Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 49

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

Withdrawn by operator.

Yobot 49[edit]

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

Time filed: 09:39, Friday, February 3, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AWB / WPCleaner

Source code available:

Function overview: Fix Reference tags without correct match

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 50 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Close refs tags example <ref>name</ref lol changes to <ref>name</ref> lol

This includes:

rev 11324 – </ref --> </ref>
rev 11356 – ref> --> <ref> (when not preceded by / or <)
rev 11380 – Similar to 11356, but for <ref name="">
rev 11381 – <ref< --> <ref> and /ref> --> </ref> (if preceded by an open ref tag)
rev 12021 – Same as 11324 but now including a condition to allow spaces.

Discussion[edit]

Was this previously approved? Exclusion compliant? Will genfixes be enabled? I don't see immediate issues. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was not approved previously in this way. This is connected to CHECKWIKI error 94. This is exclusion compliant. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No general fixes at this stage. Per Anomie adding genral fixes may result in deyning the task. I'll have to perform every AWB separately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would create such syntax errors? If it is vandalism, the bot shouldn't "fix" it. This looks like a WP:CONTEXTBOT issue, because I find it unlikely that there is a consistent error of missing just a single ">" (is there some sort of list of these?). Broken syntax more often than not indicates something a human should look at. Is your example the only case? How would the bot handle different cases like <ref>A<ref><ref>B</ref> or <ref>A<ref/> or </ref by itself? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz it is sometimes vandalism but in all the cases I 've been fixing so far closing the tag it suffices. The same way that usually the removal of a reference is vandalism but AnomieBot fixes it. AWB catches only minor cases. Not the entire CHECKWIKI error 94 will be done by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't vandalism require user eyes to warn/take administrative action? I assume this bot would be unable to act as Cluebot does and warn people automatically. Might be better to have a list of these and have humans go through. Otherwise, the bot edit may make it more difficult to detect and revert the vandalism, which may not be constrained to just removing the >. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. "sometimes" is insufficient for WP:CONTEXTBOT without some empirical evidence that it's actually "very rarely", which would be acceptable for an automated task given the low edit numbers. Otherwise, I would ask for community consensus that it is okay for bots to "fix" errors that have a reasonable (or whatever the rate is; we don't know) likelihood of being from recent vandalism. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz I changed the edits from Automatic to Supervised. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 all lists are available for manual editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No general fixes at this stage." - you say "at this stage..." does this mean that you will start to undertake general fixes once the task is approved? I'm a little suspicious. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he means that he may seek additional approval in the future to incorporate general fixes, which would be a reasonable approach. I wouldn't be opposed to them now is "skip if genfixes only" is checked, as per usual. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of blocks on this particular user and his various accounts, I think he needs to be explicit about this here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 Exactly. Please provide one list that will be acceptable by all parties. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand what you meant here Magio. What list do you want someone to provide? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 It's important that your statement here that the problem is that the tasks are not explicit enough and not that the bot owner did something wrong. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 the block history is off-topic. Please refrain from these comments in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, Magio, but your account has been blocked multiple times (19 or so?), most recently for several months in December 2016. The unblocking admin, User:Spinningspark, noted in his unblock action that "hopefully, any new approvals will have strict boundaries to prevent issues in the future". It seems quite relevant in this context. It is also why I'm keen that you explicitly confirm that this request for approval would not enable you to carry out "general fixes" using your bot account in the future without a separate approval being made. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 I did not mention anything about general fixes. At this phase we have to clear out the CHECKWIKI error fixes the community wants to be done by bot. It is interesting though that this procedure is not done via RfC but only via opinions from the vert same people who participate in the connected discussions. So in fact it is a question what do we mean by community consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 For a bot is normal to get blocked especially if the blocking admin is not familiar with the concept of AWB bots where single comment can stop them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz Just a heads up. Any broken tags may be the result of vandalism or a bad edit. None can say that any edit is not a vandalism before checking it. Same goes for unbalanced brackets, unbalanced headers, duplicated parameters, etc. In fact, it turns that the community allows bots to fix broken stuff in some extend. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General fixes are not specified, so they would not be included. The only effect of this task would be to change &lt:ref>name</ref to <ref>name</ref> - that is, the only effect is to add a closing > to a tag when there is an opening tag before it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a list of changes done by AWB. All are tested and already performed by many editors and bots since 2015. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's greatly appreciated. Would you (or anyone else) mind listing what the code is in terms of normal regex in the function details? Would make it easier for those without programming knowledge to parse this after it's approved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this to make things more accessible for those who can't read the code. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The detection will be done by CHECKWIKI and WPCleaner separate lists till we (me, Bgwhite, NicoV) manage to merge them in a simple way. For fixing the FixSyntax function of AWB will be used. The remaining pages will be supervised. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support a trial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2017 (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.