Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 6

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.

Lightbot 6

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Delink common units of measurement

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates part of the function "Edits may add, remove or modify links to units" in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2. ArbCom discussion

Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

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

Function details:
Edits will delink common units of measurement in accordance with wp:link - What generally should not be linked. Wikipedia has information on what may be regarded as a common unit. For clarity, the following common units are listed as the only targets for this bot. The bot will only delink a unit where all the following bullet points are true:

  • it is within a conversion e.g. "300 ft (100 m)"
  • it is a unit of length, area, or volume
  • it is either an SI unit of length, area, or volume or: inch (linear, square, cube), foot (linear, square, cube), yard (linear, square, cube), mile (statute linear, square, cube)


Discussion

Since the writer of the 'hold' has now left WP for cause, is the hold now dismissed? Hmains (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user may have left, but the underlying issue still stands. Without being too involved, it would be preferred if a discussion agreeing on Lightmouse doing these edits is carried out. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily archiving request without prejudice as an effort to refocus attention on Lightbot 5. With operator's permission. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted. Lightmouse (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still of the opinion that making 4853 bot like edits from your own account (when expressly disallowed from doing so by ArbCom) comes under "the ‘’normal’’ work around a 'bot’ task"? Personally, as a BAG member, I'm not happy about having you run this task, when you clearly appear to have very strong personal opinions on it (possibly a conflict of interest), and don't really seem to understand bots as well as I would expect for an operator. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the edit summary used by the bot still seems to be unclear, despite back in November you saying "it's pleasing to see that this Arbcom case has given me the feedback that BAG would prefer a different edit summary, I'd be happy to amend that". Is that fix still pending? - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong personal opinions": Yes, I've strong personal opinions that units should be clear, consistent, and accessible to Wikipedia readers. This has motivated my manual and automated work since 2008.
  • "Conflict of interest": I don't know what conflict of interest you mean, can you be more specific?
  • Edit summary: What edit summary would you like?

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}}

To move this BRFA forward, per WP:BOTPOL ("performs only tasks for which there is consensus"; "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"), please provide link(s) to the relevant policy/guideline/consensus that this task should be both performed and performed by an automated bot. The three BRFAs linked do not provide such links. Thank you. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is at:
The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. The three bot approvals resulted in thousands of edits over a long period. Here is a sample of 5,000 bot edits relating to the common units 'mile' and 'km'.
Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about a 20 edit trial then? Lightmouse (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will your bot check the target of any link to see that it is a unit and not a link to something else, e.g. Mile County or "dogs generally have 4 feet"? What other methods will you use to determine that something is or is not a unit of length, area or volume? What about intentional links to uncommon units (e.g. Mile (Scottish))?Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the purpose of the bot is only to delink common units in accordance with guidelines.
  • It will delink [Mile] but not [Mile (Scottish)] or [Mile County] because of the spelling.
  • In response to "dogs generally have 4 [feet]", I'd probably do a human edit to the article to correct it so that '4' becomes 'four' and check if '[feet]' is overlinked anyway. If legitimate, I'd simply skip it and add it to the whitelist (I maintain whitelists for exactly this purpose).
  • You may be interested to know that Lightbot and Lightmouse have always done this in two distinct modes of operation: One mode is delinking of common units only. This mode stands on it's own merits but is useful to support later conversion runs. The other mode is conversion including delinking where needed.
  • Units are usually preceded by a space and a digit. The efficiency of unit conversion and unit delinking should be broadly similar because they both use this feature and human oversight to ensure the high level of efficiency demonstrated over the years.
  • I'd also be willing to demonstrate the functionality as a non-bot using the Lightmouse account if that was a specific requirement.
This application for a proven function has been sitting around without demonstration edits for a long time. Please can we have a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. This task is closely related to the approved Lightbot 5, with low (if any false positives). This should therefore be no more controversial than Lightbot 5, and allowed under the ARBCOM restrictions. Let's move to trial (50 edits). Still reading the ARBCOM mess, so it might not end up approved if I discover the task is not allowed by ARBCOM, but I'm leaning towards approving assuming trial goes well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Acknowledging this now but it may be a few days before I run the trial. Lightmouse (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I've targetted the easy cases in the trial i.e. links created by a template switch. The more challenging case of links created manually will be tackled later. Note that this Lightbot function may be run simultaneously as other Lightbot functions. Lightmouse (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point when we can do the same thing with a single edit to the template? - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if you'd be allowed to do such a thing without long discussions and consideration of desirable links. But if you really can do it in single edit, please do. It'll save me a lot of time and effort. Lightmouse (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the task has consensus, suppressing the link in the template implicitly has consensus as well. Amalthea 21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a links to the edits made in the trial? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Trial edits. Edit summary is 'Delink common units. See wp:link - What generally should not be linked' Lightmouse (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems in order. Approved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:40, 20 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_6&oldid=1073124007"