Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

Bots noticeboard

Here we coordinate and discuss Wikipedia issues related to bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our bot policy and know where to post your issue. Do not post here if you came to discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at WP:BOTISSUE discuss general questions about the MediaWiki software and syntax. We have the village pump's technical section for that request approval for your new bot. Here is where you should do it request new functionality for bots. Share your ideas at the dedicated page

pywikipedia

Hi all,

I've been playing with pywikipedia a little bit in - and so far using it only to read and parse pages (which has been really quite useful for a number of things). I'd like to move towards using pywikipedia to make changes in a 'approved by human' way.

Now, it's trivial for me to, say, print out the original wikitext of a page/section and then print out the proposed new text and ask the user at the command line if they approve the change - but it would be much more useful/fancy, if when the pywikipedia script had an edit that it wanted to make, it opened up a browser window and gave a preview page that the editor could view. My question is: is that sort of functionally buried anywhere in the pywikipedia librarys? and if not are there any approximations I could use? Fayedizard (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You will need to use a tricky library such as selenium if you want to have that degree of control over a web browser. Python's standard webbrowser module is simple, but offers basic control. →Σσς. 08:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

ah, clever, I use selenium from java - it hadn't occurred to me I could play it though python (obvious in hindsight) - thanks! :) Fayedizard (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also written a shim for making web tools out of pywikibot scripts. See tools:~dispenser/sources/htmlput.py. — Dispenser 13:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

VIAFbot - approved?

Is VIAFbot (talk · contribs) an approved bot or in the process of getting approval? I see a lot of test edits from it today, and it looks like it may be a port from or otherwise related to de.wikipedia. I'm not an expert on bots; that's why I'm asking here before acting. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. Blocked. Anomie⚔ 02:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot

I have blocked the seemingly unapproved Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs), and opened a discussion at the incidents board. Input from those familiar with bots/bot policy would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

Is there something wrong with the bot used for giving updates with assessments in WikiProject? WP:LT/A has not been updated for over a month. Also, manually accessing the bot through toolserver is apprently forbidden, according to this. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the bot was down for a few weeks. It started working again today. See here for latest status. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Did someone seriously approve a bot to spam people?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just received a newsletter that I never asked for The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1), and whoever is behind it is forcing editors to add their names to Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterOptOut to stop being spammed. I am not involved in this process, I do not want to be involved, and I should not have to be put on some list of shame for something that some other editor thought was important. I can't believe that the process actually approved a newsletter that was opt-out instead of opt-in, that's crazy. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

EdwardsBot is a bot that is designed to send out newsletters based on a request from an approved user. Based on some digging, the list for the DRN newsletter is located at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterList. You probably want to talk to Ocaasi who sent out the newsletter. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 19:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. Participating in a WP board is not an opt-in to be spammed. Not okay, and I'm surprised that there isn't anything in guidelines forbidding users from signing up others to receive spam without their permission. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Irony is a "dispute resolution" newsletter causing strife and disruption, but here we are. As with others, I agree that newsletters should always be opt-in only. This is, however, not a fault of EdwardsBot. It is a poor process decision on the part of the newsletter's organizers. Resolute 19:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I, too, am unpleasantly surprised at being spammed on the dubious grounds that I am apparently the 441st-most-frequent-poster at WP:ANI. I've left a note to User:Ocaasi communicating that, I hope reasonably politely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's have them blocked for mass disruption of the project.TMCk (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First let me apologize to anyone who is upset. A few precautions were taken to minimize the disruption here:

• The full newsletter was not sent, only a link to the newsletter
• Only editors who were highly and recently active in dispute resolution received the link
• An opt-out list was provided immediately
• The issue was raised at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents prior to the mailing: link to discussion

I hope that mitigates some of the frustration here. I'll wait for more people to comment. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Only editors who were highly and recently active in dispute resolution received the link."? That's complete bull.TMCk (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. He spammed an extract from a new newsletter to people who didn't ask for it. He didn't moon Jimbo or delete the main page. AGK [•] 19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)He (or they?) forced me to opt. out of being spammed in the future. That's not ok.TMCk (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I understand that contributors may need a venue to express frustration regarding how this bot has been utilized right now, but please keep it civil or the discussion will be closed. The bot's approval is not the issue here. — madman 20:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, depends on how you want to define "highly and recently active". 50 ANI posts since January 1? That bar might be a little low. I'm actually surprised that is how I got on the list (and I' 208th, beat you FisherQueen!) rather than being involved in two arbitration cases this year. Overall, I think this was well meaning, but I do think that the onus should be reversed. The newsletter went out, everyone knows about it. Those who want it can now opt-in. I certainly agree with ideas like promoting it through the Signpost - Try to get some space within the Signpost's arbitration section for brief overviews of what this newsletter intends to convey. Resolute 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) This is really not acceptable. AGK [•] 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

AGK, can you be more specific about what you dislike about the list or otherwise? I recognize that people hate feeling spammed, but I thought that list was actually a constructive effort to target editors more narrowly. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Narrowly? Based on number of edits to ANI?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but based on a rather low number of edits over a 20 month period. A person needed only to average 2.5 edits per month to ANI to end up on this list. That is not exactly narrow. And then there is the rather amusing number of retired and banned editors on the list. Resolute 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it's obvious that this was a mistake. Please delete both user lists and in future do not create opt-out lists. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Opt-in not opt-out. We have to actually debate this internal spam? With the excuse of "Lack of awareness - if no-one knows about it, they won't know to opt-in" [1]? You could use that excuse for anything you want to advertise on the project. The linked supposed approval discussion had four participants discussing it for one day. That's it. And this was justification for spamming 985 recipients? Umm, no. Shut down the opt-out list, make the whole thing opt-in for the next newsletter (if there is one). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  Of course now there is no more lack of awareness; people already know about it, because they were spammed. So just add an opt-in to the newsletter itself, and everything is resolved. I was very irritated by the spam, but I don't think it was anything but good-intentioned. Again, I hope the mistake itself is not in question, just the outcome. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, you're right. I have no problem doing opt-in from here on out. I am only wondering if once the majority of people have expressed their frustration and added themselves to the opt-out list, if the remainder would not mind receiving it. But, needless to say, we won't send out another edition again until we know we have this resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  Did you know that, according to this survey, half of violent crimes in the US are not reported? You can't assume that somebody wants something because they never told you they didn't after you forced it on them. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  Fair point. Assuming that only those who were vocal about their opposition were opposed to it might miss the mark. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• First, I would change the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter to reflect the future of the newsletter being opt-in only, with a link to a page where people can opt-in, perhaps Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterOptIn. Second, before you release another newsletter, consider having other eyes look at it before release. There are a number of copy editing errors in this copy that would have easily been picked up by another set of eyes. Third, before you attempt any other sort of new ideas from the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project that will impact more than just those of you interested in the project, start an RfC or use some mechanism to gauge community consensus for the action before undertaking that action. This was a half baked process, and you have no doubt caused a significant amount of animosity to be brought to bear against your efforts. A sampling of the edit summaries at the OptOut history should be enough to motivate you to not get this wrong next time. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Also: adding names to the opt out list misses the point entirely. Shut down the list, make the newsletter opt-in only from this point forward. While this edit was less than civil, the intent is spot on, and I've removed myself from the list too. I am confident you will not make the same mistake of sending out spam again, so this list is unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm... I was told that saying "thank you" was very civil. I'll look into this. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks please, This really isn't that big of a deal. They sent a newsletter. If you don't want it just ignore it or delete it. Its no different than a user leaving one of those useless love kittens from the Heart tab. It really doesn't deserve this much attention or agitation. Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of anyone sending out 985 useless love kittens from the heart tab :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• The problem with mildly irritating hundreds of people is that it distills into a large amount of total irritation. Also this is a really bad precedent. The fix seems simple, as I've mentioned above, but it seems that not everyone is on-board. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi does not seem to be getting the message. If it happens again, it will be a big deal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Delicious carbuncle. I've taken people's criticism very seriously here. We will not do things the same way again. What am I missing? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi, I'm sure your intentions are good, but statements like "I am only wondering if once the majority of people have expressed their frustration and added themselves to the opt-out list, if the remainder would not mind receiving it" make me think you have not understood what people were saying about doing things in this way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That was one quick response he made while this was still going on, if you read above he later says "Assuming that only those who were vocal about their opposition were opposed to it might miss the mark"; I do not think there are any more lessons to be learned here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ocaasi for removing me from the list. Add me to the list of people who think this list should not exist. Opt in. Opt in. Opt in. Don't spam people with shit they didn't ask for. --Onorem♠Dil 20:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Ocaasi, if you write an apology at the top of the newsletter and add an opt-in list there may still be time to save it. At this point most of the people haven't logged in yet. This is going to create a negative impression of the newsletter that will take a while to wear off, if it survives. People resent things forced on them, even if they would normally like it. Accept that there will not be another opt-out mailing and move on. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added a note to the top of the newsletter. Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ocaasi for acknowledging the mistake, that was the only part that was really frustrating me. It seems fitting that the inaugural issue of a dispute resolution newsletter require dispute resolution. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now that Ocaasi has agreed to this, it should be resolved. What we had here was an editor who was being bold and appears to have made a poor choice. Now, they appear to have recognized their error, so let's assume good faith and try to find a way to recover from the disaster in which some of us had an unsolicited newsletter linked to on our user talk pages. AutomaticStrikeout 21:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Opt-OUT please. TY. — Ched :  ?  21:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Probably not necessary to pile on here, but yea, make it opt-in, don't force me to opt out of smething I never asked for in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yep. Let's all say it together now folks. " A.... G.... F. :-D — Ched :  ?  21:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• To end on a lighter note: sending the announcement to ANI regulars meant that SineBot got a notification. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Funny :) It wasn't the only bot to get one either. See User_talk:RM_bot#The_Olive_Branch:_A_Dispute_Resolution_Newsletter_.28Issue_.231.29, which is actually a redirected talk page from RM Bot to User talk:HardBoiledEggs, who hasn't edited since February of this year. ClueBot got one too [2], as did User talk:Misza13 by way of MiszaBot II. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• When the bots start talking among themselves, I think we human editors could be excused for feeling nervous. How long before they decide they can do a better job without us? JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• s/decide/realize/ HTH, --j⚛e decker^talk 22:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Skynet? — Ched :  ?  00:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having fought the bots in a previous conflict, I'm pretty certain that we can survive... for now. --Chris 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I just posted at EdwardsBot, I'd really like to see an RFC or some other similar process implemented to gauge consensus about when it's appropriate (or inappropriate) to send messages like this. And when messages should be opt-in, opt-out, or otherwise. And how often it's appropriate to send out messages.

These are important questions and I'm perfectly happy to see the bot blocked or its access list wiped clean if these issues can't be resolved reasonably. I think there is some utility in having such a message delivery mechanism, but it shouldn't be causing so many editors to be annoyed. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. And, of course, the name of the bot's configuration page ("User:EdwardsBot/Spam") is completely tongue-in-cheek.

I'd like to say that I started this thread thinking that BRQ had approved the process. Reading back now it clearly reads as me being uncivil (read "douchey") towards a single editor who did not deserve it (for which I've since apologized through email). That being said, I think it would be clear that these sort of scraped lists should not be used with opt-out mailings. If there is a list that editors added themselves to, like a WikiProject membership list, then maybe that mailing list could be opt-out. Or maybe a scraped list could be used for a one-time mailing, with follow-ups being strictly opt-in (as is now the case for this newsletter). But a scraped opt-out mailing list as was used today will always cause issues, so I think that should not be done again. Blocking the bot or disallowing the editors is not needed, as there was no abuse, just a mistake that has been fixed. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ignored question, slam approval

I posted a legite question about a bot.[3] My question was ignored. This bot does not need to create stubs any faster. It creates 100 stubs at a time, and each stub is supposed to be verified by a member of the project; unless the project suddenly gained a dozen new really fast snail editors, there is no reason for this bot to increase its stub-creation output.

Or if there was a reason, it was sure not readily available in answer to a question by a community member.

What is going on? Why did this bot have to be approved to create stubs at 5X its current rate? How is Wikiproject:Gastropod handling the approval of these bot-created stubs. The community has spoken a number of times about bot-created stubs, and not usually favorably. This bot operator has "misinterpretted" prior approvals to mean something entirely different from what was intended. This is not a bot and operator to be speedy approved when a community member has asked a question.

I would like the discussion re-opened, and the question answered. I don't care how old the operator is.

68.107.140.60 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel your question was ignored; I couldn't see that it was, as it was answered by the bot's operator. It seemed fairly obvious to me that the increase in the bot's output was to avoid having the bot be the bottleneck in the approval process for the articles. If you review the link to WikiProject Gastropod's talk page in the request, you can see that the contributors to that project have been able to easily handle the bot's current output; a good amount of time is spent waiting on the bot to create more articles. If you look at the current talk page, you can see some support and no opposition for the increase in output; this support was expressed in the request as well. I can't see any way in which this simple request for a change in parameters could be misinterpreted to imply approval of additional tasks, and I couldn't see any reason not to approve such a request. I understand your concern regarding community input and I acknowledge that I could have waited longer, but the request had been open for ten days. Ultimately I judged the pre-existing and current consensus to be well in favor of approval and I closed the request as such. Thanks, — madman 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see any way that task 3 or 4 could be interpretted as approval for 10,000 articles, yet it was. This makes no sense that a bot with this task is a bottleneck compared to human editors checking the articles. Something fishy is going on here, or there is something wrong with the programming, and the bot requires more scrutiny.

It had been open for ten days, so you had to quickly speedy approve when I asked a question? Why? I do not approve of this task at all. If you have any programming experience, think about what you are telling me when you say the bot is the bottleneck. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have eleven years of programming experience and I can easily see how larger batches are going to be more efficient than smaller batches. It took ten months for the bot to generate about 2k articles, stopping after each batch of 100. I will say, however, that your point regarding the timing of the approval is well-taken. However long the request had been open and regardless of how your question was answered, I should have waited at least another day to see if you had any follow-up questions before closing and I apologize for having failed to do so. — madman 05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

While certainly unusual to have a BAG member apologize, an apology generally has to come with making amends, and you have done nothing to fix the situation. It should not be taking a bot this long to create the articles, and if it does, that bottleneck is not broken by allowing the bot to create more articles, as, if it is the bot's slowness at issue, the bot is not functioning correctly. Your apology also does not address the issue of this particular bot and bot operator being the incorrect ones to get speedy approval. If it is your job to make the judgment call, then you made it wrongly, and I ask you to rectify it. I would like to know exactly what is going on with this bot that it took the bot forever to create the stubs, and you and the bot owner seem to think that letting the bot create more is the solution. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You haven't really suggested any way in which the situation could be rectified to your satisfaction, except to re-open the BRFA, and I'm not sure that's the best solution. I think you're hypothesizing "something fishy" is going on when it's not, and a good deal of your objections seem to focus on the operator rather than on the task. I'm willing to re-open the request and move this discussion there, but absent a concrete reason to do so, I'd like to wait for the input of a BAG member who hasn't been involved to determine whether I did make the wrong judgment call and if so, what the right call is now. There's no deadline and I'm sure this situation will benefit from my fresh perspective in the morning. Cheers, — madman 06:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did you verify that GaneshK was in compliance with the last task? That he wasn't making 141 bot stubs, instead of the allowed 100, in August 2012, say? Maybe we can explain that also, and define for the community what number 500 actually means? Or what it means when the bot is approved for 100 at a time, but creates 141 instead? Does 100 mean 100 +/-50, so 500 means 500 +/-50 or 500 +/-250? -68.107.140.60 (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As usual, a Wikipedian quotes an essay he has not read and that does not apply to the situation. Thanks. Much appreciated. My focus is on the task, as done by this bot operator who does not seem to think the rules apply to him. So, fresh start, let's get an explanation for how I tell the bot owner is in compliance, when it appears that he thinks 100 means some other number, 141, or, I may be wrong, but I was not allowed to discuss the situation because you heedlessly speedied the closure of the BRFA. Let's get an exact explanation of what the bottleneck is, also, because if it is the slow speed of the bot, something is not right, although with your 11 years of experience, I wonder that you think one can cure a badly written slow program by giving it more to do. Maybe it has something to do with the count variable, and that would explain the 141/100 computer approximation.... 68.107.140.60 (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The sky is falling! 41 edits over the limit! Wikipedia is doomed! More seriously, your comments have crossed over the line and have ceased to be constructive (see WP:PERSONAL). Focus on the edits, not the editors. Boghog (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so the rules aren't rules? And, actually, part of running bots is the community's confidence in the editor; there's a neat little thing that discusses this, about how bots can make a bunch of edits, etc., and see also how bots are rejected when there is no such confidence in the operator. Nice try with the bots can't count. Now, back to the discussion. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Note: There is a lot of history being brought up here. On one side, Ganeshbot was approved in Ganeshbot 4 to create about 580 articles for the genus Conus, limited to 100 per month. In Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Archive 7#Wrong way of the close a BRFA, the 100-per-month limit was lifted. Somehow or other, the members of WikiProject Gastropods thought they were allowed to have the bot create 15000+ articles for other gastropods without further approval or any rate limiting. This, understandably, caused much consternation. Ganeshbot 5, asking permission to finish creating these tens of thousands of articles, eventually was denied for no consensus; Ganeshbot 10 was eventually approved with the rate of creation limited to the rate of review by the project.

On the other side, the IP user 68.107.140.60 seems to be the same user who has been around for the anybot mess (see pretty much all of Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4) and other related discussions. If it is the same user, he/she serves a valuable function in watching bot activity and approvals generally related to "species" articles with a critical eye, but this is counterbalanced by the user being extremely sensitive to perceived slights against IP editors and being generally quick (to the point of disruption) to throw around accusations of being ignored or suppressed, of being on the receiving end of incivility, and of editors in "power" being biased against their viewpoint. Anomie⚔ 08:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in one of my bad mood guises; I was asked to check this out, and I thought it looked okay, then all of a sudden the speedy closure! And this on top of a recent range block and name calling by an inflated admin, who eventually had to apologize and restore my edits which had removed the bad science he was married to; what it is about climate change that makes both sides promote bad science? So, yeah, I get pissed off when my students turn in crap science plagiarized from Wikipedia. So, yeah, I'm back, and this did not seem like much, this bot running increased numbers, but I was willing to discuss it, check it out, see what was going on, until I got the run around, which, yeah, I tend to be disruptive about getting the run around. It bothers me. Hope all has been well with you, Anomie. -68.107.140.60 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, we need more people who watch out for bad science. Just remember to assume good faith when dealing with people who don't have a track record of doing things wrong. Anomie⚔ 18:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier not to, if we had kept this conversation at the RFBA. I really think BAG does poorly and continues to do poorly in responding to community input, and this is the case for many bot operators also. And some problems arise out of this. I've never really left. -68.107.140.60 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

IP, I will try to respond to some of your questions here. The bot has been creating good stubs for over 10 months months now. The request for increased limit was for getting this task done faster. I will still wait for a project member to thoroughly review the stubs before I create the next batch of 500. The bot process is a two step one, 1. Data extraction into flat files. 2. Run AWB to create articles. I monitor every AWB run very closely. I had created 141 stubs instead of 100 in the last run because that was the last batch of the family and did not want to schedule another run for just 41 stubs. I am now creating stubs under Turbinidae family; the limit is back to 100. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please act like I am stupid, and explain this to me. It seems you create 100 and wait a few days while they are checked. Now you want to create 500, then, what, wait a few more days? Why? Your answers are not adding up to understanding why you need to create more at a time.

I think also, that for a bot operator who has, in the past, had a problem with what a task was approved for that caused serious community uproar and time consumption, you should not be thinking that the task approved means anything other than the task approved. If the task is approved for 100, it is my opinion that that is a hard number, in your case. -68.107.140.60 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The increased limit will help me cover more ground in each bot run. I have little time to spend here outside of RL and would like to use that efficiently. I agree that the 41 stubs were over the agreed limit. I think BAG will agree that there is some flexibility for small changes like that. My talk page is always open for any suggestions you may have. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean you want to create more at a time as a convenience to you? (Nothing wrong with that.) This is different from dealing with a bottleneck that does not exist; it eliminates my questions about the bottleneck, which was poorly explained (if at all) by you and the BAG approval. I think transparent communication and community involvement are important when creating articles of this nature. I would request that you consider 500 a hard number, in spite of the sarcastic comments about no rules. If the sole purpose is a matter of convenience for you, and the same procedures are followed by Gastropod members, I see no issues with this bot. But, if there is something nefarious going on, this imaginary bottleneck or bad code that made no sense, then, maybe I will be checking into things more closely. I would like this conversation added to the task approval, where it belonged in the first place. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just about an understanding of this bot operator's request. Let's not make it about me or anything else. -68.107.140.60 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read the essay and I like the spirit of it. But that's not the point. The point is that when a bot operator has been operating within the bounds of his approval for almost a year, I think it's rude to suggest that he "doesn't think rules apply to him". It seems you're not afraid of being rude, judging by your edit summaries I didn't see last night ("time for irc secret cabal action" indeed). I do think you raise some good points about how the task may currently be executed and the timing of the closure. I'm interested in the implementation of the task too. But your incivility disrupts the discussion, it does make it all about you, and it erases any goodwill others may have toward you and any hope the discussion will be resolved in your favor. If you're assuming bad faith on the part of the operator because of an incident that occurred in 2010, I think it's time to let it go now. Contributors (even bot operators!) make mistakes. If you're assuming bad faith on the part of the operator because he made extra edits in order to finish his last run, I think that's ridiculous and would remind you that the fifth of Wikipedia's five pillars is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." — madman 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In conclusion, we don't need BAG's bag of rules. Ganesh slides around rules, and I have an issue with that; but, he also listens, and closing his BRFA early left shut the door on the best room for discussing and clearing up the rules before a mess is made. The bot rules. -68.107.140.60 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)