Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xqbot 3
- 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.
Operator: Xqt (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: based on noreferences.py
Function overview: Goes over multiple pages of namespace:0 listed at Category:Pages with missing references list, searches for pages where <references /> is missing although a <ref> tag is present, and in that case adds a new references section. This also works if <ref>-tag is included via a template
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: > 9'000
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: This bot is running at de-wiki since several months. In addition to the basic noreferences.py it looks for well known templates which contains a <ref> template and checks whether this tag is already used at the actual page. After that it looks for on of the followin section to place the <references /> tag: References, Footnotes, Notes. If no section is given, it places a References section before one of the following: Further reading, External links, See also, Notes.
Discussion[edit]
- what makes this any different than say Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mobius Bot 3? βcommand 21:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Xqbot uses the same behaviour as noreferences: it does not create a new section if one of these sections exists given above; if it needs a new section, it places it in the right order before on of that sections described above instead of always on the bottom of the text. It also recognizes all those templates which include a <references /> tag, not only the {{reflist}} and it places <references /> instead of the {{reflist}} template (exept this would be required here). It is able to detect ref tags by the page content displayed on the screen instead of only one given template part as Mobius Bot does and which is not sure placing a ref tag. And last it find references tags in more various appearance. here are some samples of doing this job on de-wiki. -Xqt (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- what does it do for cases where vandalism wiped out most of the article? see my comment on the BRFA above. βcommand 23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Xqbot uses the same behaviour as noreferences: it does not create a new section if one of these sections exists given above; if it needs a new section, it places it in the right order before on of that sections described above instead of always on the bottom of the text. It also recognizes all those templates which include a <references /> tag, not only the {{reflist}} and it places <references /> instead of the {{reflist}} template (exept this would be required here). It is able to detect ref tags by the page content displayed on the screen instead of only one given template part as Mobius Bot does and which is not sure placing a ref tag. And last it find references tags in more various appearance. here are some samples of doing this job on de-wiki. -Xqt (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Josh Parris 08:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you approve this for trial without having the operator address the issues I'm raising? βcommand 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- The operator is proposing using a standard pywikipedia bot; one trial doesn't preclude another, so if the discussion results in a customization we can run another trial, but if no customization is required the trial is out of the way allowing earlier approval. Basically, my view is that a small trial doesn't prejudice the outcome. Successful conclusion of the trial doesn't equate to bot approval. I didn't intend to disrespect or belittle your questions by way of this, and I hope the operator wouldn't interpret my behaviour as indicating your questions didn't demand answers; I certainly wouldn't close without them being addressed to your satisfaction. Josh Parris 06:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Instead you allow the bot to blindly damage wikipedia. before trialing a bot you should have all the major bugs worked out. That obviously is not the case here. As you saw in the other BRFA editing non-template caused errors often covers up more serious issues. βcommand 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- This bot is not a anti-vandal-fighter. A good solution would be waiting a delay time before a vulnerable page is changed. My script is based on the pwb created nearby 3 years ago and I am running it since 1 1/2 years on de-wiki. This means I get reported if any behavior would be wrong and I am able to fix it in mean time. A trial period is also period to test the behavior and optimize it if needed. On the other hand it could help to improve if you could give me a sample of these cases where errors are lurking in your opinion. Thanks. -Xqt (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and I can go on. βcommand 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a good point and a generic problem; any bot which repairs articles may be repairing an article that was damaged by vandalism that should have been reverted instead. Would an appropriate exclusion be articles with the last non-bot edit by a non-autoconfirmed user (ie, IP or <10 edits)? Josh Parris 07:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and I can go on. βcommand 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- This bot is not a anti-vandal-fighter. A good solution would be waiting a delay time before a vulnerable page is changed. My script is based on the pwb created nearby 3 years ago and I am running it since 1 1/2 years on de-wiki. This means I get reported if any behavior would be wrong and I am able to fix it in mean time. A trial period is also period to test the behavior and optimize it if needed. On the other hand it could help to improve if you could give me a sample of these cases where errors are lurking in your opinion. Thanks. -Xqt (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Instead you allow the bot to blindly damage wikipedia. before trialing a bot you should have all the major bugs worked out. That obviously is not the case here. As you saw in the other BRFA editing non-template caused errors often covers up more serious issues. βcommand 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- The operator is proposing using a standard pywikipedia bot; one trial doesn't preclude another, so if the discussion results in a customization we can run another trial, but if no customization is required the trial is out of the way allowing earlier approval. Basically, my view is that a small trial doesn't prejudice the outcome. Successful conclusion of the trial doesn't equate to bot approval. I didn't intend to disrespect or belittle your questions by way of this, and I hope the operator wouldn't interpret my behaviour as indicating your questions didn't demand answers; I certainly wouldn't close without them being addressed to your satisfaction. Josh Parris 06:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
BetaCommand, xqt, what is the state of play here? Josh Parris 02:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am playing soon. Sorry for that delay. I had some bigger projects in real life outside my home. The proposed exclusions seems good enought for implementing it. -Xqt (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a sample with 25 edits -Xqt (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good Xqt, but I want some sort of response to Betacommands concern before I approve it. Tim1357 talk
- There where some vandalized pages. Changing these page would not confuse the <reference /> tags but makes anti-vandal fighting more difficult and is not necessary. Therefore this bot just ignores IP-edits and gives the RC patrol the change to revert the last IP action. Also this bot may not run high frequented, ihmo one or two times daily is enough. This gives additional delay to react. During testing phase I found this a sufficient measure for the given problems. The code is published as mentioned above and has a code review since two weeks here. The remaining pages after a bot run like [8][9][10][11] have to be fixed by hand. -Xqt (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good Xqt, but I want some sort of response to Betacommands concern before I approve it. Tim1357 talk
- Here is a sample with 25 edits -Xqt (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are you using <references /> over say {{reflist}} which seems to be the pretty standard way these days? Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 08:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its pretty trivial, they do the same thing and I have seen both used extensively. Betacommand, if you are alright with xqts response Im ready to approve this. Tim1357 talk 23:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Id rather change it from ip edit to a time delay say 12 hours. but other than that its ok ΔT The only constant 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Like User:Tim1357: <references /> does the same as the template and the pywikibot framework has no suggestion to substitute <references /> with a given template. But it is not a problem to changes this behavior. Requests should be made at pywikibot framework request tracker (or at one of my talk pages). btw: the following templates which includes a <references /> tag are recognized by bot: . Xqt (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
[u'Reflist', u'Refs', u'FootnotesSmall',u'Reference', u'Ref-list', u'Reference list', u'References-small', u'Reflink', u'Footnotes', u'FootnotesSmall']
- Like User:Tim1357: <references /> does the same as the template and the pywikibot framework has no suggestion to substitute <references /> with a given template. But it is not a problem to changes this behavior. Requests should be made at pywikibot framework request tracker (or at one of my talk pages). btw: the following templates which includes a <references /> tag are recognized by bot:
- 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.