Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Mike's bot account

+Bot
I left a message about this on the administrator's noticeboard. Tonight, Mike's bot account was started on a task to fix template substitutions, as part of the whole template reorganization project. I granted him the bot flag temporarily, to prevent the RC feed from being too badly disrupted. I think that this exercise is a demonstration that mike's bot is very capable of performing multiple page edits in a short period of time, and of completely flooding the RC feed. I cannot anticipate how may tasks of this magnitude he will be working on, so I cannot say with certainty that a permanent granting of the flag is absolutely necessary. As some assurance, the flag can be removed if the bot becomes "retired", however. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a note on WB:AN to this effect, but it should get noted here as well. I'm planning on deleting the speedy delete images once I can get it to work. Nobody raised any objections here, so it's happening soon, unless you speak up. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * - I would require some convincing of a bot with admin status (either running the bot on an admin account or a bot RfA) -- Herby talk thyme 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * - Precisely. Here's a question: Mike, what other tasks are you planning on performing that will require permanent bot account privileges? I also wouldn't support this until the pertinent deletion bug is fixed. -within focus 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that this bot flag nomination was mostly about protecting the RC feed, not about producing a prototype "admin bot". I am not proposing that this account be given admin privledges at all (unless mike's bot is such that this account can use the privledges of his other account, which is something i dont think is possible). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * - keep in mind that one of our admins already has an automatic deletion script... -- SB_Johnny | PA! 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So then let's use that for this upcoming task ... -within focus 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * - While I can't read his mind, he has made his bot on Wikiversity available for "on-call" work when someone needs it, and I'd assume he'll do the same here. It's good to have someone to call on when you want a bunch of automatic edits done. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 22:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I would need permanent bot status for that account; though if it's not mass edits, I wouldn't be using that account. I have no intention of using it to hide any edits that are not minor, repetitious tasks, which is precisely what the bot flag is for. I think my edit history has shown my ability and intention to segregate edits that are bot-like and non-bot-like between the two accounts. If you prefer, it could be non-permanent (ie. apply for one set of edits and remove until the next set. That does add work for whoever has to change the bot status as well as raises interesting questions about how we decide when the flag gets added - is there another discussion like this each time, or would it just be a request to a bureaucrat? ...)
 * I certainly don't need to do the deletions with this account, nor use AWB through my normal account for those deletions - especially considering that a) there aren't as many as I thought and b) apparently another admin has a deletion script which could be suitable for the task and c) this bug/mystery isn't solved yet, and may not be solved until the next version if it is a real bug. they're already gone.
 * As for requests for mass edits, I'm certainly happy to do anything I'm able to. There are plenty of tasks that come up from time to time that you may want to have (semi-)automated, and I'm perfectly willing to fulfill those requests here and on en.wv.
 * I hope that addressed the above concerns. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that addressed the above concerns. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As per SB Johnny. --Remi 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * - This is a rather odd discussion, but it seems at this point that there are 2 in support and none opposing, so I intend to flag the account tomorrow (after 7 days) if there are no objections. Bot status really is no big deal (in fact a far smaller deal than adminship, which is also no big deal), and Mike.lifeguard (the bot's owner) is already a trusted member of the community in any case. The other user with an AWB bot account (Herbythyme) recently announced that he doesn't want to edit here, so Mike is apparently the only game in town now. -- SB_Johnny  | PA! 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If he's the only AWB around then I would although based on past experience Herby only leaves for short periods of time. I'm not wild about numerous bots existing when we could go to a few standard places for help, but if this is as good as it will get then I will go along with it. -within focus  02:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit unfair to Herby to take him for granted. He's become rather accustomed to the comparatively smooth operations at commons and meta (similar for me!), so we need to forgive him if he wants to take a break from us from time to time. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot see any possible harm in running another bot, Mike has my full support on this and he has already demonstrated a need for the bot flag. Urbane   (Talk)   (Contributions)  06:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - bot status granted. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

-Bot
I'm proposing the bot flag on this account should be removed. While the bot is still occasionally active, the owner / operater (Mike.lifeguard) isn't and so the bot isn't being supervised. In the circumstances I think it would be better if the bot's edits were visible on RC. QU TalkQu 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely yes. Chazz (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but. Are we sure that he isn't active?  I know he hasn't made any recent edits but that doesn't mean he hasn't been signing in and supervising the bot.  Anyone contacted Mike about this?--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * His talk page says he is retired and he's been inactive here since then. I like to take people at their word - if he says he's retired then he's retired and for me that includes not supervising a bot here. I've not contacted him. QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's made 15 edits on meta in 2011, the most recent one in September.
 * Re the nature of his retirement: []. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me clarify my view. The "bot" flag is not a "privilege" in the sense that the reviewer or rollback flags might be viewed. That is because it is not granted for the benefit of the bot, or the bot operator, it is for the benefit of other editors who patrol Recent Changes. My view is very clear that this is not a case of "removing a privilege" from Mike, it's about whether it helps or hinders other editors to have the bots edits hidden. You can see this is the way it is considered by the fact that the vast majority of discussions about the bot flag are initiated by editors complaining about RC flooding, not by the operator seeking it.


 * Whether or not Mike is active anywhere (and I did check his global contributions) he is clearly not active here and the work the bot is supposed to do - such as clearing down the sandbox - is happening only sporadically. It was the failure of the sandbox reset to happen properly that made me going looking for what was wrong. Having determined that the bot was probably only active when Mike was logged on elsewhere and therefore the edit count was very low and the chances were high that nobody was checking the bot's behaviour it seemed sensible to remove the flag. That's because if it goes wrong nobody will spot it.


 * Removing the flag from a bot that doesn't need it because it hardly generates any changes doesn't feel like a case for extended debate. A request to add the bot flag to such a low edit count account would be denied as unnecessary, so the same should apply in reverse - in my opinion. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. --ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should remove the flag, per QU comments about apply the same rule in reverse. Thenub314 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable request. – Adrignola discuss 01:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

✅ <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 13:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)