Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KevinalewisBot

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 Approved.

KevinalewisBot

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

Operator: Kevinalewis

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Both Automatic - supervised & Manually assisted

Programming Language(s): AWB and User:Kingbotk/Plugin novels related plugin.

Function Summary: I will be using this account for some semi-automated talk page tagging, to assist with Wikipedia 1.0. & Novels WikiProject.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Often, accassional (i.e. once to half dozen times a day, or not for a few days)

Edit rate requested: 1 edits per 10 seconds (although I'm not sure if you "can" specify how fas AWB works in auto & bot mode

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function Details: Talk page tagging for NovelsWikiProject, and assessments for this project and WP 1.0 It will be used on the multitude of articles within the project scope which amount (primarily!) to article catagorised with [category:????? novels] or [category:????? short stories]. Many, many of these are not currently tagged to the project which has been manually making these changes with hardly a complaint. It just need to progress a but fast and allow us to get on with the business of actual article improvement.

Discussion

Hi - it may be better to make a bot request, where a user with an existing bot will be able to carry out this relatively simple task (someone like myself, Betacommand or Alphachimp). From my perspective, one really doesn't need a bot account for the purposes of tagging the memebers of a few categories, though this opinon probably varies. Even with your own bot account, there are numerous checks you have to go through before running it (manually checking that pages in a category do fit the banner, etc), and as such bot account requests for this sort of thing are often denied. Martinp23 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I just respond, here. If there is someone with suitable interest to go through the "large" number of Novels project related categories and make these tagging changes I have yet to find them. "A few categories" doesn't quite describe the large number of categories and novel related article that need work. We are currently a project with 9,000 tagged articles and it continues to amaze me how many in the relevant categories are not tagged. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow - OK - sorry about that. I think I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday (need..more..sleep...) :) Martinp23 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I usually approve such requests, use to have my bot tag these pages automatically, and Betacommand (and I think Alphachimp) do these automatically. Maybe I'm mistaken? (Will wait for the opinion of another BAG member) Also, I don't see any problem with creating a bot account and getting it flagged even for shorter, simple tasks; it helps with recent changes and doesn't clog a user's contributions. —METS501 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Mets. There's ample precedent for approval of these, and if each edit is being manually approved with any reasonable amount of care, there's little risk of disaster (and it's only really a matter for this page if a bot flag is being requested and/or the edits will be too rapid for unapproved "manual" editing). If the categories in question are going to be "false positive free", you might consider a bot request just for economy effort, however. If they actually need to be double-checked, this method is preferable (assuming someone is willing to do it). Alai 04:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I do agree with both of you - there is precedent for this in the past. From reading some of the open requests now, there is one doing a similar task, on a simple project, which is being opposed on the grounds that ample provision for the checks required hadn't been made, and that the user was preparing to go into the tagging ring blindly, just as Betacommand and Alphachimp refuse to do - so that's where my recent precendent for the denials has come from :). I'd normally prefer to see the checks be gone through, first, and I probably tend towards the feeling that those experience with those tasks (beta..) could help the user wishing to tag the articles to go through all of the checks (etc), so reducing the frequency of problems. Of course, running the bot manually these checks aren't required in andvance, as long as the page is checked before clicking the save button :) Martinp23 06:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a motion to close this request and have the relevent issues handled on the bot request page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem here. We have no reason to think the user untrustworthy, he has experience using the tools, it's a task which many bots are already licenced to do, and it's using proven technology. I do have a few caveats but none which would lead me to thinking this request shouldn't proceed to a trial run:
  • Double tagging. Many of the project's articles are covered by the Books WikiProject, and I don't think in this case it makes much sense to double tag. This was discussed at User talk:Kingboyk#Seperate_template but wasn't resolved.

Of concern to me too, but not sure that the idea to merge tags is the only way to achieve this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The Novels plugin is new and not well tested; I would advocate manual running for the first 2-300 edits before switching to auto when all is confirmed as well (Kevin may already have done this).

Not quite - but getting there - currently have a bug problem with the latest version so this is stalled. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a UI bug not a regex/operational bug, I'd like to point out! And it's probably AWB's fault anyway! ;) --kingboyk 11:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The usual caveats about checking the lists thoroughly apply.

Naturally! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• If these points are dealt with I move that trial should be allowed. --kingboyk 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Finish your testing (when we've sorted out that settings issue for you), 100-200 edits should be enough. --kingboyk 11:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Kevin, you'll need to do say 100 edits with the bot account, doing the job that you want approval for. Checking your own account's edits it looks fine, so I suggest you get on with your bot's test run and we can probably get this approved. --kingboyk 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB doesn't appear to allow this username access at all let alone as a Bot yet. Do I have to go through the process of full approval for that again. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you'll have to do the edits manually and when you're approved we'll add you to the AWB list as a bot. I presume that's how it works anyway. Your bot does need to be on the AWB user list of course - every user does; I'll add it now and then you can use the bot account. --kingboyk 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just over 100 edits through, some from crime-novel-stubs and a few from sf-novel-stubs, seems to all go through smoothly. Obviously when I start the auto work I will be using subtly different logic so I will need to go back to a very cautious approach for a good few edit runs. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 Approved. --kingboyk 20:17, 21 March 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.