Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Template Maintenance Bot
- 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.
Operator: Sir Arthur Williams
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser, C#
Source code available: Yes
Function overview: Orphaning or other disposal of templates per TFD discussions.
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 1000 pages per month
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No
Function details: There appear to be no bots currently active on TFD tasks. Where an administrator has closed a TFD discussion in a manner which requires a template to be orphaned or otherwise disposed of (subst, replacement, etc), this bot would perform the work.
Discussion
[edit]Good idea for a bot, suitable task, based solely on closed TF discussions. You have no other bots? Probably BAG members will raise concerns specifically related to the types of mistakes a new bot owner can do in this situation, and details about how you go about the task.
It's a somewhat open-ended task for a new bot owner, imo. Also, is this a new name for an older account or have you really been editing for only a month? I'm concerned about this type of task (ongoing as situations arise from TFD discussions) with a new editor. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you're a User:John254 sockpuppet? Let's just close. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ridiculous, and not the proper forum in any case. Can we concentrate on the proposed bot task, instead of making unsubstantiated attacks upon the operator? Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- AThe bot approval process is impacted by sock puppetry. Better to take care of that detail first, then move on to discussion, imo. BAG members may disagree. I've asked your last accuser to look into the matter.[1] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, let's just block everyone who used to edit as an IP / edited another project / otherwise seems to know too much about Wikipedia, and files a BRFA "too soon" as John254. In fact, when someone files a BRFA with almost no edits at all (I'm sure bureaucrats are familiar with plenty of that, having denied many such requests), just block them as John254. Maybe we should add instructions to WP:BRFA: "WARNING: feign ignorance of Wikipedia and make some "mistakes" with your initial edits, and wait at least 3 months before requesting bot approval, or we'll accuse you of being a SOCK!" Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- AThe bot approval process is impacted by sock puppetry. Better to take care of that detail first, then move on to discussion, imo. BAG members may disagree. I've asked your last accuser to look into the matter.[1] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ridiculous, and not the proper forum in any case. Can we concentrate on the proposed bot task, instead of making unsubstantiated attacks upon the operator? Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- You can read the details at [AN/I]. It's not about filing an BRFA "too soon," it's your pattern of edits that aren't even trying. Anyway, I'm sure this is fun for you. I'm off to do other things and will allow other editors to take care of this. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sock puppet. Please close. Thanks. [2] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Denied. Blocked user, possible non-good faith request Q T C 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- 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.