Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FRadical Bot

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.

FRadical Bot

Operator: FR30799386 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:58, Thursday, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: This bot-task will try to remove all instances of the use of MiszaBot, MiszaBot I, MiszaBot II, MiszaBot III from the parameters of the template {{Auto archiving notice}} and replace them with Lowercase sigmabot III.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): (Irregular) As and when I get time to run the bot. I will try not to exceed a 15 edits/minute edit rate.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~4294 pages will be affected

Namespace(s):Talk: namespace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: In most of the article talkpages, the manually set |bot= parameters of the template {{Auto archiving notice}} point to the long inactive set of MiszaBots namely MiszaBot, MiszaBot I, MiszaBot II, MiszaBot III. I will via this bot account (using AWB) try to make the notice point to the right bot, namely Lowercase sigmabot III. The logic used is outlined below :

First all the pages transculding the template Auto archiving notice are extracted using the Make List function of AWB.
These pages are then filtered to include only those in the Talk: namespace.
The pages are then pre-parsed to remove those with \|bot *\= *Lowercase\ sigmabot\ III

* Finally, the pages are then checked for the strings = *MiszaBot(regex), MiszaBot I, MiszaBot II, MiszaBot III and then replaced with =Lowercase sigmabot III for the first and Lowercase sigmabot III for the rest.

Find instances of \{\{([Aa]utoarchivalnotice|[Aa]utoarchive|[Aa]utoArchivingNotice|[Aa]utoarchivingnotice|[Aa]uto[ _]+archiving[ _]+notice)(.*?)\|bot\=( *)MiszaBot *I* and replace it with {{$1$2|bot=$3Lowercase sigmabot III

Additionally, each and every edit will be reviewed by the operator(me) via the AWB. Regards — $f r +$ 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Ping to @Σ:, operator of User:lowercase sigmabot III for any comment. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is currently configured to run based on MiszaBot's template transclusions. I could, in theory, reconfigure it to use a new (as of yet nonexistent) template for lowercase sigmabot, but I intentionally did not do so to avoid making hundreds of thousands of needless edits to change a transclusion. I would not recommend proceeding further with this BRFA. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 22:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I misread. As far as lowercase sigmabot's behaviour is concerned, this looks fine, I'll let the BAG decide what's best. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 22:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to ask the stupid question, but if you're doing it totally manually, why not just get an "AWB account"? Primefac (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac The bot will edit pages that have extremely high number of watchers (For example : Talk:Mahabharata which has 622 watchers, 69 of which watch recent changes regularly). Since the (bot) flag will allow edits to be hidden from the watchers, I would prefer to use a bot account over a AWB account the edits of which cannot be hidden from the watch-list. Regards —

f r +

10:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While not in scope of this task, if expanding to user_talk: in a future task a bot flag will be critical to prevent 'new messages' alerts. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386: is this solely in the "Talk:" namespace, or also in "talk namespaces" (e.g. user_talk, wikipedia_talk)? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux In this bot request, Talk: does mean only those pages with the Talk: prefix (i.e. only those in ns:1). However, I have plans to extend the bot functionality to encompass the rest of the talk namespace in a later BRFA. A full list of all pages this bot is expected to edit can be found here —

f r +

10:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good task for a bot. All these references to Misza I/II/III Bot are likely confusing for newbies. -FASTILY 05:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux Would it be okay to add the bot to the AutoWikiBrowser check page, so that I can run some mock tests in my userspace ? — $f r +$ 11:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FR30799386: OK added to AWBCP, only own-user spaces should be used right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux I have made the mock test in my userspace [diff]. I have also posted the revised RegEx (developed as result of the mock test) in the function details parameter of the request. Regards — $f r +$ 15:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAG assistance needed}} — $f r +$ 08:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been around a week since the last BAG member edited this page. Are there any outstanding queries which I need to resolve ? Will it be possible to have a trail this ensuing week ? I am asking this because I will be chronically unavailable from 14th to 22th October. It would be good if I can finish the trail before that. — $f r +$ 08:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it's the 14th now, and I am sorry for the wait. I think this is an excellent task for a bot, and you've addressed everything brought forward. Let's see a good size trial to make sure everything works right, Approved for trial (250 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SQL: Trial complete.. I missed yesterdays bus so I got a little time off during which I finished the trial. I accidentally overshot the limit of 250 pages by ~seven pages as a result of my absentmindedness(I was looking at the diffs and forgot to loom at the counter regularly). Additionally, there was a two glitches while performing the trail both of which I think were adequately resolved:
The edit summary was a truncated at the start of the trail. I changed the edit summary.
The bot could not detect pages with | bot=(red spot indicates pattern which it failed to recognize). This occurred within the first five pages. I fixed the bot to recognize those particular patterns and have had not problems through out the rest of the trail.

. All pages edited can be found here.Thanks — $f r +$ 11:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aha, thanks for taking on my request! Or was that just a coincidence? :-) Anyhow, I noticed it on my watchlist at Talk:Apricot. In any case, try to keep in mind what I wrote there about other templates containing the term "MiszaBot" and the fact that the bot shouldn't edit beyond the first heading. Graham87 15:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the edits, it seems like the trial went pretty well. Looks like you've addressed any problems that came up during the trial run. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:23, 21 October 2018 (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.

SQL et al. Have followed up with FR30799386 in Special:Diff/868768896 noting that this BRFA is not linked in edit summary, and following up a link to the operator's Talk page says "FR30799386 will be taking an indefinite semi-wikibreak from editing.". Please can we make it a hard requirement of future BRFAs that the edit summary of bot edits must link to the BRFA of the actual task being performed. —Sladen (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]