Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OmniBot

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

Withdrawn by operator.

OmniBot

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

Time filed: 23:34, Friday, March 25, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB (once written)

Function overview: Fixes several problems related to headings and subheadings within articles.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: I would estimate at around 5-10 each day.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will be used to fix common formatting problems related to headings, as per MOS:HEAD. It will fix the following problems.

Replace html heading elements (<h1>, <h2> etc.) with wiki markup.
Report headings which are in full uppercase at a page in the bot's userspace.
~~Remove~~ Report uses of italics in headings at a specific page in userspace.
~~Remove~~ Report uses of question marks in headlines at a specific page in userspace.
~~Remove~~ Move references or images in headings to after the first sentence in the section.

Discussion

Without commenting on the task itself, a bot doing these tasks should ideally also place the pages it edits into a tracking category for editor review. Articles that contain these mistakes are often either low quality or blatant copyright violations. For instance, questions in headings often indicate a WP:NOTESSAY issue. ~ Rob^Talk 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How will the bot avoid false positives for the middle three tasks, e.g. a section header called Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in an article about the works of Edward Albee? To give a non-hypothetical example, how would the bot avoid removing appropriate italics in headings, such as the ones in Dan Harmon?

Is it really appropriate to remove references from headings? They be moved somewhere more appropriate. How does your bot know where to move the references?

Maybe a database dump and AWB would be a better set of tools for these useful tasks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With such a low edit rate, how do you plan to populate articles to AWB to actually be reviewed? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. @BU Rob13: @Jonesey95: You both bring up points which I didn't really consider when making the request, because obviously there could be legitimate uses of italics and caps. So how about if the bot simply reported instances of the first three? That way they could be instead reviewed by other editors. As for completely removing refs in headings, I think a better idea would be to move it to the end of the first sentence. And @Xaosflux: what exactly do you mean by that? — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Flames what criteria will you be using to select the articles that you will be checking? (e.g. are you working though a database dump, recent changes, new pages, etc). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would you report instances? Add a template on the talk page that populates a tracking category? That would undoubtably be useful but I'm not sure AWB is well-suited for the task. ~ Rob^Talk 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, I think bots should generally stay out of user space. Users experimenting with markup have enough problems to deal with without a bot nattering at them.

Second, it is absolutely unacceptable to automatically move a citation from one spot to another. The placement of a citation indicates which claim the source supports. By automatically changing the location of a citation, you probably misrepresent the views of the author of the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: I think he was proposing that a list of reports be created within the bot's userspace on a centralized page, something that is definitely a reasonable implementation. It's equivalent to flagging for review on talk pages. I think templating the talk pages would also be useful, so that the editors involved with the various articles could contribute to working through the bot's reports. The operator would need consensus for such templating, however. The citations should be flagged for review like everything else given the above concerns about where they're moved to. ~ Rob^Talk 14:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Ah, right I see. I was planning on using a database dump. @BU Rob13: @Jc3s5h: Yeah, what I meant was creating a list for those who want to track down errors the bot, but I can see adding to the talk page working. Perhaps you're right in that AWB is not well suited for the task, but it could probably work. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 21:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Actually, I think this bot is a good idea, but it's definitely true that AWB wouldn't be well suited for the task. Going to withdraw. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (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.