Operator: Jim Carter - Public ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search), Jim Cartar ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:42, Wednesday August 20, 2014 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Source code available: WP:AWB
Function overview: Add/removing all type of tags that AWB Autotagger does
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected:
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):
Adminbot (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The following tasks will be performed by the bot: (Updated): Adding/removing all type of tags that AWB does by Autotagger. It will skip if no tags changed and restrict orphan tag to linkless pages.
For articles that you are planning on tagging, what are you going to use to seed your target list? (e.g. articles less than two incoming links). — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Some other remarks:
@ Xaosflux and GoingBatty:, So, as far as I understand is that there will be no special settings loaded nor script, no F&R rules. In fact the proposal is that the bot will run general fixes on lists with some skip options activated. In general, this is not a bad idea since we are already doing it by other bots. My concerns are the following:
@ Jim Cartar: do you have a compiler and can compile your own AWB versions? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Persondata and Multiple issues
|
---|
@ Jim Carter - Public: how are you going to choose what description to add in Persondata? Manually? You do not need a bot for that then. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Notes mainly for myself; For Orphan: There is also Category:All orphaned articles. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: All orphaned articles category contains 122,114. Even if running your bot once per month it won't bring more. This is what Yobot does and we do not get a lot of pages untagged lately. I think that we need some extra tool in the wmflabs to aid us. Addbot was much better in these things and was not blindly running.
I appreciate your will to help and we certainly need the extra fresh people to help us reduce our workload as xaosflux wrote above and I could not agree more. I think the best choice for now is that you wait a bit before getting a bot account. The tasks you suggest are easy but this is not always the problem here.
Important My suggestion is the following: Try to run against Category:All orphaned articles through your normal account with "Skip if no tagging" and make like 50 edits so I can check the diffs and also for your to get the feeling how slow this is going to be. (Time should not vary between bot and normal account).
Moreover, I 'll keep you in my mind in case some other easy tasks pops up. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 05:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I feel like this should be split into multiple separate bot requests, this conversation is all over the place and hard to follow. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Ping @ Xaosflux, GoingBatty, Magioladitis, and Addshore:;
As suggested by Magioladitis, I have done the tagging task from my original account assuming it to be a trial run. I have run against a total of more than 1500+ articles. Firstly:
I have either added or removed a tag by AWB's auto tagger followed other general fixings.
I have run against this CATs separately and have made more than 95+ edits. See those edits here. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Instructions of how to tag orphan correctly and discussion about it
|
---|
@ Jim Carter - Public: did you have "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages" on? I see that most of the cases are orphan tagging. In the case of Elizabeth Dennis the page had an incoming link from Rivers Wash Over Me by the time you tagged it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
|
@ Magioladitis: as you suggested to repeat, I have done it by activating both "skip if no auto tag changes", "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages". I have run against 1900 pages and have made more than 60 edits. See them here. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Remark: Edit ratio was 60/1900 = 3.2%. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Xaosflux, GoingBatty, and Addshore: if you think it's a good idea to give it a try, we can proceed in the trial bot phase. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment Addshore is in the process of slowly rewriting the code for their bot. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Instructions on bot setup - Comments on trial
|
---|
((BotTrial|edits=50)). @ Jim Carter - Public and Jim Cartar: in the settings you must have: "Restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages" and "skip if no auto tag changes". After the bot trial is complete you should provide us with a link to the edits the bot did, statistics of many pages were checked to reach the 50 edits and in which categories the bot ran. You should use AWB version 5.5.4.0 or later. The edit summary must be "Tagging (BOT TRIAL)" so everybody can check the edits. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 06:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
((BotTrialComplete)) Okay. I ran it again and fortunately it work! No Captcha message came up again. The trial run was successful. I run against 230 pages over this Category and has made 50 contributions. "Restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages" and "skip if no autotag changes" were enabled. The bot performed various tagging and removing. In this edit, the bot added underlinked tag. In this edit, the bot removed stub tag. In this edit, the bot replaced unreferenced tag by refimprove. In this edit, it added stub tag. In this edit, it added two tags, dead end and orphan tags. And in this one it added orphan tag. All the contributions can be seen here. Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Jim Carter - Public and GoingBatty: Both bugs reported: Bug report 1, Bug report 2. Jimmy you should be able to report similar things in the future. AWB is nearly perfect but not perfect. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Now, let's wait 2 days for more comments and whether we can fix some of the AWB bugs reported. I apologise if this goes slowly but I try my best. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Comments on extended trial
|
---|
((BotExtendedTrial|edits=50)) @ Jim Carter - Public: please download revision 10441 and repeat the bot trial with these settings. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply
In version 5.5.4.1 the version should be visible in edit summary. It seems you used the 5.5.4.0. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Replacing {{ unref}} by {{ Refimprove}} is a default function of AWB. It is impossible for a bot to know if the article need more sources or have enough sources. Also remember this is a bot not an human. So, it is possible that it may mistake in some places. Yobot and your BattyBot obviously does mistakes. Now if someone comes to my talk page asking to fix it then obviously I will fix them. The issues are not something that can never be solved. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I suggest that we give it 3-4 days in case we are able to fix the bugs. Sorry for any inconvenience or delay but I agree that if we want to run a tagging bot in a more regular basis we should be as bugs free as possible. I do not expect all to be fixed. I like the idea of the bot because we'll have more bugs reports. This is a helpful procedure and thank to Jim we are making improvements. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 21:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for Rjwilmsi we started fixing the various issues:
|
@ Jim Carter - Public: you should be reporting problems to me or to the AWB's bug page. There are some issues that are still not solved:
-- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
There are concerns of bad use of auto-tagger after issue was reported as fixed. User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Please_stop. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply
((BotExtendedTrial|edits=50)) @ Jim Carter - Public: please download version 5.5.5.0 (make sure you use this) and start a new test round. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply
{{unreferenced|section=yes}}
to {{refimprove|section=yes}}
. I changed it to {{unreferenced section}}
and notified the editor who added the incorrect tag.{{Unreferenced|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}}
by {{refimprove|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}}
The replacement was not correct. No sources were present in that paragraph so unreferenced tag was correct.@ Jim Carter - Public: Is anything you could do from your side (e.g. Find and replace rules or database scan) to reduce the errors reported above? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply
{{Unreferenced|type=section}}
but I can't do anything else from my side, really very sorry.
Jim Carter
09:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
reply
{{unreferenced|section=yes|
{{unreferenced section|
@
GoingBatty: can you please make a database scan for {{unreferenced|section=yes
and {{refimprove|section=yes
? --
Magioladitis (
talk)
19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
reply
@ GoingBatty: Bgwhite did the check for us. 0 instances for the first one and 5 for the later. I fixed them all. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Mogism left some messages at User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Sorry_to_be_blunt. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply
\=+\n{{unreferenced
would be appropriate for the bot task, until AWB's Tagger could be updated with something similar.
GoingBatty (
talk)
20:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: OK. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I think it's the perfect time to ask @ Anomie, Xaosflux, and Hellknowz: if they think this BRFA can survive and what is to be done. Another test? Reject? Approve? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Operator: Jim Carter - Public ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search), Jim Cartar ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:42, Wednesday August 20, 2014 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Source code available: WP:AWB
Function overview: Add/removing all type of tags that AWB Autotagger does
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected:
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):
Adminbot (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The following tasks will be performed by the bot: (Updated): Adding/removing all type of tags that AWB does by Autotagger. It will skip if no tags changed and restrict orphan tag to linkless pages.
For articles that you are planning on tagging, what are you going to use to seed your target list? (e.g. articles less than two incoming links). — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Some other remarks:
@ Xaosflux and GoingBatty:, So, as far as I understand is that there will be no special settings loaded nor script, no F&R rules. In fact the proposal is that the bot will run general fixes on lists with some skip options activated. In general, this is not a bad idea since we are already doing it by other bots. My concerns are the following:
@ Jim Cartar: do you have a compiler and can compile your own AWB versions? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Persondata and Multiple issues
|
---|
@ Jim Carter - Public: how are you going to choose what description to add in Persondata? Manually? You do not need a bot for that then. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Notes mainly for myself; For Orphan: There is also Category:All orphaned articles. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: All orphaned articles category contains 122,114. Even if running your bot once per month it won't bring more. This is what Yobot does and we do not get a lot of pages untagged lately. I think that we need some extra tool in the wmflabs to aid us. Addbot was much better in these things and was not blindly running.
I appreciate your will to help and we certainly need the extra fresh people to help us reduce our workload as xaosflux wrote above and I could not agree more. I think the best choice for now is that you wait a bit before getting a bot account. The tasks you suggest are easy but this is not always the problem here.
Important My suggestion is the following: Try to run against Category:All orphaned articles through your normal account with "Skip if no tagging" and make like 50 edits so I can check the diffs and also for your to get the feeling how slow this is going to be. (Time should not vary between bot and normal account).
Moreover, I 'll keep you in my mind in case some other easy tasks pops up. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 05:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I feel like this should be split into multiple separate bot requests, this conversation is all over the place and hard to follow. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Ping @ Xaosflux, GoingBatty, Magioladitis, and Addshore:;
As suggested by Magioladitis, I have done the tagging task from my original account assuming it to be a trial run. I have run against a total of more than 1500+ articles. Firstly:
I have either added or removed a tag by AWB's auto tagger followed other general fixings.
I have run against this CATs separately and have made more than 95+ edits. See those edits here. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Instructions of how to tag orphan correctly and discussion about it
|
---|
@ Jim Carter - Public: did you have "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages" on? I see that most of the cases are orphan tagging. In the case of Elizabeth Dennis the page had an incoming link from Rivers Wash Over Me by the time you tagged it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
|
@ Magioladitis: as you suggested to repeat, I have done it by activating both "skip if no auto tag changes", "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages". I have run against 1900 pages and have made more than 60 edits. See them here. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Remark: Edit ratio was 60/1900 = 3.2%. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Xaosflux, GoingBatty, and Addshore: if you think it's a good idea to give it a try, we can proceed in the trial bot phase. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment Addshore is in the process of slowly rewriting the code for their bot. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Instructions on bot setup - Comments on trial
|
---|
((BotTrial|edits=50)). @ Jim Carter - Public and Jim Cartar: in the settings you must have: "Restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages" and "skip if no auto tag changes". After the bot trial is complete you should provide us with a link to the edits the bot did, statistics of many pages were checked to reach the 50 edits and in which categories the bot ran. You should use AWB version 5.5.4.0 or later. The edit summary must be "Tagging (BOT TRIAL)" so everybody can check the edits. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 06:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
((BotTrialComplete)) Okay. I ran it again and fortunately it work! No Captcha message came up again. The trial run was successful. I run against 230 pages over this Category and has made 50 contributions. "Restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages" and "skip if no autotag changes" were enabled. The bot performed various tagging and removing. In this edit, the bot added underlinked tag. In this edit, the bot removed stub tag. In this edit, the bot replaced unreferenced tag by refimprove. In this edit, it added stub tag. In this edit, it added two tags, dead end and orphan tags. And in this one it added orphan tag. All the contributions can be seen here. Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Jim Carter - Public and GoingBatty: Both bugs reported: Bug report 1, Bug report 2. Jimmy you should be able to report similar things in the future. AWB is nearly perfect but not perfect. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Now, let's wait 2 days for more comments and whether we can fix some of the AWB bugs reported. I apologise if this goes slowly but I try my best. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Comments on extended trial
|
---|
((BotExtendedTrial|edits=50)) @ Jim Carter - Public: please download revision 10441 and repeat the bot trial with these settings. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply
In version 5.5.4.1 the version should be visible in edit summary. It seems you used the 5.5.4.0. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Replacing {{ unref}} by {{ Refimprove}} is a default function of AWB. It is impossible for a bot to know if the article need more sources or have enough sources. Also remember this is a bot not an human. So, it is possible that it may mistake in some places. Yobot and your BattyBot obviously does mistakes. Now if someone comes to my talk page asking to fix it then obviously I will fix them. The issues are not something that can never be solved. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I suggest that we give it 3-4 days in case we are able to fix the bugs. Sorry for any inconvenience or delay but I agree that if we want to run a tagging bot in a more regular basis we should be as bugs free as possible. I do not expect all to be fixed. I like the idea of the bot because we'll have more bugs reports. This is a helpful procedure and thank to Jim we are making improvements. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 21:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for Rjwilmsi we started fixing the various issues:
|
@ Jim Carter - Public: you should be reporting problems to me or to the AWB's bug page. There are some issues that are still not solved:
-- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
There are concerns of bad use of auto-tagger after issue was reported as fixed. User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Please_stop. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply
((BotExtendedTrial|edits=50)) @ Jim Carter - Public: please download version 5.5.5.0 (make sure you use this) and start a new test round. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply
{{unreferenced|section=yes}}
to {{refimprove|section=yes}}
. I changed it to {{unreferenced section}}
and notified the editor who added the incorrect tag.{{Unreferenced|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}}
by {{refimprove|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}}
The replacement was not correct. No sources were present in that paragraph so unreferenced tag was correct.@ Jim Carter - Public: Is anything you could do from your side (e.g. Find and replace rules or database scan) to reduce the errors reported above? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply
{{Unreferenced|type=section}}
but I can't do anything else from my side, really very sorry.
Jim Carter
09:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
reply
{{unreferenced|section=yes|
{{unreferenced section|
@
GoingBatty: can you please make a database scan for {{unreferenced|section=yes
and {{refimprove|section=yes
? --
Magioladitis (
talk)
19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
reply
@ GoingBatty: Bgwhite did the check for us. 0 instances for the first one and 5 for the later. I fixed them all. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Mogism left some messages at User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Sorry_to_be_blunt. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply
\=+\n{{unreferenced
would be appropriate for the bot task, until AWB's Tagger could be updated with something similar.
GoingBatty (
talk)
20:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: OK. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I think it's the perfect time to ask @ Anomie, Xaosflux, and Hellknowz: if they think this BRFA can survive and what is to be done. Another test? Reject? Approve? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply