Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WantedBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

[edit] WantedBot

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: Wanted

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Summary: The immediate need is to replace the links to this image, as it has been superseded. In the future it will be useful to simplify the links to other Polish flags and CoA according to this cleanup plan.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Edit rate requested: 1 edits per minute

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

Function Details: Based on pywikipedia framework, just using replace.py to fix small parts of the text. Made one test edit, seems to work fine.

[edit] Discussion

Can you provide a quick overview of that cleanup plan in english? Not the entire thing, but a summary or just the key points. Also, it is usually not a good idea to test before flag, but 1 edit on a minor task is fine. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we have many versions of flags and Coat of Arms uploaded by various people in the past. Some of them are duplicates, some have incorrect colors/shapes. The plan is to identify the images which can be superseded by their better equivalents and fix all the links (that's where the bot comes in). Later, when all the links are changed, I will request the deletion of old images. Fixing the links is a very simple, repetitive task, so I think it's hard to break something using the basic pywikipedia search&replace functionality. --Wanted 23:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off using AWB than the Python bot framework. It's built for tasks like these. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same, but AWB is unfortunately Windows only and I don't have Windows installed. --Wanted 14:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it works under WINE... I should try it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's a long way off any prospect of working under WINE (or WINE's a long way off supporting it, if you prefer). But I'd have thought that AWB would be if anything over-engineered for this, and pywikipedia perfectly suited. Am I missing something? Alai 07:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The main difference is that with AWB you don't need the approval, and with a custom bot based on pywikipedia you do, if I understand the rules correctly. To me, the main distinction should not rely on the type of tool used, but the fact if you do a visual diff before each change, as opposed to totally automatic edits (for which you definitely need a proper audit of the code). --Wanted 08:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You would need approval if you wanted to run AWB in bot mode. Martinp23 09:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty standard thing to do in pywikipedia, too. But it's not a function of the code, it's a function of whether there's a human in the loop (and to some extent, sheer rate and volume of edits). This doesn't look like a case where there's a pressing reason for there to be -- and if there's a lot of these images, that could be a fairly pressing reason for there not to be. Alai 09:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the near future I don't intend to do many automatic edits, the semi-automatic mode is just fine. May I use the exemption for assisted bots, as described here: Wikipedia:Bots#Assisted bots? Does the bot get the bot flag in that case? --Wanted 23:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You can ask for AWB approval, but you probably won't be flagged, is that OK? --ST47Talk 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly OK. As I said the edits will be diffed and manually confirmed. --Wanted 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then approval is not necessary, Withdrawn by operator.. --ST47Talk 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.