Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot II 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots‎ | Requests for approval

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Primefac (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 24 May 2019 (fix sorting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

DannyS712 bot II 13[edit]

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 10:01, Sunday, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: User:DannyS712 test/GTK.js

Function overview: Easy tag all of a category's subcategories with notices that they are being discussed at CfD

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 17#Tagging bot

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Varies, I'd guess ~50 per run

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Traverse through the subcategories within a category and add tags to them. Examples of when this would be really useful are listed in that discussion, but in general it would be for mass-cfds ("Rename XYZ and all of its subcategories", etc)

Discussion[edit]

Preliminary discussion[edit]

How would you ever know it is time to run this task? — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: It would run as-needed (I'd leave a note at CfD saying that if people wanted to nominate an entire category tree, or a list of categories that's really long, and don't want to tag them manually, I could do it for them). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: this almost feels like it would be better as a user script (e.g. 'xfd-batch' for twinkle, with a 'recurse' option), any thoughts?
  • Do you plan on any sort of max-tag-per-request limits here? — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: this would be a user-script, and I would be willing to run it from my account rather than the bot. I don't know what xfd-batch is (admin only?) but since WP:BOTDICT defines automated editing as Refers to editing that is done automatically, without human review, i.e. editing done by bots., I thought I should err on the safe side and file a BRFA, because I do not intend to review each edit --DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As for max-tag-per-request, since it would be triggered manually I would decide for each request if it seems to broad --DannyS712 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'xfd-batch' doesn't exist in twinkle, I was comparing it to some options like delete-batch, protect-batch. — xaosflux Talk 03:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: Then yes, that is very similar to what I would be doing, but I filed this BRFA to be on the safe side (see explanation above) --DannyS712 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, this is not a bot request. It's a user script, which may or may not be shared to users beyond its creator.
From what I can see, the script above is way too simplistic, and is suitable on for some very simple cases at CFDS. I am concerned that releasing it for wider use will lead to it being used in the many more complex cases where it will produce inaccurate output.
The task which it performs is one which I encounter several times a month, for full CFD discussions, CFDS nominations, and WP:RM nominations. I do it by using of a set of AWB custom modules which I hack on a per-case basis. My experience is that
  • In a bit less than half the cases, the tagging can be achieved by a plaintext replace function
  • In the rest, one or more regexes are needed
  • In all cases, some care is needed to ensure that all 3 tasks are performed accurately:
    • tag so the the tag includes the name of the target category. e.g.
      {{cfr}} → a tag saying "rename to some other title"
      .. but {{cfr|MyNewTitle}} → a tag saying "rename to Category:MyNewTitle"
    • tag so that the name of the discussion section is included, otherwise the links will point to the wrong place. e.g.
      Wrong: {{cfr|MyNewTitle}}
      Right: {{cfr|MyNewTitle|DiscussionSectionHeading}}
    • a meaningful edit summary. The edit summary should both describe the proposed action, and the location of the discussion
Some examples:
  1. CFDS Category:Marne (department) plus subcats:
    • CFDS listing:[1]
    • tagging example [2]
    • code needed: plain text replace
  2. Full CFR discussion of by-year cats for British Empire / British Overseas territories
  3. Full CFR ~650 "Republic of Macedonia" categories:
    • CFD discussion: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia
    • tagging examples: [4], [5]
    • code needed: a single regex, to accommodate the fact that some old the old titles were of the form "Republic of Macedonia foo" and some of the form "Foo in the Republic of Macedonia". The word "the" needed to be removed if present, so the regex was s/(([tT]he +)?Republic +of +Macedonia/North Macedonia/
Code such as this can probably do a good job in some simple cases. Unfortunately, there are any other cases where it risks mistagging dozens of categories.
I also think that javascript is not a good tool for these uses, because it does not allow a test of the first edit before proceeding, manual intervention for edge cases, etc. When I use AWB, I do the first edit, then stop and check its effects: is that tag correct? Is it linking to the right discussion section on the right page? Is the edit summary accurate, and doe sit too link correctly?. I then check a few a more variants before whacking the save button repeatedly through the rest of the list
AFAICS, a javascript tool will just proceed through the list in one go, with no possibility of intervention nif there is an unforeseen error (which in my experience there often is).
I have huge regard for Danny's skills and conscentiousness both as an editor and as a programmer (he really should be an admin), but in this case I think he is using the wrong tool, and has not taken enough account of the many variations which arise in this sort of group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: This task would extend to types 1 and 3 listed above, both of which are done using a single regex. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712, my concern is that any script will end up being used by other editors for tasks where it wouldn't do the job properly ... as indeed with your own proposal of it at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Category:American_female_rappers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: By if @Xaosflux or another BAG member wants to trial this task, I meant send it to trial for me to run. All of my tasks that are done in javascript are hosted on wiki, meaning that their source code is visible to users (I haven't figured out how to use toolforge yet) with the implicit understanding that using them without permission is just like using any other tool to bot-like edit without permission - against policy. I won't venture into BEANS territory, but any script I make will, as far as I am concerned, only be run by me - if another editor tries to use the script, they are responsible. As for doing the job properly, I would set the regex each time for each run, and would manually check (from the bot account) a few to see that it works before setting the bot loose on an entire category. The reason I didn't do it with AWB is because the regex relies on the name of the category itself, which as far as I am aware can't be accessed from the regex within AWB. I hope this explanation allays your concerns. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AWB can access the pagename through custom modules. I am using a simple one right now (with 2 alternative plaintext replaces) to tag >1000 categories for WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Places_of_worship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: in that case, would you mind sending me that custom module? I'll look into it, and maybe change this task to be AWB-based --DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Email sent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks, but how does one use a custom module in there first place? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Menu bar → Tools → Make module. Then paste in your module, enable module at top left, then "make module" on the right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: After 1 mistake, I managed to use the module to tag a number of categories for CfD (a nomination had been made without tags) - contribs: here. Given that this worked so easily, I'm changing this task to AWB. @Xaosflux does this satisfy your concerns? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712, I'm glad that worked. But it was a relatively simple case, without any need for multiple regexes. I'd happier to see you deploying an adapted version of the module on more complex cases before this gets the bot flag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Sure, let me know when you have another mass-nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, @DannyS712, I have a pile of tools already made, so whenever I have a mass nom, I find it quick and easy to just tag them myself. I usually AWB to create the lists for the nom, so it's a tiny extra bit of work to then chick in the appropriate module and tag; probably less effort that explaining it. But I'll try to remember to pass one your way so that you can test the bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request, copied from wp:botreq: "There was a request to move categories with "eSports" to "esports" per WP:C2D at WT:VG, but that list is sizable. Is there someone here who can take care of the listing and tagging? (Avoid the WikiProject assessment categories.)" (made by @Izno:) - can I do this with my bot as a trial? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also, tagging the category (and sub categories) discussed at: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Anyone wants to standardize the naming in Category:Criminals by occupation? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} no BAG input since Xaosflux's questions on 11 March. I'd like to request a trial with one or both of the category sets I mention above. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (Up to 3 test cases). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (that is 3 mass nominations), preferably with categories that have relatively few articles pages, with the understanding that this is to be done as a semi-automated task during at least the first 10 edits of each mass nominations, with high levels of scrutiny. And since this concerns deletion tagging, the bot flag should not be set, we want those popping in watchlists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: how do I turn off the bot flag? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't know. @Magioladitis and Reedy:, any help here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just run the code from your main account (it does not have the bot flag) to check that it actually works. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I'm going to start with your request - I made a list at User:DannyS712 bot/Task 13 - you want the first 49 categories tagged for moving from "eSports" to "esports" per C2D, right? Headbomb, what do you mean by having few articles? I'm only editing category pages. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant pages, fixed above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb and Izno: I tagged all 48 eSports to esports categories. I'll do the second trial run soon --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: I'll review soon, but any issue with things as far as you can tell? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: some (2) of them were soft redirects to "esports" already, but I tagged them anyway so that it can be official. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the edits on the bot contribs? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Contribs were in my main account per Magioladitis' suggestion - see [6] --DannyS712 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: it wasn't fun to click the same button 48 times. I understand your concern about appearing on watchlists, but that will also apply if the task is approved, right? Meaning that this task should never be run from User:DannyS712 bot. Should I make another bot account for unflagged tasks? And, if so, can I use that for the rest of this trial? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you from which account you want to run this, DannyS712 bot, or DannyS712 bot 2 or whatever, but if it's an AWB bot, you'll either have to do it semi-automatically with a non-flagged bot account, or you figure out how to not use the bot flag from an bot account with AWB. Magioladitis or Reedy would have insight here, so if they don't reply, I suggest talking to them on their talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I'll just use User:DannyS712 bot 2 - can you give it AWB bot rights (but not a bot flag) so it can be automatic? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not sure that you can do that. Magioladitis or Reedy would know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: what do you mean. Magioladitis' response above was Just run the code from your main account (it does not have the bot flag) - no I have a separate account that won't have a bot flag, like you suggested --DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean let's wait for @Magioladitis and Reedy: to tell us if there's a way to run an AWB bot without flagging edits with the bot flag. Unless you don't mind a clickfest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Oh, okay. Ill wait for a response for a few days before running the next trial --DannyS712 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first trial run was a success, and the categories were successfully speedy renamed - see Special:Diff/892143917. I'm still waiting to hear about how I should proceed though --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: can I just use User:DannyS712 bot 2 with AWB, and have the bot account not have a bot flag? That way I can "run an AWB bot without flagging edits with the bot flag" (since the account wouldn't have a bot flag) and could proceed with the trial. If we ever discover a way to not use the bot flag even when an account has it, we can migrate the task to User:DannyS712 bot, but until then, I'd like to be able to proceed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to mash the save button three hundred billionty times yourself or setup a drinking bird to do it for you, that's fine by me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: or, the second account can be added to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Can the second account please be added so I can continue the trial? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: can't, I'm not an admin. No objection to someone else adding the 2nd account though. Not sure it'll work, but it's worth a try. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Per Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser For bots, please consult the Bot Approvals Group or bureaucrats' noticeboard about adding AWB access. - can you make a request there? Or should I? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going to ping @Primefac and Xaosflux: I believe both are 'crats. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I have not read though all of this but three hundred billionty times seems like a lot of volume to be running an unflagged bot at? What are the actual volumes this may generate - flooding of recent changes is another concern for sure. As far as the AWB access list goes, if it is in the AWB 'bots' section of AWBCB it will get the bots tab last I checked. — xaosflux Talk 11:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eleventy billion times really being a few dozen to a few hundreds times. And can't appearingrecent changes be bypassed thought a confirmed account or similar whitelisting? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not without every single user manually doing that. So here's my thoughts on this request: If you want it to work in AWB without tagging everything as 'bot' then it will need a second account. Without a bot flag it could possible get tripped up on an abuse filter or something, so add +confirmed/+extendedconfirmed as well. From a bot-task-approval point of view, running this on the 'low end' doesn't seem to be an issue. For example, Category:Internationalization and localization and all of its sub categories seems sane; running it on something like Category:Scientists and all of its recursive subcategories would lead to massive flooding of recent changes and watchlists, not to mention requiring huge work to undo everything in the event of a "keep" closure. Just thinking of the work that will be put off to other editors in the event of CFD "keep" results makes be wary of this task as well. Do the CFD people really need to see every page tagged when dealing with some sort of massive nomination? If not, what is a realistic upper bound for such a nomination? — xaosflux Talk 12:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a bound. If someone proposes a rename of the 180 subcategories of Category:Scientists by nationality from "Nationality Scientists" to "Scientist from Nation", then per CFD process, all categories need to be tagged. Flooding recent changes isn't useful, but there are ways to bypass that without the bot flag. Flooding watchlist isn't really a concern, or at least not one that takes precedence over advertising the discussion on the relevant categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Also, for major CfDs I think if they are advertised fully (like the Macedonia or Organizanion discussions) they aren't each tagged individually, but otherwise I agree that there isn't really a bound. However, I can agree to be reasonable in my tagging runs --DannyS712 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux asks Do the CFD people really need to see every page tagged when dealing with some sort of massive nomination? Answer: yes. There is no upper bound.
The biggest set I know of recently is CFD:2019 March 21#Places_of_worship with 2057 categories to be renamed. All tagged by me without drama.
It seems to me that concerns about flooding watchlists are misplaced. This is not like a bot edit to a featured article, which may be on hundreds of watchlists; it's a edits to almost unwatched pages. Most lower-level categories have been edited by about two or three editors, unlike articles which may have been edited by dozens of hundreds of editors. I make several noms per month which involve large numbers of categories, and my tagging never raises eyebrows. So I am surprised to see so many eyebrows raised here at Danny's proposal. It's just a routine issue which should be automated as Danny proposes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: thanks for the note, I don't dive in to CfD much - I assume that some sort of realistic bound would exist (at the extreme something like "lets rename 'stubs' to 'shorts' and tag every single lower category in Category:Stub categories) right? I'm not to worried about flooding watchlists as Special:RecentChanges - but its also not like this is something expected to happen all the time. Even in your example above, I personally think that is insane: was someone going to refuse to let the discussion proceed if one of the subcategories in that series didn't have a tag on it? Do you expect a unique argument that only applies to Category:Former places of worship in Oregon for example? Especially if these are "almost unwatched" - who do you expect to benefit from all the tagging? — xaosflux Talk 18:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: for one thing, each category is usually created by someone else, and thus has different watchers. It would be similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, except not tagging the portals for deletion - to any watchers, it would appear that the target is deleted (or in the case of CfD merged / renamed) without any discussion, because no notice was posted. Unless a page is tagged for discussion, it can only be deleted by CSD (or prod, which requires a notice). Even for "speedy renaming" a notice is needed for 48 hours. In short, I agree that may seem insane, but this is the current practice (and policy I believe) and until it changes I would like to help automate it. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, this is just a pause for a sanity check. If we have a wasteful process that will be exacerbated by throwing bots at it, we should fix it instead. I'm not convinced one way or the other if the current process is wasteful or useful though - thus this discussion. — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Xaosflux, this primarily not about unique arguments relating to e.g. Category:Former places of worship in Oregon. (That can happen, but it is rare). It's about ensuring that the proposed change is advertised on the pages which readers actually visit.
Readers rarely watchlist categories. They are watchlisted when edited, and they are rarely edited. So the way that editors get to know about a change is when they see see a tag on a category which they visit. Most people view the lowest-level categories, because that's where the actual pages are: there should be almost no pages in e.g. Category:Places of worship in the United States, because they should be diffused to the bottom rung, e.g. Category:Places of worship in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. So the category which actually appears on an article is the lowest-level one.
No, it's unlikely that a big discussion would be derailed by one missed tag. But it is common for nomination of a big set to be rejected if a significant chunk of the subcats are either not listed or not tagged, because the omission means that those potentially interested will be unlikely to know about it. The tagging also triggers article alerts system, which is crucial.
This is not insane, and I am surprised to see that label applied to a process you seem to be unfamiliar with. It's about building consensus by ensuring that all those interested have a reasonable chance of being aware of the discussion. Otherwise, the shit hits the fan after a change, when editors pile in to say "you merge or renamed dozens of categories with in the scope of WikiProject FooBar, but because there was no tagging it didn't trigger article alerts so none of the editors here knew about it".
A systemic change like rename 'stubs' to 'shorts' would probably need to be handled at RFC. That happens periodically when the set size is well into the thousands, e.g, in the just-closed RFC I started at RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names (permalink) ... but CFD is well used to handling set sizes in the hundreds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I suppose insane was a bit of a hyperbole, are you suggesting that there could still be an upper bound (it could certainly be ">=1000")? On that Org..[S|Z].. one we certainly don't expect individual category tags, correct? — xaosflux Talk 18:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Xaosflux wrote if we have a wasteful process that will be exacerbated by throwing bots at it, we should fix it instead. I'm not convinced one way or the other if the current process is wasteful or useful though - thus this discussion.
This is a bit tedious. If you want to propose a change to the CFD, process, then WT:CFD is the place to go. But I do find it fairly exasperating that when editors with v significant experience of CFD start to explain why the process is at is, the response here is to pejoratively label it as insane.
The reality is simple:
  1. this is how CFD works, for sound reasons
  2. There might be other ways to ensure adequate notification, but I have seen no proposal which suggests specific, workable alternatives. If some such proposal emerges and if it gains RFC consensus, then we can reconsider the need for a bot, but that's a lot of ifs
  3. Right now, this tagging is handled either by individual editors using their own AWB, or by one-off requests to WP:BOTREQ where other AWB users help
  4. Danny's proposal would be a big help by allowing one single bot to be advertised as doing this, rather than having random AWB owners relearn from the ground up each time. That would significantly lower the barriers to creating mass CFDs (which I define as those of more than dozen categories), allowing a lot more big issues to be tackled
Sorry to be blunt, but if the word insane is going to be used, then the only insanity I see here is the huge bureaucratic hurdle placed in Danny's way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux, the ORG issue is not a CFD. It's about a change in policy, which will be implemented by CFDS nominations, and yes, those will be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy}}. Take a guess why. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
@BrownHairedGirl: when we engage bots in processes it usually makes things better and more reliable, and I agree this seems like a useful process if there were for example 100 categories to deal with in a single nomination, but I think it would be a bad idea to do it for 10,000 - and I really don't expect any human editor to tag 10,000 pages for renaming or deleting in a nomination. Generally, if an edit shouldn't be made by a live editor it shouldn't be made by a bot either. I expect the realistic bound is somewhere short of that 10,000 number as well - do you really think that nominations of that size or even larger require that many edits? If not, what is a good count to lay down some guidance? — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The place to raise to concerns about limits on CFD tags is at CFD and not here. Even if 10,000 cats are tagged, there's no actual problem caused by tagging (save perhaps causing WP:AALERTS to choke on some pages, maybe). If my interest is on a page like First Universalist Church of Sharpsville, categorized in Category:Places of worship in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, then how else I am going to know about the discussion if Category:Places of worship in Mercer County, Pennsylvania isn't tagged? That's why advertisement is required. Normally this is done by humans, but bots should get involved in the bigger cases to save humans the hassle. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Xaosflux, I'm very wary of setting hard numbers, because they can become targets. There's a danger than a limit of X thousand becomes a sorta green light for up to that number, as happens with speed limits on roads.
I think that it's much better to apply discretion. For example, if the proposed change is a simple and relatively straightforward issue (e.g. thousands of Category:Retards from Foo to Category:People from Foo with learning disabilities) then I'd set a higher threshold than if the proposal was lily to be controversial or involve discussion of any possible alternatives. In those cases I'd suggest a pre-discussion or possibly an RFC.
So there are cases where I'd say 100 was way too many, and other cases 5,000 was fine. Suppose for example the issue was whether to abandon the uses of demonyms in category names (e.g. Category:Bhutanese people, Category:French novelists, Category:Irish astronomers), and to use instead the Commons format of "people from" (Commons:Category:People from Bhutan, Commons:Category:Novelists from France, Commons:Category:Astronomers from Ireland), then I'd object to a full CFD discussion on the whole set. I'd say, first an RFC, then nominate each country one at a time to check carefully that we avoid any glitches (some uses will be proper names relating to awards, job titles etc), and do big category set (such as Category:American people+subcats), in chunks.
So what I'd really like to see here would be that rather than setting a mathematical formula, Danny should be constrained to use his experience, wisdom and judgement. Danny has plenty of all three qualities, so I have great confidence that Danny would know when to say "no prob", when to say "no way", and when to say "better discuss whether this is the right path". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • I'm inclined to let the trial progress and approve this task (assuming there are no major issues found during said trail). BrownHairedGirl is making some very reasonable arguments for having this bot task run, to a degree that I personally feel that the (equally reasonable) concerns raised by xaosflux have been answered. While I do agree that the process seems unnecessary and maybe heavy-handed, if it's what the CFD folks use on a regular basis and there haven't been any major issues so far, I'd say go for it until such time as those practices change. If concerns are raised about this bot running this task, then like all BRFAs we can rescind or revisit the approval at BOTN. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty fine with a trial occurring as well, as noted above will require a different account to run under - but that's no big deal. This BRFA isn't the right forum to determine what any tagging thresholds should be, and BHG is vastly more familiar with CFD then I am so if this is standard practice then it shouldn't be an issue. Basically: so long as if these edits were to be made by a 'live' editor they wouldn't be considered disruptive, using a bot account should be equally fine - that is what I was really trying to get at. — xaosflux Talk 21:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Xaosflux. Just for context, I have probably made over 10,000 such tagging edits in the last twelve months alone. Possibly over 20,000.
    The only objections have been when I have made mistakes (I think that was once, but possibly twice; I usually spot and fix my own errors), and once when there was a concern about a brief flooding of recent changes. So no, I don't see any sign that these edits are perceived as disruptive.
    I should say that my responses here might be v difft if the request was from someone other than @DannyS712. I have found Danny to be a skilled coder who is quite exceptionally meticulous and conscientious, and very ready to discuss and review problems. (The inverse of Betacommand, who was a v skilled coder with abysmal communication and consensus-building skills). He's the sort of problem-solving person who I would trust to have authorisation way beyond his experience, because he is clearly v responsible about how he extends his experience. If you have any expertise in sadistic coercion techniques, that would be very helpful in persuading Danny to accept an RFA nomination. His one glaring vice is that he repeatedly refuses requests turn this redlink blue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: thanks for dealing with explaining the CfD process and how helpful the bot is. However, can I ask that the discussion here focus on the bot and related (like the CfD process, etc) and not on me personally as an editor? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl, Xaosflux, and Primefac: since Primefac said I'm inclined to let the trial progress and Xaosflux said I'm pretty fine with a trial occurring as well, can someone please add "DannyS712 bot 2" to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots, so that I can continue? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AWB/+c/+ec added. — xaosflux Talk 21:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I should be able to finish the trial today or tomorrow (UTC). Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I'm going to do your request for standardizing the format of "convicted of crimes" vs "with criminal convictions" for the second run. I'm posting here because it involves tagging 187 different categories, so I want to make sure that doing so is okay with Xaosflux/Primefac/Headbomb. The list is at User:DannyS712 bot/Task 13#Trial - convicted of crimes. Are there any issues with the list or the proposed run? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine. — xaosflux Talk 14:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Will do the 3 run soon. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-trial discussion[edit]

Trial complete. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Run #1 - eSports -> esports

  • 43 edits made with my main account, [7]
  • 11 edits made later with my second bot account, [8]
  • No issues found

Run #2 - "convicted of crimes" vs. "with criminal convictions"

  • 187 edits made using my second bot account, [9]
  • Problem: edit summaries cut off before the link to the discussion (only affected the first 2 categories)
    • Solution: reorder edit summary, so   Bug fixed

Run #3 - "-language encyclopedias" vs " encyclopedias"

  • 55 edits made using my second bot account, [10]
  • Problem: CfR uses a slightly different syntax, and "Category" should not be included (only affected the first 4 categories)
    • Solution: Corrected for the syntax, so   Bug fixed
  • Problem: Category:Odia encyclopaedias was skipped
    • Solution: the category name had a typo, so Red X Not a bug. I manually tagged that one separately

Proposal (if the bot is approved)

  • Add a note explaining that the bot can be used
  • For each CfD:
    1. Generate a list of pages to tag
    2. Open a CfD, with the list included, noting that the categories haven't been tagged yet
    3. Bot activated:
      1. Tag a few, and manually check that everything worked correctly
      2. Tag the rest, and manually randomly check a few. If any errors are detected, either fix them manually or revert the bot edits
    4. Check the list of pages that AWB skipped for not making any change - what went wrong? Either manually tag, or ignore as non-bugs (i.e. the category shouldn't have been tagged)
    5. Update the CfD, saying the categories have been tagged, and noting any changes to the plan (categories skipped, manually tagged and need special attention), etc

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} any updates? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: I don't quite understand your bug in run 2. Why would the edit summary get cut off?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 06:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: I think its because I hit the limit on the length of the summary. Once approved, I won't need the "Bot in trial" stuff, but just to be on the safe side I switched to linking to the discussion first and not to the target name. Does that make sense? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, edit summary limits are 500 characters though. It shouldn't have cut off. That's why I'm confused. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 07:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: Then it might be something AWB does. I'm not sure why it happened, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AWB edit summaries can only have 155 characters. phab:T199347 is the task to change that. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Trial[edit]

Approved for extended trial (10 runs). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see if there are any other issues to resolve here.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 07:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Run #4: merge the subcategories of Category:United States gubernatorial elections in the 1810s

  • Edits made using DannyS712 bot II ([11])
  • No issues found

Run #5: standardize naming of subcategories in Category:Wikipedia essays

  • Edits made using DannyS712 bot II ([12])
  • First 3 of each naming structure done and reviewed manually
  • No issues found

Run #6: CFDS - election categories

  • Edits made using DannyS712 bot II ([13])
  • All manually reviewed
  • No issues found

Run #7: Culture by city

  • Edits made using DannyS712 bot II ([14])
  • Randomly spot-checked
  • No issues found

Run #8: Judiciary by country

  • Edits made using DannyS712 bot II ([15])
  • Randomly spot-checked
  • No issues found

Run #9: Fiction by year of setting

  • Edits made using DannyS712 bot II ([16])
  • Randomly spot-checked
  • 1 issue found
    • Category:1598 in fiction was nominated but not tagged
    • The category does not exist, the nomination was incorrectly formatted
    • Red X Not a bug
  • Otherwise, all good

Run #10: Rock music by country

  • Edits made using DannyS712 bot II ([17])
  • Randomly spot-checked
  • No issues found

@Cyberpower678, Xaosflux, Headbomb, and Primefac: Trial complete. (Since cyberpower is on a break, I pinged the other BAG members that have commented too) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

Post-close note - the bot running this task is User:DannyS712 bot II so I have updated the language and links accordingly. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DannyS712_bot_II_13&oldid=898609659"