Misplaced Pages

:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Bots | Requests for approval Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:59, 11 January 2012 editRich Farmbrough (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,725,883 edits →Discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 16:05, 11 January 2012 edit undoRich Farmbrough (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,725,883 edits Removed bad faith contributions from CBM and Fram to ad-hominem subpage.Next edit →
Line 53: Line 53:
::::They are deprecated in favour of {{Tlx|Portal}} and {{Tlx|Infobox settlement}} respectively. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> ::::They are deprecated in favour of {{Tlx|Portal}} and {{Tlx|Infobox settlement}} respectively. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
:::::In that case, the correct function details would be along the lines of, "replacing {{Tlx|Portal box}} with {{Tlx|Portal}} and replacing {{Tlx|Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} with {{Tlx|Infobox settlement}}." Is that what you're requesting on this task? If there are more, please update the function details accordingly. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) :::::In that case, the correct function details would be along the lines of, "replacing {{Tlx|Portal box}} with {{Tlx|Portal}} and replacing {{Tlx|Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} with {{Tlx|Infobox settlement}}." Is that what you're requesting on this task? If there are more, please update the function details accordingly. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::Unless the templates such as {{tl|portal box}} are deleted at TfD, normal bot rules would not permit a bot to go through and replace all instances. BAG has customarily denied such requests to bypas redirects solely for the sake of bypassing redirects. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Er... the wording of the salient parts of the BRFA is identical to your wording for VeblenBot 4, which was agreed. Perhaps that should be revoked? '']&nbsp;]'', <small>11:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
:::::::VeblenBot 4 is a historical relic in some sense, from a bygone age. In retrospect it is surprising it was ever approved, and I would not be surprised if BAG were to revoke it. On the other hand, I have been very cautious not to do anything at all fishy with it. The block logs of VeblenBot and SmackBot are quite different. That is one difference between this request and the VeblenBot one. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 11:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, VeblenBot doesn't have a crazed admin chasing it around blocking it for ridiculous reasons. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
:::::::::In the last 12 months alone, it was blocked by CBM, Ucucha, Angusmclellan, RD232, MSGJ, me, and Deacon of Pndapetzim. Veblenbot was never blocked. Blaming this on one admin (with a personal attack thrown in for good measure) doesn't reflect reality. ] (]) 12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Sigh. Well I think if BAG want to discuss block records they will. Bringing it up when you two have been tag teaming me for such a long time discredits you (plural) not me, making such a misrepresentation is even worse. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
:::::::::::I'm glad you consider your misrepresentation worse than my supposed tag teaming. The block log of a bot is quite relevant when discussing requests for approval of new tasks for that bot. But the only reason I posted here is that you felt the need to make an unwarranted personal attack against another editor while ignoring the other admins that blocked the same bot (if you had renamed Smackbot instead of creating a new bot, this would have been more obvious, but for some reason you chose not to rename it). ] (]) 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would rather have renamed it, but t is not possible. All blocks of SmackBot in the last year were down to two events.
::::::::::::# You left a message on my talk page and MSGJ blocked it, as apparently I am under an obligation to respond to you within 3 hours or less.....
::::::::::::# Some putative problem you blocked for and said I could unblock, which other admins didn't even bother reading.
::::::::::::Essentially down to you being a nuisance. So a little advice, next time you want to comment on anything relating to me, feel free, but instead of clicking the "save page" when you have finished, use the little "X" button in the top right hand corner of your browser. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
Just noting, unless the function details/description change dramatically, I move that this bot be denied. --] 12:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Just noting, unless the function details/description change dramatically, I move that this bot be denied. --] 12:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:Fine. So changed, tightening scope to CfD/TfD.IF you want me to I can submit a BRFA for every template, or even every edit. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> :Fine. So changed, tightening scope to CfD/TfD.IF you want me to I can submit a BRFA for every template, or even every edit. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
::Do not exaggerate what BOTPOL actually asks. Your new details are not really any more descriptive, just less broad. Phrases like "per CfD, TfD" or "adjust" can mean very many things. BRFAs need to list specific changes so that BAG and any other editor can tell where the limit of approval lies. At the current wording, I have to concur with slakr and Chris, that it may mean many arbitrary tasks. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎]</small> 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC) ::Do not exaggerate what BOTPOL actually asks. Your new details are not really any more descriptive, just less broad. Phrases like "per CfD, TfD" or "adjust" can mean very many things. BRFAs need to list specific changes so that BAG and any other editor can tell where the limit of approval lies. At the current wording, I have to concur with slakr and Chris, that it may mean many arbitrary tasks. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎]</small> 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::OK easy enough. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> :::OK easy enough. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

In the description (as currently phrased), does "is to be deleted in favour of a functionally compatible template Bar" mean "There is a closed TfD discussion with the outcome '''delete'''"? In short, what does "is to be deleted" mean? The same applies to the other descriptions. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:I think any reasonable person can read the conclusion of a TfD and understand what is meant. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
Task 3 is too broad for approval, since "renaming a parameter" is not something that would generally have a TfD or CfD behind it. Such tasks really ought to be approved individually if the change is really needed. It is virtually always possible to simply make both parameter names work, so that it is not necessary to edit the pages at all; only exceptional circumstances should require that sort of bot task. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::Yes it is possible to have pathological code to deal with pathological editors. I prefer to use template code to deal with sane, but possibly sloppy editors, and to have consistent clean template calls everywhere possible. This is a a philosophical difference, based on HCI and understanding the exponential load generated by the type of case handling you propose, compared with the linear load of actually making things consistent where we can. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
:::"a crazed admin", "pathological editors"; could you please remain civil and stop with the name-calling? ] (]) 14:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:::(@R.F.) It may be a philosophical difference, but the Misplaced Pages way has always been to avoid having bots undertake large-scale tasks to perform these sorts of trivial clean-ups. For example, AWB rule 4 would already forbid doing this sort of thing with AWB without special permission. This request seems to be a sort of blanket permission to ignore that AWB rule. Why would such a blanket exception be worthwhile, and in particular why would you be the right person to have it, given your ongoing edit restriction and the block logs of your bots? &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::No it hasn't. It is simply easier and quicker to edit a template than a bunch of pages, that doesn't mean it is right. You misunderstand the point of the AWB rules, they were a condition of use by the original authors to keep the awkward squad from harassing the AWB pages. And for the record I am not under an editing restriction, the block log would be non-existent without the harassment that forced me away from AWB as the main tool for the bot, and the blocking is supposed to be a tool used constructively, not to brand editors. When you two understand constructive cooperation, comments will be welcome. For now, your attempted sabotage continues to be unedifying. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC).</small><br />

Revision as of 16:05, 11 January 2012

Helpful Pixie Bot 46

Operator: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: General editing per CfD, TfD.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Appropriate CFD/TFD

Edit period(s): Continuous, as and when.

Estimated number of pages affected: Variable

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Using AWB or perl scripts to edit articles from a list. Useful for CfD, TfD. I have done many such tasks with no issues.

  1. Rename templates. Example, a template Foo is to be deleted in favour of a functionally compatible template Bar. Template Foo is renamed with Bar.
  2. Replace templates. Example, a template Foo is to be deleted in favour of a template Bar. Template Foo is replaced with Bar.
  3. Adjust templates. Example, a template Foo has a parameter bar which is renamed, repurposed, deprecated, deleted, added, merged or split.
  4. Remove templates. Example template Foo is to be deleted. It is deleted.
  5. Rename/replace categories. Example, a category Foo is to be renamed Bar. Category Foo is renamed to Bar in all it's erstwhile members.
  6. Adjust categories. Example, a category Foo is to be split into categories Bar and Baz depending on whether members are quocks or a quods. It's members are recategorized accordingly.
  7. Remove categories. Example category Foo is to be deleted. It is removed from its members.

Discussion

Rich Farmbrough 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything specific in mind, or are you requesting blanket authorization to run basically any automated task you desire, so long as a list is involved? --slakr 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No. This current task description/function is far to short, vague and broad. Please refine it, and add a lot more detail as to what the bot will actually be doing. --Chris 07:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, {{Portal box}}and {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} spring to mind. See Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/VeblenBot 4 for a similar bot task. Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
What are you intending to do to them? With neither source code nor further explanation, we have no idea what you're intending to do. --slakr 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
They are deprecated in favour of {{Portal}} and {{Infobox settlement}} respectively. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
In that case, the correct function details would be along the lines of, "replacing {{Portal box}} with {{Portal}} and replacing {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} with {{Infobox settlement}}." Is that what you're requesting on this task? If there are more, please update the function details accordingly. --slakr 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noting, unless the function details/description change dramatically, I move that this bot be denied. --Chris 12:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. So changed, tightening scope to CfD/TfD.IF you want me to I can submit a BRFA for every template, or even every edit. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Do not exaggerate what BOTPOL actually asks. Your new details are not really any more descriptive, just less broad. Phrases like "per CfD, TfD" or "adjust" can mean very many things. BRFAs need to list specific changes so that BAG and any other editor can tell where the limit of approval lies. At the current wording, I have to concur with slakr and Chris, that it may mean many arbitrary tasks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
OK easy enough. Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Category:
Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 46: Difference between revisions Add topic