Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CakeBot

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

Denied.

CakeBot

Operator: The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually request

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Summary: Automatically generates a flame war between editors over an offensive image.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Runs when requested

Function Details: Oftentimes when someone places a possibly offensive image in an article, a flame war occurs on its corresponding talk page. These flame wars are often tedious, repetitive, and result in a lot of wasted time that could be spent creating and editing articles. Because many other tasks with similar levels of tediousness have been automated by bots, I propose a bot that automatically generates, by request, a flame war about the image in question. These flame wars would resemble and, indeed, may even be identical to a human-generated flame war.

To do this, CakeBot will need to register 4 dummy accounts to use as sockpuppets.

MinistryOfTruth - represents an editor who argues intelligently for the removal of the offensive image.
mindlessWASP - represents an ill-tempered and unintelligent editor for the removal of the offensive image.
NotCensoredtWhut - represents an editor who argues intelligently for the inclusion of the offensive image.
goatseniggertits - represents an ill-tempered and unintelligent editor for the inclusion of the offensive image - often resorts to spamming expletives.

Along with these 4 sockpuppets, the bot will randomly include anonymous edits through various proxy servers in order to simulate casual passersby to the flaming.

An example flame war may look something like this:

An example of bot output

I don't think a picture of a vagina is really necessary with good and accurate diagrams. A platform that allows objectionable material to be viewed by everyone should be more responsible. I understand the 'People can see porn elsewhere on the internet.' argument, however I do not believe that is good enough reason to lower the standards here. User:MinistryOfTruth 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YAY the vagina is back!! this one isnt spread open though like the old one... oh well. User:255.255.255.1 16:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The finger-spread vulvar photo is nothing more than titilation for the kiddies. I don't think that WP is the place for this. Even in medical school, you deal mostly with diagrams-not french manicured nails. If indeed this is for "medical" purposes, the hand should be wearing protective gloves. Is WP so much more high and mighty? - User:mindlessWASP

It's an image of the human body ffs. Why do you have a problem with this, you must be an american. Screaming about JJ showing a boob at Super Bowl and saying "protect our children, they can't see boobs, it's porn!" - so damn laughable. - User:goatseniggertits

I agree, I'm sure on the Wikipedia page for the human ear, there are photos of the external and the internal part. Stop being such a prude. Shouldn't there be an actual vagina photo to depict how it looks and how it is shapes? - NotCensoredWhut

I personally don't feel that any photographic representation is necessary for educational purposes. The anatomically correct drawing is satisfactory. Since sexuality is stimulated visually as well as tactfully, your real life photos of the penis and vagina are erotic by nature. I know it was not the intent of the author to post a pornographic image, but unfortunately for adolescents and even adults these images are very sexually provocative. Humans are designed to be aroused by even just a photograph. I don't think it's appropriate to bring a nude woman into a sex education class, spread her legs, and have all the students look inside - even if it's just for educational purposes. Would it be educational? Absolutely. But what does it teach that was so necessary to learn before marriage? Those parents who don't want their children to have sex before marriage believe that the penis and vagina are to be discovered together between man and wife. It is through this discovery that they are to bond with their spouse and make an intimate connection that can't be made any other way. This process of learning and bonding is vital to a happy and long lasting marriage. It's not to say it is the only way or the right way, but if you are keeping the values, beliefs, and wishes of Wikipedia's readers in mind then you should want to remove these photographic images. They just don't serve enough educational purpose worth offending the many religious or sexually sensitive target audience. - MinistryOfTruth

It's worth offending the religious because I don't need to be deprived of an image because you fools are hugging a book that you don't even know who wrote it. you religious people need to learn that the world doesnt revolve around you, get off my internets - goatseniggertits

Discussion

Whatever your point is, stop wasting our time. -- maelgwn - talk 11:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A bot that generates a flame war? You gotta be kidding, right? Not to mention that I don't think it will do anything to stop a real flame war. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best idea I've heard all day. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 14 July 2008 (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.