Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EbeBot


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied.

EbeBot
Operator:

Time filed: 20:40, Thursday September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Autimatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: User:Fbot/Fbot4.java

Function overview: Removes Copy to Wikimedia Commons from files that shouldn't be moved.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 10k

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Removes Copy to Wikimedia Commons from files that eigher:
 * 1) Been already moved;
 * 2) Is a candidate for deletion; or
 * 3) any other reason.

Discussion
This is for the same task as Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 4. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 20:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a particular reason why EbeBot duplicates Fbot's tasks? Did Fbot stop doing this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the task (4) isn't going fast enough, there is a continuous backlog and Fbot cannot go fast enough to reduce the backlog so I think that another bot would be good there.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, this bot task is not officially endorsed by me, but should permitted to run if there is consensus for it. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fbot 4 can edit at 6 edits per minutes, or 360 pages per hour. It would take Fbot 4 just a bit over one day to do all of them... Combined with SvenBot, which does the same thing AFAIK, I don't really see how that's not "fast enough". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SvenBot adds images to be moved, not removes some, this bot is to remove.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 09:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have some misunderstandings of the bot, this bot is to remove (task 4), not add (task #2) like Svenbot. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 15:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe only Headbomb said that with an "afaik" note at that, so I don't think there is any big misunderstanding. The question of why FBot isn't able to complete this fast enough still stands. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the bot function here needs some clarification. What is the "any other reason" in the function description above? Also, for files that have already been moved to Commons, it would be good if the bot did something more sensible than just removing Copy to Wikimedia Commons—e.g., add the appropriate CSD tag. Ucucha (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See FBot's blacklist at User:Fbot/Blacklist2. CSD is hardly applicable in most of the cases. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that this proposed bot is also copying Fbot's source code. Nevertheless, the function description could have been clearer. Ucucha (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think this is. But, while this has nothing to do with bot approval, I personally think that should this bot be approved, it should be given a generic name, not "EbeBot", because that would give undue credit to Ebe123 who merely reused Fastily's code. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 15:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Generic names are optional, and would you want Svenbot to be called "Move to commons tagging bot"?   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 18:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would, and yes, I know they are optional, as noted in my original comment. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 22:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding this correctly, if it's doing the exact same thing that an already-approved bot is doing, I'd rather just let the already-approved bot do what it's doing. If starts malfunctioning, becomes inactive, or is deemed to be performing a mission-critical task, then this bot might be needed (and incidentally, it would be quickly approved, since it'd be using code that's already proven to work). Keep in mind that since it's the exact same code, both bots will be generating and processing work queues in the exact same way, and the task will be accomplished at more or less the same rate&mdash;assuming that the race condition (i.e., the edit conflict) is handled gracefully. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would call this denied due to redundancy of the bot, and lack of the actual need to duplicate the exact same bot twice. ΔT The only constant 16:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * , no case has been made that the task was critical and needed to be performed more quickly than at the usual bot rate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:02, 11 October 2011 (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.