Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 6


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

DASHBot 6
Operator: Tim1357

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: If you want it...

Function overview: Update Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WT:ARS

Edit period(s): Nightly, unless requested by WikiProject to go faster.

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): NA

Already has a bot flag: Yes

Function details: Update list of AfD's who's articles are tagged with rescue

Discussion
 MBisanz  talk 10:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Day 1 Tim1357 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm having some trouble right now (unicode errors). Anyways Ill try to get to it sometime this week. Tim1357 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey, no rush, thanks for the update. I know User:MZMcBride is rather good with troubleshooting unicode, you my try flagging him down on IRC at #wikipedia-BAG.  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey, no rush, thanks for the update. I know User:MZMcBride is rather good with troubleshooting unicode, you my try flagging him down on IRC at #wikipedia-BAG.  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the ability for this bot, in any form, to follow the bot policy. Assuming it worked exactly as intended and wastes no resources at all, it seems little more than a tool for canvasing in it's present form. Why is it presenting a list of AFD's for people to fix articles about? Shouldn't it just provide a list of articles that currently have AFD's running with links or transclusions of the articles? As it is right now, it dosen't seem more than a canvassing tool. Is there really consensus that this is a good thing? Hipocrite (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as the page belongs to WP:ARS, then I think they may do with it as they wish. It is not canvasing if people go to the page to check it. Tim1357 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, they WP:OWN nothing. Secondly, a parallel to that argument is that I own my talk page, so I can do with it as I wish, and get notifications about AFD's people would like me to vote one way or the other on - however, neither they nor I can do so, per WP:CANVASS. The goal of the project is not to vote on AFD's, it's to fix articles so they pass AFD. The bot should link to articles, not AFDs. Hipocrite (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An observation without having thought about it at any great depth: AfD discussions contain valuable evaluation of the failings of an article. Presumably articles get nominated for ARS because they've got half a chance of becoming viable articles.  The AfD discussions can be use as pointers for improving an AfD article. Josh Parris 10:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of corse they do not own that page, but they can do with it what they want. This is not the first time a bot has been commisioned to do this kind of thing. Also, it is not canvasing, as it just lists the articles. If it is esscentially just a filtered version of the AFD page. Tim1357 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I realized I can do this in the bot's user-space and transclude it onto the page. In that case I do not approval So :  Tim1357 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2010 (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.