Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DyceBot 3

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

Approved.

DyceBot

Operator: Dycedarg ж

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic and unsupervised

Programming Language(s): AutoWikiBrowser using the Kingbotk plugin

Function Summary: WikiProject tagging

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Whenever it is requested

Edit rate requested: 10 edits per minute

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

Function Details: Every so often I've fulfilled wikiproject tagging requests that have been on the bot request page a while using the plugin in semiautomated mode, and I would like to be able to fulfill them in a fully automated fashion in the future. I know that there are a bunch of bots that do this exact same thing already, but as there is currently a request on the page from March it's clear that there's enough work to go around. To be clear for those not fully aware of what the plugin does: I will be adding wikiproject tags to talk pages based upon categories or stub templates as requested by the projects. The plugin also allows the auto-assessing of stub articles, and will place all project tags inside project banner shells if they exist. If you want to confirm my knowledge on how to use the plugin you can review my contribs; I've done quite a bit of manual tagging with it. I've seen the various outbreaks of drama over mistagging and overtagging; I have every intention of looking through the categories given to me by the projects to confirm appropriate levels of relevance. I always use the most recent SVN revision of AWB and the plugin, and every time I update I make sure they haven't broken anything before making mass edits.

Discussion

User:John Bot Does this, But I have no problems with more :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does User:SoxBot. Soxred93 | talk bot 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And BetacommandBot, and SatyrBot, and Kingbotk, and Reedy Bot, and in all probability a half dozen others I can't think of off the top of my head. Yes, I know there are a bunch of bots around doing this, my point is that it doesn't hurt to have another one allowed to do it, and as there is a virtually never ending stream of tagging to be done I don't think anyone's going to be short of work.--Dycedarg ж 01:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As does SQLBot, but, so long as it operates as designed, I really don't see the harm in more of the same. SQL ^{Query me!} 09:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., one category run. SQL ^{Query me!} 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this task is related to Dycebot task 1 and Dycebot task 2? AKAF (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it need to be? SQL ^{Query me!} 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Issue: Splitting bots into multiple user accounts, it appears to be an unrelated task which would generate a large number of edits. AKAF (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a suggestion on a talkpage. While possibly a good idea, by no means a requirement. SQL ^{Query me!} 12:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far it is nothing more than a couple of discussions on a couple of talkpages. It was included in the recent rewrite of WP:BOT, but I removed it pending a discussion resulting in actual consensus.--Dycedarg ж 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As entered at betacommand's current RFAr by Martinp23 (reform I), the BAG appears to believe that this is the only valid extant discussion on the bot approval process, so to say that it's "couple of discussions on a couple of talkpages" is inaccurate. It is the approved discussion as to the functioning of the bot approval process, as presented to Arbcom by the BAG, and in this discussion, a split decision exists (1:4) for the splitting of bots. AKAF (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pending arbcom workshop items, aren't binding, and have no relevance here. SQL ^{Query me!} 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that they were. I was suggesting that the BAG discussion after Martin's request for comments on the subject might possibly have some relevance. AKAF (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I ran it through the talk pages of all pages transcluding {{Rpg-stub}} adding {{RPGproject}} as requested here.--Dycedarg ж 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:46, 12 April 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.