Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteveBot 8

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

Request Expired.

SteveBot 8

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

Time filed: 23:05, Sunday, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

Function overview: Updated categories ~~and articles~~ based on results of requested moves.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic, Supervised

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Manually run as needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Open ended, depending on the requests at hand

Namespace(s): Article, Article talk, Category and Category Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: I'm someone that closes a lot of requested moves discussions (see my move log, for example). Sometimes these discussions may involve a consensus to move many pages, doing so manually is a bit time consuming (see Talk:List_of_current_United_States_senators#Requested_move_11_August_2019 for example. I'd like permission to run an AutoWikiBrowser task to update the categories of articles ~~and perform page moves in these circumstances~~. I'd only run this task with my bot if the discussion had excessive pages involved to perform manually. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

{{BAG assistance needed}} - could I have this one looked at if possible please - I feel it might have been overlooked? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what sort of ballpark editing frequency are you looking at? Is this something that you see happening once a day, week, month, etc? Also out of curiosity, why strike the Article moves from the request? Primefac (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]

@Primefac: - I wouldn't say its something I'd do far too often - I'd probably only do this on requests that have a lot of categories to update. I removed moving articles or categories from the request as I looked up the AWB manual and it states that moves in AWB can only be done by admins, which I nor this bot are. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, is AWB essential for a bot to mass-move articles? I kind of see the point below that we already have bots for category moves, unless we want to have an extra one as a backup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, been thinking about this, and I'm a little confused (and/or just super-dense). I can see wanting to use AWB for moving mass numbers of articles following a large RM, but don't bots handle the moving and updating of categories following a CFD? With the removal of the "article move" portion of this request, what is actually being proposed here? Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
Yes, existing bots handle categories listed at WP:CFD/W, after being discussed at WP:CFD or listed at WP:CFD/S. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more for updating categories following a requested move, rather than a CFD, which happens sometimes. An example of where I had to do this is here [1]. I guess I could subsequently list it at CFD to get done if this isn't desired bot behaviour separate to what currently is done via CFD? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Crossin, is this still relevant? WP:CFDW should work the same even if consensus was obtained at RM instead of CFD. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. It's been a few weeks since the last ping, and a sufficient explanation for why this bot is needed on top of the existing CFD processes has not been (at least to me) properly provided since this was opened almost four months ago. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2019 (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.