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 Approved.

Operator: Chzz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:33, Friday April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB (search/replace + genfix)

Function overview: The bot will run add-hoc simple and regex find/replace tasks

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As required

Estimated number of pages affected: guesstimate, maybe 1000 in a day, once every month or two. Hard to say; just sometimes I come across a need (see below)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Complies as AWB

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

Function details: Sometimes I need to perform a repetitive search/replace, and use AWB - perhaps on e.g. 1000 articles. After checking maybe 50-100 edits, it'd make sense to just let it run. For example;

Recently, I helped speedy-rename some cats because "Black Eyed Peas" - the band - is actually called "The Black Eyed Peas" - per;

16:40, 29 September 2010 Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) moved protection settings from "Black Eyed Peas" to "The Black Eyed Peas" ‎ (Black Eyed Peas moved to The Black Eyed Peas: all recent releases has name "The Black Eyed Peas" on it. Move with permission of user who objected previously, see also talk page)

- which refers to the established consensus on the talk page, in particular Talk:The Black Eyed Peas#Moved to The Black Eyes Peas (and no objections since).

I thus manually renamed cats (e.g. Category:Black Eyed Peas albums -> Category:The Black Eyed Peas albums, etc).

Then I wanted to change links in articles around 1100 article pages directly linked to the redir Black Eyed Peas - so I used AWB with 2 search/replace lines;

1. Find "the [[Black Eyed Peas]]" / Replace with "[[The Black Eyed Peas]]"

2. Find "[[Black Eyed Peas]]" / Replace with "[[The Black Eyed Peas]]"

Examples of 1. [1] [2] [3]

Examples of 2. [4] [5] [6]

Example of both (and genfix). [7]

After processing 100+ pages, checking them, I was confident that it would be sensible to run that task without checking each of the remaining 1000+ edits.

Fortunately, in that specific case, Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) assisted me with eir own approved AWB bot.

This request is to enable me to do the same myself, for similar non-controversial (and carefully sanity-checked) simple search/replaces in the future, as a bot, instead of clicking 'Save' a lot.  Chzz  ►  14:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Just a note, this is more or less the same as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Thehelpfulbot 3, which was approved fairly quickly without any problems. :) The Helpful One 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Reedy (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, in order to not come off wrong, let me say I don't have any reason to believe this will be done any other way than in good faith and following consensus. That said, I am a bit weary of BAG giving a blanket approval for a general search/replace task (this retroactively includes previous Thehelpfulbot's BRFA too). You will inevitably encounter someone who would not see one of your future tasks as "simple" or uncontroversial. Then this BRFA will only show a "general approval" and not the cases in question. This is fine for specific tasks, like replacing links to a moved category or replacing urls of a migrated web-site domain; there isn't much leeway for interpretation. But the scope of find/replace is just too broad, and "simple" is open to too much subjective interpretation. Then we get hyperbolic accusations towards BAG of "approving bots to do whatever they want" and general gradual BAG activity decline. But I digress.

I am perfectly fine with the current find/replace task (BEP) being speedily approved. However, I would ask you to drop a note on the WT:BRFA whenever you run a new task beyond some very simple cases (like addition of an article). BAG has previously asked this of bot operators, and I think it is reasonable, since you are doing this with a bot flag. I really don't want to come between you (and Thehelpfulbot) and improving Wikipedia, but a few prominent cases have indirectly put bots/BRFAs/BAG under silent pressure. And as you say, this is only needed once every month or two. BAG can then give you a quick go-ahead without new BRFAs. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your reticence, I really do; it's just that - when 'something' (which I cannot fully predict) simply 'needs doing' then my wasting time clicking 'save' is...well, a waste of time. Another example would be last month - a user had renamed their user-name from their real-name, but had already posted their prior user-name on 150-odd image descriptions they'd uploaded. So I AWB'd and changed 'em. Easy-peasy, but a waste of time clicking 'save'.

BAG... isn't very fast. And it takes me an additional 10 mins to fill in the damn approval form - which, frankly, I wouldn't bother doing (in a case like the above) - not worth the bother, so I'd just spend 40 mins or whatever clicking 'save'. Which is, I'm sure you'll conceed, a time-waster. In a case like the above, I'd almost call 'IAR' and do it anyway. But I do appreciate the pay-off in necessary paperwork v. convenience.

Maybe we need to decide if we trust the individual user, and allocate approval accordingly?

Trial complete. 100 test edit done.  Chzz  ►  15:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BAG is slow with less than clear BRFAs. Uncontroversial things get resolved fairly quickly, like this BRFA lest for my comment above. It's the poorly formulated, long, and complex BRFAs that get marinated for half a year before someone slaps a ((BAG assistance needed)). As I said, you don't need new BRFAs for minor consecutive tasks. But you do get a bot flag and so your edits will go much less inspected than they would be otherwise. And that's fine, I trust you and your work, but I still do want to make these comments to avoid any future mess.

Btw, edits seem fine, so for all BEP task purposes --  Approved. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be cautious, and if not 100% sure of a trivial simple search/replace, I'll post for approval. Thanks for dealing with this so promptly.  Chzz  ►  16:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, per my bot's BRFA, I will also be cautious and ask for approval for anything that seems remotely controversial. The Helpful One 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:43, 22 April 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.