User:AussieBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:57, Wednesday, March 22, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Mark unassessed stub articles as stubs

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: Not yet

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 84#Stub assessments with ORES

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: < 100 per day

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Go through Category:Unassessed articles (only deals with articles already tagged as belonging to a project). If an unassessed article is rated as a stub by ORES Liftwing, tag the article as a stub. Example

• Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ^. Also, may potentially be a CONTEXTBOT; see Wikipedia:Stub: There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. EpicPupper (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Bot run only affects unassessed articles rated as stubs by mw:ORES. The ORES ratings for stubs are very reliable (some false negatives – which wouldn't be touched under this proposal – but no false positives). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Sounds reasonable as ORES is usually good for assessing stub articles as such. – SD0001 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Y Bot run with 50 edits. No problems reported. Diffs: [1]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Some behavior I found interesting is that the bot is reverting start-class classifications already assigned by a human editor, and overriding those with stub-class. [2] and [3] EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  This should not be happening. Frostly (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The question is: what should be happening? The article were flagged because some of the projects were not assessed. Should the Bot (1) assess the unassessed ones as stubs and ignore the assessed ones or (2) align the unassessed ones with the ones that are assessed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Per recent consensus assessments should be for an entire article, not per WikiProject. The bot should amend the template to use the article wide code. If several projects have different assessments for an article it should leave it alone. Frostly (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: Courtesy ping, I've manually fixed up the edits where the bot replaced an assessment by a human editor. 6 edits total to be fixed out of 52 total edits. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Bot has been amended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

{{BAG assistance needed}} This has been waiting for over 2 months since the end of the trial, and over 4 months since the creation of the request. Given the concerns expressed that the bot operator has since fixed, an extended trial may be a good idea here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I have been very busy. Should I run the new Bot again with a few more edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I wrote the bot using my C# API, and due to a necessary upgrade here, my dotnet environment got ahead of the one on the grid. I could neither build locally and run on the grid nor on build on the grid. (I could have run the trial locally but would not have been able to deploy to production.) There is currently a push to move bots onto Kubernetes containers, but there was no dotnet build pack available. The heroes on Toolforge have now provided one for dotnet, and I will be testing it when I return from vacation next week. If all goes well I will finally be able to deploy the bot and run the trial at last. See phab:T311466 for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Operator assistance needed}} Primefac (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Work was done in January and some changes made on Toolforge. Will resume the trial run when I get a chance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: any update on this? If it's a bit of a medium-term item and not actively worked on, are you happy to mark this BRFA as withdrawn for the time being? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

My technical problems have been resolved. A new trial run will be conducted this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

[4][5][6][7][8][9] etc Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

One important change: Liftwing is being used instead of ORES now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

{{Operator assistance needed}} Courtesy ping to make sure this is still proceeding. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The trial run was successful. The problems with the new Packbuild environment were resolved. I can run some more trials but would prefer permission to put the job into production. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

{{operator assistance needed}} What is the status of this request? Has the extended trial happened? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Aargh. Forgot all about it. Will run the trial this week and report back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Results of a run with Bot limited to 50 articles.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Trial complete. Techie3 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The edits look good. Please update the function details to include LiftWing. Before approving, I would like to ping @SD0001 to get their opinion on the reliability of LiftWing, as it is a new service being used here following the deprecation announcement of the ORES infrastructure. I am sure LiftWing is more reliable than ORES in most ways, but it is good to double-check. – DreamRimmer ■ 17:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't migrated to LiftWing for my tasks since it's much slower with no caching at their side and doesn't allow batched requests. That being said, I think the models should be just as accurate. – SD0001 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Approved. No doubt about the reliability of LiftWing. Just make sure to link this BRFA in the edit summary. – DreamRimmer ■ 17:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 11:00, Wednesday, June 18, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: The Bot will go through:

• Category:Start-Class articles conflicting with C-Class project-independent quality rating (0),
• Category:Stub-Class articles conflicting with C-Class project-independent quality rating (0),
• Category:C-Class articles conflicting with Start-Class project-independent quality rating (0),
• Category:Stub-Class articles conflicting with Start-Class project-independent quality rating (0),
• Category:Start-Class articles conflicting with Stub-Class project-independent quality rating (0),
• Category:C-Class articles conflicting with Stub-Class project-independent quality rating (0)

and resolve conflicting quality ratings, setting it to stub or start depending on its rating in Liftwing. Script error: The function "conflict_category" does not exist.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: [10]

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Conflicting quality ratings

Edit period(s): Daily until all are resolved.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~ 35,000

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Bot goes through each article in the category, clears the current ratings and applies the Liftwing rating of start or stub as appropriate.

Thanks for filing this. I think we discussed running this for all Stub/Start/C classes? So that would include the following categories:

• Category:Start-Class articles conflicting with C-Class project-independent quality rating (0)
• Category:Stub-Class articles conflicting with C-Class project-independent quality rating (0)
• Category:C-Class articles conflicting with Start-Class project-independent quality rating (0)
• Category:Stub-Class articles conflicting with Start-Class project-independent quality rating (0)
• Category:Start-Class articles conflicting with Stub-Class project-independent quality rating (0)
• Category:C-Class articles conflicting with Stub-Class project-independent quality rating (0)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the bot can handle this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@MSGJ: In testing, I have found that some of the C-class articles would be eligible for a B-class rating. Should they be rated B or C? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the bot should rate according to its algorithm. Could it produce a log so that we can spot check a sample manually? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it can. Normally on WikiProject:Military History we double-check all the articles that have been Bot-rated as B-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe I cannot. The Bot requires the createpage right to be able to do this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

All registered users have the right. You likely need to adjust the BotPassword grants to include it. – SD0001 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

All users should have this right, but AussieBot does not and I do not know how to grant it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Go to Special:BotPasswords, open the botpassword you're using in the bot, tick the "Create, edit, and move pages" grant. Update. – SD0001 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If you plan to cover all the mentioned categories, please update the function details to reflect them, and adjust the estimated number of pages affected and the function overview accordingly. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Since LiftWing may rate some of them as B or C class, please update the task details to reflect that. The lines that say "rating of start or stub as appropriate" and "stub or start depending on its rating in LiftWing" should be updated to include B and C as well. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Approved for trial (120 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please process 20 pages from each category. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done The report can be found here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks great to me. I spot-checked about 15-20 articles and could not disagree with any of the assessments given — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 the bot seems to be continuing with its edits today. Has an additional trial been authorised? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oops. My apologies. After trial I have to move the bots from my server to the Toolforge, and I activated AussieBot 2 instead of AussieBot 1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: please review when you have time, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Approved. Please limit the bot to only the WikiProject banner shell and the WikiProject templates so that it does not make cosmetic changes outside those templates as it did here. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.