Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SigmaBot

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: Σ (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:42, Thursday June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic supervised unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Bypass unprintworthy redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#Direct_links_after_move and Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive 42#Direct_links_after_move_2

Edit period(s): 1 time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 1013 ± 10

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: User:SigmaBot is not to be confused with User:Sigmabot. As was suggested here, the bot will replace all instances of the unprintworthy redirects with the direct link. I will watch everything happen as it does.

Is every one of 1013 ± 10 edits going to be reviewed by you?

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Make sure you use a good edit summary with a link to task's description. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 06:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start small for the trial, and only do Italian Liberal Party (historical). And no, I'll leave the screen open at the side where I can see it while RC patrolling or playing a game, and check on it every minute or so. But after it's complete I'll pull out random diffs and see if anything wrong happened. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's an "automatic unsupervised" task. Supervised implies that every edit is checked. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 06:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. All test edits reverted for review. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert them? Part of the trial is if editors of the trial-affected pages have any comments on the task.

Sorry. I didn't know I was't supposed to. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 06:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. 50 edits were completed, working only on Italian Liberal Party (historical). --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the scope of the request? All unprintworthy redirects? Or just a select few? Because I don't see any reason to bypass redirects such as PNAS → Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working under the assumption that this only affects the links given in BOTREQ and is only for 1 run. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H3llkn0wz summed it up perfectly. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 20:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Any news? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Approved for bypassing the given BOTREQ links. Just a note, that this approval does not extend beyond that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:32, 6 July 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.