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  Approved.

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

Time filed: 23:22, Monday, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual:

• Automatic, for redirect.py double
• Manual, for solve_disambiguation.py and disambredir.py

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikibot

Function overview: The purpose is to assist with necessary cleanup as described at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions.

• Fixing double redirects on demand
• Solving links to disambiguation pages
• Updating disambiguation pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): On demand, to comply with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions and to improve disambiguation and linking throughout Wikipedia.

Estimated number of pages affected: Zero net for redirect.py (duplicates scheduled bots); hundreds for the manual dab scripts depending on the pages moved and my time spent on additional maintenance.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No (removed for inactivity)

Function details:

• Repairing double redirects on demand following page moves
• Piping links to ambiguous titles (disambiguation pages, pages with hatnotes) to the correct target. This is done by presenting me with options for manual input.
• Changing links on disambiguation pages to comply with MOS:DABENTRY. Each proposed edit will require confirmation.

Discussion[edit]

I have a few questions about the proposed tasks here. Is function (1) different to existing bots that fix double redirects; do we have a specific need for a bot to help with the requested moves? Further, functions (2) and (3) appear to be scripts or tools and not bots. The definition of a bot, from WP:BOTPOL is: After launching the bot, an assumption can be made that there is no further need for human decision-making. It appears that you would be making each decision, and that is therefore not a bot. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 09:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Function (1) is the same in function as other bots. In my opinion the closing instructions about double redirects are a bit silly, but I intend to follow them: "Periodically a bot will attempt to fix any double redirects missed but that does not relieve the closer of the responsibility which should be handled soon after the move." I would operate this after completing a move or series of moves to comply with the policy.

Your assessment is correct for functions (2) and (3). My concern is that I'm practiced with this kind of fast interpretation and data entry, and I'm capable of making edits with very high accuracy very fast. This wouldn't be a bot per se, but function (2) could have me making a lot of edits quickly. The bot flag in this case would be to hide these trivial but necessary edits.

I understand if the bot flag has become strictly for bots; in that case I'll withdraw my request for (2) and (3) and operate these tools on my main account. I'll also ask the BAG's opinion on the appropriate throttle for high-speed, non-flagged edits. —Guanaco 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: (2) and (3) don't need bot approval and shouldn't operate with a flag, especially because other editors may wish to review them. Just use the "minor edit" option from your main account (or possibly an alternative non-bot account created just for this purpose, if you don't want to clog up your main's contribs). Opinions on appropriate speed vary from editor to editor, even among BAG members, I believe. Per WP:MEATBOT, speed alone is not necessarily a problem if you're actually reviewing each edit. I would consider a throttle of 15 edits per minute to be acceptable speeds; that's roughly 4 seconds per edit, and I'd be very surprised if you could actually operate a disambiguation script faster than that while retaining accuracy. Note that you will be on a shorter leash for mistakes if you're operating quickly, so do take all the time needed to actually review the edit you're making with the script. As for (1), am I correct that you will be initiating each individual run of the bot, but once you tell it which double redirects to fix, it will run by itself? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my request for (2) and (3). For (1), you're correct. I will initiate each run, and then it will run by itself fixing double redirects (and only double redirects). —Guanaco 00:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Since it doesn't make too much sense to leave a double-redirect task half-done, you can do up to 125 edits total for the purpose of finishing out whatever redirect situation you're fixing when you hit 100. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial run complete, using recently moved pages. —Guanaco 01:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: Could you explain the edits from June 19th? That was before the trial was approved, but your bot appears to have been doing this task already. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: That was a mistake on my part. I had an outdated understanding of the bot policy, and I thought it was fine if supervised. —Guanaco 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 3 July 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.