Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Reedy Bot

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Withdrawn by operator.

Reedy Bot

Operator: Reedy Boy

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming Language(s): Wikipedia:AWB (WikiFunctions .NET library)

Function Summary: AWB General Fixes & Typo Fixing based on DB dump search

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily

Edit rate requested: MAX. 2 edit per Minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):N

Function Details: As Per AWB General Fixes:

Apply general fixes
- Fixes common mistakes in "see also" and "external links" sections, removes excess white space.
- Sorts interwiki links alphabetically (individually selectable in menu), and puts them at the bottom of the page with stubs.
- Unicodifies interwiki links.
- Removes duplicate interwikis and categories.
- Puts categories after article body, followed by interwiki links and stub templates. Recognises some comments as cat and interwiki headers.
- Adds bullet points to external links after the ==External links==.
- Replaces italic and bold html markup with wiki markup.
- Repairs bad links.
- Simplifies links like [[Dog|Dog]] to [[Dog]].
- Simplifies links like [[Dog|Dogs]] to [[Dog]]s.
- Adds bold text to the first occurrence of the title of the article (if there is no other bold text).
- De-links self referencing wiki-links.
Auto tag Appends {{Wikify}}, {{Uncategorised}} and {{stub}} tags when appropriate. Removes stub tags from long articles. Adds the date parameter to the by-date sorted templates.

Typo fixing based on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos.

As per the discussion, now planning on downloading Wikipedia:Database download using AWB to scan that for typo's, creating a list based on this, to then work on the live wikipedia with.

Any questions, please ask, and i will do my best to answer them ASAP

Reedy Boy 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

1

Sounds pretty safe to me, if you're manually checking the stuff and doing a 2 edit/min max edit rate it seems ok -- Tawker 21:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur here, will this account ONLY be used for these purposes? How will you select articles for "cleanup"? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when doing the full manual scans with typo checking using Wikipedia:AWB, i tend to visit Wikipedia:Browse, and select multiple categories and use AWB to make a list from this. Then i filter for duplicates and WP pages, and add more pages from the categories in the list.

For the Wikipedia:Browse, i can commit to working from the top of the list, and work my way down this, which would take a long time, but would be feasible, and i would be happy to do this.

Along side this, i can put a request list up on the talk page, so that people can request scans on categories if so wished. Therefore doing the same as the browse list.

Regarding the ONLY bit, i am intending to just do those scans over the pages, and the requested category scans. I plan in the future if possible, to complete other bot functions, but upon request back here for a change of task

Hope this helps Reedy Boy 11:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general fixes in AWB were designed to be small fixes that can be done while doing other jobs (such as typo fixing etc.). On their own, most of them are not worth doing as the net benefit is not great enough to warrant a save. Also, cycling through a category looking for mistakes to fix i highly inefficient. I would suggest obtainging a list of articles with typos that AWB will fix and working through that (with general fixes enabled). I am planning on creating a list of articles with typos after the next databse dump, I have already added an option to do this to the database scanner software. Martin 13:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the input Martin. If this procedure would be preffered (as it would save wikipedia resources), i am more than happy to obtain a database download and scan with this. Which, thinking about it, would make more sense, and then i could incorporate spelling mistake fixes. Reedy Boy 16:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, if i was to manually check from the database dump.. Would it feasible to then scan those (on the live wikipedia) using AWB in automatic mode? Or would they then still need the manual checking? Reedy Boy 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anytypo cheching should be done manualy Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i wasn't thinking properly. If its checked once from a database dump, and then against the wiki, there is nothing to say that there may be new spellings... Suppose i could just let AWB do the list, and then manually check that against the live wikipedia when AWB scans from the list it has created Reedy Boy 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to do it based on a database dump, for the edits, would it be possible to have a max edit rate of 4 per minute? Reedy Boy 14:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather 2-3 max while in trials , then higher after it gets flagged. Getting a list of pages with mistakes from a db dump is perhaps a good idea. Then use AWB to go through the list to fix the errors. A few may have changes, but that should not matter too much.Voice-of-All 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfectly fine with me. As Martin told me, the first few items on the list would probably be solved already. Any other requests/problems? Reedy Boy 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? Reedy Boy 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2

Please read Wikipedia:BOT, if you had you would note that interwiki links and typos Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance here, but what is point with the reference to interwiki links? The AWB software sorts interwiki links into alphabetical order and unicodify them, it does not add them. If you would like to expand on this, i will do my best to answer your question

Due to the manual nature of the bot changes, the typo changes could be included in this. However, i am not proposing to do this at the moment. Reedy Boy 11:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding interwiki link sorting please do not do it because their is no consensus on the exact right way to do it and that some people spend hours getting them just right. And with the typos go ahead I thought this was an automatic bot. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all articles use the same interwiki order, this means there is a consensus. Pywikibots use the same order as well, and together make thousands of edits a day, so I tihnk it is fine to all use the same order. Martin 09:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Martin. Reedy Boy 11:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3

I didn't notice this discussion for a few days, and I apologize for not sticking my head in earlier. I've seen a lot of bad things happening with the AWB "Apply General Fixes" option. For instance, we've got users running around changing pages where their only modifications are reordering interwikis or moving whitespace (which is not important, right?). Typically, these users just hit the "save this page" button indiscriminately (which makes them, in essence, a bot). It's worth noting that I've seen users "apply general fixes" twice consequetively to the same Wikipedia page. Looking over this bot request, I'm also missing the actual goal of this bot. Do you intend to "apply general fixes" across the entire encyclopedia? Alphachimp 17:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original intention, but Martin basically put the point across that they were still insignificant. Martin has suggested downloading a dump of wikipedia, using AWB to scan for typo's, and then taking this list onto the live wikipedia for the spell checker, and also applying the general things.

There is 1 bot i've seen that is just only doing the general fixes using awb.... Reedy Boy 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, User:STBot - It is just doing link simplification.... Reedy Boy 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are hardly "a lot" of bad things happening, the only bot I have seen making trivial edits is User:STBot, which was approved here to do exactly what it is doing! The real problem bots are the ones with reckless owners and the masses of pywiki bots endlessly making trivial edits to interwiki links, often just bypassing redirects. Martin 09:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4

Anything else?? Reedy Boy 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the bot is manually assisted, I don't see any major issues. BAG? Alphachimp 14:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quick Alphachimp =) Reedy Boy 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5

Are we able to move anywhere with this...? As i have not heard much recently. Cheers Reedy Boy 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use AWB for the above purpose. As long as I manuall check each edit and don't exceed 2-3 edits per minute - I haven't/shouldn't need bot status. I use an alternate account in order to keep those edits separate from my main account's (I don't want it to artificially inflate my editcount). It's more a timesaving tool (saves fixing manually) than a bot. And without a flag, AWB won't let you run it on 'Auto-save'. I say close this request. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 12:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, true i suppose. See if i can find a better/new use for that account.... Thanks Reedy Boy 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. This bot has been withdrawn because it is going to be run manually: All edits will be confirmed by clicking "Save". This bot is not authorized to run automatically (supervised or unsupervised). -- RM 16:34, 29 November 2006 (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.