Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helsabot


 * 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 Symbol delete vote.svg Denied

Helsabot
Operator:

Time filed: 03:45, Saturday May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Second account for running AWB assisted edits, specifically in relation to the Video games WikiProject task force cleanup: updating the project banner's parameters on article talk pages.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 106

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 124 0

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: AWB find and replace on Category:Starcraft task force articles and Category:Warcraft task force articles, converting the WPVG banner's StarCraft and Warcraft params to Blizzard.

Discussion

 * This might be overkill for the request process, but I'm following BOTPOL's directions (WP:BOTASSIST) czar ♔  03:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had the same thought, as I have an AWB bot (Bot1058). So far, it's only performed one task, but that task made over 16,000 edits. Recently I've seen requests such as this at WP:Bot requests that might only involve making 50, 100 or maybe 200 edits. These are not worth the time and trouble of filing a formal request and working through this approval process. Heck, even if I had a bot run that messed up 200 pages, it wouldn't be that much trouble to revert them, even if I had to manually do it. So is there a maximum number of edits that I can throttle my AWB bot to when operating in automated-mode, that I can just boldly do? In other words shouldn't there be a minimum number of expected edits needed to require the use of the formal review process. Sorry if this is already answered somewhere. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , maybe (and I'd agree), but that'd be a separate discussion. The deal is that in order to get the AWB flag on a secondary account (for assisted edits), I need to request approval here first (link). czar ♔  16:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I understand that as I've already been through the process myself. But, I think a good question to answer here, is whether you will need to go through this process again for your next request to make 124 automated edits. My bot was given 30 trial edits. So, if the throttle were set to 30, you could perhaps make four consecutive 30-edit "trial runs" and be done with the task. Comment on this issue from BAG would be appreciated. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded czar ♔  05:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, but you're supposed to wait at least 7 days before using the BAGAssistance needed flag. I've TLed it for the time being. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded czar ♔  20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be worth at some point coming up with a system that gives a time-limited bot flag for one-off requests, but that's probably not a matter for this discussion. Now, onto the request at hand. I am very rusty in my BAG role, but I see no reason not to approve this for trial. Please run a trial run of say 30ish edits, then report here (might want to directly ping me when you do so, let's try and get this request approved quickly if the trial goes well).  Snowolf  How can I help? 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , (contribs, e.g., ) Went as expected. Three questions: (1) Should I be marking these changes as minor? (2) Is it all right to run gen fixes at the same time as a task (especially if I'm manually reviewing)? (3) Do I need to make new approval requests for similar AWB tasks in the future? czar  ♔  12:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (BAG) Sorry, would you mind clarifying why you actually need to change the parameters? Couldn't you just change the template to effectively "merge" the parameters you wanted merged? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I haven't seen a precedent for task force cleanups, but I thought it would be bad form to keep the old params attached (especially if the scope of the task force is different from the previous param's name) czar ♔   22:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded czar ♔   22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please load User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects when editing the talk pages to normalise banners at the same time? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , sure czar ♔   12:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

since they are only 124 pages affected. Why not doing them by your main account? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , does that mean that it's not a bot task if my main account does it? I wanted to use an alt account since there will eventually be more to come than 124, even with this task force cleanup project alone, and I wanted an alt account for repetitive edits. It's a bit of a catch-22 since this process seems like overkill for my purposes, but if I'm making over 30 edits or whatever it is, the rules ask me to bring it here for clearance. czar ♔   12:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

since the edits are going to be done manually using AWB and its scripts there is absolutely no problem. It is not even a problem if you do 200 edits. We checked the task and you use AWB fine. Better request a bot account then in need of tasks that repeated. Moereover, you are always welcome to create an alt account that will do AWB tasks but without giving you the bot flag. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks—moving ahead with the rest then czar ♔   13:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:VALIDALT. We can of course discuss in a future a bot account that will perform parameters renaming for example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the entire list for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2014 (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.