Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mcarling

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

Withdrawn by operator.

Mcarling[edit]

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

Time filed: 20:55, Monday June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: replace.py

Function overview: I do a lot of copy-editing and would like to semi-automate the process. I will personally review every change before committing each edit.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): from time to time

Estimated number of pages affected: dozens or hundreds, possibly thousands, per month

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Not sure whether or not replace.py skips pages with the {{bots}} template, but I would use it only in the namespace, never for user pages, talk pages, etc.

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

Function details: For example, changing "'60s" or "1960's" to "1960s". Manual operation is necessary to avoid inappropriate changes, for example, with seconds rather than years.

Discussion[edit]

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. I have never run it, not even as a test, not even in the sandbox. Mcarling (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ignore the messages, the bot has trouble telling main-account BRFAs from alternative accounts. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mcarling. I'm sorry, but the bot flag won't be applied to your regular account. The flag is only applied to alternative accounts. In addition, I believe that such a task would need to be specific to a set of replacements (to be stated in the BRFA), but not random replacements. Hazard-SJ ✈ 23:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. About your first point, what I am proposing to do is not to run a bot (in any normal sense of "bot"), but to use replace.py rather than a browser to do copy-editing under full manual control. That's why I think it's appropriate to use my regular account. So, do I even need the bot flag applied to an account to use replace.py under full manual control? About your second point, I'm not proposing to do any random replacements. Mcarling (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Hazard-SJ said, you cannot have a bot flag on your main account. You do need an identifiable "human" account. The bot account can only perform approved tasks, anything else wouldn't be approved, so you couldn't even respond to issues on your talk page. Secondly, manual tasks don't need a bot flag unless you or the community are worried about the speed/automation of your editing. So replace.py used manually and slowly doesn't need a BRFA as long as there are no issues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That last sentence is exactly what I needed to know. Please consider this request withdrawn. Mcarling (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your task appears to be a duplicate of WP:Bots/Requests for approval/RscprinterBot 2, which was denied. I think yours might be too. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 12:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is similarity in the objective, but that was running in "supervised" mode and I would run in "manual" mode. That case had a very high false positive rate. I expect a false positive rate of less than 1 per 1000. If I were to somehow generate more than 1 per 1000 false positives, I would stop. I already have permission to use AWB but would prefer to use replace.py. Running AWB on a Mac is a serious hassle. Mcarling (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Per botop. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:58, 5 June 2012 (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.