Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 38

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
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.

DannyS712 bot III 38

edit

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:22, Tuesday, May 14, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available: Partially written at User:DannyS712 test/redirects.js

Function overview: Patrol uncontroversial newly created redirects:

  • Redirects from "FooBar (disambiguation)" to "FooBar"
  • Redirects where the difference between the source and the target is limited to different capitalization and use of accents/diacritics

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automating new redirect patrolling for uncontroversial redirects

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 0 edits, around a few dozen redirects per week

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: I'll create a separate account for this task, since it'll require new page reviewer rights. Full discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automating new redirect patrolling for uncontroversial redirects.

Discussion

edit

Good task for a bot. Could you please list all of the conditions that will be used to determine if the bot will patrol a page? -FASTILY 01:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: Currently, the only 2 cases that determine if the bot would patrol the page are listed above, from "FooBar (disambiguation)" to "FooBar" and when the difference is only in capitalization or accents/diacritics. The actual code used is:
function shouldPatrol( page ){
	var target = page.snippet.replace( /REDIRECT /i, '');
	if (target === page.title.replace( / \(disambiguation\)/i, '')) return true;
	if (target.localeCompare(page.title, 'en', {sensitivity: 'base'}) === 0) return true;
	return false;
}

Hope that makes sense ---DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A redirect from the corresponding form without diacritics isn't automatically acceptable. For example, for an article like Peć it might seem sensible to have "Pec" as a redirect to it, but then it turns out that "Pec" could be the corresponding form also for Peč and for Pec (Domažlice District) (because of that Pec is now a disambiguation page). Situations with such ambiguous redirects are more common than you would imagine, but now that I've brought this up, I should add that I'm not sure how relevant it is. Do patrollers normally look for that kind of stuff? My impression has been that the average patroller doesn't really bother with matters like that, so it probably won't make a major difference if the patrolling is taken up by a bot who doesn't check for ambiguity in principle (rather than in practice). – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: as a reviewer myself, I would approve that redirect to "Pec", because the only difference is the accents. That being said, if there are concerns about this I can split the task into 2, one for the disambiguation and 1 for the accents, so that they can be considered separately. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, Uanfala, but we should keep in mind that this bot is only approving edits that were made by a human editor, and I can't imagine any way that the diacritics issue could allow vandalism or other problematic edits to slip through. For complex cases like the one you point to above, some editors might try to create a bad redirect, but if it's truly a problem, it'd presumably be noticed and discussed regardless of whether or not it's been approved. So essentially, I don't see any way that having this bot running could create problems. - Sdkb (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Its been around a week since this was filed, and there seems to be general support for the idea. Can this be sent to trial? Please note that I will want to use a different account for this, since it requires extra rights that my bot doesn't need for other tasks. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be filed under the account name which you wish to run this on. Once that is addressed, I will happily send this to trial DannyS712. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Given the issues with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 40, I'll use DannyS712 bot III for this task - I've updated the description accordingly. However, would it be okay to have all of the brfas named as "DannyS712 bot #" so that I can track the task numbers more easily? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved this page to it's "proper" location since bot III is going to be used. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 pages patrolled). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. DannyS712, please post (preferably a permalink) to the logs here when done. Granted +NPP for 10 days and +confirmed indefinitely for purpose of trial. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I started the trial, and have patrolled 14 pages so far. However, they were each patrolled one at a time, because I couldn't figure out how to get the script to patrol them all. It turns out the problem was that I was running into the ratelimit. Would you be willing to flag DannyS712 bot III with eventcoordinator, which seems like the easiest way to equip the bot with the ability to ignore ratelimits? Other user groups that include the right, according to Special:ListGroupRights, are account creators (which would also work) and bots (which adds a lot of other rights this account probably doesn't need). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: EventCoordinator granted with same expiry as NPP. Would recommend bot usergroup for noratelimit in future/if/when approved. Please continue the trial when possible. --TheSandDoctor Talk 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Trial complete. See [1] - the eventcoordinator worked like a charm. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Under normal circumstances, I would prefer to leave the close for someone else. However, given the backlog, lack of recent BAG activity (myself included), and the fact that this task is uncontroversial and based on how well the trial went, I am inclined to make an exception for this. As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:52, 1 June 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DannyS712_bot_III_38&oldid=900027076"