Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EnzetBot

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

Request Expired.

EnzetBot

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

Time filed: 00:18, Sunday, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised.

Programming language(s): Python.

Source code available: no source code available since bot is a part of major project.

Function overview: fixes inconsistencies and formatting in metro stations articles (in station infobox and S-rail templates).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): every time bot found some inconsistency in metro pages.

Estimated number of pages affected: about 1000 pages. There are about 10 K metro stations in the world, so no more than 10 K pages should be affected.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes.

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

Function details: I have The Metro Project for metro map automated drawing. It uses Wikipedia for check metro system graphs and sometimes meets inconsistencies and bad formatting in Wikipedia articles. Now I fix them manually (see my contributions) but want to entrust it to my bot.

Tasks for this request:

~~wrap dates in station infobox with date template, e.g. 2000-03-30 to {{date|30-03-2000|mdy}};~~
add links to station structure types and platform types, e.g. Shallow single-vault to [[Single-vault station|Shallow single-vault]];
fix redirects in S-rail template.

Discussion

I see the bot account has been editing articles. It is not yet approved for that.

I note you want to edit dates, but I see from your recent edit to Klovska (Kiev Metro) and your function details (above) you haven't realised the importance of ISO 8601 date formatting. I also note that you did not elect to use the style reportedly preferred by Ukrainians in your edit; is there a reason for this? Out of interest, why are these dates of interest to your bot?

The bot fixes inconsistencies between articles; how does it know which one is correct?

The links to station structure types and platform types you're proposing to link - are they the ones in infoboxes, or article text?

What major project is bot a part of, and why does that make the source code unavailable? Josh Parris 14:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for editing without approval. It was a test to make sure bot works. I'll never do it again.

Yeah, I see, date changes seem to be a bad idea. I think, I should remove it from tasks list. Should I undo my edits (there are only 5 of them)?

About inconsistencies. Bot doesn't know which one is correct, it only can detect wrong things or possibly wrong things. For example, wrong date format (month number can't be greater then 12), wrong terminus (station cannot be a next or previous station for itself), if station A is next for station B, station B should be previous for station A, wrong S-rail values (if it conflicts with station lists on metro page or line page), and so on. That's why bot is not automatic, I supervise every edit. I don't know how to formulate it as a task since there are so many types of inconsistencies. May be you can help me?

Yes, bot will add links to infobox only if there is no such link in article text.

My major project is not open source for now. It generates very simple suggestions for bot I exampled above—what to replace in which article. If bot source code is important, I can push it to public repository but it is trivial since it uses pywikibot (no more then 100 LOC). Enzet (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're supervising every edit, then this is a "manual bot" and can be run using your own account without approval. Would you like to do so? Josh Parris 11:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand all about inconsistencies. If I don't want to use Enzet account for semi-automated editing, can I use EnzetBot account (with removed {{Bot}} template and without approval) or should I register new account without bot keyword? What is a good practice for that? Also, is there some criteria for semi-automated editing (no faster than 1 edit per 5 seconds, no more 100 edits in a row, or something like that)? (Sorry if I missed it from the rules.)

Also, I am realized that (1) wrapping station structure and platform type with links and (2) fixing S-rail redirects tasks may be provided without supervising or supervising for them is really fast (checking is trivial). Can I get approval or disapproval for these tasks in this request or I should create new one? Enzet (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Parris any further comments? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enzet What are the redirects of S-rail? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D)) Magioladitis (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirections in S-rail templates. See this, this (station redirect), or this edit (line redirect). Enzet (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked WikiProject Stations to join the discussion. WikiProject transport too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Date}} should not be used in articles; the template makes this clear. Alakzi (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi the bot already changed 3 pages. Do you suggest the edits should be reverted? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it in all three. Alakzi (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I striked out this bot part. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short of publishing the source code, I'd want to see a list of all replacements the bot would perform. Alakzi (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. — the operator's account appears to be inactive for over a month with outstanding issues / concerns here. Marking expired for now. --slakr^\ talk / 04:26, 27 August 2015 (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.