Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SpeakerBot 2

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

Withdrawn by operator.

SpeakerBot 2[edit]

Operator: Andewz111 (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatically, but if problems ensue manually

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: not yet

Function overview: See Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Updating_a_table_weekly

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: See Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Updating_a_table_weekly

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): yes

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

Function details: See Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Updating_a_table_weekly

Discussion[edit]

Please advise when you are able to undertake a trial.

Will you be making your source code available? Josh Parris 02:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But not for now. I can take the trial when I get my ts account, or I can write in java and write now. Puffy (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need a Toolserver account to trial? Josh Parris 07:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, that was *optional*. Puffy (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see what the bot produces today. Josh Parris 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write it today and do the edit. Puffy (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the code will be found here when I'm done. Puffy (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, still writing. Edit will still come. Puffy (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits with the bot account. They are not related to this BFRA. Puffy (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. It appears you are writing the bot in Java, not PHP as you have listed. Secondly I personally feel that this request can be rejected for now seeing as you are requesting a bot flag for a bot you havnt even been fully written yet. A bit premature. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view it as a necessary precondition to have code ready to run; it can be a lot cheaper to run a BRFA and have it knocked back than to code a bot presumptuously; nailing down the requirements in the community discussion saves a lot of heartache associated with code changes if there is no code, so as a result of that operators will be more inclined to agree with sensible suggestions. Josh Parris 14:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you are talking about a clearly inexperianced user who has yet to run an approved bot. The code is important as it shows what level of understanding the user has and thus the chance of things going wrong. Noting that the user had run for RfB a week ago (despite not even being an admin and being grossly inexperianced for the role), and then requested an ACC account before getting it suspended for not reading the documentaion I have serious concerns of maturity and flag whoring. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not try to show off my flags. Yes, your evidence is true. After dealing with my BRFAs, I'll take a short wikibreak to chill off a while, have my rollback flag removed and consider adoption. Open The Windows, sir! 04:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that dont doubt for a second that you have mostly good intentions as I have said in the past, but your methods attract far too many concerns. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If (or when) I get adopted, that'll improve. But for now, I have to try my best to improve. Let's get off user conduct though, if you want to continue let's try resolving the dispute on our talk pages and if no deal can be reached, open up a RFC for me. Anyway, this is for a bot. Open The Windows, sir! 05:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating the operator and the community's trust in them to thoughtfully, competently and reliably operate is part and parcel of a BRFA; regardless of the usefulness and harmlessness of the task, if the community isn't comfortable with the operator then that will have a negative impact on the likelihood of approval. Josh Parris 05:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments above, I've also considered adoption. Also, regarding my flag whoring, I just had my button removed. I consider it useless, sorta. Open The Windows, sir! 05:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been very busy. Sorry, but I have to withdraw. I need another task. Open The Windows, sir! 21:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, re open when you feel ready.

Withdrawn by operator. Tim 1357 ^talk 14:01, 13 June 2010 (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.