Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/タチコマ robot (01)

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.

タチコマ robot

(Formerly WOPR)

Operator: White Cat

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: I'd like to use the bot to fix redirects created by my username move (I want pages to link directly to my userpage rather than through a redirect. Aside from that I may make similar fixes.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): The bot will not run unattended.

Edit rate requested: 100 edits per hour

I am unsure what to suggest this is my guess, I do not expect to 'hit' any near the number

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

Function Details: AWB automated functions

Discussion

I hereby request a bot flag. -- Cat ^chi? 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be specific about bot tasks, and file another request for approval for each task. For fixing redirects to your old userpage only, you are

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —METS501 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For future referance (to me) how specific do these tasks are supposed to be? -- Cat ^chi? 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically exactly what you're going to do, not just "other stuff", if you know what I mean. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StatisticianBot for an example of a good, specific request. —METS501 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to give the bot a bot flag so it doesn't bother RC teams? Is there a request page for that? -- Cat ^chi? 20:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the request system. There was some concern on AN/I about the edit rate being too high for such a non-crucial task. Would you be willing to lower the edit rate to 1/min? I can't see how the RC people could complain about that, you could almost do it manually at that rate. CMummert · talk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I stopped the bot after concerns were posted. -- Cat ^chi? 08:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reran the bot at a 1 edit/min rate after your comment here for a while. Since Ned Scott is revert waring over the bots edits, I have restopped the bot. -- Cat ^chi? 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional concerns are also being raised that such a mass edit for a sig fix of this nature should not be allowed. See User talk:White Cat#User sig substitutions. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "server load" claim is ridiculous. I can make those edits manually just as well. I also find this users post here self contradictory since he is revert waring over the bots edits waisting server resources. -- Cat ^chi? 10:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, server load isn't a major concern of mine, it's just the part where you somehow get special permission to do something that you shouldn't be allowed to do. If everyone did this we would have a very big problem. It needs to stop, server load or not. -- Ned Scott 10:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you have no reason to complain but are complaining for the sake of complaining. People do not change usernames daily nor do they typically have a fraction of the number of edits I have. This isn't the median for this, you are welcome to propose a policy banning signature updates. I am merely using a bot to do a task I can manually do to save myself time. -- Cat ^chi? 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, while I agree that these edits don't add content, I don't see why they should be forbidden provided that they are made at a manual-like pace (say 1/min). As Cat says, they could be made by hand, and that would be alright. The figure quoted on ANI was only 1500 edits, which would complete in about a day at 1/min. CMummert · talk 11:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the trial is more than over, trials usually mean 50 edits, so don't run it again until you're approved. Also, this bot violates policy, and while users get some leeway with policy, bots do not. Do not bypass any redirects using this bot until it is approved, and you need to explain why you need to do this. You told me on IRC that you just didn't want people to see the redirect, and if that's your only reason, I'm going to deny this bot. --ST47Talk 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some reasons why I requested a sig change:

I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time. This is the perfect opportunity for it.
Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.

I cannot provide a more detailed reason as there cannot be such a reason. I am a perfectionist and I am merely updating sigs. Many users has done this in the past and I feel it is the responsible thing to do. It isn't against policy to update signatures and the bot is merely making edits I would otherwise do by hand.

I would welcome an elaboration on how the bot violates policy, I am not certain whats not working there.

So far the bot has done exactly what it was approved for, updating my sigs. Its first few edits had a few problems but I have manually corrected those.

Next thing I have in my plate is Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template_renaming or Wikipedia:Bot_requests#xxxx_in_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland. I want to rename the transclusions/categories under former name after approval. This is similar to the process I use with my signature.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denied.

per redirect policy. Bots are expected to follow policy. Unless the link displays incorrectly...there is no need to edit the link. --ST47Talk 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened

Operator: White Cat

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic and supervised

Programming Language(s): pywikipediabot

Function Summary: The bot will update signatures of mine. It will NOT alter the contents of the pages in any other way.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run, once all the sigs are fixed there wont be anything left to fix.

Edit rate requested: 100 edits per hour (tho it will unlikely get close to this)

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

Function Details:

The bot will update all of my sigs to the current one. Bot will use the code at http://botwiki.sno.cc/wiki/Python:SignChanger.py

Discussion

Although my bot request for the task was declined earlier, later discussion on the matter and Wikipedian's such as User:Thatcher131, User:Mackensen, User:Fred Bauder commented on that thread. I would like to use a bot to preform the task so as not to "alert" peoples watchlists unnecessarily. -- Cat ^chi? 12:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to this task. Policy states that bots must be useful, and this task is not useful. Further, it causes unnecessary load, and there is no community consensus for this task. Further, bots must obey all policies and guidelines, and WP:RDR says "Do not change links to redirects that are not broken". --ST47Talk·Desk 12:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your signature in archives was a major point of contention before. I don't think is a good idea at all. --Deskana (apples) 12:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. There is no consensus for this bot to run, following the extended discussion on the issue. Furthermore, BRFA will not be used to try and create such consensus. Please do not request a bot be used for controversial tasks until it has consensus support (in which case it becomes generally-uncontroversial). Daniel 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not approved. This is fairly useless. Voice-of-All 12:55, 24 August 2007 (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.