Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteveBot 5


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

SteveBot 5
Operator:

Time filed: 15:28, Saturday May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Either Automatic Supervised or manually assisted with AWB. Automatic but supervised.

Programming language(s): AWB, pywikipedia

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia, using brokensectionanchors.py, and AWB redirect.py

Function overview: Fixing broken section anchors using brokensectionanchors.py, currently I have not tested this yet, alternatively I will use AWB. Fixing double redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Unsure. The database report only lists the first 1000 pages. Run on a daily basis. There's normally 50 or so a day.

Exclusion compliant Y

Already has a bot flag Y

Function details: I have not tested task 4, but I am hoping that with this task I can repair some of the broken section anchors that are found and updated daily here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Simple task to fix redirects.

Discussion
"I have not tested task 4" -- what is task 4, do you mean Bots/Requests_for_approval/SteveBot_4 and how is it relevant to this BRFA? How does the bot determine the correct section name? Do you use the "Best guess" column from reports for the change? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, task 4 would be this task, I disregard that task that you linked to, as it was rejected. Tasks 1, 2, and 3 were approved, Task 4 was rejected, I suppose this is task 5 but it would be the fourth approved task, if that makes sense. For some, I will use best guess, however it will be a manually assisted task, so using AWB will just make the work a little bit quicker as opposed to manually doing the task by hand on my account. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  09:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

— HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Any updates on the trial?  MBisanz  talk 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going to work on some code to see if there's another way to do this task other than the hard manual way, which will have to be done pretty much by hand, but will need some time to work on it. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, take your time. No rush.  MBisanz  talk 03:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any progress on this task? SQL Query me!  08:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark this one as BotWithdrawn, the code seems overly complex to write. I would request a separate task in place, the fixing of double redirects. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  10:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you update all the relevant fields to match the specification of the new task? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

- though I went over 50, sorry. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded, trial is done, could someone review the results please. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Results look good, uncontroversial task, competent bot op. My only question is about whether we should be doing this task in the userspace. Sure, double redirects are double redirects, but is the appropriate behavior? Probably so – relatively minor concern – but I wanted to know what people thought about this. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Some users have redirect loops in their userspace, as for some reason they want double redirects in their userspace. This bot won't change that. Most other double redirects are caused by users moving drafts from their userspace into mainspace and then moving them again. I don't see an issue with fixing this up. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me; you're good to go. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  00:33, 11 August 2011 (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.