Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Puggansbot

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

Request Expired.

Puggansbot[edit]

Operator: Puggan (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:00, Monday May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Manual started, downling a list of current avaible task from http://toolserver.org/~sk/cw/enwiki/index.htm, try to do them and then stop.

Programming language(s): PHP whit CURL

Source code available: http://wikibot.puggan.se/wikibot/wiki.phps

Function overview: Fixing problems reported in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia, at the moment id (17,53,57) se details for more info.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): manualy run 1-3 times per day

Estimated number of pages affected: i guess it can be 10 per day, but have no clue, it takes what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia reports

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, it checks for nobots-, bots- and inuse- templates, and skip thous pages.

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

Function details: The bot was build for the sv-wikipedia, and currently doing 3 task from the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia:

And my plan was to do the same for the en-wikipedia

Discussion[edit]

Please read WP:BOTPOL and make sure not to run the bot without trial/approval from BAG. Concerning the task, note that "Cosmetic changes should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time." Only the headlines one is a visually-altering change. The other ones should not be made on their own. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about "make sure not to run the bot without trial", i thougt en and sv hade almost the same rules, so started a test whit about 50 edit as sv sugested, and manualy checking all diffs between each edit. i'm not leting it edit anything more on en until i get a trial status, and keep it on sv only if its funktion isn't wanted here.

Would you consider expanding the scope to fix the case where there are <ref> tags but no <references/> or {{reflist}} ? There used to be a bot to do this but it no longer runs. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, I wouldn't really object having a bot take care of category duplication. It's not like its an entirely trivial change like changing ==Bob== to == Bob == assuming the spaced version is dominant, and certainly isn't a cosmetic change. Categories should not be present more than once on any page, even if it doesn't really "break" anything. This would be similar to removing duplicate interwikis links. It's something that's hard to spot manually, and it should never be done, even though it doesn't break anything if it's done. Moving interwikis below categories however, is a cosmetic change. It can be done in parallel, but should not be done alone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (≈15 edits for each task). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Only "Category duplication" and "Sections ending with a semicolon" tasks should be made on their own. You may do "Interwiki before last category" but only together with the main tasks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any progress on the trial? MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a sailingboat at the moment, so I'll wait to reaktivate the english script until i get home from my vacation --Puggan (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any progress? If you're still on vacation, that's fine, but the last message from the user here was over 1 1/2 months ago, and they've edited on svwiki since then. Also, if you haven't modified the code since the accidental bot run earlier, can you possibly ensure that its edit summary is a bit more descriptive, perhaps providing a link back to WP:BOT noting it is a bot account, or providing a link back to this approval, or providing a link back to your talk page? Thanks. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note on the user's SV talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. No updates in over two months, despite attempts at contacting the user, so I'm going to expire this request. If you decide to return, I have nothing against you reopening it and completing the trial. — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:41, 9 September 2011 (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.