(AFBot: New request)
(AFBot: reply to 12944qwerty)
Line 203: Line 203:
 
#'''If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly?''' No problem
 
#'''If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly?''' No problem
 
#'''Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines?''' I think so, I haven't seen a rule against AF. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 
#'''Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines?''' I think so, I haven't seen a rule against AF. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 +
:We already have the [[Scratch Wiki:April Fools|April Fools' Day article set]] to mess with articles on April 1. Adding a bot would just be duplicating that.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:45, 1 February 2019

For an explanation of how to use this page and request a bot, see the bot request instructions. Make sure your bot is not a duplicate.

Note Note: The Vote section is used after a vote on if the bot should be used, and shows the number of people who approved/declined the idea of the bot. Please note, a formal vote may not be needed to decline/accept a bot, therefore it is not compulsory to fill this box in. The comment briefly describes any important information about the bot at this moment, especially changes that need to be made.
Note Note: Remember to add a section to the table with your name and bot information when requesting a bot.

For archived discussions, see the discussion archive.

Requested Bots
Owner Bot Name Bot Use Current Status Voting Comments and Recommendations
banana439monkey Formatter Fixing formatting and scratchblocks Being Discussed
Jakel181 Pseudonym Letting users know when they have been replied to on a talk Rejected Being discussed on Community Portal
12944qwerty Welcome Welcomes New Wikians into the Wiki World with a template. Unreviewed
12944qwerty AFBot Every page will be messed up on 1st April Unreviewed

Formatter

From discussion archive:
Formatter is a bot which fixes the formatting and scratchblocks code on the wiki. The reason it was rejected was because I was incapable of building a bot, and since I have experience in JavaScript, I feel ready to give this another shot. Formatting is a huge problem within the wiki, especially indenting. Many pages contain incorrect formatting and need to be updated. This means that for humans, these tasks would be difficult and tedious to do, with great fatigue.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (2,253)) 07:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Even with your better JS experience, are you sure this is possible with a bot? This is supposed to fix scratchblocks formatting... but I don't think that's an issue anymore.
To help organize my thoughts, let me try to answer the bot request questions:
  • Is your bot's task necessary? It hasn't been proven to be necessary yet, no
  • Is your bot's task not already/easily done by a human? Yes, this is not already done by humans
    • If not, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human (e.g. too repetitive, humans are too unreliable)?
  • Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use? No, I don't think so. Once the scratchblocks are fixed (assuming there's still stuff to fix), that's it.
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? Since we're talking about fixing formatting, this is also a no. I'm sure it could be added to either my bot or VoxBot. Scratchblocks fixing is probably beyond me but not beyond VoxBot.
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? Probably.
  • Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? Yes.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? I have enough trust in your programming skill to say yes.
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? No, bad formatting isn't all that common. Bad scratchblocks is vanishingly rare - I'm pretty sure half the people here come from the forums or have at least had scratchblocks experience in the forums.
  • Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? Obviously.
So, the "no" answers here are:
  1. Is your bot's task necessary?
  2. Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use?
  3. Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots' tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical?
  4. If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly?
Please explain how the answers to each of those questions are "yes" rather than "no".
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There is still a huge amount of instances of incorrect formatting and helps give the wiki a more profesional look.
  • It's still more than one-time use. Even though ScratchBlocks formatting is no longer a problem currently, it could be updated again, and there are still huge formatting issues like indentation.
  • This is the point where I say no. I'll be fair. It could be added to VoxBot, but it's so infrequently run, and this bot could, say, be run weekly?
  • New wiki users? Yes. Veterans? Possibly not.
    Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (2,253)) 07:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. Incorrect formatting is mostly in source code, though, and does nothing to affect the end result.
  2. The only update scratchblocks is going to get is new blocks. The syntax is frozen now. The 1.4 scratchblocks' "category=thing" comment was essentially a hack, and all instances of that are fixed now, as far as I'm aware.
  3. Maybe not VoxBot, but my bot could totally take up that task. I only said scratchblocks would be better for VoxBot since it would require some additional parsing, which is what a less-overhead language like C# (which BoxVot VoxBot is wirtten in) is better at.
  4. New users have to get through our account request process, though, so they're not totally inept. And wiki formatting doesn't take that long to learn. We watch new users closely in their first days anyway, so I don't think a bot could keep up with the humans! :P And obviously veterans don't make many formatting mistakes.

Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • But still annoying, right?
  • Mhm...
  • But your bot doesn't fix typos, right?
  • Yeah, but that means nothing. And users are going to mess up. Also, it's possible a bot can.
    Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (2,253)) 08:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. Sure, it's annoying, but stuff like that falls under the Scratch Wiki:Style Guide and is therefore already fixed by my bot.
  2. Let's call this point done in my favor.
  3. No, that's VoxBot's job, but I'm not going to let you fix typos automatically either. VoxBot is the only bot that's managed to actually deal with English grammar in the slightest, and it's the most dangerous bot of the lot.
  4. People are eventually going to mess up, but that's why people like you and me patrol recent changes. That's even one of the questions: Is your bot's task not already/easily done by a human? In this specific case, fixing new users' edits is what admins have to do and what other users are encouraged to do. No bots required.
By the way, I know you like editing people's formatting, but please don't edit my posts at all. I don't mess up indentation or signature placement. My signature was meant to be on another line.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
08:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, that's already fixed? Why didn't you say so?
  • N/A
  • It's inactive though.
  • But what about old pages that haven't been updated in a while
By the way, was it?
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (2,253)) 07:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For 3rd point, I heard that Ken will host VoxBot.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 1,965edit 07:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Style guide stuff is already fixed by my bot. It's been that way for a while now!
  • @asqwde, I offered to host it but KrIsMa said he'd do it himself once school was safely underway. I suggest you leave a message on his talk asking him to do a large run with it.
  • There are no old pages as far as anyone is aware! Every article (i.e. non-redirect page in mainspace with more than one link) has been touched at least once since the transfer.

Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Ken: all pages must be touched since that - removing transfer template
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 1,965edit 09:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I said after - so I mean all pages have been touched since after the transfer template was removed.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pseudonym

Pseudonym would patrol The recent change's and look for the string "{{@|" (Template not created yet, view it here.) It checks the first paramenter and looks a pseudonym table. It sends a message to that user saying that "User has replied to your post here:" Smilar to this. The only time it will not send you a message, is if the conversation is on your talk page.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 13:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A bot with a nearly identical function (named "Notifier", read the archives) was rejected in 2016, since that purpose could be replaced with an extension (though the extension itself was also controversial). If this is the only purpose for the bot, I say it's not necessary. (If you do want to have some sort of notification thing when being pinged, though, you can bring up the Echo extension [or some other extension that gives notifications when pinged] on the CP.)
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
14:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I though about it, but Echo only support media wiki version 1.29+ not 1.28.3, and I did read the archvies, and I did see Notifier, but that was suggusted in 2016 and I though I would bring it up again snice it's been two years and alot has changed since then.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Not enough has changed recently for Notifier's function to no longer be unneeded; Echo not supporting MW 1.28 is a valid point but that just means we'd custom-craft an extension that only watches for pings instead (which would likely be a better solution) (again, propose an extension like that on the CP).
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
14:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
If we use an extension then you only get the nofiaction, but if we use a bot then you get a nofitcation and a talk page message to refer back to.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 16:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to add "the questions"
  • Is your bot's task necessary?: Yes, people are repling to discussions and forgeting about it.
  • Is your bot's task not already/easily done by a human?: Yes, it is troublesome to notify one when you mention them in a talk.
    • If not, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human (e.g. too repetitive, humans are too unreliable)?
  • Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use?: It is more than one time since new disscusions are being created.
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical?: Yes no other bot does this, the closes thing to it is wikimonitor leave a message on you talk letting you know if you forgot to add your signature.
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency?: Yes! Of course!
  • Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? For sure! They are plently of disscusions being stunted and thus progress due to people forgeting about them. A few examples are: Talk:Scratch Team Blog Talk:What the Community is Remixing.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong?: Yes! it would include a separate script to monitor and turn off the bot if something goes worng. It would also have a manual shut down on it's userpage.
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? Yes as said above, they are plently of disscusions being stunted and thus progress due to people forgeting about them.
  • Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? Of Course!

Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 21:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is your bot's task necessary? I'm not so sure, replying to discussions and forgetting about them isn't too bad. There's nothing wrong with a one-time post.
  • Is your bot's task not already/easily done by a human? Yes, manually pinging people on their talks is cumbersome.
  • Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use? Yes, this would be constantly running.
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots' tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? Yes and no. The task is pronouncedly different, but adding it to WikiMonitor wouldn't be too hard. Since "no" anywhere invalidates the idea, this counts as a no.
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? This is a technical question, more about implementation than idea. Make sure any bots don't request too frequently.
  • Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? Yes, getting notified about replies to you would help anyone.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? I don't see how it would be foolproof, though. A shutdown page is essentially mandatory nowadays for bots that run constantly (think: WikiMonitor), but it's hard to tell when someone pings you. (There are a lot of text-based notations for pinging people).
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? People not seeing new replies isn't a problem - if they actually care they'd check back.
  • Would your bot follow the Wiki guidelines? Yes.
So, to summarize, the questions whose answers I think aren't necessarily "yes" are:
  • Is your bot's task necessary? I'm not so sure, replying to discussions and forgetting about them isn't too bad. There's nothing wrong with a one-time post.
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots' tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? Yes and no. The task is pronouncedly different, but adding it to WikiMonitor wouldn't be too hard. Since "no" anywhere invalidates the idea, this counts as a no.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? I don't see how it would be foolproof, though. A shutdown page is essentially mandatory nowadays for bots that run constantly (think: WikiMonitor), but it's hard to tell when someone pings you. (There are a lot of text-based notations for pinging people).
Unless you can show how the answers to these questions are definitively yes, this isn't suitable for use. Also, as to your point against extensions: "a talk page message to refer back to" is not an advantage - if anything, it's a disadvantage because you'd get a new message for every single reply to your post, producing clutter. An extension would be far simpler to deal with.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Answerers to concerns:
  • Is your bot's task necessary? I'm not so sure, replying to discussions and forgetting about them isn't too bad. There's nothing wrong with a one-time post.: It would only ping you if someone replied to you, for example, {{@|<Kenny2scratch>}}, then it would ping you.
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots' tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? Yes and no. The task is pronouncedly different, but adding it to WikiMonitor wouldn't be too hard. Since "no" anywhere invalidates the idea, this counts as a no.: You are right it would not be too hard to add, only jvvg's has expressed that he is happy with less to maintain, and I do want to give him more to maintain, and wikimonitor's purpose is to notify users if they break wiki guidelines not if someone has replied to them.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? I don't see how it would be foolproof, though. A shutdown page is essentially mandatory nowadays for bots that run constantly (think: WikiMonitor), but it's hard to tell when someone pings you. (There are a lot of text-based notations for pinging people).: It only looks for the future "re" template: here. It will have an abuse checker as well. If someone did {{@|<Kenny2scratch>}} ten times (example number) on the same page it would ignore it. And a sperate monitor script will run as well that can shut down the bot.
Other bits I should address:
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? This is a technical question, more about implementation than idea. Make sure any bots don't request too frequently.: Yes I know it will have about the same request frequency as wm (I might use part of wm's code if this bot get accepted)
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? People not seeing new replies isn't a problem - if they actually care they'd check back. True, but one might forget, it even happens to you, back when I moved a category by hand if you remember that, the last post was made over a year ago by you asking how would get started but no-one replied to you about it.
    Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 00:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I just realized the there is already a scratch account named Pseudonym (and Pseudonyms) so the name is subject to change.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 00:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Has there been any update in the opposition's argument?
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 13:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Where'd you get that wording?
  • So only the "re" template would cause it to ping? That seems rather narrow-minded, though - people tend to ping with @ rather than a template. (Note that you could have Template:@) However, incorporating more pinging methods would be more effort than it's worth...
    But your response (and mine) was(/were) offtopic. I still don't think pinging people every time someone replies to them with a ping is necessary; it could even be downright harmful, considering that someone could put a ping for every user on some page and then the bot would go on a rampage. A disable page wouldn't help, since you can't check it between every request.
  • WikiMonitor isn't necessarily purely for notifying people about broken guidelines - it updates the curator announcements, too. And jvvg would like to have less to maintain, but he isn't going to be able to get rid of WikiMonitor anytime soon; therefore it wouldn't be hard to add this to WikiMonitor.
  • See my first point about foolproofing against harm. Checking for the same ping multiple times on the same page should be done anyway (multiple pings on one page for one user should only give one talk page message); pings for many users on one page could have a legitimate use, but it could also not. There's no foolproof spam-prevention method. And, again, a disable page wouldn't help since all of the pings would occur in between one page check and the next.
  • Request frequency question answered.
  • Even if I had pinged someone, they would have only been annoyed, and likely wouldn't have actually helped. It's okay for that discussion to lie dormant, anyway. Still not a problem.
Before we go any further, please bring up the raw idea of pings on the CP, ignoring the implementation. Ask whether people would like to have notifications when they are replied to, be it in banners or talk page messages or a new messaging system. If people do want pings, then we can start discussing the specific implementation - extension? bot? javascript? - and reach a consensus.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
02:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the topic on the CP, so this discusion is on hold for now. (I got the wording because I was doing Legal Studies Homework while writing the post)
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 12:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome is a bot that checks User Creation Log to see if a user has been created in the Wiki. Then, using a template, it welcomes them.
-unsigned comment by 12944qwerty (talk | contribs)

I personaly enjoy seeing automation, but it's a lot nicer if a person welcomes you, not a bot. And this has already been sugested Scratch_Wiki:Bot_Requests/Archives#HelpBot.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We already have the automatically-inserted welcome message from the account request system, I don't think we don't need another bot duplicating its functionality.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is your bot's task necessary? - Not really, welcoming is only to make the end user feel some sort of happiness
  • Is your bot's task not already/easily done by a human? - No, it's already done, we don't accept that many account requests.
    • If not, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human - No, a bot wouldn't be necessary for a small task per week.
  • Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use? - Yes
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? - Not really, it's already performed by ConfirmAccount.
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? - Not really, one in four of account requests are approved.
  • Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? - No, we're welcoming new users here and doesn't help the wiki as a whole.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? - Yes, unless an Experienced Wikian or up screws up.
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? - No, it is not designed to fix a problem and it's not a huge thing anyway.
  • Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? - Why did I add that to the question list?
    Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (2,253)) 07:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

AFBot

  1. Is your bot's task necessary? No, but it would a fun troller :D
  2. Is your bot's task not already/easily done by a human? No one can make all pages trolled to everyone. :D
  3. If not, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human (e.g. too repetitive, humans are too unreliable)? Too Repetitive
  4. Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use? Every April 1st
  5. Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? Different
  6. Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? Yes, once every year. Regularly.
  7. Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? No, it is a troller. :D
  8. Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? IDK
  9. If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? No problem
  10. Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? I think so, I haven't seen a rule against AF.
    12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We already have the April Fools' Day article set to mess with articles on April 1. Adding a bot would just be duplicating that.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)