Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Brunobot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

Brunobot

Operator: Tim1357

Automatic

Auto wiki Brwoser

Standard AWB

Fix bot approved tasks on Wikiproject Check Wikipedia

Edit period(s): As needed

Continuously

Exclusion compliant (Yes):

Discussion

A note: this is almost a copy of User:Drilbot's bot, however, it would be fixing one error list at a time. I will change the settings depending on the error I intend to fix, (which would decrease the bot's false positive rates) . The first task, which would run pretty continuously, would be dealing with Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Template value ends with break (AutoEd) .I chose this error simply because it has the largest backlog. The script is simple RegEx, taken from AutoEd's javascript. Talk to me to see it.To see a sample edit, see [[1]] If, by some act of god, the bot mannages to tackle the backlog, i will return to request another specific task. this)--Tim1357 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Bot Approvals Group member, but I saw this mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia and I have a few comments about this request:

My bot, User:DrilBot, certainly hasn't been doing much in the CHECKWIKI area because of other tasks and my own time constraints. Having another active bot would be helpful.
However, I see a few possible problems with this request. First, doing one error at a time seems kind of pointless... why not do other cleanup at the same time? The majority of false positives for DrilBot were caused because of poorly formatted pages, not the bot itself, and the other errors are easy to avoid by just requesting a bugfix at WP:AWB/B and, in the meantime, just using RegEx to skip the page. Not performing other cleanup seems kind of pointless, although I wouldn't oppose approval solely on these grounds.
You're still a relatively new user, having only been here for a month. I, personally, feel that someone can have enough experience in one month of editing to be able to run a bot, but I just want to be sure that you understand how much responsibility is needed to do this (with great power...); you may know this stuff already, you may not. I'm not sure, so I want to cover it just in case because I know that I couldn't have started running DrilBot after only a couple months. Especially, be sure that you know all relevant policies. Try to stay cool when people get angry about something your bot did... people don't trust bots as much as human editors to begin with, and when a bot messes up then people can get more wound up about it than when a human makes the same mistake. You need to be willing to answer all questions about your bot which you are able to answer, fixing bugs promptly when (not if) they come up. When your bot's talk page is edited, AWB pops up an alert box to tell you about that, stopping editing in the meantime. If you don't first stop the bot, this box can interrupt you in the middle of anything else that you're doing on the same computer. I'm not saying any of this to discourage you; I just want to make sure that you understand what is really involved in running a bot.
Most importantly, I really don't feel that the specific error that you've mentioned is a good one for a bot to work on. I tried working through the list using AWB awhile back and there are a lot (a lot) of false positives which I can guarantee the AutoEd RegEx won't catch, and I don't think that RegEx even could be written to catch them. One example of such a false positive is the "honorific-prefix" parameter of {{Infobox officeholder}}... this usually requires a linebreak at the end so that the prefix and the person's name are on separate lines when displayed. Otherwise, they'd run together. AutoEd is designed for manual, non-bot use and as such includes changes more prone to false positives... working on this list would likely give a 5% false positive rate, if not more (maybe far more), which isn't good for a bot. I've been looking at that list for a long time and I just can't figure out a way to bring that false positive rate down much at all, unless every relevant template is specifically excluded. But that can't really be done. Maybe I'm missing something; if you can figure out a way to avoid this problem, great!

In my opinion, you seem to have enough experience in using AWB and AutoEd, including using them for CHECKWIKI fixes, to be able to run an AWBot for the purpose. I'm mainly just concerned about the list that you decided on for the first task. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! I saw that the infobox officeholder was a false positive, so i was going to go through and remove all the pages that translude that template (and all of its sub templates) listed here[2]. If you are concerned beyond that, then I will stick with the fixes that AWB has built in. I am pretty confident that I can keep my cool with angry editors, and I certianly have a lot of experience apologizing. And as an added note, The bot would not fix one error at a time, rather work on one error list at a time. Tell me what you thinkTim1357 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The bot would run on a dedicated machine, an old clunker i bought.Tim1357 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this seems reasonable then. If you do come across any other false positives, then I highly recommend that you over-compensate and skip more than seems needed (for example, skip both the exact false positive in question and things that look similar, if possible). I'd be surprised if there weren't more false positives; I just don't know of any. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the list from the documentation, use this. Rich Farmbrough, 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't use that, I used What transudes this page: Template:Infobox office holder. However, i was not aware of the 25000 limit, so i have a few false positives in my testing. This problem will go away when i get approved to be a bot. Tim1357 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think the problem will go away. And better than downloading a list of tens of thousands of articles, use the link I gave. I will drop the regex to your page presently, but it is better to keep it up to date. Rich Farmbrough, 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I use the sip if contains (what you sent me). Also i added template:Nihongo, as it messes with the format. Tim1357 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like other users are raising appropriate concerns, and they're being addressed. The bot task seems very useful and bot appropriate. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences (request removed)

Can i use this bot to rename refrences? I will skip Harard refrences, as I know there is controversy over them. Tim1357 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that related to the task above? It seems to be a completely different task, requiring a separate request for approval. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed as an error on Wikipedia: Check Wikipedia. Tim1357 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's contest to this, then I will remove it from my request. Tim1357 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if it's just one of the list of errors, why are you asking separately from above? Are there different levels of tasks on Wikipedia: Check Wikipedia? If there are, maybe this bot should be fore one level/type of error? --69.225.12.99 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new section because it is somewhat of a more controversial bot task. Tim1357 (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's more controversial it might be better to list it as a separate task, leaving the bot request to the one task alone for now? Otherwise you need some input on this task alone. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I thought about this and this really should be its own request. Tim1357 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request summary

Is there a summary somewhere of what, specifically, this is going to be doing? Mr.Z-man 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Im not sure its summary worthy. I just wanted permission to have the "general fixes" box checked so that It would combine identical refrences. Anyways, I have removed this from my request, and maybe I will be back later.Tim1357 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I don't like to see bots approved for extremely broad, non-specific tasks. Many of the checkwiki fixes are trivial and should not be done en masse if there are no other changes going to be made. There are ~20 things on the checkwiki page that are listed as things AWB can do. Will it be fixing all of them? A small subset? Mr.Z-man 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YEs, I want to fix Template values that end in breaks AND titles that are linked in text. However, I was considering asking Smackbot to put this in its list of general fixes. I have the regex all set up, and the bot can fix the errors when it is doing its other fixes. That way the same article wont have to be changed twice. So I guess this means that I remove my request. I do not no how to remove it, so i might need someone to do it for me. Thanks Tim1357 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.