Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JagRoBot

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 Denied.

JagRoBot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Jagro (cs.wiki)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: some tasks auto, some manual

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Overview: Fixing problems from WikiProject Check Wikipedia (cleaning up source, mistakes etc.)

Edit period(s): daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y (cs, sk)

Function Details:

• [[link|link]] (example)
• <br /> in lists (example)
• HTML entities (example)
• arrows (semiautomatic) (example)
• etc.

Discussion

Is this using standard pywikipedia functions? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. — Jagro (cs.wiki) 03:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Are these really necessary tasks? Take the first example you showed us— the wikilink shows correctly regardless of whether it is piped or not. See WP:R2D for a similar situation to what the bot would be doing here, and this page for the science behind it. Essentially, will these tasks really help us, or will they just cause unnecessary database transactions? The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 14:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot was just approved for pretty much the same task; what will this be doing differently? Mr.Z-man 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mainly the same, but JagRoBot can fix some problems, which must be manual controled, for expample arrows. — Jagro (cs.wiki) 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

As Mr.Z-man said, my bot was just approved to do the same thing. We also have User:D6 who does quite a bit. Having another bot for after each database dump wouldn't hurt, but I don't think that it is really needed when the "normal" number of errors are coming up. With the huge list every bot we can get helps, but I found that DrilBot finished the tasks that it could fix pretty quickly when the CHECKWIKI page was finding the "normal" number of errors. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with duplicate bots running, especially on something as massive as the Checkwiki backlog. But I am curious about what Jagro's answer to Z-Man will be. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind either, especially after the big database dumps, but after this is cleared up and just the new daily errors are being added having multiple bots would probably be redundant. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. If working from a Checkwiki list, please tag the list as being worked on by your bot, then run the trial, and then remove the notice. (As discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Locobot 2) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Trial complete. – 50 edits done with lists and arrows. — Jagro (cs.wiki) 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All of these edits simply remove <br> from lists, and do nothing else. I don't believe these changes are significant enough to merit an edit by themselves. I think it would be better to have a more robust bot, like DrilBot, perform this task and other non-controversial fixes at the same time. I'd be curious to hear other BAG members' opinions on this. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that the pages that need the <br> removed may not be the same pages that DrilBot edits for its fixes. Personally, I think these should all just be AWB general fixes. I don't see why being on some special report page excuses these from the normal restrictions on insignificant edits. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Denied. Sorry, but these edits are trivial, and as such aren't a good task for a bot.

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.