The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Operator: Tedder

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic, low-volume

Programming language(s): perl

Source code available: will be available in github

Function overview: request UserContribs through API, score and find intersection between two users. Post to user talk page.

Edit period(s): on request by users

Estimated number of pages affected: writes: only expecting a few user talk pages per day.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No. Don't see a need (yet).

Already has a bot flag No, new bot. Want the flag.

Function details:

The task name is "WikiBacon". The goal of the specific task may be found at: http://wiki.cs.pdx.edu/oss2009/index/projects/wikibacon.html

Basically, the goal is to help users understand how they "met". This should be mostly harmless; I'm requesting approval because (a) I want to write to the user's talk page after a calculation is complete, (b) it's my first Wiki bot, and (c) it would be nice to have a bot flag so I can request larger chunks of usercontribs through the API.

This bot will not explore links on its own- it will only do so upon request from someone. Therefore I expect the volume to be very low, especially on edits/posts. I'll be ready to run some oneoff tests of the bot in a week or so, and will start splatting to my own user talk space in 2-3 weeks. It'll run on my own server, for now at least.

I can justify my competence on Wikipedia if necessary, though my notes and hopes towards an eventual RfA should suffice. Basically, I'm over 10k edits, no blocks, ~4 years here.

I have some other tasks in mind- but this BRFA is for this specific task.

Thanks, tedder (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I fail to see how this is helpful, it's just something which some users may find interesting. That said, it's not exactly harmful, or particularly resource consuming, as it's very rarely doing anything. On whose talk page would it post the results? And how does a user request? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as usefulness, it seems especially useful when trying to evaluate a user- for instance, in an RfA situation. One more tool in the arsenal.

I'll take the input via CGI and perhaps via request on something like User:TedderBot/Relationship Requests, and post the results on the requestor's talk page. Certainly the idea isn't to go posting it on both user's pages, that's a little too social networkish for me. tedder (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if a purpose is evaluating for a wikipedia process that implementation should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship From some reading and scanning at the board it appears parts of the wikipedia community may feel the arsenal at RfA is overloaded already. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a tool that people can use, that may be used by someone in an RfA. As it's completely optional if someone chooses to use it or not, I wouldn't really see it as a task that requires a huge amount of discussion, especially seeing as it doesn't really do much. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this a "bot", doing repeated tasks automatically, rather than just a "tool", performing one or two queries and presenting results to a user on an ad-hoc basis? ClickRick (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose is to offer "one more tool in the arsenal" then expanding the arsenal is within the scope of the community's discussion. It's hard to discuss this, Ale_jrb, from the point of why you wouldn't discuss the creation of another "tool in the arsenal" with the community that operates the arsenal, so not much to say. When creating tools for the community, ask them if they want the tool. Let them decide how much, if any, discussion is necessary. It's simple: ask the community what they want, if they want it, then work with their support. That's my opinion about creating "tools for the arsenal." --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent, to answer a few). CR, calling it a "tool" is probably much better. Still, it needs to exist under an account of some sort, and it'd be nice to have bot rights so I can request greater volumes of usercontribs, rather than making 10x as many requests for the same amount of data. Ale, I agree, it doesn't do much (and I know what you mean by that). I wouldn't be going to this level of formality for making a request except, as I said, it's (a) my first, and (b) I'd like the bot flag if possible.

IP 103.13, my opinion about "discussing first" is that many open-source projects are created to scratch an itch of the author, rather than being designed by committee and then being built. It may prove useful, or maybe I'm the only one that likes it. Either way, I don't see that the bot's approval should center around that issue. tedder (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address the arguments you bring up, as they don't have much to do with bot approval that I can see. So, back to the target: it's a community encyclopedia, part of the bot approval process is community consensus, get it is my opinion.

Anyway, it seems there's resistance to discussing the bot/script with the community, and, to me, this is a poor way to start running a bot because the bot owner, according to bag rules and regs, is 100% for what the bot does. If there's a problem with the bot, and it's reported to you, you have to address the community you aren't willing to chat with. Learn to chat with them politely first, then position yourself to operate a bot.

"This page in a nutshell: Automated or partially automated editing processes, known as "bots", must be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly."

Useful to you doesn't require a bot and approval. Useful to the community requires consensus before approval, in my opinion, to guarantee the first: harmless.

"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:"

• "is harmless"
• "is useful"
• "does not consume resources unnecessarily"
• "performs only tasks for which there is consensus"
• "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"
• "uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users"

In spite of low resource usage, your lack of interest in community consensus says to me that your running a bot on wikipedia might be problematic, even if it is really only a script. With a bot flag you could run at a higher rate than without a flag, and, this means your readiness and willingness to respond to community concerns should be higher and faster, in my opinion. Your current response doesn't cut it, to me. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? IP 103.13, you are suggesting that Tedder is unwilling to discuss. I don't see that at all. I'm not too familiar with bot approval procedures, but to me, this looks like Tedder has created a tool that does not precisely fit within the scope of a bot request-for-approval. Innovative projects often don't! I don't see any unwillingness to discuss, just a little ambivalence on several people's parts about exactly what needs to be discussed, and what are the standards for evaluating the request. Maybe Tedder's response doesn't cut it yet -- that seems like a reasonable conclusion at this stage -- but why not just let the discussion progress before leaping to conclusions? He's obviously willing to have a discussion, that's why he posted here several times. -Pete (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with 69.226 on this one at the moment - tedder has not shown that there is a need for the bot/tool, and he has not shown that he has reached out to any particular community to determine whether there is a consensus for it. Also, has this tool been run previously and, if it has, where is the output? ClickRick (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Pete. If he didn't want to discuss things, he could have easily made the tool entirely web-based, or written it to use email, in either case he wouldn't need to come here for approval. Non-bot "tools" typically aren't discussed at all. The fact that he came here at all means that he's doing more than most. Mr.Z-man 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to turn this into a referendum on Tedder's behavior -- quite the opposite, actually. I'm just suggesting that to the extent anybody can clarify what Tedder ought to do, I suspect he will do it. Obviously I'm not in a position to do that myself, as bots just ain't my bag around here. But it's hard for me to imagine that a swift denial is the best answer, when so many interesting questions have been raised here. Why not just discuss the specific points a little more, and then see where the request stands? That is, resolve whether there's a need for a request at all...resolve whether user page or email is the best output...descibe in greater detail (perhaps with some sample screenshots) what the utility of the tool is...etc. -Pete (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I'm not jumping to conclusions, that's what Tedder says in his post. This board is to approve the bot, community consensus comes before approval. Tedder offered seeming off topic excuses about "design by committee" about why the bot shouldn't be discussed, now you give "innovation" as a possible reason for denial, wikipedia is an innovative community, so it's unclear to me where those remarks are intended to go.

Adding more reasons not to discuss it doesn't change my mind that community consensus means discussing it beforehand. If it's not a bot, Pete, Tedder doesn't need approval here; if it is, he does. If he does, there are established rules or regulations that include gaining community consensus for the task. Why the aversion to community discussion before offering a tool for the "arsenal?" I sure don't understand it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting and EC) Hi all, and thanks. I'm more than happy to discuss further, and/or to provide examples of the output. The reason I came here was to discuss it and make sure it was an acceptable thing to do before running it. So I haven't run it yet. I'm more than happy to leave the output off wiki at first so you can all see it in action; it seems like I'm both being asked "where's the output?" and "why won't you discuss it first?", which are mutually exclusive.

ClickRick (and IP 103.13), do you see a need for me to discuss a proposal with other groups, or just to show the output with people once it is available? And in any case, the people who will use it might be vague- for instance, who looks at edit counters and page creation tools? RfA, curious individuals, stalkers. So I could discuss it at WT:RfA, but it seems premature and bordering on self-serving advertising. I'd rather not say "hey, look at my great idea!". If there's no great forum, I'd love to discuss it more here, or finish it and show the output.

IP 103.13, do you consider it a bot? Either way, where would you suggest discussing it? I'm more than happy to discuss it first- I can see how my "design by committee" comment could be taken wrong, but my intent was that it is probably easier to implement and show how it works, rather than making a huge process out of it. This isn't date delinking; a discussion is still great, but the scope of the discussion is more what I'm questioning.

In all honesty, thanks for this discussion. It's been nice to see some input, and to see how other people see things, versus how I might see them. tedder (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you suggested an implementation, using unusual language (to me), "one more tool for the arsenal." I went through histories and discussion at RfA and read up about how community members feel about that process and its existing arsenal. There's heated debate about the process itself, giving the impression discussion first might be polite. I made a small post here, and now I'm fighting off comments protecting (what appears to be) your resistance to discussing it with the community.

This is a lot of discussion for something you keep suggesting might be small in scope.

I stated my opinion, and no one has offered anything to address the issue I raised, just reasons that Tedder should not have to follow the rules for the bot approval process. Maybe I'm missing something about Tedder's standing in the community? That's OK, but, if you don't clue me in, I can't do anything about it.

I've stated my opinion: I feel the sometimes contentious atmosphere and the opinions of community members at RfA indicate that adding tools to that arsenal requires community input first. The response to my original comment is bordering on .... Anyway, it confirms my original post: community input first. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot/tool is not designed solely for RFA, just because they might not want it is no reason to deny this request. (Though as I noted, if he changes it so it doesn't edit, it wouldn't need approval, and he could just create it anyway). Mr.Z-man 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Z-man: that's a very good point and is actually part of my confusion. If he were simply to run it and generate a web page elsewhere (e.g. directly served from the server where he will be running it) then there is no need for the bot request, so perhaps I've been looking too deeply.

Tedder: I think I'm right in saying that you don't need the bot flag in order to run the tool as a web app, so why don't you give it a run, show us the results here, and also use those results in an RfA discussion (e.g. "Oppose per these results which show..." or whatever inference you could draw from them which might influence your support or otherwise for a particular candidate). I think that would show the potential value of the tool. —ClickRick (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CR, I think that's exactly what I'll do- implement it solely as a tool, then it'll be easier to demo and see if anyone's interested. tedder (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the tool is not designed solely for RFA. That was just one possible application, I don't see why its usefulness at RFA should be so critical to this request. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was critical. Tedder offered a "tool for the arsenal at RFA;" strong words made me curious about RFA and its "arsenal." Reading RFA it seems the last thing wanted there is "another tool for the arsenal." Curiosity + strong phrasing by Tedder + RFA discussions = my thinking discussing the tool there before adding it to "the arsenal" there might be good.

I said this: "In my opinion, if a purpose is evaluating for a wikipedia process that implementation should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship From some reading and scanning at the board it appears parts of the wikipedia community may feel the arsenal at RfA is overloaded already." and seem to now be facing hyperbole. "A purpose" does not mean "solely for RFA."

Maybe you're talking to someone else, Mr.Z-man, who said it was designed solely for or is critical for RFA. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you and ClickRick seem to be saying that if RFA regulars don't want it or its not very useful at RFA that it shouldn't be done, which makes no sense at all. While asking for input from potential users may be useful for development, I don't see why it needs to be mandatory or why its usefulness at RFA should have any bearing on approval. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't intend to say that, and I didn't read 69.220 as saying it either. However, it was Tedder who introduced the notion that anyone discussing an RfA might want this tool, and no other possible use has yet been floated, which is why I suggested that Tedder show some sample output - it may well be that someone else will then be able to see other uses for this tool, uses which could very well be compelling. ClickRick (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if RFA regulars want this. It's the specific application regarding a community that Tedder offered. To repeat: Tedder suggested it, using strong language, I suggested he discuss it there first. No one here, until you, Mr.Z-man, said that if it "(isn't wanted) at RFA it shouldn't be done." I can't discuss the sense or nonsense. If Tedder isn't going to offer it to that community, discussing it there doesn't matter. But since that's the target community he mentioned, it does have bearing, in spite of the serious resistance to community input at this board. That's the consensus this board reached: the consensus from the community is part of the bot process. -69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I was referring to comments like:

• should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship
• When creating tools for the community, ask them if they want the tool.
• Useful to the community requires consensus
• tedder has not shown that there is a need for the bot/tool, and he has not shown that he has reached out to any particular community to determine whether there is a consensus for it
• the sometimes contentious atmosphere and the opinions of community members at RfA indicate that adding tools to that arsenal requires community input
• use those results in an RfA discussion ... I think that would show the potential value of the tool.

Unlike an automatic bot, there does not need to be a demonstrated, consensus-backed use for tools before they are written, as a tool won't do anything if people don't use it. Mr.Z-man 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first post about this: "In my opinion, if a purpose is evaluating for a wikipedia process that implementation should have community input from interested users before you create a bot to do it. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship From some reading and scanning at the board it appears parts of the wikipedia community may feel the arsenal at RfA is overloaded already. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"

Don't piecemeal it out of context into something else.

It's in response to Tedder's comment that this tool could be an additional weapon for the RFA arsenal. It's based upon going to RFA and reading community comments there. My response is an appropriate reply to Tedder's post based on the requirements for bot approval on the BAG page.

If it's a tool that doesn't require consensus, someone could have given me a link supporting that-you don't. No one likes to be told that not only community input isn't wanted, their input is wrong. I can't believe the fight put into not discussing Tedder's proposal at the community he proposed might use it.

The BAG board does not say some bots require approval and consensus others don't. But you say that's the case, so just give me a link. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're arguing semantics, no one used the word "weapon." RFA was just one possible use casually mentioned by tedder. I have no idea why people are getting so hung up over the idea of this being used with RFA. The bot policy only covers bots. A tool is not a bot. Bots are "generally programs or scripts that make automated edits without the necessity of human decision-making." - In this case, every edit would be in direct response to a request by a person. If you think its so important to discuss this with RFA regulars, you are free to ask for their opinions. But personally, as this tool is not designed solely for RFA and its output could be of interest to anyone, I don't see why their opinion should be so highly valued. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing hinges on semantics. 103.13 has made a basic leap of logic early on, and is unwilling or unable to admit his mistake. He has seen that there is an often toxic environment at RFA, and somehow made the leap that the analogy of an "arsenal" is somehow analogous to offering a battling group a box full of grenades. It's a perspective almost completely lacking in any kind of understanding of how things work around here.

At this point, I'd say the real problem is with those of us who have given 103.13 such a prominent role in this discussion, when we can all (I think) see that he's doing nothing to move the discussion toward an appropriate conclusion. Tedder has said he'd explore other means of output, which removes even the slightest need for it to be discussed on this board. 103.13 has been informed that there are noticeboards where he can report Tedder's behavior, if he really thinks that it's out of bounds. There's really not a whole lot left to discuss here, and I think we oughtta just carry on building an encyclopedia. -Pete (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone suggested trying something different; Tedder agreed to. There's nothing for me to do. Pete, we agreed on my main point, considering this tool as part of an "arsenal" (therefore a weapon) is "completely bizarre."[1]

I now see another issue with this bot: Tedder's unwillingness to monitor it and address issues, alongside his friends goading users who report issues or who disagree with Tedder. It's the bot owner's responsibility to address issues, not his buddies responsibilities to continue goading wikipedia editors who raise concerns. I think this may become a problem and source of unnecessary hostility, especially toward editors seen as outsiders (IPs, new editors, users who ask questions).

I raised a legitimate concern. Tedder's calling it part of "an arsenal" is "completely bizarre." His supporters agree and provide this characterization. Friends of Tedders continue to goad me, making up stuff, saying I called something a "box of grenades" when they're the only ones using the term, and discuss me (above), after Tedder asked me to discontinue the conversation.[2]

I am concerned that Tedder's bot contribution will be seen as an opportunity for friends of Tedder's to try to inflame editors they see as disagreeing with Tedder or having issues with his bot; and I am concerned that Tedder will not be responsive to community issues about the bot, while his friends goad users who raise issues. This is simply getting more bizarre the amount of goading being done by Pete and friends while Tedder remains silent, professes not to understand, and declares unwillingness to discuss the issue on the board he suggests.

I suggest it's time for Pete to drop me as the subject and stop putting words into my mouth. The bot is looking worse. That's my opinion.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, has there been a clear final decision on if this is going to be taking requests and outputting to a page, output to a page automatically, be a web tool? Q ^{T C} 06:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what tedder said (15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)) I thought that he was going to come back with the results of a demo. Surely any further discussion until he does so is pointless? ClickRick (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will demo it soon. I promise :-) tedder (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ClickRick, it seemed that was what we were waiting for. I was wrong. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demo[edit]

Results from this tool are available here: User:TedderBot/Bacon Results. The beginnings of the discussion is here: User talk:Tedder#WikiBacon results. tedder (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the conversation about the bot being held on User:TedderBot/Bacon Results. I've asked Pete to stop goading me here, and he apparently takes the move to Tedder's discussion page as an invitation to goad me there.

As long as User:Tedder's bot cannot be run without User:Tedder's friends goading other users, with User:Tedder refusing to listen to suggestions about the bot, and with his telling users not to comment, again IPs, new users, those who have suggestions/comments he doesn't like, there's no place for this bot on Wikipedia.

Bot policy requires discussion. It requires the bot owner be 100% responsible for the bot.

Tedder is not willing to discuss his bot. He moved the discussion to his talk page, encourages his friends to provoke users who disagree by allowing those users to continue goading, and telling users who disagree not to post on his talk page.

All of this is shade's of anybot. It needs to stop before the bot is approved.

[3]

[4]

"Personally, I'm planning to fire it into the middle of the next RFA I find and watch everyone scatter! Bwahhaha. I'm funny. -Pete (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)"

User Tedder refuses feedback, refuses discussion, and encourages provoking users who disagree with him. Approving this bot will be bad for Wikipedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't answer my question above. Q ^{T C} 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q- you are talking about this, right? "Well, has there been a clear final decision on if this is going to be taking requests and outputting to a page, output to a page automatically, be a web tool?"

I don't know that I'm the person to make that call. I too am curious to what the bot community has to say about it.

FWIW, the reason I'm outputting to Wiki rather than in a CGI is that the tool takes a while to run (up to 15 minutes for large uncached accounts). tedder (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your question, Q. I thought we had moved on to a sample run of the bot, but Pete and Tedder inform me otherwise and remains more interested in provoking me and/or having me not involved in the discussion than having the bot run some sample output and the community figuring out the where and the what.

If there had been a clear final decision, we would be discussing that. Or we would be discussing it somewhere where all interested members of the community could discuss it.

However, as the discussion has been moved to a place to exclude interested members of the community it seems it's time to move on to other bot issues and simply close this bot request. That's my opinion. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to basics, this tool appears to be harmless, it appears not to make any automated edits (unless possibly specifically solicited), and it appears to have usefulness, even if not to me personally. How much resource it takes is not yet understood, but I think Tedder's demo answers the question which was asked, and shows me that it is the sort of tool which does not need to come through BRFA. Just my opinion. ClickRick (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers would find this useful too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive already got something similar running. http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/UserCompare/ is a link to the existing compare results and http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/User_compare.htm is the interface for the tool. right now it runs on all open SPI cases automatically every 6 hours. I require a access key for it in order to prevent DoS attacks (users comparing Bots with massive editcounts) ig anyone is intresed in using it just email me a key that you would like to use and ill gladly access to anyone who wants it. (if you saving these to wiki pages Brion will not be happy). β^_command 12:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's re-focus[edit]

Okay, I'm coming into this discussion as a previously uninvolved observer. I see a lot of contention above that is... to be honest, not really relevant to this bot or to its approval at all. My thought at this juncture is that the discussion of this new tool is interesting, and indeed necessary, but at the end of the day this new tool is a tool; it is not a bot. It would only edit Wikipedia within its own user space, which does not typically need approval, and personally I don't think it needs to edit Wikipedia at all. Whoever requests this lookup can receive the results of the lookup privately, à la Betacommand's tool.

Tedder seems to be requesting a bot flag in order to request a greater volume of user contributions; my opinion is that this is not the primary purpose of a bot flag. A bot flag is necessary to hide automated edits from recent changes and from users' watchlists. The ability to request a greater volume of data is incidental to aid the bots' tasks. And in this case, a case that really involves a tool and not a bot, I think that Tedder would be best served by the Toolserver, with which he could query slaves of the database servers directly, in one shot. There's a reason Betacommand's tool is hosted there.

Speaking of Betacommand's tool, I'm leery of duplication of function. Tedder, have you used Betacommand's tool in the past? If so, how do you feel your design improves upon his, or vice versa? Do either of you think any collaboration on this existing project be possible? — madman bum and angel 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madman, thanks. I think you've summarized things nicely. I have an open request for a toolserver account- until then, I'll continue to run it in the current fashion. It isn't at production level yet anyhow, so that's fine.

I'm not familiar with Betacommand's tool, and I had trouble finding it- can you point me at it? All I could find was the old drama talking about tools, and his toolserver account doesn't help by listing things. What it is similar to is wikistalk, though that is aimed at listing all pages, rather than summarizing. (and my output now links to wikistalk, since there's no reason to duplicate effort).

As far as editing privately and userspace and all of that, I agree- there is certainly strong support for an XML interface, which I will develop. That makes it even less of a bot and more of a tool.

So, if others agree, it seems the best thing to do would be to withdraw this request. I would appreciate if someone could mentor me, as I have another upcoming tool/bot type task I could use feedback on. tedder (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madman is referring to Betacommand's comment immediately above the present section, which links to the tool. (I am mystified, though, about what to input INTO the tool.)

Anyway, I agree with your withdrawal request and general approach. As long as it doesn't take too much time away from WP:ORE/BOT! ;) -Pete (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Anomie⚔ 03:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.