Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot

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.

BaldBot

Operator: User:Blofeld of SPECTRE T

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted

Programming Language(s): Using {{subst:PAGENAME}} to generate articles at speed

Function Summary: Stubbing several thousand articles on French communes.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): I will be doing runs daily or every other day when I have time to generate a sustained run. It would follow my editing pattern and would probably tackle around 500 communes or a department at a time.

Edit rate requested: 5-6 edits per minute maximum

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

Function Details: Stubbing several thousand articles on french communes which are having been missing on english wikipedia for many years ,unlike the other wikipedias. Aim is to get all of the pages started on english wikipedia to provide a platform to build upon and develop the articles to eventually get universal coverage on french settlements. There is an enormous amount of articles missing some provinces in France as yet only have about 10 articles maximum out of 500 or so. Eventually they should all develop into fuller articles and this is a task I bleieve is of huge benefit in the long term to French geography ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 14:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have seen you doing this on your account a lot, but as this isn't really a bot per se, I am going to have you {{BotSpeedy}}. ~ Dreamy ^§ 14:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Dreamafter, were also the coder of the bot, hence I have revoked its approval based on this conflict of interest and on changes made to this page after you speedily approved the bot. Let real discussion commence now! We should get a trial done first as this seems to be using code which hasn't been formally tested, and I think we need to be satisfied that nothing cabally is happening. If the bot is approved, it should be unblocked. If not, it should remain blocked indef. Martinp23 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your talk page for information on that. ~ Dreamy ^§ 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dreamafter - it appears I misunderstood your relationship to the bot creation (though I still don't understand it fully to be honest, as this request doesn't even seem to be for a bot). Could you or the owner possibly fully clarify how the bot will be run here, and why a flag/approval are needed? That take I have is that this request seeks to give a bot flag to an editor's alt account, under which they will be editing as an "editor" (as opposed to as a bot). I think input would be helpful here. Martinp23 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors recommended this to me and Kingturtle a Bureacrat approved it. Now why would you want to disrupt this course of action. If not then I'll continue adding them in my own account and making life difficult for new page patrollers which I don't want See User talk:Kingturtle ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The bot flag is needed because in the Newpages page, a bot or admin account will not show up as they are "trusted" to not create spammed pages. The edits, because there will be so many of them, they will not show up in Recentchanges, and all of them just clog it up way to much, a lot of editors may be erked because of it. ~ Dreamy ^§ 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see wider community input, as I'm not confident that it's "right" to give a bot flag to a user who isn't using a script of some sorts to edit. Especially as we can't narrowly define the task as we should, at least not as easily. It looks to me that Kingturtle gave +bot based on the fact that the BRFA had been approved, and nothing more (though I may be (read: probably am!) wrong). I'm happy to be proven wrong here in my assumptions about what's "right" wrt bot flags, but we'll see after wider community/BAG input. Martinp23 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I`d be open to more input from others. ~ Dreamy ^§ 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But independently of the bot I create a lot of articles on various parts of the encyclopedia which are clearly of encyclopedic value and are well written. Can anybody hands down say that I am not as good an article editor as any of the admininstrators on here? I believe the fact that I have created 14,000 articles on wikipedia which are still on wikipedia and not all stubs should account for something. It would make life a lot easier for new page patrollers if my new articles on my normal account were "trusted" too. I don't normally create 5 articles a minute like here but I still create a lot of general content anyway. Remember I am only here because editors were slightly erked at having to patrol them -even my normal course of editing . If my new articles were trusted as not "spam" which I strongly believe they shouldn't be and hope others agree then I could continue with my own account and not have to be continously concerned with new page patrollers equally having to put in a lot of work to unmark them. By all means get a consensus on it between bureacrats or whatever. I think this would be the best course of action. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I seek clarification on a few matters, to make sure my potential suggestion isn't idiotic? Am I absolutely correct in my understanding that you seek a bot account for the purposes of avoiding having your edits appear in recent changes and special:newpages? Is this intended to be just for new articles about French communes, or for all new articles. Is there to be any expansion upon what I've suggested there in the future? Thanks. Martinp23 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flags are given to bot accounts; those running semi-automated or automated scripts. I see no reason (and potentially a lot of problems) from flagging a human account manually creating articles. Mønobi 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that Blofeld is working off some large list of French articles in this case. It (a human creating rote articles from a list) doesn't seem that much different from programming a bot to create articles from a list. And it is a separate account, so I don't see any issues with it being confused for Blofeld himself. If he had said it was just an article creation script, I doubt most users would've been able to tell it was him creating the articles instead of a script. MBisanz ^talk 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately I don't have time to hang around. I'll continue adding them with my own account then and clogging up the pages and leaving a lot of unneccesary patrolling for people as before. I really don't see why it is a problem to flag my normal account anyway and how it could possibly cause any problems -I create more articles than any administrators on wikipedia anyway. I turned down adminship olong ago because I dislike the bureacratic side of wikipedia and prefer to generate my efforts into what I believe matters most -building an encyclopedia of the highest possible standard and depth. If noone here can recognize that I don't create "spam" and contribute constructively then thats your problem not mine ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a short script to remove these entries from the new pages patrol. I strongly support giving this user the ability to create new pages marked with the bot flag. Out of 500 new page entries on the page, I was getting an average of under a hundred not-french-commune pages last week. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Jack. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why it is a problem to flag my normal account anyway and how it could possibly cause any problems. I create more articles than any administrators on wikipedia anyway.

Do you really not see the conflict between those two sentences? I totally believe that you're acting it good faith, and that the French stubs are useful, and a good addition to Wikipedia. What I don't like is the slightly shady way this situation a) got started (Dreamafter), and b) continues (JackSchmidt).

If you're really seeking the bot flag for a reasonable purpose, run through the hoops. It doesn't take that long, it makes the whole thing above board, and in the random eventuality that someone contacts you about the vast number of articles you're creating, you'll be able to say with no uncertainty that you have gotten approval through community consensus.

The current situation - a bot flag approved in what appears to be a shady process, and now the creation of a script that circumvents both bot flagging procedures and community consensus - this situation is going to cause problems. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should unblock the bot, and run some tests, if I am reading this right. I like that and all of you were right that I was wrong, I shouldn't have speedied it, I should have had trials, sorry for all of the crap (for lack of a better word) that I have put you all through. ~ Dreamy ^§ 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My lord, I never realised it was such a big deal. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry if my comments came off too strong. From what JackSchmidt tells me, I didn't understand what he's done. I apologize for any mis-statements, I'd just rather everything went on above-board. It means extra hoops, but in the long run it's better for everyone. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I meant I wrote a script that any individual user can use that will temporarily hide Blofeld of SPECTRE's new pages on Special:Newpages. It doesn't "do" anything, like mark pages patrolled, or let someone create pages immune from patrolling, or anything else bot-like. Even when articles are created in a series, I always check each one just in case they need categories, or the cat walked on the keyboard during the submit, etc. Sorry for the misunderstanding. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well by the end of the week theres going to be lot of articles created which could have been easily flagged. Nobody can say I didn't try to help new page patrollers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. This really needs discussing elsewhere as a separate process to grant +bot to non-bots. Martinp23 00:25, 14 February 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.