Operator: Emijrp
Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic, unsupervised
Programming language(s): python (pywikipediabot)
Function overview: creating redirects from different capitalisation when strictly needed (like this one). Read this for when they are needed ( WP:MIXEDCAPS).
Edit period(s): continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: I don't know, +100K
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): yes
Function details:
Per this message, and this talk, I request re-approval of task 2 (see current approval).
Needs wider discussion. Since you're wanting to see if there's community consensus for this task, you have to spam it out to the appropriate places to get community comments. WP:VPR, the talk pages of the various redirect policies/guidelines you cited in the earlier discussion, the talk pages for the template and category for these redirects if they're actually active, and maybe WP:VPT if you want to solicit developer input as to whether they intend to ever create xeno's software fix. I suggest posting a brief summary of the issues calling for these redirects (may as well expand the Function details above with the summary too) and then point them here for centralized discussion. Anomie ⚔ 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Although I have sympathy with this request the question of how far it will (should) go arises.
...
.... etc.
WP:MIXEDCAPS touches but does not fully adress the situation raised by Johnuniq. If the question cannot be directly answered without reference to an essay called "nonsense," the issue is probably too complex for a bot to handle in the first place, and this many planned edits should not be allowed for a bot that only one person is in charge of supervising, that person, again, not willing to directly answer questions put to him/her.
Again, someone from the community raised specific questions about a bot. The BAG has emphatically make it clear that although they authorize bots they bear no responsibility for them, therefore questions from the community should be addressed fully to make sure that someone is preventing future messes from occurring. The person responsible for answering these questions is the bot operator, and he/she cannot fully do so, therefore the bot is a bad idea. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 03:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Denied. Sorry, no consensus for this task. – Quadell ( talk) 12:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Operator: Emijrp
Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic, unsupervised
Programming language(s): python (pywikipediabot)
Function overview: creating redirects from different capitalisation when strictly needed (like this one). Read this for when they are needed ( WP:MIXEDCAPS).
Edit period(s): continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: I don't know, +100K
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): yes
Function details:
Per this message, and this talk, I request re-approval of task 2 (see current approval).
Needs wider discussion. Since you're wanting to see if there's community consensus for this task, you have to spam it out to the appropriate places to get community comments. WP:VPR, the talk pages of the various redirect policies/guidelines you cited in the earlier discussion, the talk pages for the template and category for these redirects if they're actually active, and maybe WP:VPT if you want to solicit developer input as to whether they intend to ever create xeno's software fix. I suggest posting a brief summary of the issues calling for these redirects (may as well expand the Function details above with the summary too) and then point them here for centralized discussion. Anomie ⚔ 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Although I have sympathy with this request the question of how far it will (should) go arises.
...
.... etc.
WP:MIXEDCAPS touches but does not fully adress the situation raised by Johnuniq. If the question cannot be directly answered without reference to an essay called "nonsense," the issue is probably too complex for a bot to handle in the first place, and this many planned edits should not be allowed for a bot that only one person is in charge of supervising, that person, again, not willing to directly answer questions put to him/her.
Again, someone from the community raised specific questions about a bot. The BAG has emphatically make it clear that although they authorize bots they bear no responsibility for them, therefore questions from the community should be addressed fully to make sure that someone is preventing future messes from occurring. The person responsible for answering these questions is the bot operator, and he/she cannot fully do so, therefore the bot is a bad idea. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 03:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Denied. Sorry, no consensus for this task. – Quadell ( talk) 12:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply