Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Saadkhan12345.bot

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.

Saadkhan12345.bot edit

Operator: Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:40, Friday, October 7, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automated

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Add two stub categories (templates) to about 150-200 pages.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):link

Edit period(s):one time run

Estimated number of pages affected:150-250

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

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

Function details: Add two stub categories the following pages [1] (Pakistan-election-stub) (Pakistan-constituency-stub)

Discussion edit

Where is the discussion that shows consensus for this task? Your discussion link only points to my talk page where I confirmed that you were adding them correctly after having previously doing it incorrectly. You mention two stub categories but only provided one template; what is the other one? Also, you have not answered two of the questions at the top of this BRFA. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need consensus to add categories correctly after its clear. Thats obvious. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires consensus for bot tasks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I have go around and ask people to say that ...This "stub article" has to to be tagged stub.. and than they say yes... lol?Saadkhan12345 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these pages appear to have more specific stubs already, such as {{Sindh-constituency-stub}} - will you be leaving those in place while adding the additional ones? As you want to run this fully automated, being very explicit in your operations is important. Your run is fairly small - you may not need a bot to do this job and could just use AWB as an editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is explicit. I think it would be better to add pakistan election stubs rather than sindh stub. Take about 30-60 minutes manually. Why don't you just hit approve and it ll be done in 30 min auto rather than 5+ days. along with an unneccessary discussions. I thinks task like these should be approved right away if its clear. Paksitan election stub is more general as it does not contain many sub pages to be added to sindh/relevant provinces. I think it will be done very fast if someones wants to unstub em.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please post the results of your trial when done. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Have you trialed this yet? Please post your diffs and results here. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 11 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.