Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QstBot

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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

[edit] QstBot

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: Qst (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): C#/DotNetWikiBot

Function Summary: Tagging article talk pages for WikiProject England

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

Edit rate requested: 5-7 edits per minute

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

Function Details: This bot will go through Category:England and every single England-related subcategory, and will add {{WikiProject England}} to the talk page. Please note that I understand that there are other bots for WikiProject tagging, however Reedy Bot is going through the England stubs, and there approximately 18000 of these alone, therefore meaning there is likely to be another 50,000 articles or so relating to England which need the tag. Qst (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Reedy_Boy/WikiProject_England_Tagging is the C# code used with the DotNetWikiBot framework. More-a-less done, just tweaking and looking for any improvements in it! Reedy Boy 15:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This should definitely not be approved at the minute. See this ANI discussion. --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is about 'rating' - adding stub to existing articles and then adding a message. This bot is intended to simply add the tag to the talk page of related articles, which is a fairly common task. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 15:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of people complaining about the "article falls under the scope of" thing in that thread, thus why I said that this should probably not be approved. --Deskana (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Request on hold. This request is on hold until there's some sort of resolution on AN/I. The BRFA can be re-transcluded to WP:BRFA at that time. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 15:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, some users have relayed concerns to me about the operator proposing this two weeks after a block and with Qst's history, regarding his dispute resolution abilities and reliability with regards to periods of activity - another thing to consider. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that not all subcategories of England may be within the scope of WikiProject England; that's why, traditionally, bot operators generate a category tree, then ask the WikiProject to dictate exactly which categories' members should be tagged. Furthermore, I would not like to see this task approved unless it is given to another bot operator. There are plenty of WikiProject England members active in and responsible to the WikiProject that can handle a .NET bot. — madman bum and angel 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are some members who are active on Wikipedia, but there are none at all who are active in the sense of maintaining the Project page/discussion on the talk page. Qst (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then, it's not really a good idea to mass-tag talk pages, give contributors the impression that this is an active WikiProject, and give the WikiProject more work to do. — madman bum and angel 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is part of my attempt to bring the WikiProject back to life and make it active. The template, {{WikiProject England}} does have a classification system, but if no class/rating is given for it, it will not add into Category:Unassessed England-related articles, hence forth this is almost no work for the project, or at least at this stage. Qst (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Then add yourself to the Members list and revive it. My last word is that, given your propensity to abuse multiple accounts (which is a matter of record), I will not sanction you having another account, especially one with a bot flag. — madman bum and angel 18:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but that was the old me. —Qst (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let it be known, I can completely understand that you would approach this with caution, I don't hold it against you :) Qst (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by operator. Qst (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As Qst's mentor, I can fully endorse Qst to use a bot account constructively. He's been really keen to get the wikiproject up and running again and as far as I can see, provided the bot is free from bugs, would be a great help in doing do. We shouldn't presume that Qst is going to abuse this account, and it would become apparent fairly quickly if he was - and would no doubt be given a quick block. Likewise, if for some reason he was reblocked, I have no doubts that Qst would NOT log into the bot account to evade the block. However, I have one concern - Qst has come under considerable scrutiny since being unbanned with users going through his edits looking for reasons to cause conflict with him in an attempt to unsettle him - this bot may be more ammunition for that and the controversy caused by that could outweigh the benefits. Consider this support from me, and if it is approved, I will of course attempt to keep checks on this account also. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 11 November 2007 (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.