Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NothingBot


 * 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 Symbol delete vote.svg Denied.

NothingBot
Operator:  Not hing 4 44  Go Irish!

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted

Programming Language(s):AWB

Function Summary: userfy pages to correct namespace

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

Edit rate requested: 10 edits per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function Details: My bot will userfy controversial pages that don't belong in proper namespace. It will also help via userbox migration. It is manually assisted by me, to do certain tasks. If it reads a certain phrase such as "i hate wikipedia" on a userbox, then it userfies it.

Discussion
How will you determine controversial pages? How will you know if their is consensus for a page to be moved? I think you will need sperate requests for approval for the userbox migration and the controversal pages. -- maelgwn - talk 02:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to say I disagree with Bots touching controversial pages. If a page is controversial, it should be discussed somewhere like XFD and reach a consensus.  From there, I don't see the benefit to having a bot try to read the closing admin's interpretation to mean "userfy" and then move it.  Far less risky to just have the admin click "move".  And per USERBOX there are 3 possible namespaces userboxes can exist in.  How could a bot know which one is the right one?   MBisanz  talk 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I'm 100% clear on what you plan to do with the bot, can you elaborate please? SQL Query me! 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would just like to point at the user's block log and note that they were indefinitely blocked for various reasons including, though not restricted to, "disruption through moving userfied content back to mainspace" less than a month ago before being given a second chance. George The Dragon (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed. This will be manually assisted and will identify contoroversial as a userbox (e.g. if nothing bot reads "wikipedia sucks" on a userbox, it will userfy it to its creator.  Not hing 4 44  Go Irish! 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see your algorithm for determining which userboxes ought to be userfied. It's not clear to me that a bot can adequately determine that a userbox is "divisive" or "controversial" by automatic analysis, with a sufficiently low rate of false positives. — Werdna talk 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want to take it for a trial and see?  No th ing  4 4  4   19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to see the detection rules before we allow a trial on this one. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 20:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its in AWB, so I manually assist it. Like, it will be availible when the operator is. But it still is a bot, though. Its automatic, though I do oversee it.  No th ing   4 4  4   20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think even a human-assisted bot would be able to do the job -- even humans can have a hard time identifying divisive or controversial userboxes. --Carnildo (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just let me give it a test drive.  No th ing  4 4  4   21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I give it a testdrive?  No th ing  4 4  4   21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Operator refuses to answer fundamental questions about the bot, the task seems to be impossible to do with a bot, and the community has expressed (quietly) concerns with the operator's suitability. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (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.