Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Josvebot 2


 * 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

Josvebot
Operator:

Time filed: 19:01, Thursday April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: Adding templates like orphan,Empty section and other "help"-templates to New pages using AWB.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Between a few times a day to once a second day.

Estimated number of pages affected: 1 edit/10 sec. 100 edits/17 min. 360 edits/h.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Skips as per AWB-standards.

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No (at enwp; yes at svwp)

Function details: I will start the AWB and log in my bot. I will allow it to add templates, deny Typos and make the AWB skip articles if no template is added. It will be able to do 1 edit per 10 seconds.

Discussion

 * Oppose - Tag bombing is both silly and entirely unhelpful. See Tagging_pages_for_problems, Tag bombing, or Responsible tagging; rather than just tag pages, actually fix them. — Theopolisme ( talk )  13:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per some experience, I'd also agree that, especially for orphan, adding the tag might not entirely be a good idea. However, could you please be more specific about "...and other "help"-templates to New pages."? Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   23:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Answer) Like dead end, uncat, underlinked, overlinked and such things. To the latest 500 new pages. - (t)  Josve05a  (c)  01:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since adding overlinked isn't part of AWB's general fixes, what logic will you be using to determine when to add it? Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How long would there be between page creation and your bot tagging the page?  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 02:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * GoingBatty, Oh, sorry. I thought that AWB had it. If not, no it won't. Addshore, I don't really know. I have to press start manually and it will only be doing the latest 500 pages, in the norder of the newedst first. - (t)  Josve05a  (c)  20:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good idea :/ Firstly you will be template bombing as said above, you will also likely tag many pages that will be deleted shortly after.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 22:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Addshore on this; template bombing, may be unnecessary edits to pages to be deleted soon, anyhow; plus, the operator does not express an understanding of not template bombing within a short time of creation and interfering with good articles being created. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to deny this task. While you can new page patrol using scripts, I'm not sure this is the right use of an automated or semi-automated bot task.  MBisanz  talk 22:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I find myself inclined to oppose this with no offense intended, of course, to the operator. I just don't think automated template-bombing of articles accomplishes anything but a larger backlog, which is already nice and plump to begin with. Perhaps time and resources would be better invested in addressing the issues (linking from other articles, etc.) in a non-bot fashion instead of mass-tagging? Tyrol5   [Talk]  03:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the other editors here, and, with no offense to the operator, oppose this. Tagbombing is not a good thing, and, as others said, you'll be tagging a lot of pages that will be deleted soon after. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 16:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have declined this as I do not feel the task specified (using new pages) has the support of the community.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 19:49, 18 April 2013 (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.