Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 19

In an attempt to consolidate discussions, please direct all comments related to the re-examination of this BRfA to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 19.

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.

Addbot 19

Operator: ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!}

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic (Manual run)

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Overview: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WikiProject.2FTaskforce_Spammer. Messaging wikiprojects

Edit period(s): Run when needed

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

Function Details: Sends out a given message to all wikiprojects. Just a simple modification of my user message bot. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Complete side-note: Assuming this passes (and I think it should, within reason) would you mind coding it as generically as possible? So people could come to you in future and say "I want X delivered to Y WikiProjects. I did some of them manually already, could the bot ignore those?" That would be most helpful. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is already coded, and coded very genericly. It can either use a cat, a plain text list or a list of links. Ill just add one new variable which will be something like $devlivery[ns] for the name space of the delivery. Can be set to "User_talk:" or "Wikipedia:Wikiproject" e.t.c.

It will be very easy to use multiple times for multiple tasks even if I dont do this. its 44 lines of code when you only acctually need 30 :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - to prove the world isn't going to end when you start it up. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trial edits here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant here. All seems good. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Can someone approve or deny this? The sooner it is rolled out the better. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any idea how many projects there are in total? How many edits per run do you expect? MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Addshore/Sandbox2. Per the lists I origionaly got that rom it is 1518 wikiprojects so 1518 edits. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how often this will be running? Who will tell it when to run (A project coordinator or something)? I'm just trying to head off the "Why is this bot spamming us about something we don't want" arguments. MBisanz ^talk 07:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't really know how often it would run, but it's worth running this time at least. Other bots don't ask permission before spamming projects, I think Shepbot just spammed about 1200 of them for a WikiProject Council message. Also we're implementing a news system at WP:AAlerts/News so it shouldn't run all that often if people use the news system instead.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Responsible editor, I trust him to know when to send the messages. MBisanz ^talk 07:53, 5 March 2009 (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.

You're kidding me?

No, you're probably not. This was a test spam? Stop spamming Wikipedia project pages. Enough. --KP Botany (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does say "approved" does it not? §hep ^Talk 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved by whom? Where is the link to the community approval for this? If there is not, stop spamming. If community consensus on this has been reached, link it. --KP Botany (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a task that is commonly approved, and there are plenty of bots already doing it. X clamation point 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KP removed the first line of that above post, which was soon reverted. A strike through of that sentence might be best. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have a grudge against AddBot. I thought the orphan tags were useful on all but species stubs, at least, until I got multiply reverted by the bot, and my concerns were not listened to. Since my concerns aren't being heard, there's no reason to assume that my support of some of the tasks was listened to either, and here you are with a personal attack showing just that.

Let's go back to the topic at hand, and it's not attacking me for "having a grudge." If the task is commonly approved link to its approval. --KP Botany (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I appear to have misread the summary. Sorry about that. X clamation point 02:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~No surprise there that the bot owners group in their flurry of us against them wants personal attacks against editors to be part of the discussion. --KP Botany (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't want a personal attack to stand and I have asked X! to strike it out or remove it on IRC, however removing other's comments is not ideal. Feel free to revert me if you feel strongly about it. —Nn123645 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually removing another editor's clear cut personal attack, and you don't dispute that it is one, is allowed according to the policy/guidelines. You do seem to want it to stand, otherwise you would have taken another moment to simply read further, or think about it. Frankly, it shows exactly what is the problem with this whole issue. I disagreed with one part of the bot's work, because it trashed article space. BAG appears to be on the warpath about that. And, X! is an administrator, his/her personal attacks should probably stand so folks know what is what--like one would hope administrators would know. --KP Botany (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The main reason for my reverting was to preserve the discussion for eventual archival purposes as your comment was a response to X!'s comment and it would have broken the overall flow of the discussion. While I really don't want to get into a policy debate, RPA does state that "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I didn't think X!s comment met that criteria, as, while it was a borderline personal attack, it did not take the shape of a truly malicious attack in the form of the standard "<insert user here> is a <insert profane word here>" or a more high level attack intended to humiliate and degrade the subject, rather it was a mere borderline comment that I truly doubt was intended to be degrading, though it could be interpreted as such. This is a bit of a moot point now since X! has agreed to strike out the comment. —Nn123645 (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section about topic

Please provide a link to the community consensus for this bot task. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page + Wikipedia:BOTREQ#WikiProject.2FTaskforce_Spammer.. And please read WP:POINT.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that requesting a link to the common community consensus is pointed? No, it's not. This is a requirement of bot approval:

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

is harmless
is useful
does not consume resources unnecessarily
performs only tasks for which there is consensus
carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines
uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users

--KP Botany (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that coming here all guns blazing demanding that your personal whims be satisfied before the bot can roll out, not bothering to look at the request thread, failure to assume good faith, personally attacking BAG members (You're kidding me?, Of course the personal attack against me must stand, it's an undisputed area of excellence for bot owners. No surprise there that the bot owners group in their flurry of us against them wants personal attacks against editors to be part of the discussion, etc) and so on is WP:POINTY.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANd, precisely what point are you trying to make? That you disagree vehemently with anything I say, and will continue to do so, no matter how many on topic posts you have to tangentially attack to make your point? I got that quite a while ago. --KP Botany (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx2)While consensus is required for bots, canvassing the entire community to get everyone to respond to every BRFA is not. BRFAs are open to everyone for comment and ultimately it is up to people in the community to keep tabs on it if you want to have input to the process just as you would for RFA, though for controversial requests its a good idea to get community consensus at the appropriate venue. If you would like to request a reexamination of this request you should do so by the process defined in bot policy. —Nn123645 (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good, I'm sure Headbomb will stop by to speak for me and against me. Who's going to get dibs on accusing me of forum shopping? --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c, @ Botany) - What is going on here? I'm totally confused...what, exactly, is the problem with this? I guess that I don't see what the problem is with notifying WikiProjects of important things and why there would not be community consensus for this. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Headbomb, since you're not KP Botany, it's little wonder you can't speak for me. Thanks for trying, I suppose.

What the problem is, is that this isn't news. It was posted on a lot of projects, I guess in the trial run, and I asked about whether we needed more updates and was told we already get them. So, what is the point of this post? Apparently to repeat something that exists already, therefore, it's spam.

There are too many things that are considered important enough to post on all of the projects without any discussion of whether or not it is important to post that on all projects. This is a bot automated task, it should have community consensus. Please don't be confused about that: bot tasks require community consensus, not as much obfuscation and hostility as possible towards anyone who questions any task. --KP Botany (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proper time to question "any task" is during the BRfA where community consensus is asked for. There were no objections by the community so it was approved. §hep ^Talk 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, apparently I can request a re-examination, as noted above, which I have done. And, no, a new page for a sole purpose is not where community consensus is gained. It's gained from the community. Quite a bit of hostility and a multitude of tactics to fight me, eh? It would be more believable if you all colluded off line and came up with a united front. At this point, all you are proving, is you're not united, you don't know what community consensus is, and you're going to fight against having to gain it by individually offering up as much and as varied a resistance as possible.

If community consensus was obtained, link to it. It's already been multiply claimed to be as common as dirt, so a link to this should not be as big an issue, requiring so much unorganized battle. --KP Botany (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this a battle by any means, just a discussion. I am not trying to "fight" you and have no tactics, just stating how I see things. I'll also have to take a rain-check on that "meeting you in person" thing. Since BRfA is designed for community input you should know that this page is where the consensus is of course! (That's 4 here and an extra comment at BOTR that didn't oppose, given the number of botops that watch BOTR I'd take their silence as approval)§hep ^Talk 04:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here I am speaking out against the task, yet I was told this is not the page for it. Please, collude via IRC or e-mail and gain a solid front. Right now you have administrators apparently threatening to block anyone who tries to gain community consensus for the orphan tagging, which means blocking AddBot's owner. This is a bit absurd and desperate. Time to find a way to communicate, not fight.

I disagree with this message being delivered to all WikiProjects by bot. I disagree with AddBot tagging species stubs as orphans and obscuring the actual text of the article in a way that confuses the reader. I disagree with the failure and unwillingness to communicate with the community that BAG continues to flaunt at me. And, I disagree strongly with all of you, particularly administrators who should show a better example, continuing to provoke me in order to attempt to inflame the situation any more than it already is.

Try discussion to gain community consensus. It's not as painful as you might think. --KP Botany (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what the HELL does orphan tagging have to do with WikiProject talk page delivery? §hep ^Talk 05:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Shep. What's the link? And we HAVE consensus. There's only you not liking this for some obscure reason.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

I'm not the one who brought it up. You'll have to start at the top asking those who raised the issue of the orphan tagging. In fact, I'm still just concerned with this particular task here. But, with the machine gun approach of multiple BAG members and admins going after me, additional issues were raised, by others, and I've responded.

By the way, the accusation of forum shopping has just been posted.[1] Thanks for telling me to go elsewhere, Nn123645. --KP Botany (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]