Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 57

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

Denied.

DannyS712 bot 57[edit]

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 06:32, Monday, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic (first few for each run manual / supervised)

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Remove suspected perpetrators from instances of {{Infobox civilian attack}} to clean up Category:Pages using infobox civilian attack with unknown parameters, as well as future such bot runs

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack (for this run)

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: <= 3616 for the first run

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: As a result of a recent RfC, the suspected perpetrator field has been removed from Infobox civilian attack. As a result, Category:Pages using infobox civilian attack with unknown parameters has been flooded, with the additions being sorted under "s", meaning that the parameter starts with an s, and is likely the suspected perpetrator field just removed. This bot task would go through the 3616 pages that transclude the template, and remove the parameter.

I would also like to request standing approval for similar tasks in the future (removing unknown / deprecated parameters) - see previous tasks Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 19, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 25, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 33 for other examples.

Discussion[edit]

Why not use User:PrimeBOT which already can do this? --Trialpears (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that Primefac had a standing approval to do this, but since I already filed this and it never hurts to have more sets of hands available, I've converted this into a similar request for standing approval, so that there are multiple bots that can handle such tasks. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using infobox civilian attack with unknown parameters has ~~373~~ 14 pages in it. Where are you getting 3616? Primefac (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply) Decided to clear out the 300-odd that had landed in the cat Primefac (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template had 3616 transclusions when I filed the BRFA, but the total edits would be less than that --DannyS712 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an estimate of how many edits you'd be making? Primefac (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - more than a hundred, less than 5000 per run maybe --DannyS712 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... the category has 20 pages listed. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in the week+ since I filed this task, the specific template was fixed. But, I've changed this to be a request for standing approval for other templates, so there hopefully isn't this delay --DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just want blanket approval to edit any template with your bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, yes, similar to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30. If you see above, Primefac made most of the edits this specific task was originally designed for, but the edits were made over a week after this was filed. I don't mean this to offend Primefac, but merely to show that another similar bot wouldn't hurt. I understand that there is a need for a trial, but if you can approve a trial now, the next time a template has a parameter removed I can use that as the trial. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: it looks like this specific request is no longer needed, and I'm not ready to approve your bot in to such an open-ended task right now. From a purely technical perspective, I'm not very worried - so it begs the question as to what is really different from PrimeBOT 30: operator experience. Primefac has 10 years of community experience and is a 'crat and admin' (currently) - so putting him on a "longer leash" is somewhat exceptional, that is - it is something that would be exceptional from most every newer bot operator, not you specifically. Will leave open for other BAG comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. declined as no longer needed for original purpose, without prejudice for other future similar requests; declining for an open-ended bot against any future such template change. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.