This is the discussion page for the AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) project. It is also the place to discuss using the AWB program (for help, questions, or general inquiries about AWB). Specific guidelines on where to make particular reports or requests are provided in the § Before you post section below. Before asking a question, please refer to the read the § Frequently asked questions below.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

               //Detect IE5.5+
               if (navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE")==-1)
               {
                   // Previous contents go here
                   ....
               }

I opened up AWB and it successfully updated to 6.4.0.0. Then I reopened AWB and went to log on, but after it had loaded my article list, a popup says 'Login failed; aborted', and shortly thereafter I get sent a Wikipedia verification code by email. Is there somewhere I should enter the verification code? (I'm currently logged into Wikipedia without any issues.) Colonies Chris (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried again today, and now I can log in as normal. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been facing this issue since the past Thursday(?), I presume. You'd have to log in with OTP on a different browser/incognito mode on the same device, and after that AWB will not ask for OTP until the next day. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom, is there a more permanent solution to this? Idoghor Melody (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not anything that I am aware of. One solution would be to update the AWB software to accept OTP, but it would take time for someone to implement this. For now, we may only ask at WP:VPT . —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other is WP:Using AWB with 2FA. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is actually causing this behaviour, and is there anything i can do to change it? Until two months ago i could log on and use AWB any time, no matter what my browser situation was; now i have had to log out of my editing account (user:LindsayH), log into Kahtar, close my browser, re-open it, log back into Kahtar, and only now am i able to log into AWB. Is this a permanent change/requirement for using AWB, or is there something wrong with my settings? Thanks, Kahtar 11:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and now, when i'm back with LindsayH in order to do some other editing, Kahtar is automatically logged out of AWB. I'm afraid i just don't understand ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you set up a botpassword for yourself and are still having the issue? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, i'm sorry, but i don't even know what a botpassword is ~ i'm not a bot, in either of my accounts; do i go to Special:BotPasswords and set one up? And if Yes, as Kahtar or as LindsayH? ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Using AWB with 2FA. You can set up the 'botpassword' for AWB if if you don't use 2FA. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This is why i love our community: People with knowledge happy to share it for the benefit of others; what a great place! ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a server-side change that I missed? I only started seeing this a few days ago. I am traveling, so it could be because I keep changing my IP address. In any case, I filed a feature request and will start researching it. David Brooks (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMF is doing some additional authentication for accounts, especially ones that are logging in from new networks. This isn't AWB specific. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It explains why it only started when I was traveling (a different place every few days). I'm trying to come up with an AWB fix in spare moments, but I can't test it to completion because that will kill the repro! Maybe I can use a VPN or something to trigger it again. David Brooks (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to some pointers from reedy, this seems to be due to the recent rollout of the email authentication process. We've asked for an urgent implementation of an API extension that can be used by apps like AWB. Until then, the bot or side-login solutions are all we have. David Brooks (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found a fix for logging in with your regular username (although it depends on an undocumented feature). It lets you get the auth code from your email and enter it into AWB. I have to get on a plane soon, but I've uploaded the fix to my cloud although with substandard error handling. Own risk etc. Responses probably tomorrow. David Brooks (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but I did a more comprehensive fix and uploaded it to github. This build is from the most recent source tree. Click on "latest" (to the right) - there is a regular build and one optimized for ARM64. One drawback: there are two different implementations of the email auth process; this only handles the most recent one but it seems to be installed on most of the large wikipedias now. Own risk of course. David Brooks (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting BD2412's claim, I'd just like to know how far down the list I am. :)Naraht (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of automated tools like AWB, the number of edits made by editors who use those tools is a truly meaningless metric. But, for those who care about such trivial bs, see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk, I know where I am there, I was specifically wondering about a count of those done through AWS.Naraht (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On XTools there is an "automated edits" link on the right. Clicking it will show you the number of edits you've made using tools such as AWB, HotCat and so forth.

Here is a link to your stats. It's not loading for me for some reason but it might work for you. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-api/2014-July/003308.html it is explained that having an user agent that is just pywikipediabot is not sufficent. In August 5 libary and external user agents will be restricted and ultimately banned, as per phab:T400119. What procedure should AWB users follow to provide an adequate user agent, in line with foundation:Policy:Wikimedia_Foundation_User-Agent_Policy ? Snævar (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Currently the interactive AWB User-Agent is WikiFunctions/n.n.n.n (Microsoft Windows NT n.n.n.n; .NET CLR 4.0.n.n) (I don't know about bots). That could be deemed not distinctive enough. I'll ask. David Brooks (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After getting clarification on T400119, it appears that AWB will not be subject to the block. If that changes, I have a simple fix, but apparently right now it ain't broke. David Brooks (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this raises to the level of a bug, but annoying. In the Article List in the Lower Left Hand Corner, sometime I see that later words in a page name may not align (off by one pixel column). So for example, even though I am working on a lot of files that start with "List of Sigma", some of the occurances of the word "Sigma" are one pixel relative to each other making part of the list look wavy.Naraht (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While not completely consistent. It appears that length of the article name (long enough to not be entirely visible?) affects things. So the "Alpha" is one pixel to the right in "Sigma Alpha Epsilon Chapter House of Miami University" relative to "Sigma Alpha Epsilon Building".Naraht (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with MOS:TIES, I added the {{Use American English}} to a lot of American articles in July. But someone at Talk:Sacred Heart Church (Pomeroy, Ohio) then opposed these edits. I have stopped due to rule 3 of the AWB rules which states that in order to continue, I must find consensus in support of the addition of these templates. I would really appreciate if we can find consensus, whatever it may be.

WP:COSMETICBOT says that adding the template is not cosmetic, because it adds a maintenance category (Category:All Wikipedia articles written in American English). WP:CONTEXTBOT says that I was not editing like a WP:MEATBOT because bots are not allowed to change spellings (and English varieties) because those use context, which requires human oversight. Also, the category is "All articles written in American English". If we don't have the Use American English template on all American English articles, then name of the category is not accurate. Another point is that the category can be used to find non-US spellings in them and correct them.

Last time I asked for consensus, I didn't get any responses, so I would really appreciate some feedback. Thanks ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I have considered that if a language template is missing then American English is considered the norm and have seen no reason to apply a template (some exceptions). In the situation you have met I would consider it incorrect to revert your edit however is it really necessary to perform just such a focused edit (technically I have no issue with your argument above)? Some editors object to their watchlist items 'going off' with shall we say 'trivial' edits and 'trivial' may be a personal definition. I make some 'trivial' edits however usually piggybacked off valid grammar/spelling corrections. Although there is a Wiki definition of cosmetic edits, for most editors cosmetic means no change to the look/feel of the article. My suggestion would be that if you wish to continue with this template addition, then do so at the same time as say making grammatical/spelling corrections (a bottomless pit of work available) or adding content. There is perhaps another method, some bots perform very minor edits however these are within minutes of other edits so they are monitoring 'recent edit' lists for criteria, hence a watchlist item when reviewed may have say two edits, one trivial and the other perhaps not. Bottom line though there are probably millions of articles that could validly have this template applied. Let's say conservatively 50% of the 7 million articles could validly have this template applied, you average 10/15 per minute and edit 1 hour a day. That's around 10/16 years of editing. Could not your time be of more value elsewhere? Neils51 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got here from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). American English isn't considered the norm – the norm is to retain the existing variety in which the article is written, with the exception of articles with strong national ties. American English is treated exactly like all other varieties for that purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion for future reference. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly thinking this through I don't see a problem. I reverted one of your edits a while ago thinking it was not needed, but if it provides value (via the category and potential to detect issues in variety of English), then I don't see an issue. Also, no "American" is never the default, and as an English language Wikipedia we shouldn't make sweeping assumptions like that. 📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully support this as an application of MOS:TIES, with the caveat that you should be careful to curate the list of articles you work on to ensure that you're not catching ones that don't belong (anything with ties to multiple countries, another ENGVAR tag already applied, any other sort of ambiguity). There is a related task I've long wanted to see taken up of applying MDY dates tags to articles with clear U.S. ties, but that didn't get a great reception when I floated it previously (I'd recommending taking a look at that discussion to get a sense of the waters you're wading into and associated hazards). Sdkb ^talk 21:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, to avoid the perception of favoring American English over other varieties, you might be able to expand your task to also add tags for British English to British articles, etc. Sdkb ^talk 21:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I've done a lot New Zealand English templates and I now consider NZ to be complete. Other people have added a lot of Indian, British and Australian English templates so there isn't much work for me to do there, although there are a few other English varities that I haven't checked yet.

  I've already done quite a bit of work of removing 'false positives'. In Petscan I'm usually using negative categories for Canadian and Mexican articles to prevent them from getting in. Then I look at the list after it's been generated. I also have a few skip regexes in AWB to avoid obviously non-US articles (such as when an article has 'Canada' in the short description). And of course I watch the article titles when the edits are being made. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The opposition at Talk:Sacred Heart Church (Pomeroy, Ohio) § The only thing this adds to is edit count. doesn't make sense to me. The complaint is that warnings should point out the un-obvious, or address actual problems. That guideline/philosophy is about reader-visible article message boxes, not categorization. Instead of opening discussions after being challenged, Rule 3 permits you to demonstrate that consensus already exists for your changes. The community has long held that the addition of maintenance categories is useful for the functioning of the encyclopedia (see WP:COSMETICBOT). I think the complaint, which is not based in policy, can be dismissed. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that's what I was thinking. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has anything to add and will probably get back to it then. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read on one of the AWB pages that users should consider having a bot/AWB-only account if they make several edits per minute. After getting access to AWB, I was making ~4 edits per minute on various US Navy ship articles today. Am I being obnoxious and need to move the activity to its own account, or should I keep everything on my current one? With only 81 AWB-enabled bots, it seems like it is only used in rare cases, although I have seen bots run AWB with human oversight before. GGOTCC 03:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: I use my main account when fixing typos with AWB. I sometimes hit 10 edits a minute when fixing the same typo on a series of related pages, and no one has ever raised any concerns with my editing rate. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you! That is reassuring. GGOTCC 16:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some mixed messaging. I use an AWB-only account to keep my manual AWB-enabled edits easily identifiable compared with my browser-based account. Using AWB manually you won't be able to get near a rate that will upset the servers (plus, the Wikimedia folks have just added a shield against a rapid sequence of editing from the same place). David Brooks (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; there are really three "types" of accounts one can use with AWB: the vast majority of users only have one account and they use it for AWB as well as regular editing. Some prefer to keep their AWB edits separate from their main account and create an AWB-only account (see any user with "AWB" in their name). Others like myself want to run automated processes and thus have an AWB bot account. It doesn't really matter where the edits are coming from if speed is a concern, and to be honest (as said above) no one is going to bat an eye at 4 epm. I'd just carry on doing what you're doing unless you really want to keep the edit types separate. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]