Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PuggleBot
- 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.
Operator: EchidnaLives (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 10:02, Tuesday, January 3, 2023 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: PuggleBot would change wikilinks to moved pages following a Requested Move
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Would run daily
Estimated number of pages affected: I can't give a number, as it depends on how many RMs are closed as successful every day, and how many links there are to those pages.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: After a Requested move discussion is closed as successful, PuggleBot would find the RMs where changing the links would be convenient, and will then look for all the links to the former title, and change them to the new title. There is a clearer example on PuggleBot's userpage.
It would be run once a day with very close supervision, and hopefully after a few months of successful operation I would look into changing to automatic. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Needs wider discussion. I could see something like this being useful as a manually-triggered cleanup for moves where the redirect is not intended to remain. I'm highly skeptical of a near-WP:COSMETICBOT automatically changing cases where the redirect will remain. Let's see a Village pump discussion showing people actually want this. Anomie⚔ 13:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, it's unclear to me whether the intended behavior of the bot is to change [[old title]] to [[new title]] or [[new title|old title]]. Anomie⚔ 13:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Anomie for looking at this so fast. I’m heading to bed now, but I’m completely fine with opening a village pump discussion in the morning.
- Answering your question, the bot would change
[[old title]]to[[new title|old title]]. - Just a quick note, this is my first BRFA, so I apologise if I do/have done anything wrong. Thanks, echidnaLives sock - talk - edits 13:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just clarifying the above, the piped link would only be when the article has been moved to something that would be undesirable in the text (for example, you would want something to be displayed as Foo, even if the article is now at Foo (bar)). That’s a bad explanation but I’m to tired too think too much about it. I’ll have it all sorted out for the Village pump discussion. echidnaLives sock - talk - edits 14:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New bot to change wikilinks following a requested move. I also now believe I can do it without making the cosmetic changes, where it changes a redirect which has no effect. I have a better explanation at the village pump. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- The thread hasn't got any attention in about a week, and I think I have answered every question well. In the thread, a few concerns were brought up, primarily the fact that the bot would end up making mistakes due to times where people have linked to the disambiguation pages instead of the correct page. This should not be an issue, as I have revised the bot idea and I will be monitoring it closely, and I'll be able to step in straight-away to fix it. Another point brought up was the fact that this would not require a bot. While this is true, using a bot account would be useful, primarily due to the bot AWB access, which would have more perks than normal access due to the bot-related functions it enables, and this would be useful due to the semi-automatic nature of the bot. However, Kusma did note that it would be a bad idea to hide these edits behind a bot flag due to the possibility of mistakes. This is a good point, but I think these would only get through on very rare occasions. If this goes to trial and mistakes get through a lot, instead of asking to run it without a flag, I would withdraw the request, as it just isn't worth it. I have also figured out how to make a "filter" in AWB so it's only changing links following RMs where it would be necessary, so it wouldn't be making near-cosmetic edits, which I initially thought would be necessary. This addresses Anomie's concern above. If none of the discussion participants have any further concerns (Robertsky, BD2412, JeffUK, CX Zoom, Kusma), I would like to request a limited trial, where I can test what speed I could safely do this at, the filter, and of course, the bot's task. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- My impression of the result of the discussion is that there wasn't support for an automated bot, the people who commented (particularly those who said they've done this sort of cleanup before) seem to want the task to be done in a semi-automated manner. That means you look at each edit before it's saved, not that you watch it to stop it if things seem to be going wrong (which still seems to be your intention). That could still be done on a separate account, of course, if you don't want it on your main account for some reason.But I think I'll let someone else make the final call here. I don't want it claimed that I was too involved to make a fair assessment. Anomie⚔ 03:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Anomie I would be checking everything before it’s saved, and would set a delay on AWB that allows me to check it in time. If I am unsure, I would either pause, and look further, or just skip it. As it was said in the discussion, it’s better to continue linking to a DAB than the incorrect page. echidnaLives sock - talk - edits 04:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Denied. I find myself agreeing with Anomie and the folks in the Pump discussion, in particular Kusma's last point - if one is making supervised edits (i.e. no autosave) there is little (if any) reason to have this be a dedicated bot task, which is designed for "set it and forget it" tasks (which this does not appear to be). I also agree with Anomie that there is no issue having a separate AWB-specific account if you want to help out with post-RM cleanup. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Anomie I would be checking everything before it’s saved, and would set a delay on AWB that allows me to check it in time. If I am unsure, I would either pause, and look further, or just skip it. As it was said in the discussion, it’s better to continue linking to a DAB than the incorrect page. echidnaLives sock - talk - edits 04:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- My impression of the result of the discussion is that there wasn't support for an automated bot, the people who commented (particularly those who said they've done this sort of cleanup before) seem to want the task to be done in a semi-automated manner. That means you look at each edit before it's saved, not that you watch it to stop it if things seem to be going wrong (which still seems to be your intention). That could still be done on a separate account, of course, if you don't want it on your main account for some reason.But I think I'll let someone else make the final call here. I don't want it claimed that I was too involved to make a fair assessment. Anomie⚔ 03:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- The thread hasn't got any attention in about a week, and I think I have answered every question well. In the thread, a few concerns were brought up, primarily the fact that the bot would end up making mistakes due to times where people have linked to the disambiguation pages instead of the correct page. This should not be an issue, as I have revised the bot idea and I will be monitoring it closely, and I'll be able to step in straight-away to fix it. Another point brought up was the fact that this would not require a bot. While this is true, using a bot account would be useful, primarily due to the bot AWB access, which would have more perks than normal access due to the bot-related functions it enables, and this would be useful due to the semi-automatic nature of the bot. However, Kusma did note that it would be a bad idea to hide these edits behind a bot flag due to the possibility of mistakes. This is a good point, but I think these would only get through on very rare occasions. If this goes to trial and mistakes get through a lot, instead of asking to run it without a flag, I would withdraw the request, as it just isn't worth it. I have also figured out how to make a "filter" in AWB so it's only changing links following RMs where it would be necessary, so it wouldn't be making near-cosmetic edits, which I initially thought would be necessary. This addresses Anomie's concern above. If none of the discussion participants have any further concerns (Robertsky, BD2412, JeffUK, CX Zoom, Kusma), I would like to request a limited trial, where I can test what speed I could safely do this at, the filter, and of course, the bot's task. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New bot to change wikilinks following a requested move. I also now believe I can do it without making the cosmetic changes, where it changes a redirect which has no effect. I have a better explanation at the village pump. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just clarifying the above, the piped link would only be when the article has been moved to something that would be undesirable in the text (for example, you would want something to be displayed as Foo, even if the article is now at Foo (bar)). That’s a bad explanation but I’m to tired too think too much about it. I’ll have it all sorted out for the Village pump discussion. echidnaLives sock - talk - edits 14:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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.