Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ligulembot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Ligulembot

Operator: Ligulem

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually

Programming Language(s): Uses m:MWiki-Browser (a fork of AWB, which is programmed in C#)

Function Summary: Maintenance of template calls (recent example task description: Template talk:Infobox City/Template parameter changes bot, example edit, MWB settings used)

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous, when I am editing (with a slower speed at high traffic days like mondays, of course). I live in UTC+1 which is especially fine in the morning and to the end of the week. Best times for running are weekends.

Edit rate requested: approx. 6 edits per minute (peak). Typical 2..3 per minute. Depending on difficulty of task and complexity of individual diff to check.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details:
The bot account is already approved, but was approved with the restriction "May not apply for a bot flag", mostly due to speed considerations, I believe (was originally applied for a manual slow bot using the pywikiframework).
I would like to ask for a bot flag now to be able to do things like this at a higher peak edit rate. I spent a lot of time recently waiting in front of perfect diffs in order to click on save in MWB. I would like to be able to go at a faster peak edit rate without cluttering up the recent changes list.
I have done some hefty template migrations in the past (example settings for AWB I've developed: here) and I am the developer of the advanced search and replace dialog of AWB. Thank you for your consideration. --Ligulem 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ligulembot (talk • contribs • count)

[edit] Discussion

I hate to bring this up, since you want to do this *now* and I want to run the rambot later in the future, but these kinds of changes could be done to the U.S. city articles during the next rambot run. I only mention this because due to load issues on the database, I like to queue up multiple different tasks to run, since 30,000 modifications is a lot. But before I say that I should do it to save database load, do you have a count as to how many of these articles need to be updated? Also, do non-U.S. cities also need the same updates? If the total number is relatively low, there are a lot of non-U.S. cities, or there is a pressing need to do it now, then I won't stand in the way of this. But I'd at least like to consider these questions. -- RM 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. The task I described above is an example of things I do. It is finshed by now (it were some 500 edits out of a set of 2,000 pages done in several days, taking me hours to do it). And I have some strong doubts that you could have done these changes with a unassisted bot (take a closer look at the task page I mentioned above). The changes I did in this recent task cannot be done without checking each diff manually before saving, because there are so many exceptional circumstances. This is why MWB or AWB is so perfect for these kind of border-bot cases. MWB/AWB shows a diff and/or a preview of each edit before I save. All I request is to let me do the things I have done with the Ligulembot account at a higher speed compared to how I did it in the past. I am able to do bursts of edits at a much higher speed than the allowed 30 seconds per edit without the bot flag. I find it more and more boring to wait watching the timer counting up from 10..15 seconds to 30 after I have checked that the diff is perfect. I currently do have no intention to do a single edit with this account where a diff is not checked by myself sitting in front of my computer. If this should change in the future, I will ask here for permission. --Ligulem 23:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it cannot be done automatically without intervention, then I withdraw my question regarding batching the tasks. -- RM 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want an account that has a confirmation process for many edits, then I don't mind that. The problem is that this is not simply a totally automatic process, and I am not convinced that its tasks won't start changing around after its flagged, as it seems to have a very broad purpose. Additionally, rapidily confirming all those edits for a while can make you more mistake prone. I don't see much risk of it individually flooding recent changes too much either. Off course every unflagged bot will add up on RC, but per the considerations above, I'd rather not have this account flagged for now.Voice-of-All 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a solution but would like other BAG members input on this idea: lower the time to 20 seconds and dont flag due to changing task issue and leave it at that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Too sad. But that's what I expected. This will lower my motivation to do such tasks considerably. But nevermind, this is Wikipedia. Voice of All didn't understand what my problem is. I do have let's say 20 or 50 edits in a row where I see nothing unusual, why do you want me to watch my timer sitting in front of my computer? I did already a dam lot of such kind of edits. And MWB really enables me to go way faster. If I spend nearly my whole online serial edit time looking at diffs and if I see after 5 or 6 seconds that the edit would be perfect, what's the point in waiting until the timer is at 30? I've looked at many thousands of such template maintenance diffs in the past and I believe I did a damn good job doing so. This is rather demotivating. I don't see what's the point in having to pop up my edits in recent changes. After all, what is the bot flag for then? Your mistrust in my capabilites is rather frustrating. That's what I really hate about Wikipedia. But whatever. Think I'm done with this request here. --Ligulem 07:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I just get clarification: you intend to still check the diffs, right? I think what you're saying is you want to be able to go faster and to be able to select the auto-save option in AWB/MWB so that you don't have to physically click anything, but you'll still be monitoring each and every diff. Is that correct? --kingboyk 12:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I check each diff before save. I would like to go at a miximum rate of 10 seconds (peak rate) to do this. MWB does not have the automode, because I threw it out and I do not need it. The automode automatically saves pages after a defined time (x seconds) and moves on to the next page. I don't want to do that. I want to review each diff on my screen and then hit save if I see it is perfect. The simpler the diff the faster I'm done with checking it. The edits are serial edits all with the same edit summary per job ("Replace parameter xx with yy in template call zz" for example). These edits are clearly identifiable as serial ones on recent changes and the RC patrollers should be able to mask them by selecting if they want to see my bot edits or not. Something that cannot be done if I do not have a bot flag. I avoided problems with recent changes patrollers in the past by waiting at least 20..30 seconds between each edit. No I start getting seriously bored by doing so if I have 30 or 50 edits in row with simple diff that I have checked in 5 seconds due to the simplicity of the diff (which dosen't mean the MWB settings are simple). --Ligulem 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to get upset about Wikipedia here, and don't misunderstand our purpose here. We are just trying to be careful. Noting below that you don't technically need a bot flag, I understand the desire to have a bot flag to allow your changes to not interfere. I'm in favor of granting the bot flag. -- RM 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for being upset and thank you for your trust. You sure you won't regret that. --Ligulem 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Provided my analysis in my request for clarification is correct, I concur:

• MWB is a fork of AWB, which is well written and well tested
• Ligulem is demonstrably an expert in regular expressions, having written the advanced find/replace functionality in AWB
• Ligulem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a user in good standing who has never been blocked.
• The user is still going to check the diffs, he just wants to go a bit faster, cut down on his RSI risk, hide his edits in recent changes

Again, provided my original analysis was correct, I too support giving him the bot flag. --kingboyk 13:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a tried, tested and trusted bot, in the event that the task is changed to something that shouldn't be flagged, then we can either remove the flag or use a different acount. Martin 11:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One other thing. Since you're currently doing this entirely manually you don't even need a bot account nor do you need to put the bot timer on. Other manual users of AWB don't have the timer on, they just go as fast as they can, within reason. In my experience, waiting for a page to load and be processed and then checking the diff before hitting save is quite long enough; if you're a faster editor than me or have a fast connection, just have the timer on for a few seconds. See Wikipedia:Semi-bots. --kingboyk 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This *is* incorrect. I had numerous comments by wikipedians that I should apply for a bot license when doing fast edits in a serial manner, no matter with what I do it. I thus applied for a bot originally, but intentionally did not apply for a flag at first because I knew it needs more trust to give that and I was willing to give it a slow start. I apologise for being a bit snappy, but I wonder if even bot software and template experts like me need to jump through hoops to get a bot flag after many thousands of perfect edits I've done is a bit annoying. I have done some serial edits in the past with my normal account and got some concerns about speed and missing bot license. The problem here is also that generally there is some misunderstanding what a bot acoount is and for what it is intended. My intention is to do maintenance of template calls, which means migrating templates, changing template parameters and the like. I do this with a tool that shows me each diff and I use the advanced find and replace of MWB, which even has a simplified wikitext parser inside it to be able to parse template calls. So it is not a simple regular expression engine. It is also not required and even a bad idea to have a software that does the edits without user intervention, because I have done several template migrations that have some rare odd cases that need to be hand tweaked and would need a complicated parser to handle, something which entirly makes no sense. But I may have 20..30 or 50 simple cases in a row and then an odd one, on which I stop and do some tweaks by hand, which gives a minute or more for said edit, bud I could do the 50 previous ones in say every 12 seconds without the slightest problem. So it is perfect to use MWB for these kind of edits.

If it is a problem that my task spec is too broad, I can bring here the exact job specification of each template job I will do in the future and then request comments approval for each of that, if this is needed. The last settings I have used can be seen at User:Ligulem/work/Infobox City with some discussion here about what the job was.

I must say I'm quite astonished that some of you guys here propose that I should simply go faster than the allowed 30 seconds per edit, which is clearly against the spirit of the bot policy. I must admit I did already go at 20seconds per edit in the past (in violation of the poilcy), but with some bad feelings and the fear to get complaints about going too fast and cluttering up recent changes. Sorry for the long post. It might be that I did not understand the purpose of the bot flag. I just noticed that bots can be enabled disabled on recent changes view so I don't really see what's the problem to hand out bot flags a bit less restrictively. Apologies again for being snappy above. But I was really near the point wherey I would say I'm to pissed to do some more bot work. Sorry for the long post. --Ligulem 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you've already done some of the work, we'll probably treat that as a trial. Going faster than 30 seconds per edit is fine, so long as the bot flag is used. I am in the camp that virtually all bots should have the bot flag, since the main purpose of the bot flag is to clean the RC page. I'll look over your application when I have a bit more time, and we should be able to speedily approve this if everything checks out. Give me an hour or so. Note that if you want to go fast you need to do it on off-peak days (Monday is *not* an off-peak day). You'll have to pardon *us*. The bot approvals process is going to undergo some changes to speed up the process, and we're still working on cleaning the backlog. We all agree that the current process is a bit of a pain, but it is getting better. -- RM 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The bot policy doesn't apply to manual use of AWB. When you're sitting there clicking the buttons, it's not a bot it's an "advanced editing tool". That's why Martin maintains 2 lists - one for users, one for bots. Only accounts on the bot list can select auto-save :) If it weren't that way, everybody using AWB would need a bot licence, whereas in fact it's only folks like me who are doing a mass of edits, fast, and unattended that need it. What you were told before is quite simply incorrect - to do the job as described with full manual control of edits you don't need a bot tag and don't have to go at the bot "provisional licence" speed limit. Martin wouldn't have any customers if it were true!

All that said, you'd no doubt get hassle off some editors saying "you're clogging up recent changes" even if you only do 200 edits, and a bot flag would get round that. (As RM says it is in a way the main purpose of the bot flag, and that's probably what your complainant was getting at). It would also let you auto-save whilst watching the diffs so you don't get RSI :

I'm more than happy to see this application approved provided that the edits are checked in real time and that any substantial changes to the job in hand are discussed here first, which I'm sure they will be. Go forth and edit, looks like a useful job :) --kingboyk 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) We were all typing around the same time. I see that MWB doesn't have auto mode. --kingboyk 15:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I approve this, I wanted to note that 3 people are in favor of this (kingboyk, myself, and Martin) while 1 of us is opposed (Voice of All) due to disagreements with how the bot flag should be used. We will work out these details, but for now this is enough to approve. I second kingboyk's requirements for the bot. You can go as fast as you want so long as you manually check every diff, and you should slow yourself down on peak days (like Monday). I should note that the semi-bot "policy" is not official, and perhaps should fall under the scope of the bot policy and approvals group oversight. In deferrance to VoA's concerns, this approval is only for the task listed above, although that almost goes without saying. If it changes signficantly, then seek another task. -- RM 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. As for the semi-bot policy it perhaps ought to be brought into the remit of this group and given a spring clean (I had to remove an inactive tag off it) but basically we do need a policy allowing the use of such software as AWB (within certain limits) otherwise the backlog here would get much worse. Let's save that conversation for another day/place though... :) --kingboyk 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew my previous comment. I assumed that you were the avrage AWB/MWB user.I did not know that you helped program AWB/MWB and that you wrote the parsing find and replace code. Given this level of experise I think that as long as the edits are checked in real time and that any substantial changes to the job in hand are discussed here first, I would support a Flag. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Approved. Please note the following points:

1. If this task or a new task requires a bot with no flag, create a second account and link between your two bot accounts on the user page. This way we don't have to worry about bottlenecking with bot flag additions and removals.
2. Ask for approval for any significantly different task
3. All edits must be checked in real time since this cannot be done automatically.
4. Run high edit rates on off-peak times
5. You have a ton of experience with this and should be commended for your diligence. Sorry for the frustration.

-- RM 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you for your time and your patience with me. Apologies again for my impatience after the oppose of VoA. I think I will bring here the details of my next task as soon as I have it available for discussion. Rick wrote about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#Infobox accessibility issue so this could be the next one. I'm well aware of the high traffic days (Mondays in particular), as I already wrote in my application (I know this from first hand experience). --Ligulem 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag has been set. Redux 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.