Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 10

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 Approved.

Fbot 10

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: FASTILY ^(TALK)

Time filed: 21:56, Tuesday October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently

Function overview: Duplicates replace function of Commons:User:CommonsDelinker/commands, but locally.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: [0, ∞)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: If such a bot is found to be useful, I'll create a fully protected subpage in Fbot's userspace in which en.wikipedia admins can request that the usages of one file be replaced by another. This is a fairly open ended request, so I'm willing to make any adjustments to the specification as necessary, provided there is consensus for it. If this task duplicates another or has been deemed unacceptable in the past, I'd appreciate it if an admin could delete this page under WP:CSD#G7.

Discussion

• Something that should be added to this function is the removal of red-linked images from all main-space pages. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, that is an entirely different function. Also, I believe Delta might have plans for that task. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• I certainly don't see any reason to not have this done. So do you write all code yourself from scratch, reuse it, or cooperate or? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Fastily is away until 24 November. I'm pretty sure from talking to him when Fbot task 2 was in the approval stages that he mentioned that he did all the coding himself, though. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} I'm back from my wikibreak. I've created a rough, but fully functional skeleton interface for admins to forward commands to the bot. With the blessing of a bag member, I'd like to advertise this bot at WP:AN and begin a trial run. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --Chris 08:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think a tool like that is a good idea. However you mention "orphan a file redirect" at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_Tool_For_Admins:_File_Swapping. If we want to orphan redirects (and I think doing that it a good idea) then why not do a query on toolserver and replace them all in one bot run? Having admins to do it semi-manual (or semi-bot assisted) sounds like a waste of admin power. --MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's definitely doable, but would require a new BRFA. While Fbot10 does offer the ability to bypass and orphan redirects, it isn't the main purpose of the bot. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Or someone to add requests for the 158 redirects (if my count is correct :-D). --MGA73 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a link in case you need some to test. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Trial complete. The test cases we ran were all successful (see User talk:Fbot/Replace). This bot has also already been advertised at WP:AN and WP:VP with this message. In order to restrict file swap requests to admins only, User:Fbot/Replace will be fully protected; since Fbot will have to edit this page to remove completed requests, it will need an admin flag. If it is necessary to file a new BRFA, I suppose I can do that, but this seems to be fairly non-controversial. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} ? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This really should have been advertised as an admin bot from the start, however considering how trivial it is (editing a protected page in it's own userspace), it shouldn't be a problem.  Approved. Please note, any extension to the bots admin functions (no matter how minor, even just editing another protected page), MUST get approval via a separate BRFA. --Chris 10:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Strikeout, as a new brfa, has been filed for the admin functions. --Chris 02:35, 7 December 2011 (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.