Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AusTerrapinBotEdits

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

AusTerrapinBotEdits[edit]

Operator: AusTerrapin (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming language(s): C# (AutoWikiBrowser)

Source code available: AWB source information

Function overview: Account is for semi-automated editing tools in a high edit rate per minute mode. This application is for manual use of AutoWikiBrowser (I am approved on my primary account), for selected tasks (see below). Addition of any other tools will be subject to separate BRFA(s).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily (or less)

Estimated number of pages affected: Will vary considerably depending on editing project of the day. I anticipate that a peak figure would be 500 per day but with no more than 1500 per week. Higher edit counts are more likely on weekends. Long term averages are likely to be significantly less than these figures.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Unknown - whatever the status is for AWB

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details:

  1. Category name addition or substitution - this is in support of my existing work on category standardisation and article diffusion (primarily for WP:ODM). I prepare lists of articles that need to be add/changed to a standardised category name, or that need to be moved to a more appropriate diffusion category and then manually use AWB to implement the appropriate additions/substitutions.
  2. File name substitution - this is to update file name links for files that have been moved from Wikipedia to Commons with a changed file name in order to preserve the file link after the Wikipedia version has been deleted. I generate lists of articles that link to the Wikipedia file name using AWBs 'What links here' list generator and then manually use AWB to change the file name from the Wikipedia file name to the Commons file name. In doing so, I manually set up the filters to preserve the original piping (where used) but update from 'Image:' namespace to 'File:' namespace.
  3. Template addition - addition of applicable project templates (where they are missing) to articles within the scope of WP:ODM
  • Prior to each run, I compile a list of articles that require modification and then undertake the substitution/template addition. As these task usually only involve 1 change per page, review of changes is quick and, subject to network/server speed, edits per minute may reach 5-10 edits per minute (without deliberately slowing down) - for semi-regular use, I belive this exceeds the AWB edit rate allowed for standard accounts and hence the establishment of a dedicated account and this BRFA in order to permit higher speed operation. If there is concern over the account name for use in the manner described, I am happy to modify it.

Discussion[edit]

  • The current requested approval is too vague. Bots have to be approved for specific tasks, a new BRFA should be opened for each task you would like to do, not a generic one for all edits. - EdoDodo talk 16:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on feedback I've now modified the request. Please note that the intent is to speed up editing that I already perform. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information on the request. Guidelines advise editors to apply for bot accounts in case AWB is supposed to be used for high-frequency editing. I believe the user (who applied initially at AWB request and was rejected by me/Xeno as the bot-name wasn't approved by BAG) wishes approval for the bot name specifically for semi-automated AWB use. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, that is exactly my intent. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth, a trial for the equivalent Commons account has now been conducted with details listed here. AusTerrapin (talk) 02:34, 02 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}}

  • Approved for trial (75 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see how it goes. Try to give a sample of each of the three tasks, if possible. –xenotalk 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial complete. (Permanent link to edits). 77 edits performed, six subsequently deleted per discussion below. The specific task trial results are as follows:
  • Task 1 - Category name addition or substitution. (Permanent link to edits). Trial consisted of diffusing 17 articles from two generic categories to four specific categories (one article belonged to both generic categories). Result 16 articles diffused from generic order recipient category to specific order class category. One article diffused from two generic order recipient categories to two specific order class categories. AWB reported a peak edit rate of 3 edits per minute (epm). Average edit rate 2.33 epm.
  • Task 2 - Deprecated link substitution. (Permanent link to edits). Four deprecated file name links replaced on seven pages, in ten edits. Two pages included multiple file name changes. One edit initially changed to misspelt file name - this was the result of my typographical error and was subsequently corrected (this can be avoided in future by being more careful to thoroughly double check information first). One edit was to a user page - a note was manually left for the editor explaining the reason for the edit. (Since the file was being used as part of a draft article, and the file link would be broken upon deletion of the Wikipedia version of the file, I had judged that (with an explanatory note) it was reasonable to break with the usual WP convention on editing user pages.) AWB reported a peak edit rate of 2 epm. Average edit rate 1.25 epm.
  • Task 3 - Template addition. (Permanent link to edits). 50 edits conducted to add project banner to 44 category and article talk pages. Second run added banner to six misspelt talk pages (a group of related pages). Upon investigation, I found that this was because I had generated the list via a CSV file which had the effect of stripping out the "ä" from a series of pages related to the 'Order of the Zähringer Lion'. This was a deficiency of the CSV format not AWB. I had checked the page names before creating the CSV file but had not rechecked them after loading into AWB. I identified the issue as part of checking the results of the edit run. I raised speedy deletes for the affected pages (all are now deleted) and re-ran the relevant sequence after fixing the page names. AWB reported a peak edit rate of 14 epm. Average edit rate 7.14 epm (3.5 epm when adding project banner template to existing talk pages and 8.8 epm when adding to new talk pages).
  • Notes:
  • Average edit rates are a gross average for each task excluding the time taken for breaks in AWB editing (eg to reset settings, etc). The effect is that they reflect the average edit rate during live AWB edit runs for each task.
  • 100% file check conducted — all edits performed as expected other than where noted above. The two errors identified were essentially operator errors — one of which could just as easily have occurred in manual editing, the other of which was the result of the technical limitations of the CSV file format (I am now aware of it and therefore a repeat issue is unlikely). The errors have been fixed — regardless, they highlight the need for operator vigilance.
  • Page save and load time in AWB was somewhat slow. This probably reflects a combination of larger article page sizes and/or slow server response times. Achieved peak and average edit rates per minute is likely to be higher when the server response is faster or pages are smaller. This is reflected in the considerably faster response times for creation of new talk pages in Task 3.
  • Providing there are no objections, I intend to modify the wording of Function 2 to "Deprecated link substitution". This widens the coverage from substituting links only for deprecated files, to include deprecated page names (following page moves, etc) and deprecated template substitutions. The nature of the function is essentially the same, so I don't believe that there would be any benefit in conducting additional trials specifically on deprecated page and template links.
AusTerrapin (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}}

Hi AusTerrapin, thanks for your patience. At the moment I just have a couple of questions regarding task number 2. I notice the links you replaced in your example were originally to a page which wasn't deleted yet. However, what's the problem with simply redirecting the original file to the new one, and saving a large number of then pointless edits? This also applies to moved pages, which you mention in your notes; the move should automatically create a redirect from the old name, so replacements are pointless. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question. There are two key occasions when fixing links for pages may be warranted - double redirects and certain scenarios with piped redirects (particularly where the piping is for the new page title and it is linking via the redirect page; in this instance, to leave it as a piped redirect falls foul of other Wikipedia policy with regards to piped links so common sense needs to be applied). With regards to images, from a purely technical perspective you are correct that a redirect could be used. I am not convinced that leaving redirects behind for images is a particularly good practice, especially when the original title was wrong (as opposed to simply being different). In the series of image files for which I replaced links during the trial, the original uploader had accidentally swapped ribbon images and titles around and had seriously mistranslated at least one title - leaving these sort of errors around indefinitely is poor housekeeping. Regarding the timing of changing the links, that is a matter of expediency and cleaning up after myself - I transferred the files to Commons (correcting the naming when I did so) and then updated the link in all affected pages (using the 'What links here' function) and then tagged the original image for deletion as now being uploaded to Commons. By changing the links immediately, I prevent any period where the link becomes broken and don't have to monitor for when the original file is deleted just to come back and fix the links at that time (that would be asking for something to screw up). I should also note that I am conversant with Wikipedia's policies on redirects, etc and the utilisation of the bot account and listed AWB functions is something that is incidental to other editing tasks that I do - my intention is not to patrol Wikipedia looking for every link that might (policy aside) be a candidate for changing. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously fixing double redirects is no problem. As to if the piped link is pointing to a redirect, as I understand it there is no point in linking to a redirect in the pipe because it doesn’t change the text displayed, but similarly I don’t think there is any point in fixing these, because once it’s done is done, and although it would be better for the person to get it right the first time, it’s just worse to then change it later, see WP:R2D. In that case it seems like replacing the image links prior to deletion was sensible, to avoid having a bunch of red links (even for a short period). However, in general you should use the appropriate XfD first. For example, if there is a poor redirect which is confusing, take it to RfD before replacing the links to it. If you’re happy to only run the link replacement part of this bot if there is consensus at XfD (or a different appropriate venue such as RfC) or the task is bound to be uncontroversial, we should be able to approve this. One other question – are you wanting a bot flag for this account? - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) regarding Kingpin's points. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. No response from operator. If you want to re-open this request, just undo this edit, address the questions above, and relist it. Anomie⚔ 03:17, 24 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AusTerrapinBotEdits&oldid=1138379119"