Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Mike's bot account

+Bot

Request withdrawn – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I just got AWB so I could do a bunch of things. The first 2 tasks I want to do are to subst: all instances of {{no license}} and {{nld}}; I'm sure I (or you) can come up with similar tasks for me to do through this account. Mike's bot account 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Oppose - We don't all need bot accounts. There are existing bots like User:Herbys bot that can take care of this if it's just an AWB task. -withinfocus 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Comment - By that logic, we'd only have one bot (for things with AWB), and everyone would ask the owner of it to do everything. Why shouldn't we spread the workload between multiple users? When I see a task I want done I'll do it with mine, and when Herby sees a task he wants done, he can do it with his... – Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[]
We already have several bots here that can do plenty of things. What we don't need is tons of bots that are seldom used. Admins and other users' getting their own bot accounts sets a bad precedent in my mind that we all need them to get things done around here. Existing resources can be pooled. -withinfocus 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Well, it's not actually a bot - it's me working quickly; I may not even use AWB for everything - tabbed browsing in Firefox has served me well in the past. It's just a flag so you don't have to look at me making large number of similar edits in RC. I'll be making these edits regardless, so it's really just a matter of whether you want to see them. If folks do, then that's fine. If not, also fine. To be honest, I don't know how many edits I'll be making, or how fast. I only thought to ask for a flag because I saw the changes I made to First Aid in RC, and it was a solid block of edits that were all essentially the same. And First Aid is a small book; making sure that these templates are substituted will probably be a bigger job. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[]
I'm quite familiar with the fact that bots are hidden from RC, but it's the precedent of getting the bot flag set on an account that sets a sort of permanence to that account as being a bot resource for the future. This shouldn't inhibit you from using anything (appropriately) to do your work and if you need to hide work in the future you can tap an already registered and experienced bot account. -withinfocus 23:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Many of the bot flags that we have given out in the past are basically unused. I can't name a single bot who has been run so frequently that it requires the bot flag. To that degree, I can understand your apprehension in granting this flag at all (especially since we haven't really de-flagged any dormant bots). I don't think that means we can't grant new flags, it just means we should wait to see a demonstration that a botflag is needed before we grant it. If mike has a lot of work to do and the ability to do it, he should be allowed to go crazy without having to contract out to an existing bot account. More practical then restricting new flags harshly would be to try and re-evaluate flags for unused bot accounts. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Support - If he's going to make automated edits, it's better to have them flagged so that the RC feed doesn't clog up. Besides, Herbythyme is a busy guy, and there's no reason why the onus should be on him every time we need AWB-type tasks performed. --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Oppose - much as I appreciate Mike's efforts here, I don't think I'd be comfortable with him making large changes effectively hidden from RC through a bot flag without some other oversight. Webaware talk 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Comment - I have no strong feelings about a bot flag here. However don't base the decision on my bot account. The little spare time I have I would be more likely to use elsewhere these days. There are too many frustrations here, sorry. --Herby talk thyme 08:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Support I see no problems with another bot. ~ Wikihermit 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Oppose. But let me prefix this by saying that I am not against your use of the account, nor the use of AWB to perform tasks. I've used AWB in the past without a bot flag, I've used various other bot programs as well on an account without the flag. The flag is not a license to use a bot, you are free to use one if you want to use it. The flag is used to hide the bot's edits from overwhelming the RC feed. Start using the bot, demonstrate that it is an RC menance, and then we will gladly give you the flag when we see how badly we are inconvenienced without the flag. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[]
lol. And to think I was trying to be nice to the RC-watchers. Done and done. I'll use it without the flag, and we'll see what happens. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[]

+Bot

I left a message about this on the administrator's noticeboard. Tonight, Mike's bot account was started on a task to fix template substitutions, as part of the whole template reorganization project. I granted him the bot flag temporarily, to prevent the RC feed from being too badly disrupted. I think that this exercise is a demonstration that mike's bot is very capable of performing multiple page edits in a short period of time, and of completely flooding the RC feed. I cannot anticipate how may tasks of this magnitude he will be working on, so I cannot say with certainty that a permanent granting of the flag is absolutely necessary. As some assurance, the flag can be removed if the bot becomes "retired", however. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]

I made a note on WB:AN to this effect, but it should get noted here as well. I'm planning on deleting the speedy delete images once I can get it to work. Nobody raised any objections here, so it's happening soon, unless you speak up. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - I would require some convincing of a bot with admin status (either running the bot on an admin account or a bot RfA) --Herby talk thyme 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - Precisely. Here's a question: Mike, what other tasks are you planning on performing that will require permanent bot account privileges? I also wouldn't support this until the pertinent deletion bug is fixed. -withinfocus 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I have to admit that this bot flag nomination was mostly about protecting the RC feed, not about producing a prototype "admin bot". I am not proposing that this account be given admin privledges at all (unless mike's bot is such that this account can use the privledges of his other account, which is something i dont think is possible). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Support - While I can't read his mind, he has made his bot on Wikiversity available for "on-call" work when someone needs it, and I'd assume he'll do the same here. It's good to have someone to call on when you want a bunch of automatic edits done. --SB_Johnny | PA! 22:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[]
Comment
  • I don't know that I would need permanent bot status for that account; though if it's not mass edits, I wouldn't be using that account. I have no intention of using it to hide any edits that are not minor, repetitious tasks, which is precisely what the bot flag is for. I think my edit history has shown my ability and intention to segregate edits that are bot-like and non-bot-like between the two accounts. If you prefer, it could be non-permanent (ie. apply for one set of edits and remove until the next set. That does add work for whoever has to change the bot status as well as raises interesting questions about how we decide when the flag gets added - is there another discussion like this each time, or would it just be a request to a bureaucrat? ...)
  • I certainly don't need to do the deletions with this account, nor use AWB through my normal account for those deletions - especially considering that a) there aren't as many as I thought and b) apparently another admin has a deletion script which could be suitable for the task and c) this bug/mystery isn't solved yet, and may not be solved until the next version if it is a real bug. they're already gone.
  • As for requests for mass edits, I'm certainly happy to do anything I'm able to. There are plenty of tasks that come up from time to time that you may want to have (semi-)automated, and I'm perfectly willing to fulfill those requests here and on en.wv.
  • I hope that addressed the above concerns. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - This is a rather odd discussion, but it seems at this point that there are 2 in support and none opposing, so I intend to flag the account tomorrow (after 7 days) if there are no objections. Bot status really is no big deal (in fact a far smaller deal than adminship, which is also no big deal), and Mike.lifeguard (the bot's owner) is already a trusted member of the community in any case. The other user with an AWB bot account (Herbythyme) recently announced that he doesn't want to edit here, so Mike is apparently the only game in town now. --SB_Johnny | PA! 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • If he's the only AWB around then I would Support although based on past experience Herby only leaves for short periods of time. I'm not wild about numerous bots existing when we could go to a few standard places for help, but if this is as good as it will get then I will go along with it. -withinfocus 02:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • I think it's a bit unfair to Herby to take him for granted. He's become rather accustomed to the comparatively smooth operations at commons and meta (similar for me!), so we need to forgive him if he wants to take a break from us from time to time. --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Support I cannot see any possible harm in running another bot, Mike has my full support on this and he has already demonstrated a need for the bot flag. Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 06:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[]

-Bot

I'm proposing the bot flag on this account should be removed. While the bot is still occasionally active, the owner / operater (Mike.lifeguard) isn't and so the bot isn't being supervised. In the circumstances I think it would be better if the bot's edits were visible on RC. QU TalkQu 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Makes sense. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Yes. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Absolutely yes. Chazz (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Yes but. Are we sure that he isn't active? I know he hasn't made any recent edits but that doesn't mean he hasn't been signing in and supervising the bot. Anyone contacted Mike about this?--ЗAНИA talk 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[]
His talk page says he is retired and he's been inactive here since then. I like to take people at their word - if he says he's retired then he's retired and for me that includes not supervising a bot here. I've not contacted him. QU TalkQu 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[]
He's made 15 edits on meta in 2011, the most recent one in September.
Re the nature of his retirement: [1]. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Okay, let me clarify my view. The "bot" flag is not a "privilege" in the sense that the reviewer or rollback flags might be viewed. That is because it is not granted for the benefit of the bot, or the bot operator, it is for the benefit of other editors who patrol Recent Changes. My view is very clear that this is not a case of "removing a privilege" from Mike, it's about whether it helps or hinders other editors to have the bots edits hidden. You can see this is the way it is considered by the fact that the vast majority of discussions about the bot flag are initiated by editors complaining about RC flooding, not by the operator seeking it.
Whether or not Mike is active anywhere (and I did check his global contributions) he is clearly not active here and the work the bot is supposed to do - such as clearing down the sandbox - is happening only sporadically. It was the failure of the sandbox reset to happen properly that made me going looking for what was wrong. Having determined that the bot was probably only active when Mike was logged on elsewhere and therefore the edit count was very low and the chances were high that nobody was checking the bot's behaviour it seemed sensible to remove the flag. That's because if it goes wrong nobody will spot it.
Removing the flag from a bot that doesn't need it because it hardly generates any changes doesn't feel like a case for extended debate. A request to add the bot flag to such a low edit count account would be denied as unnecessary, so the same should apply in reverse - in my opinion. QU TalkQu 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[]
OK. --ЗAНИA talk 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[]


I think we should remove the flag, per QU comments about apply the same rule in reverse. Thenub314 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Seems like a reasonable request. – Adrignola discuss 01:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Done QU TalkQu 13:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[]

This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.