Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jimmy the Bot

< 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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Jimmy the Bot edit

Operator: Jim Carter - Public (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search), Jim Cartar (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:42, Wednesday August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Function overview: Add/removing all type of tags that AWB Autotagger does

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Adminbot (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: The following tasks will be performed by the bot: (Updated): Adding/removing all type of tags that AWB does by Autotagger. It will skip if no tags changed and restrict orphan tag to linkless pages.

Discussion edit

For articles that you are planning on tagging, what are you going to use to seed your target list? (e.g. articles less than two incoming links). — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: this bot will make a (AWB) list of random articles if it encounter any article with less than the required incoming links it will tag {{Orphan}} by tagger. The functions will be same as done by Yobot of Magioladitis. (Note: addbot is no more active). Jim Carter 10:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General fixes is obviously the part done in addition to the other parts. Orphan/dead end tagging is done by Yobot operated by myself. Multiple issues is done by BattyBot operated by GoingBatty. Persondata is done by Rjwilmsi and their bot.
Do you really think we need another do for this tasks? Searching for pages to tag with a random way won't bring much. The tracking categories I think are well-covered right now. I need some time to think if we need an additional bot. Waiting for opinions too! -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Magioladitis I have already discussed it on Xaosflux's talk page. I may also apply for approval of additional tasks after the bot start working. And another bot will do no harm instead it will help the project. Jim Carter 13:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is that no large tasks need to be dependent on only one specific bot, so long as they can operate in harmony. Concerns here are related to the selection method of automation tied with random page editing. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Then I have some more options like running the bot against the category of Biography periodically every month?? It will add {{Orphan}} tags to articles that doesn't meet the required incoming tags. Or it may also run against the list of New pages. I need some suggestions, since Yobot already do this job so I will ask Magioladitis to suggest the category used by Yobot. Thanks, Jim Carter 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: Some clarification on BattyBot:
  • I try to run Part 5 on a daily basis - BattyBot task 3
  • I try to run Part 3 on a daily basis for the current month & last month (since those tags are visible), and prior months occasionally - BattyBot task 2
  • BattyBot does NOT perform Part 6 as a primary task
@Jim Cartar: Like Xaosflux, I would like to see some details from you showing how you will make your lists in AWB. For example, how will you generate the lists of articles to process to see which don't have the required incoming tags so AWB can add {{Orphan}}? If you use the list of New pages, I'm concerned that some people will think that the bot is adding the tags too early in the article's life - which is why BattyBot does not add maintenance tags as a primary task. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some other remarks:

  • AWB does not provide any nice way to get random articles because it's a very expensive query and mediawiki programmers said we should avoid it. Maximum of pages loaded this way is 20.
  • I created a list of 500 random articles and ran Yobot to check how many are fixed this way. The result was 3. Very very few.
  • Orphan tagging via AWB allows: Tagging if page has 0 incoming links and untagging if page has 3 incoming links. AWB does not provide any built-in function for untagging pages with 1 or 2 incoming links.
  • Dead end pages has not serious backlog. Less than 500 pages there and usually the editors who add the links remove the tag too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux, Magioladitis, and GoingBatty:, tagging {{Orphan}} and {{Dead end}} will not going to be the primary task. It will add tags only if it encounter any article that doesn't have any Wikilinks or have 0 incoming links. The primary tasks are:
  1. Removing {{Orphan}}, the same way Battybot does.
  2. Removing {{Dead end}}, the same way Yobot does.
  3. Adding {{Persondata}} to biographical articles.
  4. Doing general fixings.
  5. Adding {{Multiple issues}} to articles in the new page list.
Very simple but helpful tasks. I hope this will clarify the concerns. Thanks, Jim Carter 16:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Cartar: Will these tasks run all together or separately? What logic will you use to skip articles when these specific changes are not made? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: It may or may not run separately. For example: It will run against Category:Orphaned articles and Category:All dead-end pages separately but while de-orphaning an article if it encounter an article which doesn't have any wikilink, it will add {{Dead end}} tag. Will perform skip if no changes were made, page doesn't exist, only cosmetic changes were made and only casing changes. It will perform general fixings when ever it encounters. Jim Carter 04:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Cartar: there is an option "Skip if no auto tag changes" which suits the task better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Magioladitis I missed that one. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux and GoingBatty:, So, as far as I understand is that there will be no special settings loaded nor script, no F&R rules. In fact the proposal is that the bot will run general fixes on lists with some skip options activated. In general, this is not a bad idea since we are already doing it by other bots. My concerns are the following:

  1. From the discussion I am not convinced that Jim Cartar is experienced enough to perform this task (yet). Me or someone else could provide of course the correct skip options to run the task and fix the request above. For instance, AWB's autotagger does not provide must flexibility and Persondata is not part of autotagger. So at first glance, the tasks should be changed to:
  1. Adding/removing tags via AWB
  2. Additionally, doing general fixings including Persondata/Multiple issues addition
  1. There is still the problem in which categories the bot will run.
But I an not satisfied with the fact that Jim Cartar does not seem to have used AWB a lot.
  1. The tagging tasks at this level are not that backloged. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Cartar: do you have a compiler and can compile your own AWB versions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I have used AWB alot with more than 100 edits/day and have more than 1200 edits. Please don't doubt my experience, I can operate the bot without blowing up anything. I can assure you that the bot will do no harm. Since this is my first request for Bot approval, I'm a bit confused. As Magioladitis already mentioned the tasks so I'm not going to say it again. The tasks mentioned by him is what the bot will do. No, I don't have a compiler but I have a de-compiler. And I will also ask for approval of additional tasks once I start operating a bot who does simple tasks. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata and Multiple issues edit

Persondata and Multiple issues
@Jim Carter - Public: My main concern is that you set up AWB so that it does not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. For your task to add {{Persondata}}, could you please explain how you will make your lists and how you will skip the edit when {{Persondata}} is not added? Could you please do the same for adding {{multiple issues}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:, I will create a list of new pages. It will add {{multiple issues}} to articles that has already been tagged by two or more improvement tags. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 03:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: How will you skip pages that already have {{multiple issues}}? How will you skip pages where {{multiple issues}} was not added? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Skip if no changes were made, Skip if no auto tag is placed. Along with adding {{Persondata}} to biographical articles it will also add parameters and short descriptions by running against Category:Persondata templates without name parameter and Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 03:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: How exactly are you going to add short descriptions to Persondata? AWB does not do that as general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: you did not reply GoingBatty's question. AWB's built-in skip options won;t help in skipping a page if it already has a Multiple issues tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: Short descriptions will be added semi-automatically. If a page already has multiple issues tag then the bot will perform other general fixings if no changes were made it will skip. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: how are you going to choose what description to add in Persondata? Manually? You do not need a bot for that then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, manually. But it is a task that will be done once a month after I see enough backlog. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: so for this task you do not need a bot account. Better do it from your main or alternative account. Many other editors do it. You can of course use AWB but better not hide this edits under b flag. What about the multiple issues one? Is this going to be done manually too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Multiple issues tag will be done automatically. I addressed it above. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: GoingBatty asked you how you are going to skip the page if it already has a multiple issues tag since AWB does not provide this option in its built-in skip options. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to complete the discussion on Persondata: RjwilmsiBot started running based on database scan. AWB code had to be improved to exclude false positives. Another proof that just running general fixes would fail. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging edit

Notes mainly for myself; For Orphan: There is also Category:All orphaned articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that category. I have been a former member of WP:ORPHAN. See WT:ORPHAN, I along with Kvng have also organised a de-orphange BLD few months ago. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: It's very challenging for me to try to follow your thought process on these different bot tasks. I suggest you narrow this request to one task, and update the function details with how you will make the list and how you will set the skip options. Other tasks could be requested as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jimmy the Bot 2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jimmy the Bot 3, etc. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. It's impossible to follow this discussion anymore. For Persondta my opinion is that the non-bot account can be used. Tagging ang MI insertion should be discussed separately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay as suggested by GoingBatty, I request for my bots approval for the following tasks.
  1. Will do general fixings.
  2. Remove {{Orphan}} by running against Category:All orphaned articles
  3. Remove {{Dead end}} by running against Category:All dead-end pages
This are the few simple tasks the bot will do for now. And I will ask for additional task approval after the bot start working as suggested by GoingBatty. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: All orphaned articles category contains 122,114. Even if running your bot once per month it won't bring more. This is what Yobot does and we do not get a lot of pages untagged lately. I think that we need some extra tool in the wmflabs to aid us. Addbot was much better in these things and was not blindly running.

I appreciate your will to help and we certainly need the extra fresh people to help us reduce our workload as xaosflux wrote above and I could not agree more. I think the best choice for now is that you wait a bit before getting a bot account. The tasks you suggest are easy but this is not always the problem here.

Important My suggestion is the following: Try to run against Category:All orphaned articles through your normal account with "Skip if no tagging" and make like 50 edits so I can check the diffs and also for your to get the feeling how slow this is going to be. (Time should not vary between bot and normal account).

Moreover, I 'll keep you in my mind in case some other easy tasks pops up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this should be split into multiple separate bot requests, this conversation is all over the place and hard to follow. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I suggested the same thing three days ago (see above). GoingBatty (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Addshore and GoingBatty:. The request has 3 parts. Tagging, Persondata, Multiple issues. In fact we now discuss only the first part (tagging). -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: I'm out of town. That means, I don't have access to computer hence I can't run AWB for now. I will be back before 8-9-2014. Thanks for your understanding. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Task 1: Tagging edit

Ping @Xaosflux, GoingBatty, Magioladitis, and Addshore:;

As suggested by Magioladitis, I have done the tagging task from my original account assuming it to be a trial run. I have run against a total of more than 1500+ articles. Firstly:

  1. Run against Category:Orphaned articles from August 2014. After running over 1000 pages, I have made 30+ contributions by adding/removing tags. I skipped if no changes are made, only whitespace changes, casing changes, auto tag changes.

I have either added or removed a tag by AWB's auto tagger followed other general fixings.

  1. Run against Category:All unreferenced BLPs. I have run over 400 pages and made 60+ edits which are either removing or adding a tag by AWB's auto tagger. Skip if contain "{{Prod"; rest are same as above.
  2. Run against Category:People stubs. I have run over 20 pages and made more than 11+ edits which are either removing or adding a tag by AWB's auto tagger. Skip system will be the same as mentioned above.

I have run against this CATs separately and have made more than 95+ edits. See those edits here. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public and Jim Cartar: If you're "taking a long wikibreak for more than 2 years", could you please help me understand why are you requesting permission to run a bot? GoingBatty (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: It is a long story. You can see the reasons on my talk page. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions of how to tag orphan correctly and discussion about it

@Jim Carter - Public: did you have "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages" on? I see that most of the cases are orphan tagging. In the case of Elizabeth Dennis the page had an incoming link from Rivers Wash Over Me by the time you tagged it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran my bot with customised settings to untag pages with 1 incoming link to the last 100 pages and untagged 59 pages. You need to check your settings. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Magioladitis, I have not customised any settings other than the skip system. As my orginal request was to add orphan tags. So, I did that. I haven't changed anything, as for Elizabeth Dennis, I don't know why it happened but I just ran AWB the way I wish to run when I get the bot flag. As I said I don't want complex method hence I haven't changed any setting. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: No worries. Go to the Options menu on the top and activate "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages". I bet it was disactivated for some reason. (Perhaps old settings file). -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: Ok. I saw it before running AWB but I didn't dare to do it; I didn't wanted to do any mess, "better safe than sorry".
So? was the task done correctly?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: Unfortunately it was not. You should activate the option and try again. Pages with at least 1 incoming link should not be tagged as orphans in the English Wikipedia. Repeat: Activate both "skip if no auto tag changes", "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages". -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: will perform it again by tomorrow. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: Where's the "skip if no tagging" option? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty Options tab → Auto changes skip options → Auto tag changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: as you suggested to repeat, I have done it by activating both "skip if no auto tag changes", "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages". I have run against 1900 pages and have made more than 60 edits. See them here. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: Edit ratio was 60/1900 = 3.2%. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux, GoingBatty, and Addshore: if you think it's a good idea to give it a try, we can proceed in the trial bot phase. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I don't think we're ready for the trial bot phase.
  1. On August 24 I asked Jim Carter to update the Function details section, which has not been done.
  2. In response, Jim Carter stated the function would be to remove {{orphan}} and {{dead end}}. However, most of his edits actually added templates
  3. User talk:Jim Cartar still says he is on a two-year wikibreak and won't answer any messages. In my opinion, this should be removed before making any bot edits.
Thanks for asking! GoingBatty (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty I answer messages on the messagers talk page, I will remove that wikibreak notice (I forgot to remove it), as I said, now the bot function will be adding removing tags (All tags that Autotagger automatically does). I hope now you can proceed for a bot trial. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have update function details section. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis, Xaosflux, and Addshore: All  Done I have addressed all the issues, I'm ready for a trial run. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Addshore is in the process of slowly rewriting the code for their bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis let Addshore rewrite the code, until then please give my bot a chance for a trial run?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial edit

Instructions on bot setup - Comments on trial

((BotTrial|edits=50)). @Jim Carter - Public and Jim Cartar: in the settings you must have: "Restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages" and "skip if no auto tag changes". After the bot trial is complete you should provide us with a link to the edits the bot did, statistics of many pages were checked to reach the 50 edits and in which categories the bot ran. You should use AWB version 5.5.4.0 or later. The edit summary must be "Tagging (BOT TRIAL)" so everybody can check the edits. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public and Jim Cartar: I gave you AWB access to perform the edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: I ran the bot. And I'm getting a popup message which says "Captcha Required" " Captcha required, is the user account autoconfirmed etc." I'm getting this message and then AWB stops. I try again and the message appears again. Any suggestion?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: please take a screenshot of the message and post it. I needed it to check something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: Try now! -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BotTrialComplete)) Okay. I ran it again and fortunately it work! No Captcha message came up again. The trial run was successful. I run against 230 pages over this Category and has made 50 contributions. "Restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages" and "skip if no autotag changes" were enabled. The bot performed various tagging and removing. In this edit, the bot added underlinked tag. In this edit, the bot removed stub tag. In this edit, the bot replaced unreferenced tag by refimprove. In this edit, it added stub tag. In this edit, it added two tags, dead end and orphan tags. And in this one it added orphan tag. All the contributions can be seen here. Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Magioladitis: - This edit highlights an AWB bug - it should have changed {{unsourced}} to {{unreferenced section}} instead of {{refimprove}}.
 Done @Jim Carter - Public: I see your edit summaries mention general fixes, but I didn't see any in these edits. Specifically, this edit did not move {{refimprove}} above the infobox. Did you have "Apply general fixes" checked? Also, your edit summary said "Trail" instead of "Trial". Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Mainspace tagger is a part of WP:AWB/GF. That means tagging/removing is a part of general fixing. Yes, absolutely. I have checked "Apply general fixes" see other contribs. I don't have any idea why refimprove tag did not move above the infobox. Oops I'm sorry "Trial" is a typo. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: you are right. I wonder if it was a bug or something with Jim Carter's settings. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: the other report has to do with the fact that unsourced had a parameter "list" instead of "section". @Jim Carter - Public: this is an example of what people will ask. --

@Jim Carter - Public and GoingBatty: Both bugs reported: Bug report 1, Bug report 2. Jimmy you should be able to report similar things in the future. AWB is nearly perfect but not perfect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Obviously, Magioladitis. I will report whenever I come across any similar things in the future. I can understand, no software can be 100% perfect. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's wait 2 days for more comments and whether we can fix some of the AWB bugs reported. I apologise if this goes slowly but I try my best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Magioladitis. Slow and steady wins the race.  :) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Trial edit

Comments on extended trial

((BotExtendedTrial|edits=50)) @Jim Carter - Public: please download revision 10441 and repeat the bot trial with these settings. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it 4 days hoping we can fix more from our (AWB) side. I asked about the 5.5.4.1 version because it already fixes some bugs and so we have control of which version is used by the bot. Thanks once more for your patience, Magioladitis (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Magioladitis. Slow and steady wins the race.  :) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
((BotTrialComplete)) @Magioladitis: I made 50 edits by running over 291 pages in the same category I ran in the first trial. I checked "do general fixings", "skip if no auto tag, "restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages". Used 5.5.4.1 version. In this edit bot added orphan tag. In this edit the bot added underlinked tag. In this one the bot added two tags, underlinked and orphan. In this edit the bot added dead end tag. In this edit the bot added stub tag and in this one the bot removed a stub tag. In this one the bot replaced unreferenced tag by refimprove tag. All the contributions can be found here. Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In version 5.5.4.1 the version should be visible in edit summary. It seems you used the 5.5.4.0. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: Did you check your edits? I see the following issues:
Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: I used the AWBupdater to update. I thought I was using 5.5.4.1. Since you already said that bugs are not totally fixed so using that one and 5.5.4.0 will not make much difference.
@GoingBatty: Do you check all the edits made by BattyBot?? I suppose, no. And yes, I haven't checked all the edits.
AWB detects <ref> to determine if the article has any source or not. It is not an issue of AWB since <ref> are only used for reference purpose only, not to cite notes ({{notes}} are used instead) so, this is not AWB issue but a mistake already done by another human editor.
The changing of {{unreferenced}} to {{refimprove}} are not totally AWB issue. Mark T. Williams article used a |type= switch template which confused AWB. This is a AWB bug which I will report. Now the second article was having an issue before the bot performed the edit. The article was having {{reference}} in the subsection instead of in the lead. This again made the bot confused and it replaced the tag by {{refimprove}}.

Replacing {{unref}} by {{Refimprove}} is a default function of AWB. It is impossible for a bot to know if the article need more sources or have enough sources. Also remember this is a bot not an human. So, it is possible that it may mistake in some places. Yobot and your BattyBot obviously does mistakes. Now if someone comes to my talk page asking to fix it then obviously I will fix them. The issues are not something that can never be solved. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we give it 3-4 days in case we are able to fix the bugs. Sorry for any inconvenience or delay but I agree that if we want to run a tagging bot in a more regular basis we should be as bugs free as possible. I do not expect all to be fixed. I like the idea of the bot because we'll have more bugs reports. This is a helpful procedure and thank to Jim we are making improvements. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Okay, will check every edit. Okay, 3-4 days will be fine. I'm glad that my bot will help the project by digging out bugs so that they can be fixed. Real credit goes to you, GoingBatty and all others for giving the bot a chance. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: Yes, I check each of BattyBot's trial edits per Wikipedia:Bot policy#Requests for approval, and appreciate you doing the same for your bot's trial edits. (I didn't check each of your bot's edits.) Also, it is perfectly appropriate to use <ref> tags for notes per Help:Footnotes. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Rjwilmsi we started fixing the various issues:

@Jim Carter - Public: you should be reporting problems to me or to the AWB's bug page. There are some issues that are still not solved:

  • The low edit ratio due to the method used. This maybe not a big issue and live with the fact that we will end up with a bot with low edit ratio till we find a better solution.
  • Auto-tagger is not perfect. We can improve this but we need feedback and GoingBatty is right on that.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns of bad use of auto-tagger after issue was reported as fixed. User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Please_stop. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Hmm. Okay, I will report any bugs to you. That bad use was not intensional. I have addressed that issue. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: As I can see that rev 10469 has fixed most of the issues, should I do another trial?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Carter - Public there will be a new official AWB release tomorrow evening. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: Thanks to you and Rjwilmsi for continuing to make AWB better! GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BotExtendedTrial|edits=50)) @Jim Carter - Public: please download version 5.5.5.0 (make sure you use this) and start a new test round. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. @Magioladitis and GoingBatty:. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: It appears that you didn't check your edits again. For example:
  • This edit incorrectly changed {{unreferenced|section=yes}} to {{refimprove|section=yes}}. I changed it to {{unreferenced section}} and notified the editor who added the incorrect tag.
Could you please check the rest of your bot's trial edits to see if there are any other issues? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: No, I have checked them yet. I'm a bit busy offline. I will ping you both once I complete checking. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @GoingBatty and Magioladitis:, I have checked almost all the edits and came across some issues:
  1. Along with the edit GoingBatty noted above
  2. In this edit.
  3. This one. The bot replaced {{Unreferenced|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}} by {{refimprove|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}} The replacement was not correct. No sources were present in that paragraph so unreferenced tag was correct.
  4. In this one, the bot removed unreferenced tag and added refimprove tag and multiple issues tag. Multiple issues tag was not needed in this case as there was no other tags present other than refimprove.
I haven't found any other issues. It is possible that I might have missed something, please recheck if possible. Thanks, Jim Carter 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: Thanks for this analysis. Could you please specify what the issue is in #2? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: In that edit the bot changed {{references}} to {{refimprove}} but didn't move the tag to the top. See it is still at the bottom. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: Thanks for explaining. Although Template:Refimprove#How to use directs users to put {{refimprove}} at the top of the article, I occasionally see it in the References section. It might be challenging to have AWB move the template correctly, since we've seen examples where users mean to use a section template but use a generic template instead. GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: I reverted your edit #3. Please revert your bot's edits when you notice that they are incorrect. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refimprove means the article is lacking reliable sources. It doesn't apply to any specific section. {{Cn}}, {{dubious}} should be used instead. Feel free to revert my edits GoingBatty, I will also do it whenever I notice any incorrect tagging. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: Is anything you could do from your side (e.g. Find and replace rules or database scan) to reduce the errors reported above? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I can skip pages that contains {{Unreferenced|type=section}} but I can't do anything else from my side, really very sorry. Jim Carter 09:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: no need to skip these page since we now fix templates with parameter "type". Give me some days to think of something or ask for help in fixing the bugs. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Ping me Magioladitis when you get any idea to fix those bugs. Cheers, Jim Carter 11:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: You could try adding a find and replace rule that executes before general fixes:
  • Find: {{unreferenced|section=yes|
  • Replace: {{unreferenced section|
Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: can you please make a database scan for {{unreferenced|section=yes and {{refimprove|section=yes? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I agree doing a database scan is a good idea. Unfortunately I have never been successful in downloading a database dump, and probably won't have time this weekend to try again. GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Bgwhite did the check for us. 0 instances for the first one and 5 for the later. I fixed them all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite and Magioladitis: Thanks guys - glad there weren't too many to fix. GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mogism left some messages at User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Sorry_to_be_blunt. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, are the issues fixed? Magioladitis? That message was not related to General fixing (tagging), it was typo fixing. I don't do typo fixing anymore. Jim Carter 09:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: Problem 1 resolved. I can't find the page you refer to on problem 2. Problem 3 seems rare but we have to look into it or you have to suggest some skip conditions. We can't fix everything case-by-case. GoingBatty has done a wonderful job checking the edits so far but maybe we need to skip all pages with Refimprove? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public and Magioladitis: I wonder if skipping pages that contain \=+\n{{unreferenced would be appropriate for the bot task, until AWB's Tagger could be updated with something similar. GoingBatty (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, skip if contains \=+\n{{unreferenced will be fine. As I don't see much issues with {{Refimprove}} so skipping pages that contains {{Refimprove}} will not be fine. What you say Magioladitis? Jim Carter 10:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the perfect time to ask @Anomie, Xaosflux, and Hellknowz: if they think this BRFA can survive and what is to be done. Another test? Reject? Approve? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that you've done plenty of trials. Does he know what he's doing well enough to use AWB in automatic mode without racking up more problems, or not? After a cursory glance I'd say "not", but you're the one who's really familiar with this request. Anomie⚔ 00:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public, Anomie, and GoingBatty: As I said I can overcome the fact that the edit ratio will be low under "normal circumstances". Jimmy has tried a lot to help but I see more and more problems pop up and all the problems have been dealt by the AWB team so far. Jimmy's help was mainly on checking things but there was no help on fixing things. I think I am going to deny this bot request. Sorry Jimmy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by operator. I tried my best to help. I thought this bot will help in maintenance work but it seems that my help is in vain. Anyway, @Magioladitis: you should have said this before then I wouldn't have wasted my time on this. Jim Carter 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Carter - Public: I did not know how many different issues could occur. The test runs really helped. We found many cases that needed fix. I encourage you that you keep tagging via your account, keep giving us feedback and come back after some time. It was problem of AWB's side in some cases. We did a lot of progress. I think, first of all, you understood who BRFA's work. From a very generil request we moved to a very specific and made it to the extended test runs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2014 (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/Jimmy_the_Bot&oldid=627939233"