Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JaguarBot

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.

JaguarBot[edit]

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

Time filed: 13:21, Wednesday, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Adding stub templates to video game-related articles, or removing them when the articles are not stub-class.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This WP:AN discussion, where I requested to regain my AWB rights but was advised by admins to make a bot, and come here. I'm quite well-versed in Python so I might put it to good use some time.

Edit period(s): Occasionally

Estimated number of pages affected: Approximately 1500, which includes all pages in the video game stubs category and its sub categories.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Adding or removing stub templates to video game-related articles and. This bot will be limited to and all of its sub categories, which covers around 1500 articles.

Discussion[edit]

Automated typo fixing bots do not generally have the support of the community - do you have more information about the specific task you are trying to automate? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know, I thought that if it ran from AWB then it could have used the fix typo/regex feature? This is my first time proposing a bot, so I'll drop the typo feature if it isn't possible! JAGUAR 14:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tasks needs to have specific goals - what exactly are you trying to accomplish with a bot? Your request is for "automatic" use, that means you will not be reviewing each edit made. How will your bot identify the targets of its edits, and what specific changes will it be making? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This request is not specific. Bot tasks need to have well-defined functions, not a jumble of minor tasks. Also as xaosflux notes, typo fixing by bot does not have community support. Using AWB and Python would likely be for different things and would need separate approvals. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I've tweaked the request, I think I'll stick to adding/removing stub templates to a specific area until I expand my knowledge. I've also removed Python, but it could be an option in the future. JAGUAR 17:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my idea for restoration of AWB has really been understood here. When I proposed it at PERM (and later AN), I was suggesting that you go through bot approvals for a semi-automated task, where you basically used AWB as you were before but only on tasks specifically approved through the Bot Approvals process and on an alternate account so that your AWB edits can be easily isolated and reviewed if necessary. I was not suggesting that you graduate to fully-automated AWB tasks, nor was I suggesting that you seek a blanket approval for something as broad as automated stub sorting. I don't actually have any objection to a fully-automated task, but I don't know of any bot operator who's been granted a blanket approval for a task that hasn't been clearly defined in their first BRFA.

Personally, I recommend sticking to semi-automated for now, but I won't object if you decide not to. Semi-automation has massive advantages because you don't have to consider extreme edge cases; you can just look at the edits and skip ones that don't look exactly right. You also don't yet have to take on responsibility for edits you haven't had the opportunity to see, which is what happens for automated tasks and which is what caused trouble the first time around. I'd also like to see something more clearly defined (what stub templates/categories, how will you find articles, what is defined as a stub vs. not a stub, etc). Once we have details hammered down, a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games to demonstrate consensus would also be nice. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the top of this page, read all of your edits, and correct anything that is no longer current. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I'll keep this simple and stick this bot to sorting out the stub templates on all video game stubs, which covers around 1500 articles. After looking at BU Rob's suggestion, I don't mind going semi-automated, but even I doubt that anything could go wrong for this simple task. Final question (as I'm new to this), will having a semi-automated bot still allow me to use the bot feature on AWB? JAGUAR 19:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you'll be using AWB to do this task? How will you choose which articles to add/remove templates to/from? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account does not already have a bot flag, I changed that above. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, approved bots are both flagged as a bot, and for AWB added to the "bots" list (that will let the "automatic save" feature work). Use of the feature is limited to the scope of your task approvals. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over all articles in the stubs category and will add templates through the "find and replace" option most likely. I don't have access to AWB so I can't test it. JAGUAR 09:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which stub category? (Provide a link.) If they're already in a stub category, why do they need a stub template? (Do you mean project stub categories?) How do you know the articles are still stubs (i.e. out-of-date project class designations)? Has either project been informed of this and is there consensus for it? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling that you're making this intolerably harder for me? I don't know. I'm only going through this bot process because you kept on telling me I should do it to get my AWB back. "Has either project been informed of this and is there consensus for it"? Why would WP:VG need a consensus for something as minor as a bot checking if stubs have their stub templates? If I got my AWB back I could have done this within minutes. JAGUAR 22:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running a bot is serious - if you don't want to run a bot then this is the wrong place for you. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval - there is currently quite a lot of activity and a backlog to go through. If you want AWB for miscellaneous editing use - then BRFA is really not the right place. Your request above says this is to be a fully automatic process - meaning that you have code that is extremely likely to be error free - so there will be a lot of questions. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of me requesting you go through BRFA was to encourage you to identify a specific task you can do (either with semi-automation or automation), demonstrate it has clear consensus (since you've made many edits against project consensus in the past), and go through the rigor of BRFA so that even if you continue operating like a human bot, at least you'll be approved to do so and be doing it from a flagged bot account (which was a past problem). It wasn't meant to be as easy as "get AWB back by filing a BRFA"; if that was what was intended, we would have just given AWB at PERM. Having said that, you haven't gotten to any of the difficult bits of a BRFA yet, like the trial and considering edge cases. The questions I asked were basic "What is this bot going to do and are the people editing in the area you're about to make thousands of edits in ok with it?" Without a solid answer to those, an editor shouldn't even make semi-auto edits from a main account with AWB, which is possibly part of the reason there was a problem the first time around. I've stuck around this BRFA because I believe you can use this as a first step toward eventually getting full AWB usage back on your main account, but if you're not willing to even explain what the task is in concrete terms, we're not going to even get to the point where the bot is making trial edits. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. There has been no response from the operator. This task may be relisted should it be desired in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 27 August 2016 (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.