Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VulpesBot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Request Expired.

VulpesBot 2

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

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

Time filed: 06:06, Thursday, December 21, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Fix links with two brackets to external source. WP:CHECKWIKI Error #86 (External link with two brackets)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 9

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 100 to 200 a week (according to previous WP:BRFA)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: With PkbwcgsBot not being online since 2020 my goal is to pick up this task. This is admittedly a minor task with a low number of pages popping up each week. I felt it was better to offset this to the bot to run at least once a week instead of just doing it on my personal account and clogging up my edit history.

The bot will use AWB to fix error 86 (External link with two brackets). The bot is going to remove the double brackets around the link and apply general fixes.

Discussion

I am of two minds here. On the one hand this is taking over an already-approved bot task. On the other hand, the error count for #86 is currently 17, indicating that this might not be as "big" of an issue as it was three years ago. I'm not necessarily opposed to sending this to trial, but if it's only going to be making a handful of edits every once in a while it seems like it's more useful to do manually or with an AWB-specific account (if "clogging my edit history" is really that much of a concern). Primefac (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac yeah that makes sense, I only submitted this because the previous bot owner hasn't run it in ages. Would it be more appropriate to change this BRFA to once a month/quarter and from automatic to supervised? Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If the bot hadn't run in a while and the numbers are that low, that's why I'm thinking this might not be a task that needs a bot any more. If this is currently done manually or semi-manually (i.e. with AWB) by other editors (i.e. there is regularly a number of pages that needed fixing) and they are indicating they do not wish to do this any more, then it's more likely we can "revive" this task. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If the goal of Dr vulpes is to take over more CheckWiki errors and is just starting with this one, then (in my non-BAG opinion), the current low number isn't that big of an issue, as its still better for a bot to waste its time than editors with these simple fixes. Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, especially if this does turn into a CW-fixing bot.

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) are you ready to trial? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Request Expired. due to inactivity. Please open a new BRFA if you still want to continue the task. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2024 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.