The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The bot uses the pywikipedia framework and is run manually. I'm planning to use it for multiple minor edits in relation to my organizational work on WP. First off, I'm looking to replace Cone (solid) links with Cone (geometry) and other updating tasks in relating to work on Cone (geometry), Right circular cone and Conic section.

I don't intend to use this bot a lot as I mainly plan on using the scripts on Wikibooks. The work here does not require the work of a bot, but it would save me a considerable amount of time. --Swift 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is just a redirect-replace bot, I'm sure another bot could handle the job, but if you want to run it yourself, I don't see a problem with this. Are there any other jobs you're planning to do? Titoxd^(?!?) 07:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for running it myself is simple time saving — not having to request bot work which would slow down work and add load on others.

I have no other plans for the bot at the moment. I do, however, plan to continue editing along those lines, cleaning up articles and would use the bot for edits similar to those described. If I deceide to expand on the bot's tasks, I will of course request approval for those. --Swift 20:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long: I've already got the bot's second proposed task. If the Wikibooks template merge proposal goes through, I'd like to use this bot to update transclusion links. --Swift 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your expected rate of editing for this bot?
  • If this is just to get automode enabled for AWB, for tasks relating to something (e.g. geopetric shapes), with low volume, let us know and it will likely be fast-tracked. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, no. It's a m:pywikipedia bot but, like AWB (which only runs on Windows), the scripts are pretty well established and under active use and developement. Any chance it might still qualify for fast-tracking? --Swift 10:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've lately been doing some template cleanup and merging where link updating would be a great asset. Each of these tasks has between a few hundred and a few thousand pages that need updating. I can see myself taking on one to two of these projects a month over the next year. --Swift 10:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Trial approved. Go ahead and run a few test runs (up to 250 pages) sometime over the next week. I think we still need some clarification of what this bot will be doing, (e.g. a generic find and replace bot for 1000's of pages is rather ambiguous). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've finished 167 edits, changing "[Cc]one[ _](solid)" to "[Cc]one (geometry)". Left out only references to this change and a page which contained a blocked link (have filed for the link to be allowed and will fix the reference once that goes through).

  "we still need some clarification". The bot's activities will center on cleaning up after mergers and moves, updating links and transclusions. --Swift 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just added 45 edits (total now at 212 edits), replacing "(([Bb]ook" with "((Wikibooks", effectively deprecating the former out of oblivion. It is now ready to be deleted. --Swift 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've also added 13 edits (total now at 225 edits), replacing references to ((Wikibook)) and ((Wikibooks2)) with equivalent ones to ((Wikibooks)).

  See: User:Swift/Projects#Wikibooks with some info on work ahead. --Swift 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Last "Cone (solid)" link updated (total now at 226 edits). --Swift 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the anticipated edits/min rate for this bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The bot has been editing at 6 per minute to allow for operator intervention. For highly predictable tasks (such as replacing all links with another) there would be little need for such a limit and the bot could run much faster. I have not looked into it yet or inquired about pywikipedia customs for the replace script. --Swift 08:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  According to Wikipedia:Bots: After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, [bots] should delay approximately 10 seconds between edits. It is recommended that bots run with larger delays during peak hours, and peak days such as Monday. Ideally, high-volume bots should run on off-peak hours and on typically low-traffic days such as Friday and Saturday to avoid strain on the database servers. Running during off-peak times may permit faster editing than suggested. I don't think less than 10 seconds between edits is a good idea, but that's just me (I'm not on the approvals group :-) —Mets501 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ten to 30 second delays won't be a problem. Thanks for the pointer. --Swift 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Approved If you can keep this to under 2.5 edits a min just flag your edits as minor, if faster will re required to keep up with the task ping me for a bot flag. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.