From Test-Scratch-Wiki

< Test-Scratch-Wiki:Bot Requests

This page contains an archive of bot requests. At the top, there is a table containing the basic information for each request, and further down is the discussion surrounding each bot. The format should show more recent requests first in all sections.

Requested Bots
Owner Bot Name Bot Use Current Status Voting Comments and Recommendations
Banana439monkey Sandbot hours, it would be running all of the time. Once, WM missed about 9 sessions of clearing out the sandbox and I had to do it for the bot. Sandbot would flush out every sandbox every four months unless it's manually done. Rejected I need a bit of help clearing out other people's sandboxes. This will be made with PHP (hopefully). I also need lots of help, as per Mitopolis

This bot violates userspace policy and has very limited use for a task that isn't that important. -jvvg

ErnieParke Interwiki Bot Interwiki links Accepted This bot is based off of the following Mediawiki bot.
st19_galla Notifier This bot will notify you on your talk page whenever you're username is mentioned on the wiki with the '@' symbol before it. Rejected Could be replaced with an extension, yet no consensus was reached. -KrIsMa
Mitopolis MeowBot Maintaining Talk Pages (Mainly the CP) Rejected No further discussions. -KrIsMa
AghaCool HelpBot This bot gives detailed instructions on what the Wiki is, how to use it, how you shouldn't use it, and how to use it. This bot gives out the message when a new user joins the Scratch Wiki. Rejected Welcome text is easily changable. -KrIsMa
CoolBoy5677 WikiMaster Redirect-related tasks (removing redirect to redirect, etc.) and Info tasks (counting users, statistics, etc.) Rejected Easily replaceable with humans. -KrIsMa
CoolBoy5677 CoolBot Fixes mistakes/errors on the wiki Rejected Not practical. -KrIsMa
CoolBoy5677 WikiBot Test tasks (testing scratch wiki) and Typography tasks (spell check, etc.) Rejected Typography errors are too hard to fix on the wiki, and tests-only tasks can be run on your own account. -jvvg
CoolBoy5677 WikiBot Page tasks (archiving pages, adding tags, protecting, etc.) Rejected Tasks can be easily replaced with a human -jvvg
PrincessPandaLover AntiRedLink Converts red links into plain text if pages uses many red links Rejected Red links are good for the wiki, as they help tell users to create the non-existent page. -jvvg and Mathfreak231
PrincessPandaLover BlockerBot Adds a message that you have been blocked on talk pages of blocked users. Rejected Per community consensus, we do not advertise user bans any more than MediaWiki makes us. -jvvg
Krett12 Tweaker Archiving the CP, removing old {{In Progress}} templates, this would be a better bot to clear the sandbox, general things with a time limit on them. Rejected Archiving the CP does not have consistent criteria, and besides this bot would not have the privileges to protect archives. Removing the "in progress" templates is a task that's not frequent enough to merit a bot. Clearing the sandbox is already done by WM and transferring bot tasks would be problematic. -jvvg
JayceeMinecraft FAQBot Categorizes FAQ pages. Rejected Not categorizing FAQ pages as FAQ is not really a chronic problem, so this bot wouldn't really make the Wiki better. In addition, one to automatically detect categories would not work properly. -jvvg
Krett12 SysopBot Performing actions that are not granted to normal users, such as updating the Scratch Wiki Home/News with new curators and SDSs, and detecting talk archives and protecting them

In addition to those tasks, it would also help out with the request queue, if a user gets accepted/rejected on the Wiki, they will be notified on the main site. And if someone is not 2 months old or a Scratcher, they will be auto-rejected.

Rejected It's more trouble than it's worth, and we don't want to give sysop privileges to a user who doesn't already have them. -jvvg and Scimonster
JayceeMinecraft I've got my PI on you Changes first person writing, and make deletes articles/text about users and projects(not including Kaj, or removed pac-man project). Rejected Editing English grammar with a bot is almost impossible, and there are a lot of pages that have names on them such as Scratch Team that are perfectly acceptable. -KrIsMa
JayceeMinecraft PoliceBot Reverts edits if someone deletes things on a page for no reason Rejected There are many cases where an edit can remove a lot of text but still be legitimate. -jvvg
Krett12 Tweaker Check sub-par editing Rejected Checking bot edits with another bot is redundant, and only checking the pronoun "I" with the bot would be very hard, as "I" can be used multiple ways which is acceptable. -KrIsMa
Swampert11 Gobot Fixing the Wiki Rejected The tasks can all easily be done by a human and are rarely necessary anyway.-jvvg
Swampert11 Gobot Archive old discussion pages Rejected Often, it is not necessary to archive old discussion pages. In addition, the criteria vary by page, and sometimes not all discussions are archived.-jvvg
Swampert11 none Welcoming new users Rejected Although we appreciate the idea, we don't think generic bot messages would be better than personalized welcome messages.-KrIsMa
Cooldude5367 DudeBot Fixing the wiki and modifying pages Rejected Grammar in English is nearly impossible to accurately fix as a bot. Therefore, custom welcoming messages are not a good idea.-KrIsMa
Krett12 Tweaker Use both the AF wiki and this wiki at the same time, find pages and add the {{April Fools}} on it. Rejected Manually copy and pasting pages from the April Fools page into this wiki can be done without a bot.-KrIsMa
-PRO- Archive Bot Archives pages with the name "Archive" in them. ex. "User talk:-PRO-/Archive 5". Rejected Making a bot an admin can open the wiki up to vulnerabilities, "and we are not giving sysop privileges to anybody who wasn't appointed/elected."-KrIsMa


Interwiki Bot

Interwiki Bot is based on the following MediaWiki bot: Pywikibot This bot has lots of support material, and is used by the Wikimedia Foundation. (see above link for citation)
Interwiki bot is a bot that reads in Scratch wiki pages (en, de, id, jp, ect...). It adds interwiki links where they are missing, and removes old/outdated interwiki links.
Note that there can only be one interwiki to each language per page.
So let us say that [en:Scratch Cat] links to [de:Scratch Katze], and [de:Scratch Katze] links to [en:Super Cool Cat]. It is possible to say that [de:Scratch Katze] needs to have two interwikis: [en:Scratch Cat] and [en:Super Cool Cat]. This is called a conflict.
Interwiki bot has two options to deal with conflicts. They are:

  1. Give me a list of options on what to do.
  2. Put a summary of the conflict in a .dat file, then ignore the conflict.

For edit conflicts that I do not know how to resolve, I will post a list of conflicts online for other Wikians to help me with. I am still not sure whether I will use option 1 or 2, but I am looking into that.
A screenshot of Interwiki Bot on a test Wiki can be found here: screenshot <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 00:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

good idea!
User:KrIsMa/Sig 01:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I support! I'm sure this would be very helpful!<scratchsig>Hamish752</scratchsig> 06:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I also support.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 11:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I also support. Great! <scratchsig>MartinWollenweber</scratchsig> 14:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi - now it's time to test this on your account!
User:KrIsMa/Sig 14:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Definitely supporting this! Great idea. :)--<scratchsig>JayceeMinecraft</scratchsig> 15:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

great idea! <scratchsig>Frodewin</scratchsig> 18:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Since it looks like the request is accepted, I'll run the bot once from my main account (when I'm ready) and then post the results below. :) <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 20:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I tested a few hours ago, and it looks like everything is rolling along peachy! Here's a screenshot of what Interwiki bot found during the sample run on articles up to letter c: link <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 18:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)



Since WM notifies people and clears the sandbox without doing the first thing I said, we could make a new bot with the sandbox code and jvvg can remove what I copied. Sandbot wouldn't only clear the sandbox out every four hours, it would be running all of the time. Once, WM missed about 9 sessions of clearing out the sandbox and I had to do it for the bot. Sandbot would flush out every sandbox every four months unless it's manually done.

Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (My talk page | Contributions | Scratch) 07:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I am highly confused by what you just said. What is the first thing you said? What is the sandbox code? What is it that you copied?
Also, you said Sandbot would be running 24/7, but only clear the sandbox every four months. Hence, wouldn't Sandbot only run once every for months? <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 15:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
1. WikiMonitor notifies people when they "make a mistake" 2. It's in jvvg's WM repository 3. I actually said every, so that means other people's for them.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (My talk page | Contributions | :Scratch) 18:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
User sandboxes are governed under userspace rules and this means that other users (including bots) are not allowed to clear them, so one of the purposes of your bot is not allowed under Wiki rules. Also, the reason that WM hasn't cleared the sandbox recently is due to some network issues I'm having at home where for some reason nothing at my house can connect to the Wiki.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know that, but I knew you couldn't edit a userpage unless it was a grammar error.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (My talk page | Contributions | Scratch) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You're not allowed to edit grammar errors either. According to the Test-Scratch-Wiki:Userspace, you can only edit someone else's userpage if you have been given permission or if there is something that obviously violates the guidelines.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right. Shall I reject the bot request then?
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (My talk page | Contributions | Scratch) 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Or should I use this just on my sandbox?

User:Banana439monkey/sig 07:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Banana439monkey/sig 06:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Like I said before, given that this bot violates userspace policy and has very limited use. I'm going to mark it as rejected.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 13:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Hello! There has been talk about people wishing that they would be notified if they were mentioned in a comment. Currently, we have to put "reply to [username]" on the edit summary, hoping that whoever we're talking to happens to see it in Recent Changes. This bot would search through the wiki looking for the '@' symbol. If it finds one, it will check the word next to it (username) to see if it's registered on the wiki. If so, it will leave a message on their talk page linking them to the place they were mentioned. What do you think?
User:St19 galla/Sig

@St19_Galla Good idea!
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 20:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I think there is an extension for this, and I'm currently looking for it. However, if I can't find it, this could be a good idea.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 21:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice idea! If we do it, we can't make the edits minor b/c it would bypass the talk page notification and that is crucial for this bot to work.
User:KrIsMa/Sig 21:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea! I also support.
<scratchsig>Hamish752</scratchsig> 21:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't need a newline before your sig. :P
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 21:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So where do we think this bot will go? :)
User:St19 galla/Sig

Not sure. I want to see some other opinions, and I'm looking up whatever extension Wikipedia uses to allow you to notify people.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 00:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I found the Echo extension as an alternative. What does everybody think of that?<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 00:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
rm echoextension
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 02:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If it can be toggled on and off to help deal with lots of messages, I would agree with that extension. <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 03:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, that makes the Wiki like a social networking site.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 03:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem with Echo is that the Wiki might become a popularity contest to some people, like Scratch itself already is.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 20:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the Echo extension would actually hurt the Wiki, where this bot would help.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 16:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
See my comments on Jvvg's talk page. User:Mitopolis/Signature 15:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It doesn't matter at all whether the messages are private or public, and personally I would rather not have lots of bot messages telling me about replies cluttering up my talk page. I can delete them, but that takes time. Having a separate system to notify users (something similar to then notification you get when someone comments on your talk page) is what I think is optimal, since it doesn't clutter up your talk page and doesn't make any page edits. Your suggestion of trying echo is also not as easy as it sounds. Installing an extension requires getting approval from the ST and then having them install it. Echo would involve modifying the database structure, so it is a significant commitment. Likewise, writing a bot would take a lot of time (I can tell you this from experience) and would also require extensive testing. We need to pick an option and go with it.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 16:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, about the popularity angle/lying about how many messages you receive: we already are clear that you shouldn't try to make the Wiki about status or popularity (which is why discussing edit counts is discouraged). We actually already can brag about how many replies we do or don't get, since you can see them in the RC. However, if you look around, nobody actually does, and if they did, we would probably ask them to stop. In a similar vein, there is no evidence to show that people would argue about how many notifications they would get.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 16:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


I would like to make a bot for this:

  • Archive the CP when it gets over 30 discussions with {{done}}; leaving {{not done}} ones
  • Automatically remove S:CPND threads with {{done}}
  • Add "Is this a Flame War?" when two users are the only ones on a discussion and the use CAPITAL LETTERS places besides the first letters of words
  • Notify the currently most active EW/Admin when Category:Pages in Need of Deletion gets over 5 pages
  • Place a message here when it archives it saying, "This talk page was recently archived by a bot."
  • Any talk page-related suggestion anyone has

I think "MeowBot" would be a good name. I made a logo:
MeowBot.png The problem is, I have no idea how to make a bot. Can anyone please help? (I will give credit on the bot's user page.)
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 03:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

My commentary:
  • Archiving: we sometimes keep certain threads, even those without "not done" from being archived, and protecting the archives would require giving admin privileges, which we don't want to do
  • Sometimes there is post-action discussion about done threads, and they shouldn't be removed anyway in case people want to look at them later
  • Flame wars are exceedingly rare on the Wiki, and they can happen in a lot of ways besides just using a lot of caps, and there are times I need to use all caps, for example if I were describing BYOB.
  • Deleting: We already check RC fairly frequently
  • The last one: see the first
<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The archive message would be so that we knew to get any threads that we still wanted. The deleting thing would be just in case RC stuff got buried. I would have an "All-Caps Exception List" that would have things like BYOB, BeetleBlocks, and TurtleStitch. Also, if you have more suggestions, please make sure they are talk page-related.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 15:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, the archive message would mean "Please unarchive all wanted threads and protect the archive."
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 17:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, it would only archive {{Done}} threads.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 20:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Having to unarchive threads wouldn't actually save any work, since it's not any harder to make an archive without the needed threads than to unarchive them, and the caps thing could still easily fail in many cases, like if I need to contact MIT about something (my point is that it would be pretty much impossible to create a list of all the exceptions). Archiving the done threads automatically is still a bad idea as I said before, since there still can be post-action discussion, and un-archiving them takes just as much as archiving them, as I said before.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 21:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
On S:CPND, Done threads could be moved to Scratch Wiki Talk:Community Protal/Not Done/Now Done. If I figure the coding out, could I make a "Fake CP" on my userspace and test it there?
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 21:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────With the exception list, how do you think AutoCorrect dictionaries are made? By people. Thgis will be a lot smaller than that.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 21:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I chose a language: Python for editing, UNIX/Linux/Mac bash shell script for automation. Anyone can help the editing, you'll need a UNIX-like system for automation.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 21:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It would need to be "MeowerBot" or "Meower," MeowBot is a chatbot with an account on Scratch.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 21:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you have had the same experiences I have had with autocorrect, but it has messed up a lot of my sentences. This would have fairly large risk for false positives for something that occurs vanishingly infrequently. You are also not addressing my point of having to move around threads so your bot doesn't archive them by accident: the whole point of bots is to reduce work for everybody. However, if we still have to move/unarchive threads, and now there's the level of a bot going around and doing stuff when we don't necessarily expect it, that actually adds more work.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 21:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Mine puts a red zig-zag under misspelled words. EDIT: Do we ever put {{done}} on threads we are still discussing?
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 22:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Mine corrects the words, and your bot would interject messages, which would either confuse or further enrage users. We also occasionally still have to discuss things when done is on them, and it's good to let them sit around for a while so that there is time to make sure it really is done.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 22:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Maybe {{not done}}, {{done}} and {{ready to archive}}?
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 22:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess you could call it a "reverse spambot."
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 22:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
We need to think about this carefully: does this bot cause or create problems? Does it reduce work, leave it unchanged, or cause more? Requiring people to mark discussions as ready to archive is difficult, and when we archive the entire CP at once like we already do (and have a human do it - it's not that hard, and we only do that every few weeks), it's pretty easy to pull out the still active threads.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It would do the entire archive at once. When we got over, say, 40 treads, it would say, "Please place {{Ready to archive}} on all ready-to-archive threads. Once the template {{Archive Now}} is added, this page will automatically be archived."
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 02:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It stills seems like the bot does not really save any work. Admins still have to come in and protect the page, and users have to post several templates.
Of the other functions, most seem like they would best be handled by a human, although notifying admins/EW about pages in need of deletion sounds slightly interesting, even if unnecessary. <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 22:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
How funny, @Hamish752 said the same thing on his (or is it her?) talk page! My answer is there.
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 02:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm male. That is quite funny actually, we practically said the exact same thing :P. <scratchsig>Hamish752</scratchsig> 05:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh, that is interesting.
@Mitopolis: A bot cannot protect any page. That means you would have to use a reminder, which is itself slightly cluttering. <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, technically it can, if it has admin privileges. IIRC. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make it only able to EWPlus protect?
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 20:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Protection is a feature that is very sensitive and an accidental protection can often go unnoticed. In order to prevent mistakes or abuse, we don't want to give protection privileges to any user who is not an administrator.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 01:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
OK. But could it detect the protection and automatically remove its notification after the page was protected? This would be a bot like no other bot anyone has written. Python for communication, Linux shell script for processing. User:Mitopolis/Signature 02:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you can query the protection status of a page. See the Mediawiki API page: API Info <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────MediaWiki is very complicated at times. *Sigh* User:Mitopolis/Signature 16:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a MW bot base in Java, and I agree, MW can be complicated. However, MW also allows for flexibility, which is nice. <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


I think having a HelpBot will really help new users know what to do in the Wiki because I remember when I was new I didn't have much of an idea on what I should do and need to do. The Welcome message is detailed at all and we really need something to be detailed. I've already started working on a message it would put out to new users. Any comments on this?<scratchsig>AghaCool</scratchsig> 23:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm well if you think the Welcome message isn't detailed enough, why not suggest a change? <scratchsig>Hamish752</scratchsig> 00:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if it'll change...since they've had it for so long.<scratchsig>AghaCool</scratchsig> 00:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
And adding on to it, if someone had about more than 5 alerts from the WikiMonitor the HelpBot would display a message based on what those alerts have been saying and what they can do to change it in a more detailed way. I think this bot will be a great addition and will help many new users and just users in general. I know this will be a great bot. Maybe could we at least test it and see how it goes? <scratchsig>AghaCool</scratchsig> 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You know, if you want the welcome message changed, all you have to do is ask me and I can change it. However, on a more general note, if we're going to talk to users about trends, it's best to have a person do it, since the person can provide specific commentary and identify what's the most important issue at the time. Furthermore, we have already rejected bots for welcoming users, and I don't want to go there again.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 00:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea! I definitely think this bot would be very helpful. At first, we planned bots to keep the wiki running smoothly. Now we are planning bots to keep what keeps the wiki running smoothly running smoothly! :)
Popular GIF.gif Mitopolis (Talk | Contributions | Edits | Scratch account) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── xD. That was one very confusing sentence. <scratchsig>Hamish752</scratchsig> 06:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@jvvg Is the welcome text hardcoded? If so, maybe it should be a protected template that gets subst:ed instead, to make it easier for admins to edit. That's how Wikipedia does it, and it makes a lot of sense. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 09:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The welcome text is at MediaWiki:Confirmaccount-welc. It actually is substituted, and can be changed by any administrator at any time.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, i remember that now. It just wasn't so clear from your statement above, but i'll forgive you for it. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 20:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If we do use this, I planned a system called "interbot" you could use for communicating with WM. I'll explain it if this get accepted. User:Mitopolis/Signature 21:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Hamish752: I also don't support as per jvvg. Welcome bots have previously been rejected and condensing repeat warnings is done better by hand.
Mitopolis: When did "interbot" enter the conversation? It seems off-topic. <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 21:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are helping bots a bad idea? Also, Interbot was something I came up with that could be useful to this. User:Mitopolis/Signature 01:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Welcoming bots aren't a great idea because there's already a welcome message, and there's no point having a second one. If you'd like the Welcome message changed, go ahead and suggest a change. <scratchsig>Hamish752</scratchsig> 05:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hamish752 Unless someone stops the automated message when their account's approved. Usually, it's just a speech. Maybe have the "Welcome to the scratch wiki guide" as the welcome message?
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (My talk page | Contributions | Scratch) 07:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


WikiMaster will Redirect-related tasks (removing redirect to redirect, etc.) and Info tasks (counting users, statistics, etc.) User:CoolBoy5677/Sig 07:33, 6 May 2015 (GMT)

Removing redirect to redirects are easily human-replaceable with the special pages, and info tasks can be run by user account.
User:KrIsMa/Sig 15:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


CoolBot will fix errors/mistakes on the Wiki. <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 21:13, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

What sort of errors/mistakes?<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 20:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Any <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 21:39, 2 May 2015 (GMT)
There are pretty much infinite possibilities for errors that people could make. For that reason, writing a bot that fixes all of them would be impossible. A bot needs to have a very specific and well-defined task. For example, when making WikiMonitor, it was difficult even to come up with the definition of an unsigned post (i.e. what criteria distinguished a talk page post from a different edit to a talk page).<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 20:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Well... It could fix spelling mistakes/errors and it could fix other stuff. <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 10:13, 3 May 2015 (GMT)
Hello, when you said the bot would fix "any" example, that isn't really answering the question of "what [sorts] or errors/mistakes [it would fix]". If you can list out some examples of what it would fix, we can continue this bot request! In the meantime, please stop adding new bot requests - as that confuses everyone, and if you have more questions, you are free to ask here!
User:KrIsMa/Sig 17:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wanted to request all of them bots. They were different names. I said it could fix spelling mistakes/errors and it could fix other stuff. User:CoolBoy5677/Sig 18:23, 3 May 2015 (GMT)

I deleted them because they had not a header, but please do not put them back - because making multiple bot requests confuses all of us.
Anyways, have you read Test-Scratch-Wiki:Bots?
User:KrIsMa/Sig 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have read that page. Ok. So... lets talk about CoolBot, not over things.
User:CoolBoy5677/Sig 18:39, 3 May 2015 (GMT)
Ok! What specific mistakes do you want your bot to fix? Give about 3 examples :)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 21:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... it could maybe fix spelling mistakes/errors, image/file errors (where you type the wrong file name in and it comes up as a red link, the bot will try and find the correct file and convert it) and it will delete pages if they are based on a User Content, not 100% relatable to Scratch and if it junk.
User:CoolBoy5677/Sig 08:37, 4 May 2015 (GMT)
Okay. First, it's practically impossible to fix spelling errors so a human has to do so. Second, I think that's impossible to "search" the file. Third, the bot cannot judge accurately if it's based on user content or allowed content. For all of those, a human can do that. I'm sorry but I think this bot has to be rejected. <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is this going to be rejected? User:CoolBoy5677/Sig 07:34, 6 May 2015 (GMT)

I'm not a EW so I dunno. <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 21:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


WikiBot will Test tasks (testing scratch wiki) and Typography tasks (spell check, etc.) <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 10:18, 3 May 2015 (GMT)

Not sure... <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 12:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We have already discussed this before on other bots... fixing spelling or grammar with a bot is next to impossible due to the complexity of the English language and the often specialized vocabulary that accompanies Scratch.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 12:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well then it will just Test tasks (testing scratch wiki.) <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 14:01, 3 May 2015 (GMT)
If you're just reading pages (and not making edits), then you don't need a dedicated bot. You can just run that using the API scripts without an account.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 13:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok! <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 14:12, 3 May 2015 (GMT)


WikiBot will fix the wiki in different ways, and it will fix links on here, e.g. If I do a / at the end of {User:CoolBoy5677/|CoolBoy5677}, it won`t work but if I do {User:CoolBoy5677|CoolBoy5677}, it does work. I know I am suppose to {{ }} but then it would have my whole profile here. The bot will fix that. <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 12:43, 02 May 2015 (GMT)

I think the VoxBot does that. Emogi redirection page
  1. REDIRECT Template:E <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Well VoxBot doesn`t really do it correct. It happens to me lots and VoxBot does nothing <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 13:42, 2 April 2015 (GMT)
VoxBot doesn't fix that - so you are good
If you want, you can look at User:VoxBot#Task for more info! :)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 16:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
However, the following requirements need to be considered: "Is your bot's task already done by a human or could it easily be done by a human?" "Is your bot's task similar to the task of an existing bot or could it easily be added to an existing bot?" "If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly or something rare?"
Here are my answers to each one: 1. Putting a slash at the end of a link is an easy error to fix. 2. This could easily be added to VoxBot. 3. I have hardly ever seen this happen. For those reasons, I don't think that this proposed task merits a bot.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Can I change what it does then? <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC+1)


This bot will convert red links into plain text. If a redlink is needed, you can just put {{NoBots}} or some special template. <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 20:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

the point of a red link is to leave it in order to make it more convenient for others to create the page :)<scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 22:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Still, they can just click it before the bot reaches it. <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 02:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Red links are an important feature of a wiki; there was at one point a campaign to remove red links or create redirects for them, but this was reversed because it was determined that they are indeed useful in assessing what is needed on the wiki. <scratchsig>veggieman001</scratchsig> 04:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone read this? <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 01:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"It is indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic".<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let me tweak it. <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

How often do pages have "too many" red links, though? (Also, it should be "many", not "much")<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 22:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm just not sure this is enough of a problem on the wiki to merit a bot... <scratchsig>veggieman001</scratchsig> 04:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, you can reject this. I'll try again if I have an annoying problem. <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 17:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don`t think this is a good idea. Like what veggieman001 and Mathfreak231 said. <scratchsig>CoolBoy5677</scratchsig> 13:46, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

BlockerBot discussion

Any thoughts? I will be programming it in Python. 😉 <scratchsig>PrincessPandaLover</scratchsig> 22:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The block message is no longer allowed due to community consensus.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 02:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Opinions, people? Huh? <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 13:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For archiving the CP, no, as 1. archives need to be protected and we've already established we are not giving sysop privileges to someone who is not a sysop. 2. While it's generally archived when over a certain size, sometimes archiving is held off if several important discussions are still going on, or at least those discussions are not archived, and a bot would likely have at least some errors with that. For removing old {{In Progress}} templates, that's a task that comes up fairly rarely and is easy for humans to do, and as such does not merit a bot. For clearing the sandbox, WM already does that, and it works pretty well. What would be the point of transferring the task to another bot? All that would serve to do is make things more complicated and cause problems.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 14:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I've thought about all of those things already. 1) If I win the next EW election, you said there was such a thing as EW protection. Tweaker for EW? 2) It can look for the {{Not done}} template, and for the In Progress thing, it happens more often than it seems like it does. 3) Given the type of bot I am requesting, it would make more since for this script to do it. Actually, I take that back, WM can keep clearing the sandbox. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
1. EW protection was never added. I requested it, but it didn't happen. That notwithstanding, EWs can't protect pages at all. Only admins can protect pages for any level. 2. Still, for example right now, the election is still being discussed and doesn't have that template.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 14:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay. This can be rejected. BTW, with the archives thing I thought "KRISMA" said "KRETT12". <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 14:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Haha, I kinda see why you thought that. :3 <scratchsig>derpmeup</scratchsig> 14:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Will be written in Python and will categorize any page that ends with "?" to know that it is an FAQ page, no page ends with "?" other than faq pages, right? I want to prevent this and this from happening again. User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think humans can do that. Besides, WM should remind you. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 20:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I think automatically categorizing it is better because lots of people forget. User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
it seems like a bot that has too "narrow", i mean it only has one task and that is it. it would be cool to make a ategorization bot that categorizes all uncategorized pages, but i dont think this is a big enough bot (if you know what i mean ;)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 20:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In /Instructions, it says "Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles?" (the answer should be yes). This would only help a few articles. Anyway, as stated above, WM already reminds you if you forget to categorize a page. Also, is this even really a chronic problem? Remember the old quote, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 21:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Rejected. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Someone please mark this as rejected I will request one that categorizes EVERY page. User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 15:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can already tell you that one will be rejected too, as it is extremely difficult (i.e. impossible) to tell the category of a page with a bot and have it be accurate. Just enforcing the category rule with WM works fine.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you even start that discussion, a machine can't know what category something belongs to. Face it: human brains > bots. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 15:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, just mark this as rejected. User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 15:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


I guess I can't really "test on main account" as I'm not a sysop <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 22:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How is the bot supposed to know when a new sds studio is released and what it's description is? User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 12:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It pulls it off the main site's front page, it can just read the new description by looking at the link. Also, I have come up with a few more ideas. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 13:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
(1.How will it do that? If a different piece of news comes up it might say that.(2.What programming language? User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 13:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Making this bot would essentially be making you a sysop. I think it's better to have the news be a bit out of date than to let a user who hasn't been chosen by the community or Scratch Team become a sysop. In addition, checking for talk archives is not always easy, and it is possible that a user won't want them protected immediately. As I have said many times, not every task needs to be automated.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 14:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
PHP. And besides, it's September, an admin election is due. Am I not good enough? OK, but I really think that it should happen instantly, and it's worth pointing out that bots don't get tired. So, if the community think I can become a sysop, is SysopBot maybe in the question? <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need a sysop bot, or even a new human sysop. jvvg, Mathfreak, and i are doing fine. If anyone would be promoted, it would likely be someone who is already an EW. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 17:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Scimonster made the point for me. Also, an admin election is due?[citation needed] The elections page says "as deemed necessary by the community". Nowhere does it say "every year". We hold them whenever feel it's necessary, and we held the last one because Sci wasn't able to be as active as before. At the moment, we have sufficient sysops to administrate the Wiki, and if we deem it necessary to make a bot with sysop capabilities, it will probably just run on one of our main accounts.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Bots should, in my opinion, only be run on main accounts if it's going to be temporary. This won't be temporary. Besides, you didn't become an admin because they're weren't enough, you said so yourself. Besides, more contributors means more admins. Also, one more thing, even if we don't end of making a SysopBot, I still have some ideas for EWbot. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 18:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I was chosen because I was already an elected an EW, and as Sci said above the next new admin, whoever it may be, will probably already be an EW. Anyway, you're missing my main point which is the fact that we just don't feel the need for this bot. It's not that hard to update the news and it's never more than a day or two out of date. Automating the tasks such as updating the news and weeding out bad account requests take time, and are also prone to errors. Automation is not the solution to everything.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's already bad enough it's not pulled directly off the main site. A bot is the next best thing. I agree with you for other news items, but curator and sds should really be automated. Also, I'm not talking about all the request, just the things easy to automate. Everything might not need automating, but this sure does. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Automating it just makes it more error-prone. You weren't around yet when WM was first created, but it was a pretty rocky start, and it took months to completely iron out all of the bugs. A bot to update the news would be similar, except prospective contributors would also see it. Do we want to risk the Wiki looking bad in exchange for slight convenience, especially when maintaining it wouldn't even be that convenient? I made WM because I was seeing people make the errors it detects on a daily basis, while this would be once every two weeks. Anyway, remember this and this.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For years, the wiki ran just fine without a single bot. That's right, not one. Then we got all these new users (you, KrIsMa, and some more), and suddenly automation became the hot new thing. What's wrong with the tried and true?
Let's look at the second XKCD that jvvg linked to (and i do trust Randall here). Let's say it's a weekly task, and automating would save 5 minutes. Over a 5 year stretch, it wouldn't be worthwhile to spend more than 1 day programming it. Something tells me it would be more than a day. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 20:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
So, how about this. We start it with a different, false news page, and then if it seems to work then we can transfer it. Besides, account requests are on the daily. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 21:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I think I'll do that . Also, once it's done, it'll STOP errors, not create them. For example, the most current news item by a human has the timestamp of AUGUST 1st. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 23:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
One copy-paste mistake isn't exactly representative of the whole system. Anyway, as Sci says, although it may seem easy to code and making a preliminary version would be pretty simple, it is error-prone. From my experience with WM, whenever it seems it's been working fine for a while, a new bug pops up. While humans updating the news occasionally make mistakes, they are usually easily correctable, while a bot making a mistake could easily crash the entire Wiki. That's why we're hesitant to accept bots in the first place. Giving a bot sysop capabilities gives it the potential to make it even worse. The final thing is this: there is no RSS feed or equivalent service for the stuff you're looking to get. This means you'll need to parse the HTML from the Scratch Website front page. This requires some string manipulation. Then suppose the Scratch Team suddenly decides to redesign the front page. The Wiki news is now full of errors, while a human will just adapt to the new interface. You can say this will never happen, but I can give you a concrete counterexample. When I was programming the original comment verification system (on Mod Share, before I ported it to the Scratch Wiki), the Scratch Team changed the way in which comments were accessible in the API. Originally, they were stored in JSON, but one day they changed it to storing the raw HTML. This broke my code and people couldn't register on Mod Share. Now imagine the Scratch News being full of random HTML, and that's what would happen.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 00:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but all that work can pay off later. For example, WM hasn't been making many errors lately. And also, if the Scratch Team redoes the page, we'll get some advance notice, like we all saw the beta. Or maybe, another solution would be to search the page for it. Hmm, I know this is gonna be hard, but believe me on this one, it'll pay off in a few months. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 00:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can tell you that I got no advance notice of redoing the comment API. I should also point out that WM still makes occasional errors, and the algorithm for catching users not signing posts is still imperfect and misses some. Saying it will pay off in a few months is also missing the whole point of the cartoon I linked to above (the one about saving time). Unless it can be programmed very quickly (and quick code = sloppy code, as I learned the hard way writing WM), it won't actually save time.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 00:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then again, a dev API might be different than redoing the entire front page, which is visible to millions of people.
I still think it is totally unnecessary. Automation has become the new fad, but it's really not needed. Yes, VoxBot cleans up typos and fixes links, which is helpful. Could we get along without it? Certainly. WikiMonitor is probably my favorite bot, because at some point people got lazy and stopped prodding new users. (I include myself in that.) Hmm, that could be part of why we got so few people who stayed for a while.
But anyways, a sysop bot will be much more trouble than it's worth. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 07:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm marking this one as rejected.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 11:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got my PI on you

I do not think that the proposed bot is a good idea. It is extremely difficult to find, let alone fix first-person writing. It is even more difficult to find articles about Scratchers and Projects, as many articles (such as tutorials with links to examples) could look like they're about projects.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not a good idea? It will look to a dictionary for a list of all possible names, but THIS time It won't change real words and sentences so nothing bad could happen.User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 19:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If it doesn't change anything, than you don't need a bot account. You can still use the API to get information without a bot account. Anyway, as I said before, there is a massive potential for false positives and very little to be gained. Bots should only be created to solve persistent problems (like the ones WM solves: uncategorized pages, excessive editing, and unsigned posts). Problems that only occur once in a blue moon (figuratively) don't need a bot.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually when I made Test-Scratch-Wiki:Tools WM didn't categorize it and I've got my PI on you changes first person writing and will change articles based on a user/project but it won't change kaj, or removed pac-man project or normal text, it will only change first person writing and change articles about projects/users(Not including Pac-Man or Kaj). User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 19:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that the proposed bot is a good idea. It is extremely difficult to find, let alone fix first-person writing. It is even more difficult to find articles about Scratchers and Projects, as many articles (such as tutorials with links to examples) could look like they're about projects.

– jvvg

Also, WikiMonitor only notifies the user. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 00:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're completely missing a few points. 1. WM does not fix stuff for you, it just notifies users. 2. You say it does that, but I said above that that would be extremely problematic. Given your history with algorithms, I'm not inclined to believe that this one would be accurate enough that it's acceptable to run on the Wiki.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 01:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, citing something that WM does not do has absolutely no bearing on your bot. When I stated inaccuracy above, I also meant detection. There is basically no algorithm possible that could automatically detect what you are trying to do. Also, a note to all: please think about your bot before requesting it. Do we really need it? Is it solving a major problem or just a very occasional one? If it's just solving an occasional one, then it's likely to do more harm than good.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 01:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
you say your bot can also change articles to first person? I don't think that can work (for example, if it changes all "I" to "one", a paragraph such as "I make this block to this other block, and then I move the script and it works!" Will turn to "One make this block to this other block, and then one move the script and it works!" In a nutshell, grammar is very hard to correct even with a bot. Also you want to detect names and if it detects a lot of names it deletes the page? Hmm, that seems hard. Seems like there will be a lot of false positives (Test-Scratch-Wiki:Bots is a perfectly ok page but it has names in it -false positive-) To be honest, I think this is a good idea, but changing first person is out because of Help:Patrolled edits (really easy to detect) and the usernames one, for example, links to user made projects causes false positives, Scratch Team would too. (A lot of pages do, too!) :>
User:KrIsMa/Sig 02:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have 4 valid problems with this bot:
1) No grammar correcting. EVER. Must be done by human minds. Changing first-person is not simple. You have to remember that certain verbs correspond to certain tenses in the English language. So no for that.
2) User detection can result in errors and be too difficult to implement, as well as the fact that some users are needed to be mentioned appropriately in articles.
3) The Wiki has enough bots why does everyone want a bot! Once one person has one everyone else feels "lesser" or something. It's like 10,000 years ago when someone finally tamed a wolf into a dog. Everyone else is like "woah man! I need that animal you got there". Or in a way it's like when the next iPhone comes out. "check out my phone girls". Other girl says: "No way what a sparkley case". Tech-savvy guy says: "Did the RAM increase?". And then next thing you know Joe and Bob and Susy Dusey Cue have to have sparkley phone cases and more RAM.
4) That name craves my hunger<scratchsig>Turkey3</scratchsig> 03:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
4 isn't a problem it's a craving - I'm hungry too now! apple or banana cream? :P
User:KrIsMa/Sig 04:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
So, we do not need this bot. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 04:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes No bot User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 07:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

JayceeMinecraft bot idea

Thank you for requesting a bot ideas. One question I have is what programming language are you going to program your bot in? Also, how will the bot know that someone deletes things on a page for no reason? <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If the user deletes over 12 lines and I will be using javascript, php, and python. User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)~
Also, I think this task could be easily be done by a human. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
But only EW's and higher can revert lots of edits at once, and Ew's and higher aren't on every second. User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
However, I do not think this happens often. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've heard of this happening quite a few times and now we have a solution!User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 17:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many cases where deleting a large amount of a page is acceptable. Also, patrolling recent changes is something WM already does, and one of the criteria for making a bot is that it can't easily be added to an existing bot. I could code this in WM in a few minutes, so it fails in that respect. Finally, to address your concern, we actually do have EWs and admins on all the time. When I am around, I come on periodically throughout the day, and so do Sci and Mathfreak.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
One other thing: I can only remember this happening as a result of vandalism once in my time on the Wiki. Not to be mean, but I've been on the Wiki a lot longer than you, so I've seen more examples of vandalism and stuff.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes OK so this bot is rejected! User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Could this be moved to Scratch_Wiki:Bots/Requests?

Also, I might want to request a bot of my own.

It would soft of be "in between" WikiMonitor and VoxBot. It would check for users breaking the Wiki Guidelines (WikiMonitor), but searching article-by-article, not using Recent Changes (VoxBot). For example, the word "I", if not in a talk page, and not in quotes, shouldn't be there. It would also double check other bots' work And also, if WikiMonitor asks a user to not do something, it doesn't actually change it. Maybe that should be fixed. My bot's name is Tweaker. Would this seem plausible?<scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 13:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it works where it is. If you are sure you want to request this bot, please put it in the table. Anyway, here's my comments on your bot proposal: 1. The "I" thing seems like a good idea. Just check it for false positives before running it. 2. Double-checking WM is redundant and unnecessary.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 13:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it should be one of those reference bots where it doesn't edit the wiki at all but instead parses the wiki and adds pages to a list which can be seen by the bot owner. Then, the owner can go through all the pages on the list and change what needs to be changed :)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 16:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to do what KrIsMa said, you do not need to submit a bot request. You can use the MediaWiki read API without restriction. Also, one other thing to add. I said above that checking WM is redundant and unnecessary. Let me elaborate on that. Your bot checking WM would require you using your own algorithm to detect unsigned posts, and that algorithm would need to be better than the one I already use. If you have a better algorithm for something WM already does, please just tell me so I can put it in WM. This way, it avoids unnecessarily complicating the bot structure.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't saying anything about your bot. i was just saying that for new bots.<scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 19:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
My point is still that checking other bots requires that your algorithm be more accurate than the one used in the bot you are checking, and if you have a more accurate algorithm, you should just give it to the bot owner.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
So far, the current decision is decline, if there is no more discussion in the next 24 hours, the final verdict will be decline.
User:KrIsMa/Sig 16:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I will decline this bot idea. Also, what programming language are you going to program the bot? <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 16:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Python. Oh, and never mind about the "correcting bots" thing, just focus on the main part. Okay?<scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 22:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, just checking for "I" in articles doesn't really merit a bot. There are also probably a few cases in which it wouldn't appear in quotes, such as the number.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 13:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Another Idea of a Bot

Another idea of a bot is that the bot will count the number of times a template is used, the bot will capitalize the first letter in the sentence if it is not already, and the bot will add missing tag and references section if necessary. The name of the bot and the programming language is the same as before. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 00:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Counting templates: there's no point, and MediaWiki already does a lot of that for us. Besides, just collecting data doesn't require a bot request. Capitalization: absolutely not. What if my username were the first word in a sentence? References: that happens very rarely anyway, and that seems like a task more suited for VoxBot.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 01:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, a reference bot would be beneficial d:)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 04:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but in Test-Scratch-Wiki:Bot Requests/Instructions, one of the questions is "Could it easily be done by a human?" It also says "If so, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human (e.g. too repetitive, humans are too unreliable)?". The answer to the first question is yes. The problem is pretty rare, and it takes a Google search (just search the error message to find, and it takes a few seconds to fix. In addition, most of the time this error occurs, the user notices as soon as he/she submits the edit.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI, if the <references/> tag is left off, an error in obvious red text shows up...<scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
it says Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found very visible :)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 20:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Another Bot Idea

Another idea for a bot is a bot that will archive old discussion pages and I will use Python 2.7.6 to program this bot. The bot will be called Gobot. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How will you know when to archive old discussion pages? <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 00:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
By the age of the discussion page. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 00:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that will work; some discussions can be not replied to in a long time, but still needing discussion.<scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 00:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, most of the time, old discussions (like on articles) don't need to be archived. The reason for archiving discussions is that they are taking too much space on the page, so it's better to split them. I also agree with Mathfreak, in that there is not a ubiquitous set of criteria to archive pages. Finally, when archiving discussions, sometimes some discussions are not archived (such as how on the CP, any active discussions are not archived).<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Idea of a Bot

My idea for a bot is a bot that welcomes new users to the Scratch Wiki. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your request. Do you know what programming language you want to write it in? Other than that, I see an issue, if a bot welcomes users, then the message will be very generic, wouldn't that be similar to the messages that is automatically given when someone joins the wiki?
User:KrIsMa/Sig 00:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
So, I think I will stop making this bot since it is a bad idea. <scratchsig>Swampert11</scratchsig> 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe let other users comment before you stop!! :)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should decline this idea for a bot because we do not need it and not many Scratchers join the wiki. <scratchsig>Margaret1618</scratchsig> 00:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If we want something to welcome new users, we can just modify the default welcome message. It's also better with real people submitting welcome messages, as they can be more personalized. <scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's wait for another user to reply in order to secure the verdict.
User:KrIsMa/Sig 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, we don't need it.<scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 14:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


Your explanation is extremely vague. What would it fix/modify?<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Better explanations and more! <scratchsig>Cooldude5367</scratchsig> 20:08, 5 October 2014 (GMT)
We already have something like that called VoxBot. Try looking at a page. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 19:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Making "better explanations" with a bot is pretty much impossible.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 19:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you give us an example of where the bot would help? This is just an example... but:
"My bot ErnieBot would help clean up grammar! On the article "project", there is a sentence that says "The projects is listed in a row." ErnieBot would help fix the "is"." <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 19:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
What language would you program it in? How would you test it?
-PRO- Logo2.png-PRO- (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It will talk English and it will help edit pages if there is something wrong or it don`t make sense! It will also Welcome new members to scratch wiki! <scratchsig>Cooldude5367</scratchsig> 07:16, 6 October 2014 (GMT)
We've already had requests like this. It is simply too hard to make a bot that correctly fixes English grammar. And we don't need a bot to welcome people - the approval system already does that, and there are several people who do it on their own. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 11:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Cooldude, you would have to program it. <scratchsig>-PRO-</scratchsig> 11:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we don't have a programming team. Are you sure you're ready for this? If not, DudeBot will be instantly rejected. I may sound harsh, but we are serious. You have to code it.<scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
when an account is created, a default message is posted on their talk page, unless you want your bot to post custom welcoming messages? :)
User:KrIsMa/Sig 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sci ninja'd you. Besides, if we're having a bot do it, I already called it. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you give me ideas please? <scratchsig>Cooldude5367</scratchsig> 19:25, 6 October 2014 (GMT)
I once found this on a page - "Having a bot is not a status. Please don't say you're going to make a bot and then ask for ideas on it, only submit a request for a bot if you have a good idea on how it can help the Wiki". <scratchsig>derpmeup</scratchsig> 22:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
/Instructions hope it helps!
User:KrIsMa/Sig 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Can it post custom welcome messages please? <scratchsig>Cooldude5367</scratchsig> 07:25, 7 October 2014 (GMT)
I don't think that's necessary. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 07:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We have already denied several bot requests for welcoming users. It's simply not necessary. Remember that not every task needs a bot, and messages from real people are always better.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 10:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will code and program it! <scratchsig>Cooldude5367</scratchsig> 07:18, 9 October 2014 (GMT)
But we already said no to grammar, no to welcoming... What do you want the bot to do? <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 17:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


Thoughts? Eh? <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 03:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Necessary? <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 07:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
There are seriously a lot of pages without that template. It might be a drag to create it at first but it is SO much relief to not have to put the template on (remember we create pages there a lot). It would would be kinda like the world was magically doing it all for you by itself. Speaking of the world, no, I will not choke to death if I don't have this bot :P however it would still make a lot of relief for me and the other members of the AF wiki. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 11:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ya know, I found a much better solution for April Fools than that template. It's fairly easy to import/export pages, so why not just do that?<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 12:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The whole point of making a new wiki was to have the pages not be stored on here, where anything can be viewed by anyone. Now, this is a special bot request. The AF wiki has to be OK with it too. (I'm okay with it and I run the AF wiki (with jvvg as my sidekick) )<scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I know the point of having a separate wiki, and when the time comes, it will be very easy to copy the stuff over with import/export. It seriously takes about 10 seconds if that.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
But you can't import into pages that already exist. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you tested that?<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC), but I'm pretty sure it's true. Are you volunteering to delete all the AF revisions on April 2nd? <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 14:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, if the importing doesn't work, I could go and copy and paste the contents of the spoofed pages and replace the content with that in the articles that got parodied, I have the patience. :P <scratchsig>derpmeup</scratchsig> 14:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If we made you an admin would you clean it all up? <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I will clean it all up.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
But I don't believe you're going to instantly do it, I believe that humans are slow paced :P. Comedy in teh bot request! Anyway, the thing is I'm not looking for the content of the page to be shown as the AF thing. I'm hoping for the page to be displayed normally, with a link to the AF page. How will importing pages solve that? BTW, it's about time a bot request got accepted <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 14:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
1. It's pretty lame if there's just a link. It's way funnier if the actual article shows. 2. We're not going to accept a bot just for the sake of accepting one. We want bots that will actually be helpful.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive Bot

Thoughts? <scratchsig>-PRO-</scratchsig> 13:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Already nixed. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 13:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, no. THat is totally different. I would let the owner make the new page, and it would protect it. Sorry if I wasn't clear. <scratchsig>-PRO-</scratchsig> 15:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Already called by SysopBot. Sorry. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I seem to recall that SysopBot was rejected...?<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes it was. So if we were to do this, SysopBot already called it. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Why can't we create a new group just for some bots? <scratchsig>-PRO-</scratchsig> 15:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We can, but it's not necessary. Automatically doing any kind of sysop task opens the Wiki up to vulnerabilities, and we are not giving sysop privileges to anybody who wasn't appointed/elected.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

OK! I will delete it from the table, or just saw it was rejected. <scratchsig>-PRO-</scratchsig> 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.