Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. withdrawn (refiled with a better task).

Erik9bot
Operator: Erik9 (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually started and supervised when running, performs edits automatically.

Programming Language(s): Uses AWB with autosave function

Function Overview: Replaces transclusions of unprotected template redirects to protected HRT with transclusions of the protected templates. Also performs template replacement, substitution, and other template maintenance if authorized by consensus at TFD or other community discussions.

Edit period(s): continuous, as needed

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

Function Details: Wikipedia currently has many templates, such as Template:WPBIO, which are unprotected redirects to protected HRT, such as Template:WPBiography. Extensive use of these redirects can turn the redirects themselves into HRT which could allow every page on which they are transcluded to be vandalized simultaneously. While the redirects could also be protected, the proliferation of protected pages is discouraged by PROT which seeks to limit page protection to those situations in which it is absolutely necessary. This bot would replace transclusions of unprotected template redirects with transclusions of the protected HRT, eliminating the danger posed by the unprotected redirects. Specific text replacements would be manually entered into AWB, which would perform them automatically using the autosave function available for approved bots, subject to operator supervision at all times when running. Many TFD discussions are closed with outcomes to substitute or replace all instances of a template. On occasion, community discussions elsewhere authorize the same action. When such template maintenance could be performed by text replacements or substitutions available in AWB, this bot would be used for the purpose, also subject to operator supervision when running.

Discussion
This seems to be based on a rather strange interpretation of the protection policy. The templates themselves are already protected, I don't see why it would matter if the redirects are too. I can't imagine someone raising a fuss over it. If there are lots redirects that are only used a handful of times, these could probably be migrated and deleted, but making thousands of edits that result in no noticeable change to avoid having to protect a single redirect seems rather silly and inefficient. As for the other tasks, I'm rather wary to give such wide approval - "other template maintenance" - especially to a new user. As far as I know we have no shortage of bots to do template work. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the need to update redirects to HRTs, unless there are, say <100 transclusions. I think that protection would be the best option, as per Mr. Z-Man. I know the policy says to only protect pages when necessary, but what harm would come from protecting these redirects, especially compared to the benefit gained in preventing widespread template vandalism?  Richard 0612  21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments above, I'm withdrawing the portion of this BRFA relating to replacement of redirects to HRTs. As far as "other template maintenance", this is restricted by the bot only being approved for doing this per TFD or equivalent community discussions -- I wouldn't start substituting, replacing, or removing templates on my own initiative. I think we could always use more help with these tasks. Erik9 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.