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

Operator: Kslotte

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic and manually (mostly) using AWB. Automatic processes is always verified carefully manually before execution. Account will also be used for manual browser changes in situations where rapid editing is done.

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: No source code. Only AWB functions are used without programming.

Function overview: organize information by categorizing, linking, listing and stub tagging

Edit period(s): Irregular

Estimated number of pages affected: 10 000 pages in one year

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: This bot is meant for the operator as account for rapid editing through AWB or a web browser. The operator's main role on Wikipedia is to organize content. By organizing is meant categorizing, linking, listing, stub tagging or other type of editing that keeps content better organized. Account will be used on en, sv and fi Wikipedia.

So basically it will be used to add many pages to a certain category in a go, add links to pages, and stub tag? I'm afraid we can only approve you for en.wikipedia, other sites may have different policies, and you should seek approval at them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, basically that. See my contribution history for a better understanding. OK, I will seek approval later on sv and fi Wikipedia. --Kslotte (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, are you just using standard AWB, with the interface provided by it? If so, you don't need a separate account for that (although you can have one). As AWB is considered to be a tool. If you didn't know this before, do you still plan to use a different account? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I still want a bot account, so it don't interfere with "normal editing" (did get complaints at fi wikipedia) and are able to do changes more rapidly. I assume 'auto save' (I need that) in AWB will be enabled for bot accounts. --Kslotte (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, if the account is listed as a bot on the AWB check page (which it will be) then auto-save will be enabled. Although you should make sure you keep your edit rate (how often it edits) fairly slow (this is easy to set in AWB, as you get seconds delay between edits. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know how it works (used on fi wikipedia). I assume 5-10 seconds is a good chose. I usually do a few manual edits for verification until putting on auto save. Also verification during the editing process is done. --Kslotte (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

About the bot account's name, may I ask why you choose that one? Generally the bot's name should either identify its operator, or it's task. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More after its task; to do small simple changes rapidly. Actually I took a look at the article of Albert Einstein to find something suitable. --Kslotte (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the bot should never add a category to a person article, this should be done only after all the edits have been checked manually - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clear. --Kslotte (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal about this, for general information, not adding categories by bot to bios? Also, that seems to be a lot of what you do Kslotte, add categories to bios.

The most recent changes have been on biographies. But I will probably move on to other types of articles. --Kslotte (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For example this Ski areas and resorts stubs creation.

Regarding adding categories to people's articles, in an unrelated issue, a contributor just pointed me to Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations, which states Categories should not be automatically assigned: Categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, because a doubtful assignation can be marked as such). See also Wikipedia:Bots for a general discussion of contra-indications regarding automated operations. So that's where Kingpin13 is coming from. — madman bum and angel 16:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clear, as stated above also. I do such changes usually through a web browser manually. But changes are done quite rapidly anyway. --Kslotte (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For example category mountain bikers where bikers are put into sub-categories based on MTB discipline. --Kslotte (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the point, thanks, bum and angel. The point is the automatic assignment of categories to bios should not be automated. That's not an issue with this user, who appears to be careful about assigning categories, but it's a good degree of caution for bots in general. Thanks for the explanation. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't see any problems with this bot-my opinion. The user appears to be doing a lot of basic clean up, task work, on wikipedia, and from experience doing this type of work, having a bot account for autosave to make the work less tedious would help. To me the request seems reasonable, appropriate for a bot account, and geared toward the sort of work wikipedia needs more editors doing to make the encyclopedia more useful, in my opinion. The user's edit history looks fine, also. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit rate should be approx. one edit every ten seconds, as this bot is doing non-urgent tasks. I guess it's okay to keep the name as that then. Although if you are happy to change it, then something like "KslotteBot", or "KslBot" would be better. Otherwise, this all seems good thus far. We'll leave it up for awhile to give time for other users to give their input. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will create "KslotteBot". --Kslotte (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KslotteBot created. --Kslotte (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the name change. I agree with Kingpin13 that PhotonBot would have been okay, but considering the nature of the intended edits I think this name is more appropriate. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"approx. one edit every ten seconds", that's OK. --Kslotte (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

• The scope is far too broad for automatic work. Please either narrow it to more specific tasks or this should only be done semi-automatically (changes are done automatically, but each edit is reviewed).
• For "manual browser changes" - are these script-assisted edits or just fully manual edits done quickly? If its the latter, you can create an alternate account, but fully manual edits should not be done on an account with a bot flag.

-- Mr.Z-man 18:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have read above, it is mostly about semi-automation. And a bot account is preferred for the type of changes I do with AWB.

"manual browser changes" can in situation reach about 5 changes per minute. Even if it is manually it seems like a bot doing changes. I get complaints about this for example on fi wikipedia for cluttering up their monitoring of normal changes. That's why I want these rapid manual changes also being covered by the bot account. It is no big deal for me, but may be a big deal for administrators monitoring changes. --Kslotte (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

On the "broad scope" issue, "organize information by categorizing: "linking, listing and stub tagging," possibly being more specific about this might clear up Mr.Z-man's issue? I can see this could be an issue. For example, you seem to edit alpine sports and motorbike articles, so what types of articles will you categorize, alpine sports, and mountain biking, Finnish athletes? What type of linking? Listing? What stub tagging and detagging? Will that deal with that comment, Mr.Z-man? Or do you mean something else by too broad of scope? --68.127.233.138 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My issue is that "categorizing, linking, listing, stub tagging or other type of editing" can basically be anything (particularly the last one). Linking for instance should rarely be done in an automated way, and I'm not sure how one can automate (even in a semi-automatic way) "listing." If its all going to be manually reviewed, then its not much of a problem, but broad approval for this as a non-supervised task could be problematic. And on the opposite end, I don't particularly like the idea of fully manual edits being done under a bot-flagged account. Mr.Z-man 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems about right for a flag request. However task requests would need to be somewhat more specific. E.G.

• Task 1 De-stubbing and tagging articles according to WP:AWB's rules.
• Task 2 Combining stub tags as agreed at the Stub Sorting Project, e.g. {Soviet-bio-stub} + {crosscountry-skiing-bio-stub} = {Russia-XC-skiing-bio-stub}
• Task 3 Stub sorting by combining categories and stub types e.g, article in a ski resort category, and {ski-stub}, replace {ski-stub} with ski-resort stub}

I suspect you would have little problem with requesting approval for fairly generic tasks such as this. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

I'd be happy to have the bot approved for those tasks, as well as adding categories, so long as the operator makes sure to always manually review all category adding, and not edit person articles. I'd also be happy to have the bot editing unflagged (clogging up the recent changes shouldn't be so much of a problem here as at a smaller wiki), as suggested by Z-man, but would suggest that the user makes sure a significant time is put in-between edits (e.g. 15-20 seconds, as oppose to the normal 10). What's Kslotte's view on this? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The task break down by Rich Frambrough seems OK. But I want to also include the linking.

* Task 4 linking articles with AWB that is verified before saving, e.g. putting a link XC on mountain biker biographies and adding competitor link on orienteers biographies. --Kslotte (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For person articles the AWB auto-save (if I'm able to get or when I get that feature) could be turned off and manual verification is always done, is such as a pre-caution enough? The bot flag disabled later when there is some edit history. I find 10 seconds between edit being reasonable because that also reflects the speed I'm able to do fully manually with browser or AWB. I find it a little boring waiting 5-10 seconds before pressing the save button if I have already verified the change. Auto-saving I can put on 15-20 seconds, no problem. --Kslotte (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Any more opinions about covering browser edits by the bot account? I find sometimes it being easier to do (de-)stubbing through the browser instead of AWB.

* Task 5 Categorizing articles manually and verified with a browser or AWB, e.g. moving articles to correct categories, like for Category:Mountain bikers.--Kslotte (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot is approved for these tasks:

• De-stubbing and tagging articles according to AWB's rules.

• Combining stub tags as agreed at the Stub Sorting Project (e.g. {{Soviet-bio-stub}} + {{crosscountry-skiing-bio-stub}} = {{Russia-XC-skiing-bio-stub}})

• Stub sorting by combining categories and stub types (e.g, article in a ski resort category, and {{ski-stub}}, replace {{ski-stub}} with {{ski-resort stub}})

• Appropriately adding/modifying links in an article, as long as the text which shows to the reader remains the same (e.g. [[newlink|oldtext]]), and each link is carefully checked manually.

• Adding/modifying categories in articles, as long as each edit to be made is carefully checked manually.

Will be marked as a bot on AWB's checkpage (I've gone ahead and requested it be added to the checkpage), to allow automatic editing with AWB. But will not be flagged as a bot. Minimum edit rate is 15 seconds, do not go faster than this. Preferably keep things at about 20 seconds.
Hope that is satisfactory. If anything comes up which you are not sure about, contact a member of BAG, or create a new BRfA. Don't worry about wasting our time, we're here to answer your questions :). Approved. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (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.