Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TTObot

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

Approved.

TTObot

Operator: This, that and the other (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:10, Saturday July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Manually invoked to begin with, then automatic (without user review of each edit) while performing the requested task

Programming language(s): JavaScript

Source code available: User:This, that and the other/masstag.js

Function overview: Tag pages en masse with {{tfd}} (or {{mfd}} in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I asked JPG-GR, an admin active at TfD, about this matter. ~~The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.~~ Wikipedia talk:TFD#Bot for mass TFD nominations

Edit period(s): As required. Most likely, fairly infrequently.

Estimated number of pages affected: Between 10 and 800 per run

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

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

Function details:

It is a requirement of our deletion processes that interested members of the community are made aware of impending deletion of a given page, and of any discussions that are taking place to that effect. For the XfD processes, this is done by way of tagging each page being considered for deletion with a particular template (in order to give notice to users who have added the page to their watchlist), as well as notifying the creator and/or major contributors to the page with a talk page notification.

However, when mass nominations are being carried out, it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes impractical.

This bot account, running my masstag.js user script, will tag pages en masse with ~~templates such as {{tfd}} and {{mfd}}~~the {{tfd}} tag (for mass TFD nominations), and the {{mfd}} tag (for userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations). It will run as needed by me, and as requested by other users. The script does what it is told, and does not edit without user permission (i.e. clicking the "Submit" button), so the operator is entirely responsible for any mistakes.

Operation would be as follows:

I log out of this account, and log in to the TTObot account using a web browser.
I invoke the masstag.js script, supply the correct parameters, and click "Submit".
The script makes a large volume of edits using the edit API, one after the other, with a 4-second delay between the last server response for one page and the first server request for the next page. (This throttling is not implemented yet, but this would occur prior to the bot's first edit.)
When the run is finished, the output is dealt with, and I log out of the TTObot account.

At a later stage, a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep" may be added to the script.

This bot is not exclusion compliant because (a) the bot performs a simple, reliable task that only adds to the page content, and does not modify any existing content; and (b) the bot will most likely not operate in userspace (the place for which the exclusion system is intended). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Trial

Approved for trial (50 taggings). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that was quick! I'll find a task for it to do sometime during the next few days. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notify anyone or discuss this with anyone other than one admin? And you got approval for a trial in 4 minutes? Who's your buddy! I would like a detailed explanation of why this bot task should go to trial approval immediately, without any prior discussion in the community. Can you just post links to pages that show that this task is something that either does not require any community discussion or approval, or links to pages that show this task is such a no-brainer that a 4 minute approval for a trial is reasonable? I don't think that any sort of bot mass tagging for deletion of anything has broad community approval. But I could be wrong, so please help me out by posting links. Thanks, --72.201.210.130 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't approve it within 4 minutes... You should probably ask H3llkn0wz - he clearly thought it was worthy of approval. In my view, it is just a way of following process - I would certainly prefer not to do it, but it seems that the status quo, as determined by admins at TfD, is that it is needed. See here, here and here for instances where TfDs have been dismissed because the templates were not tagged. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Showing that TfD discussions are dismissed when templates have not been tagged for deletion is not a community discussion about the need for a bot to tag templates for deletion. JPG-GR's comment that there "may be an automated" way to tag this many templates for deletion is not a community bot discussion. Try the automated editing thing.

A nomination for deletion is not a maintenance edit. Please initiate a community discussion.

I request this bot approval for trial be revoked until a community discussion is had in an appropriate place, or at least community input is requested.

And, I request the bot approval for a trial only be granted after the RfBA has been posted for long enough for community members to comment here. 4 minutes is not long enough. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shall see what happens. However, I note your suggestion that I "try the automated editing thing". That is precisely what this task is - an account specifically for automated editing, not your average "bot". I asked at WT:BAG whether a BRFA was required, and H3llkn0wz thought it would be a good idea. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have posted at WT:TFD. (I admit I probably should have done that earlier.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be overlapping a technical trial with a bot approval. BOTPOL: "During the request for approval, a member of the Bot Approvals Group will typically approve a short trial during which the bot is monitored to ensure that it operates correctly." 50 edits are to see that the bot can handle all the common cases and does not imply the bot will be approved. Both {{TfD}} and WP:TFD say that multiple templates are to be tagged and this is what I have seen done before. So that is enough reason for me for a trial. It is not approval, it's a check of technical implementation. That's why the BRFA is still open, I have no intention of closing it quickly and the operator can start a wider discussion. A trial does not prevent discussion, in fact in majority of cases most discussion takes place after a trial as that tends to invite broader input. I haven't even posted the issues I can see yet, like subst'ed template pages needing <noinclude> tags. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to rush into a trial without any input, particularly for a bot that is being designed to tag 100s of pages ("en masse"). Whether this board routinely gets community input or not, please act as if it matters; going forward with a trial without allowing time for community input is disrespectful of the community. Not all bots are solely about technical issues. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

72.201.210.130: First, you are obviously quite familiar with Wikipedia. What is your account, or what IP addresses have you edited from in the past if you are one of those who refuses to register an account? And second, do you have any actual objection to this request, or are you just here to complain about the perceived "lack of process"? Do note that this request is for a bot to tag templates for deletion that a human has already decided to nominate; it will not nominate anything itself, and will not tag anything without being specifically told to by the operator. Anomie ⚔ 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some rule that RfBA does not allow IP input? Please provide I link, and I will then comply with your shut up demand. See my actual objection below. I did read what the request was for. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anyone ever say "shut up"? Anyway, the link you request is WP:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Anomie ⚔ 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Anyway, folks, the trial is over. 42 taggings were made (I couldn't quite fill up exactly 50). 23 of those have already been deleted, as the author ended up approving of their deletion. I also made 2 edits to the bot account's personal CSS and JS, while logged in as TTObot (since I am not an admin, I cannot do it from my account). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look fine. As usual, leaving the BRFA open for a week or more for more input. Personally, I'll probably recuse myself from closing this for the sake of bureaucracy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is the blanket request for approval for tagging en masse, initially with tfd, but if BAG gives approval for this bot, what unspecified other tagging en masse is this granting permission for? So, yes, I disagree that a personal bot for tagging en masse should be given permission to operate on wikipedia.

The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion.

I requested that this trial approval be revoked. I ask that this request be answered directly. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot finished the trial and no further edits are approved. This discussion will not be closed until the issues are adequately resolved. As a side issue, it is a good point that trial/trialed bots do not have their discussions transcluded. I'll bring this up on the WT:BRFA. May I also suggest we make a separate heading for the issues related to the task itself (as opposed to process/trialling), as it is my experience this will quicken the discussion and make outside input likelier. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the bot's purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated for deletion. Prior to this bot, sometimes pages would be mass nominated but not actually tagged for deletion, because it is such a tedious task to do so - this bot seeks to remedy that. Not to mass tag pages as the whim of the operator. –xeno^talk 22:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear the the purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated. It's not taking the pages for tagging from a list or category or anything that indicates these are pages that were already nominated. This was it's initial function, "Tag pages en masse with a certain tag (initially {{tfd}})," then an elaboration about it being for mass nominations, not for tags on templates already nominated for deletion. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly explained in the function details. It will tag pages that are involved in mass TFD or mass MFD nominations. –xeno^talk 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clearly explained in the function details anywhere that this is only about pages that have already been mass nominated until you added this. Please make sure the bot operator understands, because it does not appear that this was his/her intentions:

"However, when mass nominations are being carried out, it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes impractical."

--23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to me that this bot is meant to run after someone (maybe the operator, maybe someone else) initiates an (batch/mass/group) XfD to tag the pages that are to be discussed. Do you object to pages that are nominated for deletion having a tag placed on them pointing to the deletion discussion? –xeno^talk 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Function overview: Tag pages en masse with {{tfd}} (or {{mfd}} in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations." It doesn't say after someone initiates the discussion, but "following mass XfD nominations" in the functions overview, and it says "when mass nominations are being carried out in the details." Maybe you could provide me with an example of an XfD that has been initiated where this bot would be run afterward? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures. The pages to be tagged were moved since that nomination, see here for the list. –xeno^talk 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages? Not the same level of concern as TfD and now, the examples you raised of mass nominations for AfDs. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you go find someone else who also disagrees with the bot's proposed scope? Mass/batch/group nominations happen all the time, and this task is, imo, desirable. –xeno^talk 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's not policy, it's just that you support it. Got it. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written. –xeno^talk 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a relatively recent example of a mass nomination at TFD. I don't think there is really a gap in the policy (or to be finicky, guideline, since that is how Wikipedia:Deletion process is labeled), just occasional lapses in practice. Sometimes a nomination with a large number of pages will not have all the pages tagged, and most often the result is people in the XFD complaining about that fact that they aren't all tagged. So I would say tagging all the pages in your nomination is the guideline, whether by bot or not, and I don't see anything about that needing to be rewritten. --RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from wrong discussion section

Meanwhile where is this bot's discussion under "Current requests for approval?" The only bots currently requesting approval are Lightbot 16, Fbot, Pause! and BOTijo 10.

This bot is not a current request for approval; according to the BRfA board, this request for approval is not current. So, has it already been passed? The discussion dead and over? That appears to be the case. And, the reason this bot is no longer up for discussion is that 4 minutes after the BRfA was posted, it was apparently granted, or at least the discussion on it was apparently closed (hence it's almost immediate removal from "Current requests for approval).

If it is no longer a current request for approval, because it was removed from that category in 4 minutes, then what is it? An already approved bot! --72.201.210.130 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are again overlapping approval and trial. This is not an approved bot, please read WP:BOTAPPROVAL. This request is open until it is archived. It is still in the Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval. The only thing that was granted to the bot was a 50 edit technical trial. And I already brought the fact that trial(ed) bot BRFAs are not transcluded on the main page (WT:BRFA#BRFA discussion transclusions). If your issue is that the request appears to be not listed, then do comment on the proposal to "list" all the BRFAs, pre-trial and post-trial. And how can you claim the discussion is dead if two users have asked questions? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose this bot task. It appears to have morphed into something completely different from what was originally requested. ("It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks," versus adding TfD and MfD tags." Really?)

And the new guise demands community participation, as it appears, also, that the community guidelines for this task have not yet been written. "Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written. –xenotalk 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)" Then let's allow the community to write the policy, before a bot is created and approved to implement it. This is more in line with long stated community workings on wikipedia, rather than requesting approval and granting trials for an ever expanding ill-defined task where the bot operator pre-dismissed community input. ("The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.")

This task should be discussed first, by the community; relevant policies/guidelines written, then approval for a defined task requested rather than trying an end run around writing guidelines by implementing a bot that does what some person wants without prior community input/discussion. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Per HellKnowz's suggestion, I've put this in a separate subsection (and added a subsection header for the trial above). I saw the note about this at WT:TFD, so thanks for placing that. A few questions about what the bot will or won't do:

There are optional parameters for {{Tfd}}, such as |type=, to allow the notification tag to appear on pages where the nominated templates appear without being too prominent or breaking page layouts. Will the bot be able to place those parameters when appropriate?
Alternatively, sometimes it will be best to wrap the notification with 'noinclude' tags. Will the bot be able to do this in the (relatively rare) cases where it is appropriate?
Will the bot also notify template creators as is typically done by tools such as Twinkle, or will it just place the tags? In the trial it seemed to just place tags.
Is this bot programmed to handle situations where it encounters redirects or protected templates?
Is this bot just for your own use, or do you plan to accept requests from the editing public?

In theory this seems like a reasonable use of a bot, but I think all the questions above deserve consideration first, and I didn't see those situations in the trial edits. --RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some answers:

Please remember that I specify all parameters of the bot. It is "dumb", so to speak (except for the fact that it skips speedy deletion candidates).
If a {{tfd}} requires <noinclude>...</noinclude>, then I will specify that when I run the script.
Likewise, if a {{tfd}} needs a |type=, I will specify that when I run the script. (Essentially I input the wikitext to be tacked onto the beginning of each page. So I can add whatever is needed.)
If creators are to be notified. I will do so manually myself. (The script outputs a list of all initial contributors of the templates it tags, whom I can subsequently notify manually.)
Redirects are not followed (hence, the redirect would be tagged - I might need to look into this case); protected templates are necessarily skipped (it's not an adminbot!).
I am happy to open it to requests from the deletion-nominating public. Of course, I would consider the merits of each request before carrying it out.

Hope this helps. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pretty much what I thought the answers would be. I believe the redirect situation will need to be addressed, however. If you just want to delete the redirect, then it should be listed at WP:RFD, not TFD or MFD or whatever, and if you want to delete the target, then presumably the bot will need to follow the redirect to it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request is for tagging templates with "a certain tag (initially {{tfd}})". Are there other tags or categories of tags that might need to be added that we can explicitly list here, to narrow the scope of this request to a limited set of tags? Anomie ⚔ 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can foresee {{tfd}} and {{mfd}} being added using this bot. Possibly {{sfd-t}}. But mainly {{tfd}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that deletions are high-tension venues, so you should specify exactly which namespaces/templates the bot will work with and under what circumstances. For any additional ones, you can drop a note at WT:BRFA. I'm afraid we cannot approve a bot with a vague "with a certain tag". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just say this:

This bot will apply the {{tfd}} tag to templates involved in mass TFD nominations, and the {{mfd}} tag to userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations.

— This, that, and the other (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Caution about de-tagging kept pages

Without expressing an approval or disapproval of this bot process, I must point out that "a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep"" is a necessity before full implementation. If say 700 templates are tagged and then the templates are kept, that's a LOT of work (just like tagging 700 templates is a lot of work). The likelihood of a particular TfD being closed with that much baggage and cleaned up properly without a bot is relatively small, I would think. JPG-GR (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point! --RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} I completely agree - would it be possible to roll this functionality into the bot? Even, perhaps if isn't initially - or even always turned on. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I will implement this functionality shortly. It will need testing, but I cannot foresee how a trial would operate. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it could only be trialed with mocked up test pages, unless there happened to be a large TFD that resulted in "keep" around the time testing was needed. One additional note: It would be nice if, in addition to removing the {{Tfd}} tag, the bot could also add {{TfD end}} to the talk pages. I wouldn't see it as a showstopper if it can't, but if we're going to facilitate making mass nominations, we should try to facilitate as much of the closing as we reasonably can. --RL0919 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (1 batch of detagging kept templates). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. If possible, placing a {{TfD end}} (taking into account documentation pages). If you cannot find any, then just do a sandbox edit or two. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the tag removal function, I made a few sandbox edits on my account (not TTObot's account). I'm yet to write {{tfdend}} tagging functionality, though. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tested {{tfdend}} tagging. See Special:PrefixIndex/User:This, that and the other/sandbox/masstag for the results of the tag removal trial, and Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:This, that and the other/sandbox/masstag for the results of the {{tfdend}} tagging trial. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The examples all seemed good to me. My only caveat is that all the {{tfdend}} examples appeared to be adding it where the talk page did not exist previously, as opposed to a talk page that already had other content. Given that you've shown the bot can add the {{tfd}} tag to a page with content, I doubt it would be a problem, but just noting the unverified test case. --RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that outlying case, and have kept it in mind. So what needs to happen now to move this request forward? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The function overview does not cover {{tfdend}}. Why? What else does this tagging en masse include that isn't listed in the function overview? "Function overview: Tag pages en masse with ~~a certain tag (initially {{tfd}})~~{{tfd}} (or {{mfd}} in limited cases)." --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks. I think that would be clear to anyone remotely familiar with the process. —SW— ^chat 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, others in the discussion asked the operator to add the tag removal and Tfdend functions after the bot request was first made, as shown in the comments above. It would make sense for the overview to be updated based on the latest version of what the bot is supposed to do. --RL0919 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the task is modified, function descriptions should reflect that. It allows the community to discuss what is being requested. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this and links posted by Xeno, it seems the bot is destined for more than simple template deletions, namely, it is also intended for AfDs. I think the AfD community will be interested, and failure to notify the wikipedia community is reason enough to put a halt to this BRfA. Again, if the guidelines need changed, Xeno, change them, then create a bot to implement the changed guidelines. This end run around community policies is nothing that bots were ever intended for on wikipedia.

"Read the instructions for nominating an article for deletion at WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD etc. They all instruct you to add a template to the top of the page you are nominating, e.g. {{Afd1}}, {{Tfd}}, {{Mfd}}, {{Cfd}} etc. These templates notify anyone who visits the page that it has been nominated for deletion, and provides a link to the deletion discussion page. If you are nominating multiple articles for deletion, then it logically follows that you will add the appropriate tag to each article you are nominating. If you are nominating 500 pages for deletion at once, you can either go through and spend 3 hours manually adding these tags to each article, or you can talk to this bot owner who has been nice enough to write a bit of code to help you out."

A discussion at AfD talk, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Multiple_articles_in_a_single_AFD, does not give a strong indication that the policy has changed in a way to favor creation and running of this bot. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is about whether or not bundled deletion nominations are a good idea, and/or if they are not often being used correctly. There is no discussion (which I'm aware of) where editors are saying that every article in a bundled nomination shouldn't be tagged with a clear notice that it's being considered for deletion. If bundled deletions eventually get outlawed (quite unlikely), then this bot script will have no more use. However, until that time, there is no policy which prevents this bot from performing its stated function. —SW— ^talk 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not even decided that bundled deletion nominations are approved by the community, then it can't be decided that using a bot to make them is appropriate and should be approved.

"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:

performs only tasks for which there is consensus"

This is pretty clear in bot policy: there is consensus. Not just the tacit non unapproval that you and Xeno are arguing for. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is inconclusive at best. Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of large nominations, but there are also examples given where they would be reasonable. The proposed bot usage isn't for AFD nominations anyway. As to policy, editors will object if a nomination is too broad or poorly defined (I've done so myself in specific cases), but there is no policy or guideline against nominating multiple pages in one discussion. There is a guideline saying that the nominated pages should be tagged. So the proposed use of the bot appears to be entirely within policy.

The bot operator has been very responsive to the legitimate issues. There was a concern about the potential usage being too non-specific, so the operator clarified it. There was a request that if it tagged, it should de-tag. There was a request that if it de-tagged, could it also add the talk page template to document the nomination. The operator added both of those functions. These haven't been added to the overview yet, but that just came up as a concern in the last few hours. If the main objection is a discussion showing some people's vague discomfort with large nominations in an area that the bot isn't even expected to cover, then I would think it should be approved. --RL0919 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)WP:BUNDLE describes how bundled nominations should be done. They are commonplace. To suggest that they're not valid because they're not explicitly listed on a policy page (or to suggest that they're not valid on TfD's because they're not specifically mentioned on WP:TFD) is purely a bureaucratic complaint which won't be entertained here. —SW— ^spout 03:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General note: BRFAs like this aren't a place for the discussion of consensus on underlying wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this instance, there is firm consensus that multi-page nominations are clearly in-line with policy, and have been performed numerous times. Template:AfD footer (multiple), for example, has been in existence for over 4 years, alone. Therefore, this page is only for the discussion of the technical aspects of the aforementioned script, because the underlying deletion policy is solidly established. If you'd like to propose an RFC regarding the underlying deletion policy, this is not the place to do it; consider the village pump for policy, for example. --slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...so from the technical standpoint, I see no problems with this bot. --slakr^\ talk / 03:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Utterly uncontroversial and policy compliant, despite troll's claim to the contrary. Approved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:09, 11 August 2011 (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.