Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Numbo3-bot 2


 * 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 keep vote.svgSymbol support vote.svg Speedily Approved.

Numbo3-bot
Operator: Numbo3 (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: autonomous

Programming Language(s): Python, Perl

Function Summary: interwiki (see initial request); + update of Template:Popular_articles (see example reference), see also this discussion that made me aware of this bureaucracy. Idea of updating such template is from Wikinews.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): continuously (template update: hourly)

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

Function Details: Updates Template:Popular_articles hourly, see also n:Template:Popular_articles (same source/server).

Discussion
Seems fine to me. Support speedy approval. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

While you may not like the bureaucracy, it does help prevent people from running bots to do things that are not supported by the community. For example, without the bureaucracy this recent request would probably have just been run without notice, and much drama would probably have resulted. Sure, it's not perfect, but IMO it's better than nothing. And it's not like there is much bureaucracy, it's just a bit slow to work sometimes. Regarding the block discussed in your linked discussion, blocking unapproved bots is explicitly authorized in the blocking policy.

I note that you replied to the discussion you mentioned at 21:14 UTC, and your bot has edited the template at 22:08 UTC and 23:08 UTC. I do not find that encouraging. Anomie⚔ 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just that the bot edits this wiki beside several other wikis. It does so for that template since a long time, actually (Sept). I would have to stop (abort) the continuously running script/bot for all wikis to be able to change the code; not really a problem, but as long as it's not utterly pressing ... ;-) I do understand very well that editing of many different pages per bot (hidden) is potentially critical and needs approval (bureaucracy is OK there, especially when something is just changed without the need of fixing something), but Template:Popular_articles is only one single & dedicated page that even could have been in my user namespace (first wanted to do so, but then I called it like on Wikinews). --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your inconvenience is not really a concern, and unless we decide to ignore the blocking policy your bot should be re-blocked. IAR doesn't really apply, as I don't see how blocking your bot would prevent anyone from improving the encyclopedia. None the less, I'm not going to call for a block at this time as it is true that editing the one template isn't actually causing any problems.
 * I'm more concerned about your apparent lack of concern for running your bot in line with community consensus as reflected in the bot and blocking policies. Anomie⚔ 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To show my commitment towards a community consensus I now have paused the bot task for you (although I thought that a dedicated page shouldn't be problematic); bot will not be restartable some time for this task. --- Sorry for concerning you, Numbo3 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its been working without incident for 3 months now and people are actually using that template, . Mr.Z-man 17:59, 13 December 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.