Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsoykaBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Denied.

BsoykaBot[edit]

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

Time filed: 05:11, Sunday, February 27, 2022 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: github.com/bsoyka/wikipedia-bot/blob/main/fix_pmc_errors.py

Function overview: Fix CS1 errors due to PMC formatting

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Running over the category once daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ~10-30 per day perhaps

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This finds the regex \| *pmc *= *pmc and replaces it with |pmc= for each article in Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. Some examples: [1] [2] [3]

Discussion[edit]

Just commenting for curiosity, as of 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC) there are 3 pages in that category. "Live" count is 17. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The category can be cleaned out by User:Citation bot, but that bot needs to be triggered for the category manually by someone each time it's cleaned out. This new bot could take stress off of both the people manually triggering the bot and the bot itself, which is more intended for adding other information to citations. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 14:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need to acknowledge during the BRFA that for most readers, this will be a cosmetic change, since it removes a normally hidden error message and a hidden category. I support the task, and bots are allowed to make cosmetic change with BRFA approval, but editors sometimes object to bot edits even after an approved BRFA because they don't see a change in the rendered page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, I agree. I'll also mention that I'm going through the BRFA process to get a flag and AWB access for my bot account so I'm not flooding any watchlists with this. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one page in the category at the moment, so this might not be a high-volume task that anyone would notice. Does everyone see this message in preview though?

Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

I find such preview warnings for "cosmetic" issues to be quite annoying, and would be happy to have bots making them go away. Human gnomes are swamped and don't have time for messing around making edits like this. Could a bot clean out Category:CS1 maint: url-status too? wbm1058 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this category seems pretty regularly cleaned-out manually, my estimate above is about 10-30 pages per day. As for the other category, it probably wouldn't be a simple find/replace like this but I might be able to make something work for it at some point in the future if no one else does. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} No activity in over a week. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 17:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now searching using the regex \| *pmc *= *pmc to catch cases with spaces — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 04:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC), edited 16:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsoyka: This might be better implemented as a continuous-running bot, perhaps using Pywikibot? ― Qwerfjkl talk 20:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: Sounds good to me, done. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 23:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a single, carefully monitored edit that I would've otherwise made on my account simply to test this Python version of the task. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 23:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every 5 minutes seems excessive. Daily would perhaps be more appropriate? ― Qwerfjkl talk 23:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, works for me. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 23:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 14 days, whichever happens first). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. This is assuming a single daily run. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the best way to handle this category. Having CitationBot automatically run on the category once a day would be better, because it does a lot more than cleanup |pmc=, it cleans up after the visual editor and other tools that inserted the less-than-ideal |pmc= parameter in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare e.g. [4], with the follow up edit by Citation bot [5]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Perhaps, but on the other hand, Citation bot is manually activated every time it's run (taking at least a small amount of valuable time from human editors), and its operator doesn't appear very active at all anymore, so I'm not sure about having it run automatically. Bsoyka (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"at least a small amount of valuable time from human editors" It's literally a one-click activation once you're at Category:CS1 errors: DOI (and similar). The full list of one-click categories is

Having Citation bot automatically run would be better, sure, but manually triggering Citation bot leads to better outcomes than this bot would have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for getting some more formal consensus around this; I still think it'd be a good idea to automatically get these out of the way, but, of course, I'll stick with what the community wants. I'll keep going on the trial as it's approved (for now). Bsoyka (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. @Primefac: 45 edits, 4 reverted only because they were included with reverts meant mainly for other edits. Run times were a bit sporadic as I was activating the bot manually to check every edit, but would be on a schedule if approved. Bsoyka (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what letting Citation bot do its job does instead, on the same articles. It's ongoing, but it should be done in about an hour or so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me and I was just about to approve this. @Headbomb: Is this an objection to this task? There appears to be some overlap but not an awful lot in this case? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an objection, yes. I would much prefer that Citation bot handles these because the malformed PMCs (which do not produce visible errors to readers) are symptoms of larger issues that Citation bot is much better equipped to deal with. If another bot handles them, they exit the workflow, and Citation bot will not run on them (at least not systematically). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Ah, so Citation bot already would deal with these cases and perform the same fix if it wasn't already done? If that is the case, then I will deny this in favour of that. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It doesn't do so automatically, but it's a one click thing when you're in Category:CS1 maint: PMC format (the link is there for anyone to trigger the bot). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Thank you. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a duplication of efforts already done by Citation bot, as Headbomb confirms and I can verify, I am going to go ahead and mark this as Denied. I do, however, thank Bsoyka for their efforts and apologize for being the "bearer of bad news" on this task. I hope that Bsoyka isn't discouraged from filing non-duplicate tasks in the future. For the record, this bot worked as expected, just is duplicating efforts of an existing bot and thus is denied. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:48, 3 April 2022 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.