Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CountBot

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.

CountBot

Operator: BarkingFish (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: User:CountBot

Function overview: Gives an immediate, automatically updated editcount on a userpage or talk page, by updating a userbox {{User:A930913/Editcount}} on purge.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): #wikipedia-en ^connect

Edit period(s): On purge.

Estimated number of pages affected: A few users who use the box.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No (Use of template is by definition opting in)

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: Allows an automatically updated editcount box to appear, in Userbox format on a user's talk or userpage. Provides immediate reference for vote eligibility, and allows users to keep up to date with how many edits they have.

Discussion

I don't see any need or desire for this bot. It needlessly consumes resources for almost no benefit. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it will consume resources similar to that of the user changing it themselves; it is easier for the user, and the user doesn't get the edit for updating the box and then update the box to reflect new edits and so on.

Secondly, we are talking about kb of resources here. I assure you, on each of the past three days, I have used thousands upon thousands of more resources than this uses. Are you saying that I'm needless? 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 02:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the developer-killed User:StatusBot. Q ^{T C} 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this one isn't in the pipeline to get killed. It simply automatically replaces a task the user would normally do themselves, maybe forget to tag as minor, and get repeated edits for everytime they update. I see a need for this, and I welcome its inclusion here. I hope it's allowed to continue working. Please understand also, that I am listed as the operator, purely because I submitted the BRFA. If the information can be updated, the actual op will be A930913. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with OQ and MZM, triggering on purge is too low a trigger, once a week would be the lowest variable I would be comfortable approving. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly sounds reasonable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once a week would be a good idea but otherwise this is good because it replaces a bot we had two years ago that is no longer up and running. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

Strong oppose, this encourages the MySpace / editcountitis aspects, and does nothing to improve the project. Waste of time. Has been discussed before, and consensus has shown it's not wanted - thus, this discussion is a waste of time too. Solve the problem by either removing the box altogether (preferable) or just write I've edited lots and lots, and I like to show off about it instead. If you spent the past three days fiddling in userspace, then yes, you are useless to the project. If you've spend 3 days editing and improving articles, then that's great. Let's get back to it. Chzz ► 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editcountitis??? Do you suggest then, since edit count is obviously a problem to you, that we remove minimum edit counts for Elections on WP, like the Steward elections, and so on??? It is not editcountitis by a long shot, it serves a purpose, Chzz. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 02:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it serves a purpose. But a BRFA like this is supposed to weigh the cost vs. the benefit. In a case like this, the benefit is almost non-existent, so it's easily outdone by even a small cost. Updating the stats weekly (or even daily) keeps the cost at an acceptable level. Updating the stats automatically, given the size of the English Wikipedia, leaves too much room for an unacceptably high (future) cost. There have been plenty of instances of bots being approved for seemingly harmless tasks, only to become problematic in the future. Having a BAG seal of approval only makes these problems worse, so it's best to work at preventing issues from arising. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a tool for determining eligibility for votes on demand. Note that elections (including steward elections) frequently require more things than a plain edit count, so this will not provide "immediate reference for vote eligibility" as stated. As a community member, I oppose this for the reasons stated above. As a BAG member, I would say that if a consensus in favor is reached, weekly should be the most frequent update rate. Mr.Z-man 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think even weekly might be too frequent. With weekly updates, it will take fewer than 2000 users using the bot for it to make 100,000 edits per year. I would say that if a single timeframe were to be used, perhaps biweekly or monthly. Or alternately, limit the number of edits per time period to something like no more than (average) 3 edits per hour. With 300 users, that will be a roughly 4 day update period, but for 1200 users will be slightly more than biweekly. (Obviously with a hard limit to begin with so that it won't update the same couple users every hour initially). The assumption that this will only be used by a handful of users is not a safe one to make. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): #wikipedia-en ^connect

IRC, officially unofficial. After what happened to StatusBot I don't think the BAG should approve bots that goal is not to benefit Wikipedia content, but it's community. It's an unneeded use of resources. Disk storage doesn't grow on trees. FinalRapture - † ☪ 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just placed it there for informational purposes to indicate that some discussion had taken place on the channel. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposal: Are people of the opinion that it should never automatically update, rather, when someone clicks on purge Only that userbox (nobody else's) gets updated? This will allow editors to update their box with one click, and allow other people to see realtime edits. It will not take up any extra resources, since the update would definitely be done regardless. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically impossible. FWIW, I'd still be opposed to it for other reasons (X! · talk) · @939 · 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be done if the purge userbox link took the user to a toolserver page, a bit like this, except the URL could already contain the name of the page/userbox that needs to be updated. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I submitted a very similar BRFA a while back, EditCountBot, which I withdrew when I saw that there was now consensus for it. Feel free to use any of my proposed source code (see the BRFA) if your bot does get accepted, although I doubt it will be useful since I was writing it in Python. - EdoDodo ^talk 21:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. This obviously does not have consensus, and if it were implemented it would certainly meet the same fate as User:StatusBot: killed by sysadmins. So let's just save the trouble and not do this. I am aware that the proposer of this bot probably intends to try to do this in some manner anyway, with or without bot approval. Please, don't, and save everyone the drama. Anomie ⚔ 00:27, 20 June 2010 (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.