Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 51

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Withdrawn by operator.

Yobot 51

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

Time filed: 09:41, Friday, February 3, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): WPCleaner

Source code available:

Function overview: Convert interwiki link written as an external link

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 20 pages per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: CHECKWIKI error 91 (Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/091_dump). WPCleaner description: The script finds an external link that should be replaced with a interwiki link. An example would be on enwiki [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall Larry Wall] should be written as [[:fr:Larry Wall]]. Example: 1.

Discussion

Exclusion compliance? Function details? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 AWB is exclusion compliance by default. I'll add it to all the BRFA's. Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you intend to locate articles needing this edit? Is this something that's built into AWB, or custom code, or a regex replacement, or something else? Anomie ⚔ 13:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anomie I ll use lists generated by CHECKWIKI daily scans, CHECKWIKI montly scans and WPClenaer bi-weekly scans. All implemented by others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added function details. There needs to be at least one example of what you are doing. You also need to link to these lists you mention that are used as the source. How do you verify that these lists are accurate -- have they been vetted for use by bots? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz It changes only links. Fr a list of ages check Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/091_dump. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"CHECKWIKI Error 91" is not a description of function details, as it does not say what the bot task would actually do. This BRFA would need to specify exactly what the bot would do in order to anyone else to know if the BRFA is being followed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more detailed description. Detection is done by WPCleaner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about https? What about links via index.php? What if there are additional url parameters? What about non-articles? What about non-Wikipedia (Commons, Meta, etc.)? What if piped text is the same/different? Are only external links in [] modified? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz the task was done for more than 2 years. I will use WPCleaner. I don't know the exact mechanism. AWB does not fix any of these. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the community has decided to apply higher scrutiny to your BRFAs, we cannot approve a task whose details you are not aware of, even if you yourself or other bots have run similar tasks. This approval would not cover anything that isn't explicitly listed in the function details. We cannot approve "WPCleaner task X" as a task, because the task or its details could be beyond those listed or later change without your participation. I'm not concerned with the actual tool, be it AWB, WPCleaner or anything else. My concern is that you are not in full control of the edits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz I am in more control from people who run AWB/WPCleaner as a third-party tool. At least I participate in the development and I am in communication with the programmers. The other option is to write my own piece of code. To be honest this is in the other direction of what I am doing all these years trying to make people collaborate in order to merge individual efforts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz Otherwise, we, as community, say that WPCleaner's bot mode is not appropriate for anyone to use because WPCleaner allows no customised programming. --- Magioladitis (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the tool, the bot operator is 100% responsible for the edit. So the BRFA does not trial and approve a tool, it approves specific edits that the bot operator does, regardless what tool they use. I'm asking for full details for the task and would approve for only those details. If you list all the things the tool does and they are all fine, then we're good. But you specifically said that you "don't know the exact mechanism" and you haven't specified what the bot would do even for some of the basic examples above. In other words, you are running the task on an assumption that it does what it says and it does so correctly and according to consensus while avoiding any errors it can foresee. If you defer this responsibility to the tool, then is there any assurance from the tool's developer as to how the changes are decided, what consensus is used, how it's tested, if it's suitable for automation, what the error rates are, etc.? I am concerned what other problems may or may not exist now or in future if run on full automation. If the tool's developer changes the behavior, then it is fully the bot operator's responsibility to either keep using the tool, stop using the tool, request BRFA expansion/adjustment, and/or seek community consensus. But if you cannot tell what the tool does now, how will you keep track of this in the future (especially when you have so many bot tasks)? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz As I said. I'll provide diffs as soon as we get a bot trial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About https: Yes, it catches and fixes https too. Hellknowz I need examples of what you mean by links via index.php to test. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun . — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. CHECKWiKi detects those (Bgwhite to confirm this) but I won't fix these. We fix these manually. Same for links to diffs etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should use {{Interlanguage link}}, not a direct wikilink. A direct wikilink as you proposed would look like commons:Example, which is unsuitable for the mainspace. "You'll get example when it's approved to make edits" is insufficient. Make a few examples in a semi-automated or manual way from your main account and provide the diffs for them to give an idea of what you're actually doing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 Many people use them though. And it's easier to cover them to {{Interlanguage link}}. Nice idea though. The conversion usually are done by Dexbot. If there is consensus for that I could ask Ladsgroup to convert links to other wikis to use {{Interlanguage link}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, people use Example, if anything (note the source code). That is the code behind {{Interlanguage link}}, minus the language code. I would generally support a task aimed at converting other-language interwiki links in mainspace to use {{Interlanguage link}} (and could probably even do it myself). Applying the principle of least astonishment, we don't want our readers to click on a link and find themselves surprised to be on another language Wikipedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 that's a good idea. Me or Ladsgroup will do it. If Ladsgroup applies for BRFA I will withdraw mine. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This aspect of the conversation (changing existing interwiki links to use {{Ill}}) is continued at this discussion to develop consensus. As for changing external links to use {{Ill}}, that seems uncontroversial. Do you intend to take that on or will Ladsgroup (probably don't need to keep pinging him to this). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to but I can't do it any time soon due to time shortage. Ladsgroup^overleg 12:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have something written up to handle interwiki link --> {{Ill}}, and I can deploy that soon (just waiting on consensus gathering). I'll leave external link --> {{Ill}} to this task. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup We can work this together in Vienna ;) -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. In favour of Ladsgroup's agreement to take this over. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2017 (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.