Shortcuts: WT:BRFA WT:RFBA

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Process

Should we have another section for when a trial is concluded and awaiting BAG feedback? Rich Farmbrough, 13:19 27 April 2007 (GMT).

BJBot

I'd appreciate input here. Dorftrottel (talk) 09:04, March 28, 2008

TinucherianBot

Moved to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#TinucherianBot

AWB and fixes

My bot is currently approved for the tasks listed here. I use AWB to run my bots. Since my first task got approved, I've turned off all of the "General" options listed here. While I'm doing approved tasks #1, #4, and #5 am I allowed to have the Apply general fixes option in AWB checked? Or would that require a new task request? If it would require a new task request, I may hold off, because it isn't that big of a deal. But, if I can turn it on without a new request, it would help clean up the articles a bit while doing the main task.--Rockfang (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you can not run with general fixes on. Any requests would be speedy denied. BJ^Talk 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I figured that was the case, just wanted to make sure.--Rockfang (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing terminology: "In trial" and "When a user has completed a trial run (if needed), their bot has been approved"

I note that Rich Farmbrough asked a similar question about process in April. This page contains the terminology:

• When a user has completed a trial run (if needed), their bot has been approved, ...
• Status: In trial
• Bots that have completed the trial period

Lighbot completed its trial for its second request. I can't work out what the three bullets above mean. Is the status of Lightbot second request: approved, in trial or completed trial period? Lightmouse (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Completed trial. BJ^Talk 09:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought. However, it was recently added to a table on the page with the status In trail. Is that an error? Lightmouse (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to this table? The system which updates this table does not differentiate between bots in trial and those which have completed the trial, as the template that it looks for on the main BRFA page, {{BRFA}}, only has the parameters 'open' and 'trial'. I would imagine that this is because BRFAs do not usually stay in the trial completed phase for very long, and therefore having a separate parameter and status in he table for it would not be very useful. I may be wrong, however, and adding a 'trial completed' status to the table may be of help; any thoughts? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 10:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to that table. The page has a a section marked Bots in a trial period and another marked Bots that have completed the trial period. The table implies that Lightbot is being treated as if the process thinks it is in the first section, not the second. Lightmouse (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the table should just say "Trial" rather than "In trial"? Either that, or we need a new {{BotTrialComplete}} template for BAGBot to parse. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The term 'Trial' maintains the ambiguity that caused the confusion. If a 'BotTrialComplete' template could be used, that sounds like a good solution to me. Lightmouse (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating the template itself wouldn't be hard at all, but you'd have to ask ST47 to add support for it to BAGBot. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I just went and created it. It can always be (substed and) deleted if we decide we don't want it after all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the new template is an excellent idea, but would we be asking the bot's owner to place the template when the trial is complete, or would we ask BAG members to monitor the request and then place the template? I would rather the former, as it may be hard for BAG members to tell when a trial is over if the user does not 'report back'. If this change gains consensus (and if BAGBot is updated) the main BRFA page should be updated to make this clear. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this would presumably be placed by the bot operator after they've completed the trial. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am new to the process and I certainly expected that it was my responsibility to say when the trial edits were done. This could invite me to place a template but an option of posting a comment in plain English should also be acceptable. Part of my confusion was that this part of the process was not clear to me. Lightmouse (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NVS (bot)

I notice that User:NVS(bot) was speedily approved as a clone of Mercury bot. Is there any reason why a single operator should use two identical bots for the same purpose? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that User:NVS(bot) is going to replace User:MercuryBot, especially since User:MercuryBot hasn't edited since January. This, in my opinion, is a request to rename the bot. It was not made at WP:CHU because it would be a waste of resources to rename a bot, especially because bots have a lot of edits that really do not need to be moved over. All that needs to happen for a bot to be renamed is for a new account to be created, it's userspace moved, and for it to be flagged (usually by filing a BRFA, or asking a 'crat). The first two have been completed and the third will be completed shortly when a 'crat flags the bot. As always, if I am wrong or have misunderstood the situation, please let me know.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 08:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If its a rename, in that case I would have to remove the bot flag from Mercury bot. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If they're doing the same thing and it's the same operator, why is the name changing? Agree with Nichalp if this goes through the old bot needs its flag removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would venture to guess because Mercury abruptly left at the end of January (last edit 1st of February, to their talk page), and then came back as NonvocalScream, but it would probably be best for NVS to explain why, as I don't know too much about what happened then. As for the bot, the MiszaBot code is proven and I personally see no problem with a redundant bot. This is not the first time this has happened. And, personally, I don't see the problem even if the bot operator were going to operate two clones at the same time. This isn't new either, a quick example of two clones run by the same operator under different bot names I found easily is Tawkerbot2 and Tawkerbot4. I'll drop a note on NonvocalScream's talk page about deflagging MercuryBot, though. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• To many resources to rename the bot and reattribute the contributions. I don't want to churn the database. Also, I want to follow the naming conventions NonovocalScream controls NVS(bot). I choose this for its simplicity. Please defag one and flag the other. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)