User:MWOAPBot/Oldrequest

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

Withdrawn by operator.

MWOAPBot

Withdrawn by operator. Bot Flag not needed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 18:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Operator: MWOAP

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming language(s): AWB from WP:AWB

Source code available: AWB from WP:AWB

Function overview: Cleanup on specific tasks.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This page.

Edit period(s): Multiple times a day, except when a vacation period is noted.

Estimated number of pages affected: 70 edits/hr when running (this is a big estimation, I have no idea).

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details:

The bot will mostly be watching the new article sections & the Category:Pages with missing references list for adding reference lists and major cleanups and tagging.

Discussion

I am switching this to a fully user operated bot. No Automatics. This was my original intent. I was told to come here if I was going to be making a few edits per min. --MWOAP (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought tests had to wait for initail approval, will make some today. --MWOAP (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding original proposal

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Im opposed to this because User:SmackBot already does this. Tim1357 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I know about that, but one bot to deal with all this? Also, I am looking to expand it's tasks in the future. --MWOAP (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How can a bot know whether a stub tag is appropriate? Don't just say some other bots do it, because I'm not convinced the other bots do it right. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bots know when a stub is appropriate because they see (as per WP:STUB) only a few lines or sentences. By the time the bot I am putting up gets to it, if it does not have any context, it would be speedy deleted (or at least have the template) by that time. So the bot knows becuase of the definition of a few lines or sentences. --MWOAP (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Deciding whether a stub template is appropriate requires a knowledge of how much could be written about the subject, compared to how much is present in the article. If there isn't much to say about a topic, a few sentences is not a stub. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the frequency I see complaints of bots lying inactive for extended periods through lack of operator attention (wikibreaks or whatever) I don't have a problem with duplication of functionality. Josh Parris 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Per AWB's own rules I am going to suggest that this task be denied. Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists. β^_command 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And where's the consensus for the bot doing this? And for the orphan, what's the definition of orphan? And, will they be specific stub tags or group the article with 10,000 and more unsorted stubs? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with betacommand. Tim1357 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Two questions. One, if it does the same thing as SmackBot, does it use the same codebase or a different one? Two, what order does it apply fixes? Will it make an edit only for a gen fix? MBisanz ^talk 07:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

*I HAVE MADE AN EDIT TO THE TASKLIST!*
Ok, I have a lot to reply to here.
@Jc3S5h: At that point it should be mergered with another article. Under WP:MERGE Rational 3, "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there." So the stub tag would not even matter in this case.
@Josh Parris: I agree with you here, as you can see with my edit style, I rarely take a break. (I have only had one break and it was just a few days ago, but it was because of an emegency.) Also, I would have someone else run it for me while I am gone.
@Betacommand: They page will be skipped if it meets one of the following criterion:

Page is in use
Edit blocked by spam filter
Only Whitespace is changed
Only Casing is changed
Only Minor genfixes will be applied
Page is a redirect

So most of the edits will be a little more than the trivial problems with a page. This should cover your concern.
@IP69.226.103.13: Consenus? I don't know what I am missing here, I will gladly get it if I know what it is. With relation to the Stub, I ran some pretests (that were not saved!) and the stub never came up in it. It only moved the location of the stub to the proper place. I see your point with the orphaning, I would be willing to have it skip that, and then go back later and run through each article myself, and put it in. (Basically manual assist.) This was my idea in the first place, but I thought Automatic would be better, I am willing to take this to Manually checking.
@MBisanz: Very good questions. This bot would only use AWB & Firefox. I don't know what specific order it does it, I am assuming it is the same as listed. They Restrictions are stated above.
Thank you all for your considerations. I hope this bot is approved.--MWOAP (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A bot can't fix disambiguation links, that requires human input. And per BetaCommand and AWB rules-of-use, I am opposed in general to a bot that simply runs general fixes on articles. They are generally minor, cosmetic changes, that should be done in conjunction with other substantive edits. I would suggest the operator keep an eye on WP:BOTREQ for a specific task if they are interested in running a bot. –xeno^talk 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the answer. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah the old "school takes priority over bot" withdrawal. Thanks for notifying, and good luck with school. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, please see my talk page when I post it in a min. --MWOAP (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak Josh Parris 05:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to reactivate this BRfA at any time. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Back, need discussion. Can't start testing till trail approved. --MWOAP (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about where we are going with this bot (not due to the bot owner's break, though). MWOAP says above he thought a trial required approval. Doesn't it? What exactly is this bot tagging? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused myself, but to clairify, Discussion is open on this & I do need a consensus before the approval. Awiating comments. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If its not automated im ok with it Tim1357 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify: it says at the top that this is manually assissted, and you're using AWB. Is this still the case, or are you making it fully automatic? If it is the case, since when have we required BAG approval to use AWB? Ale_Jrb ^talk 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is manually assisted. & AWB signup page says "Please only list approved/trial approved bots here and add a link to your bot approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval." -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are intending that it runs in automatic mode (it will automatically click 'save'), but you will be watching it or something? Ale_Jrb ^talk 11:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will be confirming/looking at every single edit. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless the bot is automatic then you do not require BAG approval. You may create a separate account to use semi-automated tools (such as AWB). But it may not have "bot" in the name (so you can't use User:MWOAPBot, I'd suggest User:MWOAPawb), and all the edits must still be checked unless you have been approved by BAG to run unassisted. Request AWB approval at the #users section of WT:AWB/CP, rather than WP:BRFA. Or, since you are already approved to run AWB under your primary account, you could just make the edits from there. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, Kingpin has got where I was heading with this. If you are going to be clicking save yourself, then you do not need a bot flag and therefore do not need BAG approval. You can pretty much just start doing it as long as you follow the AWB rules etc. Ale_Jrb ^talk 11:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I was getting at too. Tim1357 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (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 WT:BRFA.

User:MWOAPBot/Oldrequest

MWOAPBot

Discussion

Content Disclaimer