Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Philosopher-Bot

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

Approved.

Philosopher-Bot edit

Operator: Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Supervised Automatic

Programming Language(s): Wikipedia:AWB

Function Summary: Implements "Delete", "Replace", and "Merge" requests at Wikipedia:CfD.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): I'll run it when I close a CfD or when I notice a backlog at Wikipedia:CfD/W.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details: Uses AWB's category tool for most cases, though its find and replace feature will be used in cases such as this where the category is being placed by a template. These edits are identical to edits I've often done with my main account using AWB - just that it isn't practical to do the large quantities of edits required for some CfDs manually. (Category tool example; Find and replace example)

Discussion edit

What will be the bot's edit rate? and don't we already have CanisRufus, Cydebot, Fluxbot, Kbdankbot, RoboMaxCyberSem and Xenobot working on this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the current bots only work with the categories themselves - so when there is a case like this where the category is placed by a template, it just sits there and never gets done. Hence my bot request. As for edit rate, whatever you guys feel would be appropriate. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. BJ^Talk 05:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Due to Christmas (and the accompanying loss of internet access) it may be a few days before I do this. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. It seems the trial was done a while ago but as the results were not posted here this BRFA got overlooked. Nevertheless I see no reason not to approve, everything in the trial looked OK. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 17:16, 29 January 2009 (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.