Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Robert SkyBot

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.

Robert SkyBot

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

Operator: Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Overview: Repetivite task of removing "begins (current date)" from airport articles; see full details below.

Edit period(s): Daily; started and directed by operator

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N/A; new bot

Function Details: This bot will go through airport articles and remove notes indicating that service to a particular destination starts on today's date. For instance, on February 7, the bot would search for and remove any instances of [begins February 7]. Once this bot is approved, I will get approval to remove AFC templates from mainspace articles.

Discussion

• Comment - Robert has been helping me by doing AWB tasks on Wikipedia's set of country outlines. I have lots more tasks for Robert to do on the country outlines (they are listed at User:The Transhumanist/Country outlines), and the vast majority of these tasks can be completely automated. Most of the 247 outlines are in the Wikipedia namespace, while 29 of them are in article space. I previously requested approval for a bot to do work on these same pages, and was told that a bot could work on them without approval. Perhaps the same thing applies here? That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Worldbot. The Transhumanist 01:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that the same principles hold; this request is obviously for a different task but I would probably be doing lots of work for The Transhumaist with this bot. I would start doing this immediately, but I think the AWB people need a legitimate approval before they give me bot permissions. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a quick diff of the sort of editing this bot would be doing? That would reduce the number of words I have to read to understand what you're going to do. :) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. here's a diff for you; the bot would remove instances of today's date from airport articles, since they no longer need that note. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 16:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I've got you. Do routes ever not open on time? Are there ever delays? Removing the tag would suggest they were in operation. (Feel free to answer "no" to the previous question!) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point, but I dare say that even if the routes start behind schedule, it is strange to have a date there that is today's or yesterday's. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} If there aren't any objections, am I clear for a trial? Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 23:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Looks simple enough. Richard⁰⁶¹² 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. Trial will begin once I get the bot mode for AWB. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trial complete.-see first 18 edits in Special:Contributions/Robert SkyBot. Filter out the non-mainspace edits--those are tasks for a Wikiproject that I don't need bot approval for (see The Transhumanist's comment above). Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Apparently there aren't any opinions here...am I clear? Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 17:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 Approved. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 15 February 2009 (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.