Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Gabrielchihonglee-Bot 3


 * 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

Gabrielchihonglee-Bot 3
Operator:

Time filed: 14:40, Monday, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot)

Source code available: will be given after test run

Function overview: Changing param "symbol" into "symbol_type_article" in infobox template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot_requests

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Less than 3000 pages

Namespace(s): Main

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes

Function details: Flow of the bot:
 * 1) Get all pages with template Infobox former country
 * 2) Change parameter name from "symbol" into "symbol_type_article"
 * 3) Save

Discussion

 * 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 ⚡ 01:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Made 1 manual edit to test the theory works. And yes the theory works. :P --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In the future, do not make any edits from the bot account until approved for a trial. You can manually test from your main account, if necessary. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. The first around 10 edits were trail and error, found some bugs and improved the code. It is working fine for the last around 35 edits, thanks. :) --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * forgot to add this: --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed the trial yet, but I'm extremely concerned that you continue to make test edits outside of trials with your bot account after being explicitly told not to. This is a bot policy violation. These edits should not have been made from a bot account at all.    . This edit represents the second time you've trialed a task from your bot account before being approved to do so.  Pinging  for his thoughts, but my initial reaction is to decline based on repeated bot policy violations after receiving a warning. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While not required by overall policy, I prefer that bots with multiple tasks etc include information about which task has approved each edit in its edit summary. I do this with my bot to make sure everything is clear to anyone reviewing its edits (e.g. Special:Contributions/Fluxbot).  —  xaosflux  Talk 18:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Would this not be a case of WP:BOTUSERSPACE? Nihlus  18:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't read any of those edits as testing a bot process, personally. Perhaps the user talk ones are defensible. The userpage edit noting the bot is in trial definitely was not a test edit. The trial edit in project space is also not defensible. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I made other edits as my bot's another request was approved for trail. I don't see any problems with it. Thanks. --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first edit of that trial came before the trial was approved. Further, that doesn’t explain the edit to the bot’s user page. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I finally understand why u said that. I'm very sorry for not following the policies strictly. I do understand that i need to wait till getting approval to do any edits, actually an admin friend came to me and reminded me a few days ago. I do realize the problem and I'm really sorry for my fault. With all due respect, may I know what is the next step of this request? -- Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I had hoped for other BAG members to respond regarding their thoughts on whether to decline for the bot policy violations, but that never happened, and it's been long enough that it's best just to move on. I noticed two issues with the trial. Generally, you moved a lot of parameters to the end of the template. You also introduced extra white-space. Ideally, they should remain in their original place and not introduce new lines. See for examples of both issues. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Will fix soon, thanks! :) --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * when ready let us know to schedule a trial with your corrected settings please. — xaosflux  Talk 18:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * no problem --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but due to heavy workload in real life, I think I have to WITHDRAW the request. -- Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * SQL Query me! 01:24, 13 May 2018 (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.