Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Eubot 3
- 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
Approved.
Operator: Eugène van der Pijll
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): Perl
Function Summary: Adding redirects for synonyms of scientific names
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run
Edit rate requested: ~6 edits per minute
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: Most articles about species (animals, plants, etc.) are reachable from their scientific (binomial) names. However, many species have more than one scientific name, for example, because they were independently discovered by two biologists, or because they were moved from one genus to another. I want to create redirects for all obsolete synonyms, to help navigation. (I've come across many obsolete synonyms in older books and on internet.)
I have an initial list of about 5500 synonyms, parsed from wikipedia taxoboxes; later, I'll add synonyms derived from other sources. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life about this bot task, and I'll consult them before using other sources, to judge their accuracy.
Discussion[edit]
Looks good to me; let's see how it does in practice. I expect the limitations you have suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life at in fact implemented? If that is the case, 
Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. at 2 edits per minute. — Coren (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Those limitations have been implemented. I have tested the bot, see Special:Contributions/Eubot. I have also tested it on articles that already existed; as you can see, Eubot does not touch these. That concludes the testing, as far as I can see; it's a very simple bot :-) . Eugène van der Pijll 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
Subsequent comments[edit]
What it does "in practice" is causes havoc over at RfD that other editors are wiping up behind it. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I presume you don't realise how much this approval has caused havoc at WP:RFD, for the nonsense that User:Eubot created? It created everything assuming that any diacritic was a german umlaut. It back-formed places that were already redirected. There are about thirty thousand on User:Champions list. As far as I can tell, this did not have discussion, it was a trigger-happy approval. Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. It was approved for a trial of ten edits, that is what I see from above. It made about a hundred thousand and we have to clear up that mess. Others have suggested a WP:X1 Neelix concession, but having done that this is also a mess, but we are all getting thhrough it in WP:AGF. I hate the bot, I am allowed to hate the bot, becasue that is not a real person. stupid approval. Did no admin think to check what happened with User:Neelix? Again, I have no gripe against him, he was acting in good faith, but made a mess. He as Eubot was trying to make the enyclopaeida better, which is wahat we are all here for. Just cocked it up. Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: I just came across this, not really sure how your comments fell through the cracks, but this concerns a bot that was approved way back in 2007, way before the Neelix stuff, or that much of the modern WP:BOTPOL came into place. Either way, the bot didn't edit since 2008. But as far as I can tell, no one approved Eubot to make those redirect (see BRFA for Eubot/Eubot2/Eubot 3/Eubot 4/Eubot 5). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:. I have a hell of a time with these whenever I try to list them. I try to explain briefly, we can go from there. Obviously I know deeeper but to put you in the picture:
- Eubot was approved for several runs, as you say. I tried but could not find that Eubot was approved to run for creating thirty thousand redirects by changing "Gód" a town in Hungary into Goed. That is why Goed does not exist. It is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense.
- Some other editors say about 90 percent of the time my listings for Eubot's nonsense are patent nonsense.
- I have an indefinite, apparently, ban from editing RfD. I take WP:IAR on that, because I want to make the encyclopaedia better. I seem not to be banned technically, I have stayed away for three months, I have only come back today and started again on the 19 lists that I chopped into manageable Internet portions of a thousand a time, so that others could take them.
- Nobody else has taken them. So the encylopaedia has such rubbish as "Hercegprimas, not mentioned at target, not a Hungarian word, could not possibly be a Hungarian word in the modern orthography (I live in Hungary but am native English). It is not possinle in Hungarian. It is a back-formation from a bot. A BOT. THAT WAS ALLOWED TO RUN WITHOUT PERMISSION, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE IT. But it is I that gets all the flak from it, because as a linguist, I don't speak too many languages well, only five or six, but I can spot patterns in languages, and I am about teh only editor you have here who speaks Hungarian. You have driven most of the others away, and I only speak it as a second language. Even I can notice that is bollox. If you want your encyclopaedia to be full up with bollox, carry on. I was trying to make it better. I thought that is what we were trying to do. Yes, I am angry. But not very angry. If you can sort it out, that would be good.
- It was suggested and refuted that we has a WP:X1 concession on the User:Eubot redirects. Not by me. User:Neelix had ten thosand, and after a trend most of thenm went speedily deleted by admins (see greenisholives as the classic example. I have another classic about Alfred Candidus of Wnidischgraetz, or was it Windishgratz or Windischgratz or was he the third Furst or the first Furst). I am totally fed up with this. I am a lexicographer. I index things. I don't care what thy say, I index them. The index is a mess cos it is cluttered up with nonsense. Let me do my job and clear it up. 00:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:. I have a hell of a time with these whenever I try to list them. I try to explain briefly, we can go from there. Obviously I know deeeper but to put you in the picture:
- @SimonTrew: I just came across this, not really sure how your comments fell through the cracks, but this concerns a bot that was approved way back in 2007, way before the Neelix stuff, or that much of the modern WP:BOTPOL came into place. Either way, the bot didn't edit since 2008. But as far as I can tell, no one approved Eubot to make those redirect (see BRFA for Eubot/Eubot2/Eubot 3/Eubot 4/Eubot 5). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. It was approved for a trial of ten edits, that is what I see from above. It made about a hundred thousand and we have to clear up that mess. Others have suggested a WP:X1 Neelix concession, but having done that this is also a mess, but we are all getting thhrough it in WP:AGF. I hate the bot, I am allowed to hate the bot, becasue that is not a real person. stupid approval. Did no admin think to check what happened with User:Neelix? Again, I have no gripe against him, he was acting in good faith, but made a mess. He as Eubot was trying to make the enyclopaeida better, which is wahat we are all here for. Just cocked it up. Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
First, see WP:CALM. Your anger is understandable, but misdirected. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do about Eubot on this page. If this were an active bot, I'd tell you to follow WP:BOTISSUE, but the bot is dead and its owner hasn't edited in 4+ years. If you haven't done so already, the proper venue to discuss Eubot's damage and how to undo it is at WP:VP. Believe me, no one wants an Encyclopedia that is "full up with bollox". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)