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


 * 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

DannyS712 bot III 38
Operator:

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): Bot requests

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 Bot requests.

Discussion

 * Pinging, who all participated in the discussion at WP:BOTREQ --DannyS712 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for putting this together. It would probably be good to have the bot also add the relevant or  tag to the redirects it reviews. Additionally, is there any possibility or plan to implement some of the other suggested redirect types (such as redirects from phrases that are listed in bold text in the lead of the target)? signed,Rosguill talk 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * making those edits would be another issue, which should be pretty easy to add on separately, but given that I don't have much (any) experience in patrolling pages with a bot I wanted to get this part approved first. Also, the other suggested redirect types would be harder - currently, the binary "logic" of if to patrol or not is the, which returns based on the relationship between the snippet ("redirect XXX") and the title of the page. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , that seems reasonable. On the coding front, presumably the way to go would be to have additional functions called from shouldPatrol which return a boolean corresponding to their condition. signed,Rosguill talk 22:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * exactly - the function gets all of the information provided by the pagetriagelist api (example). --DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , ah ok, so to do operation I suggested we'd need to use a different API that can actually read page contents. signed,Rosguill talk 22:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, but that could be called from the shouldPatrol function: snippet -> target -> api call (get target content) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO categorizing redirects should be split into a separate, generic task, such that the bot would not be limited to processing unpatrolled redirects. -  F ASTILY   00:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO categorizing redirects should be split into a separate, generic task, such that the bot would not be limited to processing unpatrolled redirects. -  F ASTILY   00:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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? - F ASTILY   01:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:

Hope that makes sense ---DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . -- The SandDoctor Talk 03:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the issues with Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 40, I'll use 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)
 * 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)


 * Imagine this scenario: article-space redirect X has associated talk page (TP) Y. How does this handle talk pages ("Y" in this case), ? It might be an "edge" case given you are dealing with redirects, but it is still something worth considering. -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * unless the api restricts it so that the talk page is also patrolled, it would be ignored DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck my comment above as it has become clear to me that I misread the task. Apologies for the nonsense/off-topic Q, . -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

., please post (preferably a permalink) to the logs here when done. Granted +NPP for 10 days and +confirmed indefinitely for purpose of trial. -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 . Would you be willing to flag  with , 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)
 * EventCoordinator granted with same expiry as NPP. Would recommend bot usergroup for noratelimit in future/if/when approved. Please continue the trial when possible. -- The SandDoctor Talk 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See - the eventcoordinator worked like a charm. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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. -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.