Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotMultichill 9

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

Request Expired.

BotMultichill 9[edit]

Operator: Multichill (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:27, Friday May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): Python (pywikipedia)

Source code available: Simple script based on pywikipedia, see here

Function overview: Create lists of listed buildings in Scotland.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Talk:List of listed buildings in Tibbermore

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: About a 1000 pages

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (only creates new pages)

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The bot uses the Scottish listed buildings database to create lists of listed buildings. I already did some tests, see for example List of listed buildings in Tibbermore and List of listed buildings in Tyrie, Aberdeenshire. Multichill (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} A little clearing of the throat here. Don't forget the request! Rcsprinter (lecture) 11:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A few questions, looking at [1]. Have some of the changes made by human contributors been considered for the bot? (e.g., adding the {{KML}} template, wikilinking the county in {{HB Scotland header}}, adding {{Listed-Scotland}}, setting the default sort key correctly). Is the inconsistent use of full stops still a problem (if indeed it was in the first place)? Why did the bot remove all dates? If they're not supposed to be there, please note that they're still added by the code. Thanks, — madman 13:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I merged all the human changes into the bot also based on the feedback. I removed the date because it wasn't considered useful. Anyway, everything is already up and running. Multichill (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — madman 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Trial complete. Multichill (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Really? I don't see any edits this month by BotMultichill. — madman 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's magic. Did you take a look at the most recent 50 edits? Multichill (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean these edits? Why were these edits done before the concerns above were addressed and before the bot was approved for trial?! — madman 23:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you guys were so slow? Multichill (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's unacceptable. Part of what we're required to judge in these requests is conformance with the bot policy and community standards, and this demonstrates a willful disregard for both. — madman 12:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just forgot about this bot request. I'll never get used to the enwp bureaucracy.
  - Do you have feedback on the contents of the edits? Multichill (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A — The point of the "bureaucracy" is twofold: protection for Wikipedia and, most importantly, protection for you. It's for you to demonstrate to us that your bot is safe to unleash across millions(!) of articles on one of the largest and most highly-viewed sites on the internet. Furthermore, should your bot go crazy across even just a few hundred articles, it can be extremely difficult for someone to clean up your mess manually—especially if the articles have intermediate, conflicting changes—and it can even require another bot to be written to fix your mistakes. This quickly makes you enemies with lots of people.

You're theoretically always free to ignore all rules (IAR) and make automated edits without seeking approval here, but it's extremely risky, and doing so can easily result in editors screaming at your talk page, you losing any/all user permissions, and you, personally, being blocked from editing (not to mention it can make future BRFA's a pain in the ass when everyone wants to give you/your bot a metaphorical cavity search to avoid repeats of history). I'm no stranger to the issues of bureaucracy, either, and I've even IARed before with an adminbot a few years back (before later filing the BRFA when I had the chance); however, it was in response to an emergency situation—a massive invasion of open proxies—and I was absolutely certain that it worked flawlessly. As such, not a single complaint was raised, and, true to the spirit of IAR, it clearly benefited the encyclopedia.

B — Are there even any edits to review, apart from the ones madman cited? If so, what are they?

C — Is this BRFA redundant (i.e., is there anything else for the bot to do)?

--slakr^\ talk / 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} --slakr^\ talk / 19:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. — madman 17:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.