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: Josve05a (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:30, Monday, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: WPCleaner

Function overview: Will almost do the same work as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16 exept a few differences. See function details below. The bot will fix some of the WP:CHECKWIKI-errors automaticly.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: ~1-500 pages per week

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: These are errorswhich can be fixed with WPCleaner's automatic bot edit mode. Yobot has already gotten approval to fix these kind of errors, so there is precedence to allow bot to fix these errors. WPCleaner also marks the issues as fixed on the checkwiki-database.

a.^ Josvebot is already approved to fix tis error

Josvebot could also fix 91 and 524 without changing any of the WPCleaner´s settings, but it won't becuase of too many bad fixes. Josvebot is also already approved to fix error 37, but supervised.

Discussion[edit]

@Magioladitis: This looks like a good one for you to review :D — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josve05a me, Bgwhite and NicoV cooperate so that CHECKWIKI, AWB and WPCleander will produce the same lists. This is not the case right now. i still believe AWB is better because it can deal multiple errors are the same time and also do all this little stuff people say they have to be done but not as sole tasks. I would like to hear from Bgwhite too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If set properly, WPCleaner will fix multiple issues at the same time as well, plus all it takes is one click, and it will load all the errors and articles, while in AWB you have to generate each error manually one-by-one. And then manually mark them as fixed, and since the errors are listed in the database, someone will fix these issues at some time, whether or not if it is the only edit or not. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use AWB to fix the errors. I then use WPCleaner to mark which ones were fixed. Best of both worlds, but it takes more time. AWB does fix alot more errors than WPCleaner and is overall a better tool. Josvebot is already approved for several errors listed above.

This should be viewed as a standard "fix checkwiki" bot request. Josvebot should be able to fix any CheckWiki error with either AWB or WPCleaner. Instead of approving to fix certain errors one at a time, just do them all. Both tools are proven and get the job done. Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josve05a I think it is more important that you keep reporting bugs and feature requests for WPCleaner. A bot ht will solely use this tool at the moment is not good idea. Maybe soon when we will hve the list generation coordinated.I think you should be patient for a short while. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josve05a what do you think of you doing error 524? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the list after discussion with Josve05a. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2016 (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.