Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BracketBot 2

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

Denied.

BracketBot 2

Operator: A930913 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:02, Friday May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: On request.

Function overview: Thank editors when they fix brackets.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 0

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): I think {{nobots}} needs some more parameters

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

Function details: BracketBot currently notifies editors when they break brackets, so why shouldn't it thank them when they fix them?

Discussion

Technically at the moment, I don't think there is anything that says a bot would need BAG permission to do this; I think some guidelines need updating. 930913(Congratulate) 02:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's a little early to approve a bot for automated thanking. I can tell you that the feature was designed with person-to-person thanking in mind, and you can't send thank you notifications to bots for that reason. I think we should be cautious about approving automated thanking. Getting a thank you from a robot seems pretty meaningless to me. Steven Walling • talk 02:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get some examples of cases when it would thank a user after their fix to brackets? ~~Also what would be in the thanks?~~ (oh using this new thanks thingy!) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the original proposal, edits like these ones. 930913(Congratulate) 14:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steven Walling on this one. Bot thanks doesn't count for much, and would probably engender negative feelings about the feature (it would probably be described as "thank-spam"). It would definitely need strong community consensus, so if you really want to pursue this, you should start a discussion on WP:VPR. Anomie ⚔ 12:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would likely go down the same route as bot welcomes. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 13:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. But if A930913 wants to determine that experimentally, they can. Anomie ⚔ 21:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a discussion on WP:VPP 930913(Congratulate) 14:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will wait and see what happened atp WP:VPP ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 08:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like a proposal than a policy issue to me, but I guess it is a policy issue too. Anomie ⚔ 21:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far there is no support to this. Hazard-SJ ✈ 23:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Proposal

The current template contains a "fixme" link that makes it easy to track editors who fix their brackets from a BracketBot notification. Perhaps only these users should be thanked? 930913(Congratulate) 14:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take that to the Village pump too. Anomie ⚔ 21:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose this too. Almost the same effect as above, only that for this, it only shows that the provided link was used. Hazard-SJ ✈ 23:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. This task is fairly similar to a welcome bot, which has long been opposed by the community. For a bot like this to be approved, there would need to be strong support shown. As the Village Pump thread shows, there is no community support for this task at the present time. If you would like to persist with this task, please build a consensus first then start a new BRFA --Chris 06:51, 26 June 2013 (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.