User talk:Community Tech bot/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello, Community Tech bot. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Unathorized bot[edit]

Hello bot operators (@Thparkth, NKohli (WMF), and MusikAnimal (WMF)). Please request approval at Meta:Requests for adminship (bot status request section) authorization to run this bot. Thank you! —MarcoAurelio 19:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Sorry about that, we figured this was uncontroversial since it's only editing pages for Community Tech. I see the "requests for bot flags" section. We don't actually need the bot flag, though it wouldn't hurt. Is approval still necessary? What if it edited in its userspace? We of course want to adhere to any guidelines/policies/etc, but the important thing is to keep the bot running, as the wishlist survey is in progress. Please advise, thank you! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have created a request for bot status at Meta:Requests for bot status/Community Tech bot. Regards MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal (WMF): Hi! Thanks for opening the request. The bot can of course continue running, no worries. Sorry for all the bureaucracy and the paperwork. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 09:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Approved and flagged[edit]

Hi! I've approved and flagged this bot account. Thanks for the work you're doing! Regards, —MarcoAurelio 09:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncontoversial?[edit]

This bot has started "rotating" the proposals. Is this uncontroversial? How often will it happen? Will it not be difficult to watch a proposal, if its position on the page changes again and again? What is the reasoning? Is there documentation? --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 05:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The bot request Meta:Requests for bot status/Community Tech bot mentions nothing about this task. — xaosflux Talk 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@° and Xaosflux: Sorry, some explanation should have been added to the survey pages (I've done so now). The bot rotates the proposals every 6 hours so that each has a fair chance at visibility. There are so many proposals some !voters may never get to the bottom 5 or so in a category, etc. I can make this more clear in the edit summary. It was not brought up in the bot request because at the time, we did not know we were going to have nearly 300 proposals, where visibility of individual proposals would be a problem. Yes, your proposal may move up one slot (or to the bottom if it was at the top), but the benefit outweighs this minor inconvenience, we believe. Edit conflicts are also handled properly. Hopefully that makes sense, let me know if you have questions! Thanks MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit conflicts are a concern. If someone starts editing a commented support vote just before the rotation, and saves after the rotation, I suspect there will be a conflict? What about categories with less than 10 proposals? Is rotation needed with this categories? (There is a category with 2 proposals and it is rotated! That does not make any sense to me.) Every 6 hours means 4 rotations per day, 2 of which are during business hours. But in a worldwide project, this are not the same two for everyone. With the number of propasls being a multiple of two some propasals will profit, others not. If rotation is needed, how about moving each propasal to a subpage, so that if you start editing the voting section, you stay on the edited page, even if the category page gets rotated in the meantime. --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 17:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@°: We investigated using subpages and decided it wouldn't work for us (for various reasons). Edit conflicts are bound to happen on any busy page, with or without the rotation. E.g. if I tried to add my support !vote at the same time as you, we'd have an edit conflict. 4 rotations a day seems modest considering. I will talk with the team about decreasing the rotation rate (making it less often), but I truly believe what we have is ideal. You are right about the need to rotate categories with fewer proposals. I can try to add some special logic for those, but again I don't find it particularly troublesome. Thanks for your insight and understanding! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of rotating proposals and I support it for holding justice. I just want to mention a possible drawback: I had loaded the page before your bot rotated the proposals. I was reading proposals from top to bottom and it took some time. When I hit the [edit] link to cast my support !vote for 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Admins and stewards#Allow user rights to expire automatically, I ended up somewhere else! Fortunately I found out that something was wrong. I reloaded the page and cast my support !vote at the right place. I'm afraid that some users might cast their votes in the wrong place. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This is true, and I suppose a necessary consequence :( We're taking all of these lessons into account for next year's survey, but for now we might have to deal with these drawbacks. I'm going to reduce the rotation rate to three times a day, making this scenario less likely. The issue you speak of is compounded by the fact that the Voting sections do not have working anchors. There is an embedded {{anchor}} tag that means you will be brought to the right section if you are pinged, but after hitting save you are not brought back to the area of the page that you just edited (flaw with MediaWiki). I might shift my focus to this issue, and somehow ensure the user is at least redirected back, so they can quickly notice their mistake should they have voted in the wrong place. Thanks, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Each voting section now has a unique, informative title. This should make it clear what you're voting for. Thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason the bot is continually rotating proposals today? Samwalton9 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It was an error related to fixing a different bug. Sorry about the noise! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)