While I agree a BRFA might be overkill for ~30 edits, and I'm glad the typos were fixed, I'm a bit disappointed for the outcome of the request. Magioladitis mentioned WP:SPELLBOT apparently ignoring that I explicitly stated the 'bot' would have been manually operated. Denying a BRFA within few minutes from the first reply, when the task has actually been carried out by someone else, is not a great display of sensitivity. --Ricordisamoa 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I read the BRFA, and the responses looked reasonable to me. There was no indication in the request that the bot would be able to avoid false fixes of text like "the composer's name is sometimes misspelled as 'Giuseppi Verdi'." There was also no indication of which namespaces the bot would operate in; archived pages may have been undesirable to edit with this bot. By the time all of that would have been worked out, the fixes could already have been done manually. And they were.
At this point, it's water under the bridge. If you had proposed 3,000 edits instead of 30, I would have more sympathy toward your disappointment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
"Manual" means I would have checked every typo, including the title of the page it occurred in and the surrounding context. And of course I would not have edited discussion pages. Please note that I'm not challenging the closure in itself. It's a matter of tact; it's about building a friendly space for potential bot operators: I'm afraid the English Wikipedia fails in regard to this. --Ricordisamoa 10:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Ricordisamoa you can always request an alternative account per WP:VALIDALT. We do not give out bot flags for single-use tasks that involve such a small numbers of edits and should only be done manually. There are many editors performing spell-checking in Wikipedia from their normal accounts. You are welcome to help on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Magioladitis had you written this explanation straight in the BRFA, it would have been perfect ;-) --Ricordisamoa 13:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The intention of the policy is not to forbid bots from recategorising biographical articles into broader categories. "1 BC births" is a subset of "0s BC births", and the latter can thus be safely substituted by a bot; if 1 BC is an erroneous categorisation, so is 0s BC, and they will both be as a result of human error. Alakzi (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the bot operator interpreted that besides recategorizing the "birth by year" cat to the parent "birth by decade" category (which is unproblematic), they should add a category like "1 BC" to the same biographical article that never has been in a "year" category (which would not be conforming to WP:COP) – which imho is neither the outcome of the CfD discussion, nor allowed by bot policy. "Dual" upmerges in this sense are not allowed on biographical articles by bot policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
So there is no "human error" involved apart from the bot operator's (adding unallowed categories that are not the result of a recategorization of a pre-existing category), and an error they won't recognize nor act upon. For this unwillingness, please remove the bot's permission. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Please provide links to diffs of actual problem edits. Anomie⚔ 20:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with that edit. Both categories are clearly implied by the now-deleted combined category that was being replaced. Anomie⚔ 21:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not a violation of policy, either; it is contrary to the WP:COP guideline, but it's not what the bot policy's intended to protect against. If a recategorisation into years wasn't intended, why was a double upmerge proposed to begin with, and why did none of the CfD participants nor the closer comment on it? It seems unfair to lay the blame squarely on the bot operator. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't say the blame is "squarely on the bot operator" (I have asked the closer of the CfD discussion to review their closure )
What I say is that the bot operator is unwilling to see a problem, and even more unwilling to work towards a solution, which I think enough reasons for not letting this operator operate this bot. Look, I'm not a bot operator and when a bot operator decides he lets his bot perform tasks that should not have been done in the first place (whoever gave part of the permission to do it) then the bot wins if the bot operator puts his umbrella out and claims by high and low they did nothing wrong... unless you people here say no to such irresponsible behaviour of the bot operator.
It's not even clear to me that the policy you link applies: depending on what is meant by "person category", Category:15 BC may not even be one. Anomie⚔ 21:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
How's it different to adding births in decade categories - which you appear to have no issue with - from a policy perspective? You've not explained WP:COP to the bot operator, which is the actual point of contention. If you'd done that before coming here, rather than accuse them of flouting policy, this matter might've been resolved hours ago. Alakzi (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2015 (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.
Can I reopen? A comment was added after closure of the discussion, and I'd like to reply to it without changing venue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Take discussion elsewhere if you want. Anomie⚔ 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)