Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Josvebot 5

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.

Josvebot 5

Operator: Josve05a (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): WPCleaner

Source code available: Yes at sourceforge.net

Function overview: Fixing articles with DEFAULTSORT with special characters (CHECKWIKI-error #6)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: About 1-500 per day.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): I don't know. I have not written the program and have not yet encounted this problem.

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

Function details: Tha bot will fix article with unicode control characters and migh also errors #2, 7, 9. 16-22, 25, 32, 44-45, 54, 57, 64, 66, 76, 85, 87-88 if the article in question has any of thes errors (inluding the DEFAULTSORT with special characters-error). I will file for approval for those CHECKWIKI-errors also.

Discussion

You've got three similar BRFAs running simultaneously. Why? Josh Parris 21:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when I program the program to run on a specific CHECKWIKI-error, there might be another error inside article as well, wich the program would fix automaticly simultaneously. -(t) Josve05a (c) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now one of the BRFAs is supervised and the other two are automatic; why two different automatic BRFAs? Josh Parris 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just requeste for two of all the automatic changes I could make, to start with, so that I could start with something small, and then aply for more aprovals for all the above listed error that this program can fix. (If these would get denied for instance, then there would not be 20 denied request.

Why two of them is auto and one is supervised, is due to that the program can aply these changes automaticly, while the supervised one the program suggest changes. -(t) Josve05a (c) 22:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the task, and you seem to be an editor in good standing at this time.

I presume that this is one of the automatic things that runs under Wikipedia:WPCleaner/Bot tools? Josh Parris 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. -(t) Josve05a (c) 07:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see what breaks. Josh Parris 09:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need more of supervised edits for this error than automatic to be honest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I've missed something then. Isn't this just a transcription of accented letters to their non-accented versions to ensure that sorts occur in a non-surprising way? Josh Parris 11:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When would it be inappropriate to convert letters like this? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. -(t) Josve05a (c) 11:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. is that 5+25 new ones or 5+30 new edits? -(t) Josve05a (c) 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another 30. The number is approximate, there's nothing wrong running a bit less/more. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quick answer. -(t) Josve05a (c) 13:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 10/30 is done. I will do the rest when more is reported at the CHECKWIKI-database. (And if I'm at a computer at that time). -(t) Josve05a (c) 13:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: It is always appropriate to convert accented letters to their non-accented versions. The only problem is that me and Bgwhite spend time to also update the list of letters. There are a lot of accented letters out there. So, running the bot is the easy part of the task. The difficult is to spot the (rare) cases of letters I may don't have in my list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a matter of running over a database dump and extracting every unicode character out of DEFAULTSORT? That would get an exhaustive list. Josh Parris 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris: thanks for the advice. This is what we do. But then someone needs to map every special character to a normal one. Every time we do this, we update our database of maps but every couple of months some new character appears. At least this used to happen so far. I can say we cover 99.8% of the special characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For normal cases there is no problem. Bgwhite and I have worked a lot on that but for instance I have don't a solution for ǁXegwi language and ǂKx'ao-ǁ'ae. Or sometimes we have some extreme cases like USS Curtis (AV-4) where there was an error in DEFAULTSORT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the dotted I problem where the MediaWiki software has issues with İ. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it your comments are not objecting to the operator, or the task, but a request for some assistance with the analysis of certain translation cases? Josh Parris 11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris: In the given task we certainly need some help from a program other than AWB. I just note, and I think Bgwhite feels the same, that since we get more people who want to help on this we could extend the supervised editing and cover the edge cases. Since Bgwhite and I have worked in the area for some time now we can help with instructions to anyone willing to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what specifically are you asking for? Josh Parris 22:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. -(t) Josve05a (c) 07:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any problems? Josh Parris 10:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read, and understood the implications of, WP:BOTPOL? Josh Parris 10:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not have any problems and yes, I have (now) read that page carefully. -(t) Josve05a (c) 11:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read BotPol, you must now understand that your bot's actions are your responsibility. Given you didn't write the software you'll be using, how does that make you feel? Josh Parris 11:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel comfterble about it. Even if I didn't make the code, I take full responsibility for my (and my bots) action. I will also report bugs that I find to the maker of the program, to get them fixed. -(t) Josve05a (c) 11:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Software bug and List of software bugs; these articles are about problems in software developed by professionals and tightly managed and monitored. Hardly any of the software around Wikipedia could be classified as such. Are you sure you're comfortable with taking responsibility for the bot's actions?

How will you find bugs - wait for other editors to complain at you? Josh Parris 22:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am still comfortable. (I already have a bot on sv.wikipedia.org by the way...)

I am (almost alway) looking through both my own and my bots edits (and diffs) when I get a chance. If I (hopefully not...haha) miss something, then I am sure that it will be brought to my attention sooner or later. -(t) Josve05a (c) 22:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of complaints, Approved. Josh Parris 08:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Before flagging this bot, I raised a concern with the approving BAG member. I am satisfied with the response but hope that more experienced bot operators will kept an eye out and help Josve05a if needed. I would be interested to hear of any serious problems regarding the operation of this bot. WJBscribe (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2013 (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.