and promptly to concerns, restricts the bot to non-contentious actions, and above all works hard to build consensus. Unfortunately in this case, we very clearly do NOT have such a bot operator.

If this bot continues in any form, we remain with the unresolved problem of QEDK's appalling communication style, and especially their contempt for WP:BOTCOMM. This harks back to the Betacommand fiasco, who was a very competent programmer but entirely lacked communication and consensus-building skills, leading to mega-dramas. BAG at the time paid insufficient attention to the non-technical issues, which thankfully appeared to be resolved by the demise of those bots and by a sort of reboot of BAG. I welcome the move to resolve the biggest technical issue with this bot, but I am concerned that there has been far too little scrutiny of the rest of its tasks, and that BAG is not addressing the bot owner issues which have been starkly revealed over the last week. This bot's scope involves masses of nuance and complexity, but its owner does not even communicate effectively on simple issues, and is actively hostile to nuance and complexity.

And I am sorry, this long ... because there are so many unresolved issues --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little confused at your reply. I'll try to break it down

• ...revoking 2.1 does not of itself sort everything. That would still leave us with a bot which populates... no, if 2.1 is revoked then the bot will not be populating that category, since that is task 2.1.
• If the category is not deleted... it currently has unanimous consensus to delete
• If the bot continue its WP:C1 task... This one requires a little more than a hand-wavey reply, but what I am gathering from your concern is that a whole lot of categories that should have the required "exclusion templates" but don't will be nominated, in other words the false positives. This is not a problem with the bot, or the operator, or even the task itself, but rather with the actions (or inactions, in a way) of the editors who set up the categories falling into this false-positive group. It is not qedk's responsibility to make sure every category that is empty and nominated should be nominated (at which point it would be a 100% manual task and defeat the purpose of a bot), and I suspect that's one of the primary reasons why db-c1 has a one-week delay time; to give other editors enough of an opportunity to see why the category they created has suddenly been nominated. If anything, this bot will help in that process by pointing out potentially valuable categories that have been mis-managed (through intention or accident). Additionally, if any of the false positives do slip through and get deleted, REFUND is a tragically easy process to navigate.

I think the only major modifications to the task might be a limitation on how many pages to tag as C1 in a single run/day/week/etc, as we of course don't want to flood Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion (or the "ready to delete" cat) with so many cats they cannot be checked in a reasonable time frame. Would that satisfy concerns about over-tagging false positives? Primefac (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, my understanding is that what you propose is to stop the bot adding category redirects to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. Surely that would still leave it still doing what you label as task 2.2, i.e. adding non-redirected categories to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks?

That's why I see a clash between the bot task and CFD. As you note, the currently has unanimous consensus to delete. But AIUI, the bot Task 2.2 will still be adding non-redirected cats to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, so the we will end up with the bot authorised to populate a non-existent category. That would be a breach of WP:REDNOT, and would flood Special:WantedCategories ... which is why I suggested that instead the bot create a list.

The false positives issue can be handled in two ways:

1. by the bot skipping certain types of categories,
   or
2. by a big effort to tag all such categs as {{Possibly empty category}}

There are merits demerits in both approaches, so some discussion is needed. The best outcome will probably be some sort of hybrid of both approaches, and I don't think it's helpful for you describe this grey area as mismanaged.

The bot is clearly already excluding some sets of categories (e.g. it seems to be skipping cats which transclude {{Category class}}), so there is no great issue of principle in adding more exclusions. It's just a mater of forming a consensus on what should be excluded, and ensuring that bot's documentation is clear about what is excluded.

I would urge that Task 3 (actual deletions by the bot) be suspended until the other issues are sorted out. That way the community can assess one of the bot's functions at a time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Task 2.2 is tagging empty categories (that aren't excluded because of {{pec}} etc) with {{db-c1}}. The disputed category at CFD has nothing to do with it. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the rest of your post, yes, skipping specific types of categories is another option (and is already being done for WikiProject assessment cats), but that somewhat favours ignoring a problem because we can't be bothered dealing with it. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, as I noted above, Category:Empty categories with no backlinks does include pages which are not part of task 2.1: see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17176395, which currently shows 1,898 of them.

Is this a bot malfunction? Or is there some discrepancy between your understanding of the bot's task and QEDK's understanding? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

They appear to be listed because of a bug, which seems to have been dealt with here. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bug, @Primefac. I think it's a feature: see [9] where QEDK (with typically unhelpful terseness) describes as a "fix" the adding of a non-redirected category to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. (That one was a possibly-empty category, so it should have been excluded on those grounds, but the relevance here is that it is a non-redirect).

So far as I can see, the issues raised by Trappist at User talk:QEDK#please_fix_your_bot relate to the failure to exclude categories with various tags such as possibly empty. They do not relate to the inclusion of non-redirects.

The simplest way to clarify this simply to ask QEDK a direct question: will removed task 2.1 make to bot sop populating Category:Empty categories with no backlinks?

If the answer to that is "yes", then problem solved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: If you keep this constant incivility and WP:ABF mentality, I will take you to WP:ANI. Consider yourself warned for the second time here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, I presume that relates to my comment about typically unhelpful terseness. The reply to which I linked was unhelpfully terse, as are many of QEDK's other replies. It is not uncivil or ABF to note that communication problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It applies to that (the response was very clear, and there's no need to spend 342 paragraphs to say something that takes 1 line to say). But it also applies to your entire interaction with QEDK and on his talk page, like assuming bad faith when QEDK said something was a bug, and you insist it's "a feature". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, I disagree: the response was not clear, for the reasons I have set out.

The point about bug/feature is not ABF: it is about clarifying whether the bots' adding of non-redirected categories to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks was an error or what QEDK intended. Please look at [10] where QEDK describes as a "fix" the adding of a non-redirected category to Category:Empty categories with no backlinks. That was in response to Marcocapelle's point about the Category:Empty categories with no backlinks being a subset of Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories, so I read it as meaning that the addition of non-redirects fixes the overlap. If QEDK meant something else, they should have explained exactly what they were fixing, rather than linking to a diff and leaving the reader to infer what was meant. We would not have needed so many paragraphs to unravel this mess if QEDK communicated clearly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That was what I meant by restricting 2.1, yes; since the category should not exist/have members, the addition of pages to that category should not be happening. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Primefac. If that category is not to be populated, then that issue is sorted. Your 2.1 as worded was narrower than that, so I am glad we have cleared up the misunderstanding.

To wrap this up, please could you leave a note at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Category:Empty_categories_with_no_backlinks confirming that the bot is no longer approved to populate this category? That will assure the closing admin there that there is no clash between the CFD consensus and the bot's mandate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to ask but what is it going to take you to realize that Wikipedia has no place for your incivility? I've ignored it time and time again but I don't think you're going to stop or improve, and I really don't know if you think your behaviour is a prime example of good WP:BOTCOMM or it's meant to be an ironic comment everytime you bring it up. That's all I'll say re: typically unhelpful terseness. I'm not sorry if your "communication" entails suffering a barrage of personal attacks, ad hominem and whatnot, I'm fine without those communications, thank you.

Now to provide some numbers to words, the bot nominates around 1-3 categories per run (that amounts to 3-9 per week), the reason that number is low is because 1) it's organic and probably arises out of someone decatting and 2) the criterion is slimmer than C1 (which itself is very restrictive). From the very first trial itself, I've been working to ensure that false positives are minimal for deletions and nominations; ofcourse it's plausible that some do fall through the cracks, but a quick look over the last 500 shows that one deletion was "bad" (it was nominated by another user and wasn't rescued), I have not received any concerns regarding this on my talk page till date so I can only presume that it works alright. In any case, @Primefac: I have no intention of running my bot until BAG gives a clear remit to do so, I totally understand that until it's sorted, you as a BAG member should put the functioning on hold (as it currently is) but I think it's clear that running a bot for this community no longer has any benefit. Coming to the question of tagging {{Pec}} categories, it was definitely not a feature (as I clarified with my reasoning to Trappist), the feature was to tag categories other than category redirects, in which process, I introduced the bug and it was fixed once I was made aware of it. Lastly, regarding "reports": I very much doubt that listing the category in a page format is suitable because MediaWiki has pagesize limits and would require the bot to make multiple pages, which would be quite difficult to navigate through, totally not worth the hassle imo, it would be simultaneously harder on end-users and me. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: A lecture from you on incivility is mighty ironic.

I did not suggest that tagging {{Pec}} categories was a feature. The issue I raised was that the bot had place a non-redirected category in Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which you described as a "fix". That's why I assumed that you intended this to be a feature. If that action was in fact an error, then your decision to describe it[11] as a "fix is bizarre. Note that the diff you posted was Special:Diff/974163791, which is a tagging of PEC category ... and I presume that you didn't intend that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Primefac: due to the length of this discussion I haven't gotten to reading all of this, but is there anything you need me on for this?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  If you think my post at the top of this section seems reasonable (i.e. I didn't miss anything obvious), that's the main thing. Primefac (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Primefac, I've never known for you to misrepresent a discussion, so it seems very reasonable to me. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 00:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Primefac, FWIW, I believe the post at the top is reasonable, and revoking 2.1 for the time being is the way to go. SQL^{Query me!} 15:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Excellent, thank you both. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: much useful progress has been made. However, Primefac's good faith summary above described what the bot was proposed, but sadly it was doing other things. Much of the discussion was resolving that issue, in which QEDK was unhelpful.
  we now have a problem that Primefac has apparently authorised restarting the bot's other function, even tho there are a set on unresolved issues with that (see [12]). The problem remains that the BRFA was inadequately notified, and hence inadequately scrutinised. Its remaining task need a new consensus-forming discussion to iron out the details. It is not helpful for a single BAG member to make their own unilteral decisions on those details. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward

qedk, I believe we're at the point where this can start being rolled out again. As a summary of my summary above, the bot has approval to:

• tag pages with {{db-c1}} if they are not a) category redirects, or b) pages with "exclusion templates" such as {{pec}} and {{catdab}}. Ideally, it would be beneficial to also skip WikiProject Assessment categories (e.g. "Stub "Start-class XYZ pages") if that is easily done.
• delete pages tagged as {{db-c1}} that meet the criteria listed in the BRFA

I am also going to temporarily include a rate limit on the C1 taggings - no more than 100 per week, if only to avoid flooding the category and allow for checks to be more easily made to ensure any pages that should have {{pec}} etc actually get them. We'll let it run like that for a few weeks and reevaluate. If this sounds acceptable, let me know, but I'm still happy to discuss any concerns. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: That sounds good to me. Regarding your first point, the bot already skips those kind (WikiProject-related) for nomination and deletion but it's more of a bruteforce strategy since a lot of those categories have no tags at all, so I'm using a combination of tag-based, title-based and content-based checks. I should also drop a note that revoking 2.1 also effectively takes away half of the 2nd BRFA's task of patrolling the category - so there needs to be roadmap on what's next. Finally, 100 as an upper limit is alright because I run the bot for a few times per week and I don't think it will get close to the upper limit at all (and I don't want to deal with the fallout of making 100 nominations by running the bot continuously). On a final note, there's also a log at User:QEDKbot/Catlog if anyone wants to see the deletions the bot makes (if it makes wrong ones, let me know) - although the titles are a bit strange even though the return types are supposed to be "string" (see here). That's about it from me. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that subtask needs the sort of discussion BHG was referring to in the original concerns about this task - asking the categorization projects how they feel it would be best to maintain and track these sorts of pages to get more buy-in. It might not happen right away, but I'm sure that some form of 2.1 will be re-implemented eventually. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac:. After all the discussion above, it would been helpful to pinged about this. That omission is surprising.

Because of the inadequate notification of the initial BRFA, these tasks have not been adequately scrutinised. Please do not re-start the bot until consensus is properly established for whatever task it is to perform.

A few specific points

1. Up above, I set out a range of category types which should not be deleted, in my post[13] of 03:09, 25 August. This includes:
   • Category:Articles by quality and importance+subcats
   • Category:Wikipedia vital articles+subcats
   • subcats of Category:Articles containing non-English-language text
   • There is a misunderstanding in Primefac's comment above about WikiProject Assessment categories (e.g. "Stub-class XYZ pages"). Stub categories (e.g. Category:Japan stubs) are populated by templates applied to article pages. They are wholly separate to WikiProject Assessment cats (e.g. Category:B-Class Japan-related articles), which are populated by talk pages, through WikiProject banner templates.
     I don't expect that editors not working intensively with categories should be fully aware of all these nuances ... but that's why more eyes and wider discussion is needed.
2. There may be other types ... but right now there is no clear documentation of what is skipped and what isn't. For example, it seems that the bot has been skipping some WikiProject assessment cats, but this is not documented
3. Until there is clear consensus for what should be skipped, any runs of the bot should make lists of category pages, rather than tagging anything for deletion. Please can we have an assurance from BAG that C1 tagging will not start until there is clear consensus for that task at a discussion which has been properly notified n category-related pages? (including WT:CFD, WT:CSD, WT:CATP)
4. It seems to be to be highly unlikely that any variant of task 2.1 will be supported. The clear consensus at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Category:Empty_categories_with_no_backlinks is fundamentally misconceived. Please can Primefac or other BAG members give an assurance that this will NOT be restarted without a new BRFA which has been clearly notified to a range of category-related pages (including WT:CFD, WT:CSD, WT:CATP).
5. The last round of logging at User:QEDKbot/Catlog was broken: see e.g. [14]. If and when there is consensus to restart the bot, please can the bot NOT be restarted until until testing has verified that logging actually works, and that its edit summaries link to the log?
6. Please can we have an assurance that if the bot is to be run by QEDK, they will uphold WP:BOTCOMM by improving their communications?
   It's highly disruptive to have a bot where the owner replies with cryptic comments like[15] (what was the "fix" in the chosen example? tagging a PEC category, or tagging a non-redirected category?), or where the bot owner deletes[16] from their talk page a notification[17] of a problem which has not been previously raised?

I do welcome the end of task 2.1. But, please please ... it's now time to build consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but you've misinterpreted or misrepresented almost everything I've said. I was referring to WikiProject assessment; heaven forbid I use the one assessment type that is also covered by article-space "stub" templates (but I'll change my example above to make it more clear). I did not give an exhaustive list of categories that would be skipped. This is exactly what I was saying earlier during the discussion - there will always be categories that are somehow "left out" of an all-exhaustive list of categories to skip, and based on the bot operator's reply it sounds like they are more than willing to adjust the exemption list as new variants arise. If we hem and haw about which cats to include or not, there will never be any progress made; better to have a few false positives be discovered than twiddle our thumbs waiting for everyone to be 100% happy.

As for 2.1, that is why I said there should be consensus. I don't really care if you don't think 2.1 will ever have consensus, it is disabled for now and will not be unless there is. Just because one category setup was shot down doesn't meant there aren't other ways to track (or keep track) of pages. This is why we have discussions.

I understand your concerns, but the modified task as I have described at the top of this section has been re-approved, as I have yet to see ndications from the other BAGs I have missed anything significant. If the task is not being run as described upon re-start (barring false positives, which are inevitable) we can revisit the issue. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2020 (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.

QEDKbot: Please re-open

@Primefac, my post was a civil and reasoned attempt to clear up unresolved issues. I am very disappointed that you have tried to shut down discussion, and considerably annoyed that in your reply of 17:38 you have falsely accused me of misinterpreted or misrepresented almost everything I've said.

Thank you for clarifying your mention of stub categories. The civil response to ambiguity is "sorry that was a bit ambiguous".

I am glad we agree that there there will always be categories that are somehow "left out" of an all-exhaustive list of categories to skip. However, we do NOT have a clear statement of what is currently being skipped, and the bot operator's response to previous requests has varied between unclear, misleading, refusing and outright abusive. That is why I seek clarity and consensus before the bot resumes tagging categories for speedy deletion.

Thanks you for your assurance that 2.1 will not restart without consensus. That was what I sought. However, there is no need to be so hostile in your reply. You had not previously said that there should be consensus. What you previously wrote was It might not happen right away, but I'm sure that some form of 2.1 will be re-implemented eventually. That left open the possibility of resumption without a fresh BRFA, which is why I sought clarification. And yes, this is why we have discussions ... and properly-notified discussions is exactly what I have been asking for since I opened this thread over a week ago once it become clear that the actions of an under-notified bot were populating a category which there appeared to be an emerging consensus to delete.

I have tried to AGF about BAG's role in this, but that is becoming increasingly difficult. Please please switch tack, and start consensus-building instead of imposing on the community a bot which does not have consensus, whose task is ill-defined, and whose operator does not resolve problems openly and effectively. (I think there probably will be consensus for something like this, but we need to clarify exactly what the community wants).

Given the clear consensus at the CFD, I am very saddened that several BAG members have chosen to cast me as a miscreant for coming here to try to resolve the issues caused by the good-faith-error of approving an under-notified BRFA by a bot-owner who does not communicate clearly and who is serially abusive.

I will now assume that I have exhausted all options here. If the bot resumes C1 tagging without resolving the outstanding issues, then I think I will probably have to escalate.

And that is very very sad. I have repeatedly asked that we have a properly-notified consensus-forming discussion about the bot's task. I find it alarming that instead of embracing the idea of building a clear consensus, BAG members seem to have dug in. Why why not just start a properly-notified discussion, and see where consensus is? This all seems bizarre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

More QEDKbot

Just as I was typing, the convo. was closed. Realize I may be too late, but I Oppose even this limited scope for the bot, for two reasons. 1) There is no mention of the log page to capture every page that the bot tags with a C1 tag. But more fundamentally, is 2): this is a classic example of trying to fix something that isn't broken. Human editors do a much better job of C1 tagging, and deleting after tagged for seven days, than the bot. To my knowledge, the two users who do almost all of the C1 tagging (@Liz:, and myself) never asked for this, don't need it, and don't want it, and AFAIK the bot designer never did the task they have (so far unsuccessfully) tried to automate, which should be a BIG red flag. The C1 tagging is a small, easily human-managed task. Please, can we get bot help instead on much, much more time-consuming tasks? (G13 tagging comes to mind, but I am sure there are many, many others). UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As for G13 tagging, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MDanielsBot 5 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian, yes you and Liz do almost all of the C1 tagging. It should be a big red flag to BAG members that none of the editors who know this area best want this bot, and that nobody else seems to want it either. The discussion at the CFD should also be a big red flag to BAG: when the bots actions were opposed, the operator's response should have been something like "OK, we need to reopen consensus-building" ... but was to dig in and dismiss an objection and then get insulting, and then post a cryptic comment about a "fix" that linked to a diff of an edit which wasn't a fix, but was actually outside the bot's remit on two counts.

I understand that BAG sometimes has to defend bot operators against unreasonable criticism ... but in this case it has dug in behind a bot which doesn't have consensus and whose operator behaves problematically.

Per my post above[18] I now assume that BAG will be of no further help. If the bot resumes editing, the only option left to us is ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• @UnitedStatesian: I don't think you've read the entire discussion because I explicitly mentioned that 1) it's logged now (it's a bit borked now, but it does log), and quoted numbers for 2) the bot already nominating pages for C1 and 3) the bot already deleting pages under C1. If you'll see deletion logs and contributions, you'll see points 2 and 3 - and if you'll see my comments above, you'll see point 1 fulfilled, in fact, most of the C1 deletions my bot does are your tags. Currently, 185 categories are awaiting deletion and note that the maintanence category, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories is almost always empty due to how category caching works. I'm still trying to get your concerns but it seems to be basically that we are automating something that can be done by humans - I think that rationale applies to all bot edits, no? We could un-automate most tasks and let editors do it but the intent of bots is to assist humans in doing repetitive tasks, C1 nominations and deletions are exactly of that pattern, imo. I'll tell you what, if the bot runs for a month or two and it's genuinely doing way out of hand numbers of bad nominations and deletions, I have no qualms with stopping it. I don't think it's worth it running a bot that's actively disruptive - and ofc, in turn, facing flak for it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• And if anyone has suggestions for things to automate (re: can we get bot help instead on much, much more time-consuming tasks), feel free to post them at my talk page, I'm always open to suggestions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @QEDK: just one point of correction: the current 185 members of Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion - about the usual amount - includes all the ones that are at any point in their seven-day waiting period. This means the ones that come up for deletion after the end of seven days is only about 20 per day (it's less than 1/7 because some fall away during the waiting period): easily manageable by the population of administrators. This is a fact those active in the area would have been happy to share, if you had thought to ask us. And can you please post here the link to the page that logs the bot's tagging? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @UnitedStatesian: The log is here (as you'll notice, it's a bit borked). I know how the category works since that's the one the bot works on (because the other one is not useful), I was just saying that the more relevant category doesn't work properly due to how MediaWiki is (which would be much easier to work on). From my bot's deletion patterns, it seems that on some days, there might no workloads and on some other days, there 20+ deletions to do - the point is that the bot only does the least contentious deletions, so administrators are freed up for more contentious CSDs, by my count, the bot tends to do <25% of the work (relative to your number, that's about 5 deletions per day), meaning that the rest is left for any other administrator to pick up. In case the bot is restarted, the log will exist and we can always go back and improve how it works to nominate and delete the categories. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      • The problem with the bot doing actual deletions is that it removes the human discretion of an admin who can spot a possible exception, such as a cat which is part of a series that shouldn't be empty. If the humans doing the deletions don't want the bot to supplement their work, why run it?
        And how does the bot identify those least contentious deletions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, but have you identified a problem yet? Where the bot has deleted a category and broken something completely? Chances are that most of the categories can be recreated right away with no issue - and the fact is that almost all categories that the bot deletes stay as redlinks, so there isn't anything to fix. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Deletions are not always easily detected after the fact. Many categories fluctuate around empty, and erroneous deletions may not be detected until longer after deletion (e.g, the subcats of Category:Articles containing non-English-language text are sometimes wrongly deleted, but are rarely spotted until they show up again at Special:WantedCategories, and they are a pain to recreate).
            The underlying issue here is that AFAICS, the bot is an attempt to solve a non-problem. The work it sets out to do has no significant backlog. Nobody except the bot owner actively wants the bot, and those most actively engaged in this area oppose it. So why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
            • I would be very surprised if a deleted category could not be undeleted/REFUNDed; things get deleted and restored all the time. Additionally, given that this is the second bot to be approved for this task (for tagging) I find the "nobody" of your reply also problematic. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

              Hmm. Maybe I should have said "nobody except the bot owner and Primefac", but I thought that part of BAG's role was to assess whether the task was contentious, rather than to have BAG decide to overrule those most closely involved in the area.
              As noted above, I find the second approval in the face of unresolved objections to be highly problematic, particularly given that it took a week to persuade BAG to drop task 2.1, and along the way several several BAG members explicitly rejected that request despite zero support. Huge amounts of time and energy have been wasted by BAG's extraordinary reluctance to seek consensus and resolve outstanding issues, which is why I still fear that this is headed for ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

              Over the course of the BRFA and thereafter, there have been multiple people who have spoken to me about the bot, and I'm sorry to say but you (and now, UnitedStatesian) are the first people to not "want" the bot. I cannot entertain the this notion when for the entirety of two months, an AN-advertised BRFA didn't get any particular opposition. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

              @QEDK: We have been over this numerous times. The BRFA was correctly notified at AN, but it was not notified at any category-related page, which per WP:BRFA it should have been.
              That meant that many of the editors who most active work on categories were unaware of the BRFA. The lack of consensus is clearly demonstrated by the unanimous opposition at CFD to task 2.1. If the BRFA had been adequately backed by consensus, that would not have happened.
              That failure of consensus-making prior to bot approval makes the BRFA invalid. If you choose to plough ahead when the bot is clearly contentious and was not properly-notified, then this whole mess belongs at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

              • This seems weirdly hypocritical given that you are the one that opened the thread eliciting responses of BAG members. If you had just chosen deal with it at ANI, it would have saved BAG and me the headache of having to engage with your conduct here, instead you seem to be using this threat to go to ANI as some sort of bargaining chip to get people to give you what you want, especially now that you were unable to get the outcome you initially wanted. In fact, this is the 5th time you're attempting to use your (and at this point, patent) "I will go to ANI, you better do what I ask!". The funny thing is I had typed out an earlier reply to Primefac where I explicitly wrote that "BHG will not rest until the bot is dismantled because it's what they want, so it doesn't matter what solution BAG might arrive at because the end result will be the same, and this entire timesink will yield nothing, as it was meant to from the start" but chose not to write that in favour of de-escalation. It seems that I was right on the money. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

                @QEDK: Quite the opposite. Far from trying to use ANI as some sort of bargaining chip, I assumed that BAG would recognise the inadequate scrutiny at BRFA, and seek fresh consensus. I was slow to give up hope of that. I even hoped that QEDK would ultimately want to establish consensus, rather than to dismisss the evident lack thereof, but clearly not.
                Anyway I have given up on BAG, and it's clear from below that you will not even allow other editors to scrutinise the list generated by the bot. So I have said what I needed to say. If you choose to proceed on the basis of a dodgy BRFA, sustained objections, and your refusal to allow others to work with you to test and develop your exclusion list, then this will be an ANI matter.
                And your ABF comment in quotes is untrue; yes, I do want the bot to stop, but I will accept a valid consensus. The problem here is that there is no consensus for either the principle or details of this bot's actions ... and I won't give up until either the bot is disapproved, OR there is consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

        • I suppose this is where I get confused about "the issue" - any C1-tagged category is in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for at least a week, which I assume exists because it gives time for admins and non-admins alike to ensure that the category should be nominated. If after a week no one has noticed or indicated that the category shouldn't be deleted, then it's very likely fair game for deletion. Someone mentioned the G13 drafts earlier, and I find this to be very similar; there is an "about to be G13'd" category that users can check to "save" old drafts. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• @QEDK: please can you post a list of exactly what categories the bot is set to skip. If it skips cats which transclude a template, please identify the template. If it skips by matching the category title, please identify that. Posting the code will probably be fine, so if it's easier to start by posting that, please do do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  The bot skips Pec, dabcat, catredir, automaintanence, Cf*, CSD, category class templates as well as WikiProject-related ones, like -class, -importance and a few others I don't recall off the top of my head (these are textmatch-based). Basically a superset of WP:CSD C1 criteria. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, QEDK. But please can you be more precise? The code would be helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  reg = re.compile(r"(-class|-importance|cf.*full|wikiproject|quality|unassessed|featured\s+topic)", flags=re.IGNORECASE)
  skip = {Page(site, "Template:Possibly empty category"), Page(site, "Template:Monthly clean-up category"), Page(site, "Template:Category disambiguation"), Page(site, "Template:Db-c1"), Page(site, "Template:Cfd full"), Page(site, "Template:Category class"), Page(site, "Template:Maintenance category autotag")}
  

  --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, QEDK. I will review that in the morning for any obvious omissions, against the lists I generated above using Petscan. Does the code <code?Page(site, "Template:Foo") also exclude pages which transclude a redirect to Template:Foo?

  This should be tested by an iterative process of reviewing a list of all the pages it finds after excluding those using which match the criteria, then adjust the list, re-run and review the new list. My experience of doing this extensively with en.wp categories is that the process can take many rounds before the list is clean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  I assume your question is if redirects are resolved, the answer is that MediaWiki resolves the redirects automatically. The bot was already tested during the trial (twice!) and many times thereafter - as I said, there's always false positives for any use case but it's not significant enough in this case to increase or decrease our current "net", so to say. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: as above, the BRFA was inadequately notified, so the trial was inadequately scrutinised. And I am sorry to say that I distrust the reliability of your code, since your last round of logging is broken and you described as a "fix" a sample bot edit which was broken on two counts. So testing is needed.
  I hear your assertion that there's always false positives for any use case but it's not significant enough in this case. However, publishing a list of what the bot finds is the only way to allow others to assess the false positive rate ... and since the community has rejected your judgement about the utility of category redirects, it would be wise for you to accept that your judgement about the rate of false positives in this search may be significantly different to that of other editors. Proceeding without that scrutiny would be at best reckless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  It wasn't inadequately notified, nor was the trial inaccurately scrutinised. Your assertions seem to be so beyond reality that I have no words for them. I don't care about your distrust of my code either because I still retain the trust of the community and that's what counts for me. I have mentioned way too many times why and how the bug was introduced (it was newly added, so quite obviously could not be covered by the trial, chronology and all ) but you clearly seem to be in WP:IDHT and using one instance of a mistake as some shred of evidence for your beliefs. I'll tell you what, don't ping me, this clearly isn't worth my time. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: there were multiple errors, and there is clear evidence that the BRFA was inadequately scrutinised. Your continued denial of those realities does you no favours.
  And your claim that the problem was a bug which arose in testing is refuted by the fact that you chose to cite the erroneous diff as evidence of a "fix". I know that code sometime goes wrong, but the problem here is that after running the code you chose to display a multiply-broken edit as an example of success. That's the problem here: even your scrutiny of the output was mistaken.
  Now your refusal to allow scrutiny of the bot's list-making is yet more of the same stubbornness. I have no idea what you hope to gain by that refusal to allow scrutiny, but it is pure recklessness.
  As promised above, I will review your regexes tomorrow, and add more exceptions ... but it still needs testing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to be coming to this discussion so late. I raised my concerns about the lack of need for a bot to tag empty categories when this bot was going through the approval process. There really aren't a lot of empty categories on a daily basis and the system we have works fine, I mean it takes me or UnitedStatesian a few minutes every day to do the job. I agree that there are more pressing needs for bots that can perform more tedious tasks.

I also raised concerns at the time that no one who does work with categories had been consulted about this bot and its proposed work but either the bot approval group didn't think that was concerning or my own lack of follow-up on the matter led to this concern being dismissed. I'm actually here at this discussion because I noticed the absence of the bot's activity so it was getting some tagging done but, again, it really isn't a lot of work and it definitely is not a time sensitive task or have to be done around the clock. 15 minutes a day and the job is done.

I was also concerned about category redirects being mistakenly tagged as empty which I brought to QEDK's attention on his talk page several times but mistagging categories is a separate issue that looks like it has been resolved. Again, my apologies for not participating in this discussion when it was ongoing last week. I sometimes miss my notifications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Main Page § Amalthea (bot) which maintains Main Page history is down again

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Main Page § Amalthea (bot) which maintains Main Page history is down again. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Cosmetic Bot Day ?

Hi. It seems the principle of the Cosmetic Boy Day as been approved, at least for a trial. Is there any place with a follow-up on what's going to be put in place? (date of the first day for example, process). My bot has already several approved cosmetic bot tasks (tasks 6, 8, 9, 11), so currently only done with other modifications. Is the current approval sufficient for including them in the first day? --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 11:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion will need to be reclosed (the previous close was overturned at WP:AN). I suspect the next steps vary depending on how it is closed, but it's likely post-merge discussions (probably at WP:BOTN) will be needed to discuss the details. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@NicoV: There'll be something on WP:BOTN once the discussion closes (assuming a trial is mandated). Likely something like a general call for cosmetic bots to be trialled, along with some guidelines about what's a good/bad cosmetic task, guidelines about how to coordinate a multi-bot trial, and a debate about when exactly the cosmetic day should be. I don't see cosmetic day happening in 2020 because there's a lot of ground work to do, bots take time to develop and we'll probably want a healthy amount of bots editing on that day. Already-approved bots could have restrictions relaxed, so do keep an eye out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot ProcrastinatingReader and Headbomb, I've added WP:BOTN to my watchlist and will monitor it . No rush ! --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 18:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite of User:TFA Protector Bot code

Not sure if there's a better place to post this, but in any case as a FYI, I rewrote TFA Protector Bot's code to be in Rust. It should be functionally identical, except instead of using regexes to parse the title out of pages like this, it uses Parsoid's HTML output instead, which I expect to be more reliable in the long run. I did some brief testing on testwiki and plan to switch over to the new code next week or so if there are no concerns. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)