Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NothingBot (2nd request)

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

Denied.

NothingBot edit

Operator: Nothing 444

Automatic or Manually Assisted:Manually assisted

Programming Language(s):AutoWikiBrowser

Function Summary:Places talkback template on users talkpage

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):In between daily and weekly

Edit rate requested: 10 edits per minute

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

Function Details:This bot is totally different from the first request. This bot adds the talkback template on their talkpage of requested pages when they are edited. It can also be used for newsletters and notifications. Just tell it and it will go when Me, the operator is availible.

Discussion edit

How would it know when to put the {{talkback}} template? This bot is manual, and personally 10 EPM is a little high (my opinion) - Milk's favorite Cookie 00:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if my talkback comment was, "Ok, I'll look at this and get back to you later". I wouldn't want to bother with a talkback there, since it would only be if the person was watching my page, and the bot wouldn't know not to leave it. And I do find talkback annoying, why promote it? What sort of technical specs are you using to identify posts and stuff? MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which language is it written? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remain opposed to this user operating a bot. I do not believe he has the experience necessary or the familiarity with the community's norms. - Philippe 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused about how a manual bot can leave automatic talkback tags. I can see the tags being left hours later after they are no longer relevant. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with rspeer on this one. How will you be detecting when talkback tags are required? What algorithm would you use to determine who's in the conversation? SQL ^{Query me!} 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its manually assisted, so it would know. I even tested it on the sandbox. Nothing 444 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explanded how it knows, and what programming language it uses --Chris 03:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will it use some kind of opt-in list? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see this bot doing anything useful. If the talkback template is needed the user should add it to the other user's talk page. As well as this I still don't understand how the bot is meant to work, you're being very vague. I move that this request be declined --Chris 12:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of this. If it's manually-assisted, why doesn't the user add the template themselves, instead of having to ask you? — Werdna talk 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest rejecting this request for approval. Manually assisted edits are not "bot"s where there is no automation whatsoever, this task cannot be completed through AutoWikiBrowser with any degree of automation, and there is strong logistical hurdles and concerns about usefulness, which the proposed operator has not replied to, that mean this "bot" will not be approved at this time. Daniel (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. (non-BAG-member-close) To eschew pointless bureaucracy... it's obvious that this bot is pointless or ridiculously poorly explained, and also, the requester can't be trusted, I blocked him for 72 hours for disruption. I think the consensus here is overwhelming, especially by looking at BAG member's comments: MaxSem, Chris G, Wedrna, Daniel, etc... Maxim_(talk) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.