Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BrackiBot

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Withdrawn by operator.

BrackiBot

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

Time filed: 16:42, Thursday, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: manual for the first edits to check, if AWB works correct, then automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: minor edits, such as typo-corrections

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/AutoWikiBrowser#BrackiBot

Edit period(s): one time runs (if needed)

Estimated number of pages affected: every page with mistakes

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

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

Function details: minor edits, such as typo-corrections, for example: [1] or [2]

Discussion

Any reason why you can't make these edits on your main account? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely comment on BRFAs, but if what's being proposed is an automated typo-fixing bot (the request is not entirely clear), I totally oppose this and in the unlikely event it's approved, will treat it as I'd treat any other user misusing an automated tool, and either remove userrights or block for disruption at the first sign of any problems. We have enough trouble with automated tool users "fixing" non-errors without bothering to check what they're fixing; to take the human oversight out of the process altogether is a Really Bad Idea. If this is what you're proposing, have a read of Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots before you go any further. ‑ Iridescent 16:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo-corrections are generally unsuited to automation - if you want an alternate account for separating your AWB edits from your main edits, a bot account/bot flag is not needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, see above; this is a request for a full-automation permission. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick answers! I just wanted a separate account with bot-flag, so that I don't fill someone's watchlist too much. Of course I won't do thousands of edits without checking AWB from time to time. But if it would be ok on en.wiki to make 100-200 typo-corrections with my main account without a bot-flag it would be ok for me, too. --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using AWB non-automated on your main account is fine, but make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use—in particular rules 1 and 4—before you start. English Wikipedia has different rules than de-wiki, and "fixes" that either introduce errors, or have no visible impact on the page as rendered, will get you blocked here. ‑ Iridescent 17:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the two example edits show fixes that would be made under en.WP's AWB general fixes, I believe, and do not appear to change the rendered article (OK, there is one nbsp where there was no space before, but you're going to get yelled at if a bot does that). As such, they would probably not be allowed as a bot task. See WP:COSMETICBOT for more details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that there is so much difference between en.wiki and de.wiki ... But it's interesting, I'll read the rules for this wiki.

To the "nbsp": As DIN 5008 says, you should write z. B. instead of "z.B." (e.g.). But maybe that is just typically German ;-) --Brackenheim (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. --Brackenheim (talk) 15:39, 25 November 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.