Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Usernamekiran 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

Usernamekiran BOT
Operator:

Time filed: 21:42, Wednesday, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

Mostly supervised, but sometimes automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: standard AWB functions

Function overview: execute general fixes that are already provided in AWB.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): each edit performed by the bot will be minor, so the consensus/discussion is not required.

Edit period(s): 3-4 days a week.

Estimated number of pages affected: around 2000 pages per week.

Namespace(s): only article space.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.

Function details: I recently started to edit villages/towns from state of Maharashtra. Almost all of these articles have been edited by the citizen of these villages. As English is not their primary language, there are many spelling mistakes in the articles. Also as the articles qualify under WP:NGEO, most of the articles are overlooked. In my recent edits, I have found many articles that were orphan. The bot will perform only "general fixes" provided in the AWB tools; which includes spell-check, and maintenance tagging. I will run the bot only in the town/village categories. So the usual reasons for rejecting such bots generally cant be applied here (no odd grammar, or quotes). If I decide to run the bot in some other category, I will ask approval for that task again. If there are further questions/doubts regarding bot's expected work, kindly ask me. Regards, — usernamekiran (talk)  21:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
What sort of "spell-check" is performed by AWB's general fixes? I am not aware of any, and I do not see any listed at AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. See also WP:SPELLBOT. Also, have you read WP:COSMETICBOT, and can you ensure that your bot will not perform purely cosmetic edits, i.e. edits that do not change the appearance of the rendered page? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC) My answer is sort of irrelevant, but if a bot does an edit with a good edit summary; then checking that edit doesnt take much time. The bot will do edits like adding maintenance tags, fixing punctuations (spaces before ref tag, spaces between punctuation marks and similar stuff). It will also do edits like {cn} to {citation needed}. For dating the maintainance tags, there not much tags without dates cuz of AnomieBot. Here are some diffs for the spell-check that I recently performed special:diff/823364505, special:diff/823374438 (enterence to entrance), special:diff/823374379. Yes, I read WP:FDB before making this request, thats how the word spell-check got stuck in my mind. This bot isnt supposed to fix grammar, and the articles I want to work on dont have intentional spelling mistakes. I am not going to choose random articles, i will editing the set of articles that I am familiar with. The articles I want to work on are overlooked/forgotten articles. A lot of them are orphan, underlinked, unreferenced, and with many typos and general inaccuracies. I am simply trying to make these articles better. I skim through my own edits at the end of every session/day, I will do the same for this bot account. I also like to keep an eye on activities of bots once in a while. I can easily keep track of my bot's activity whenever the run is over. I could do these edits semi-automatically through AWB, but the chances of mistakes are extremely thin; and the list of articles is huge. Thats why I want to get rid of the semi thing/save button. For the query regarding context, I apologise, but I didnt understand it. — usernamekiran (talk)  03:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this. Please see WP:FDB in addition to the information provided above. These edits require context and someone watching over them, so the "usual reasons for rejecting such bots generally cant be applied here" is entirely incorrect. Nihlus  00:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, I read WP:FDB before making this request; and I had read WP:COSMETICBOT quite a long time ago.
 * Sorry, I see nothing gained by allowing these types of edits to be performed automatically; however, I do see many potential drawbacks as stated above. The general fixes are not mistake proof and should be analyzed before they are made. Nihlus  04:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * hmm. I recently made around 150-200 edits (Special:Contributions/Usernamekiran (AWB)), and there were no mistakes. Maybe we can do a trial? — usernamekiran (talk)   04:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a member of BAG, just a botop. That being said, I would be completely against any form of bot task that only made "general fixes". And to be honest, I don't even like them paired with other tasks. Nihlus  04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the linked edits (which were not mistake-free as claimed, but quite low in error rates), and they generally improved the articles, which need a lot of improvement. As far as I could see, you avoided making any cosmetic edits. Good work. That said, nearly all of the edits were context-sensitive and could not be performed by a bot. I encourage you to continue editing and to look for more opportunities to tweak your AWB scripts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldnt see any errors. What errors? — usernamekiran (talk)  21:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, this edit has three errors: two in the hat note, and one in the body (changing "head quarter" to "headquarter" instead of "headquarters"). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

AWB's regex typo fixing does not work in bot mode. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC) But there is still other stuff. — usernamekiran (talk)  04:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So thats out of the window. :-/

This request is far too vague to be approved, and the discussion above does not give any indication that the situation is going to improve. "each edit performed by the bot will be minor, so the consensus/discussion is not required" is completely false, and shows that you do not have a good understanding of the bot policy. You're welcome to continue making manual edits using AWB subject to the level of human review expected of such edits. Anomie⚔ 22:56, 1 February 2018 (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.