Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PhearBOT


 * 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.

PhearBOT
Operator:

Time filed: 02:14, Friday March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manual

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: WP:AWB

Function overview: 1. To assist Phearson with tedious non-controversial tasks: spell checking, tagging, and contributing to the project using tool WP:AWB. 2. Does not change anything without Bot operator consent.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A as automation of tedious, non-controversial edits are welcomed by the foundation.

Edit period(s): daily, Continuously.

Estimated number of pages affected: 500-1000 main-space articles per day

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No. The bot is operated manually. Any messages for users will be left by the operator account.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details: Semi-automation of tedious spell checking, and tagging. See WP:AWB

Discussion
It is conventional to specify what changes you propose to make in some detail. What seems uncontroversial and obvious to one editor may very well be so; but it may also be extraordinarily controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to sound rude, but in what way is tagging orphan articles, fixing broken links and spell checking Controversial? Phearson (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't sound rude; therefore: Tagging orphan articles is unlikely to be controversial. Both the others may be, depending on how you intend to do them; to take an extreme example (one I'm sure you don't intend), spell checking which would catch the misspelling "honour" and correct it to "honor" would be offensive, and contrary to policy.


 * Unpack a little. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not completely sure the WP:AWB tool corrects for American or British spelling of words such as Color ==> Colour or vice-versa. I'll query the developer for more information. Also, clarify the phrase "Unpack a little". Phearson (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to include an answer to half my question: you intend to implement a bot to make the spelling corrections AWB already indicates. This is quite unnecessary: AWB already does this, and should not be hastened; AWB assumes (wrongly, it seems) that its users will look at the proposed fixes and see whether they are advisable at this particular article (for example, there is a whole article on teh, and it can also be a type of tea, or a proper name; none of these should correct to the). Bots cannot exercise judgment; a bot limited so that it should never have to judge would be interesting and useful.


 * But what you have said does not indicate that this is either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the account won't make this kind correction without my say-so. AWB is Semi-automated, and cannot continue without human approval. This isn't a true bot. Its only me editing using only the AWB tool, I can tell whether or not the correction is needed, given on situation such as the example you have provided. Phearson (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying; does Phearson simply editing with AWB need approval here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BRFAs for manual (assisted) editing are required if there is a concern that the editing approaches "bot-like" editing (see WP:MEATBOT). If your edits do not raise any concerns (are not "bot-like") then there is no necessity for a bot flag, even if you edit quickly. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

. No reply about there being any concerns with user's editing. You do not need a bot flag to do manual changes, unless someone raises a concern whether you are giving due attention to your edits, thus no longer editing "manually". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)