Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

BU RoBOT 2

Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 07:18, Thursday, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Partially supervised (see below)

Programming language(s): AWB / Lua

Source code available: AWB / Module:Infobox gridiron football person/convert

Function overview: Split deprecated teams/years parameters such as playing_teams/playing_years into new numbered parameters to comply with WP:VLIST.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Use of inaccessible markup in gridiron football infoboxes is widespread

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 3,996

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The pattern "\{\{\s*([Ii]nfobox [Gg]ridiron football person|[Ii]nfobox AFLactive|[Ii]nfobox Areana Football League player|[Ii]nfobox Areana Football League player \(active\)|[Ii]nfobox CFL player)" will be replaced with "{{subst:#invoke:Infobox gridiron football person/convert|main|" with the edit summary "Split teams/years using Module:Infobox gridiron football person/convert". AWB genfixes will be off.

The script (created by Alakzi) splits *_teams and *_years parameters at <br> (and all variations). If the teams and years are uneven, the script will fail gracefully and leave the infobox for human attention. If the teams and years are even but any field is blank, the script will make the conversion and leave a comment for human attention, as it's possible the conversion will not have been done properly. The latter case should affect a very small number of articles. Typically, only players who have played multiple sports would encounter that problem due to the use of line breaks to create headings by sport.

The edits will be partially supervised. As the script is running, I'll check the articles that contain the text "Template:Infobox gridiron football person conversion error". This will catch mistakes made due to blank fields, which display oddly in this template.

A similar task was approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Abotzi. The module being used here is based on that script.

Discussion

Please use {{subst:#invoke:Infobox gridiron football person/convert|main| (note the trailing pipe), or the script will barf on HTML comments (with thanks to Frietjes for spotting that). Alakzi (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. ~ Rob^Talk 11:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a simple question and got a response. Let's drop this before it gets out of hand.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Some concern has been expressed regarding the age of your account, and your relatively high level experience and edit count. While looking over your account, I see no evidence of an intent to harm the project, I am getting a big red flag here that needs to be addressed first. You have nearly 12k edits in a timespan of almost 3 months, and joined almost 3 months ago. You have demonstrated an extraordinary level of experience with Twinkle, Huggle, and AWB. It took me two months in my place to even be aware of what they are. You are familiar with deletion discussions, and now run bots. I'm not accusing you of being a sockpuppet, but the picture I'm seeing here looks like you are. If you could elaborate on how you managed to obtain so much experience so fast, it would certainly put me at ease.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cyberpower678: There's not really anything I can say to "prove" I'm not a sockpuppet, as it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. I did not "study" policy or anything like that prior to joining, and I made no substantial edits as an IP. I can't rule out having had a previous account, but if I ever created one in the past, it would have probably had no more than 10 edits (possibly even none), and I do not remember login info, a username, or even the email address I registered it under. I did attempt to recover an account before creating this one to see if I had ever made one before but could not find any. I'm a college student on his first true vacation in the last three years. I'm used to being busy, and I've been bored not having much to do over the summer. I acquired my knowledge by reading policies and guidelines and making copious amounts of mistakes, as you'll be able to see in my talk page archive and in the history (from before I created an archive). I hardly jumped in with full knowledge of any area. If you have specific questions about how I got into any particular area, I'm happy to answer them. I can't guarantee I'll remember, but I can try. As for Twinkle, Huggle, and AWB: I was specifically recommended to use Twinkle after doing vandalism revision [1]. I can't remember exactly where I learned about Huggle, but I saw it on a page related to vandalism revision prior to using Twinkle. I had been looking around for tools to identify vandalism in a more efficient manner than simply looking at the global list of recent changes, which is how I started originally. For AWB, it came up while looking into accessibility issues related to {{Infobox gridiron football person}}, which I was made aware of at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Use of inaccessible markup in gridiron football infoboxes is widespread. I used it to handle the simplest cases of the conversion being discussed here. In hindsight, that probably should've been handled with a one-time run of a bot, but I didn't know about AWB bots at that time and thought they were beyond my reach, as I have little to no knowledge of programming. This marks the third or fourth time I've been accused of being a sock based only on competence. There's an open secret that most editors don't appear to know about; editing Wikipedia is extraordinarily easy. It takes around 30 minutes of reading the most basic policies and a willingness to read the more obscure policies and essays as they are linked to you when you make mistakes. I understand you're just looking out for the site, but it is discouraging when I'm barred from participating in worthwhile discussions or performing worthwhile tasks because of my account's age. ~ Rob^Talk 14:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question, and addressing my concern. I here you that college vacation can seem boring after a hard semester. I'm in my senior year studying Electrical Engineering. You're right about Wikipedia, getting to know how to edit it is easy, and if you've simply read policy, I can see how it's easy to start competently editing Wikipedia. FWIW, I wasn't accusing you since your edit history displays sincere editing. I just wanted some clarification on the matter. In this case I'm going to strongly AGF.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd have liked it better if you'd not dignified his request; it detracts from what's actually important - for Cyberpower to understand that accusing other people of being sockpuppets on the flimsiest of flimsy grounds is an absolute shit thing to do. Alakzi (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where you're getting at here, since I explicitly stated, I'm not accusing him. And his response he gave me is an answer I'm willing to accept. A lack of response would have more likely reinforced my concerns.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rhetorical dishonesty is quite astounding, really. Some concern has been expressed ... The passive voice would lead one to believe that this is a widespread sentiment, rather than your own, personal, unfounded suspicion. I'm not accusing you of being a sockpuppet, but the picture I'm seeing here looks like you are. Of course. You're not a sockpuppet - except that you are, actually. There's no need to dissemble, Cyberpower; let your true colours shine. ... it would certainly put me at ease. There's several things I could suggest that'd put you at ease to forgo badgering a fellow Wikipedian, like taking a stroll on the beach. Alakzi (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am careful with my choice of words, and the reason why I chose them is because this concern was initially mentioned by someone else on IRC at #wikipedia-bag ^connect. I was explicitly stating that I was concerned but not ready to accuse given what I saw. Badgering isn't my style, nor is it friendly. Twisting my words isn't helping. Let's get back to the BRFA, shall we?
    - I can't say I'll be particularly happy about it, but if anyone has additional questions, please feel free to message me on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. ~ Rob^Talk 15:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is even more absurd is that you expect to be put at ease. If I've got a suspicion about another person I can't substantiate, either I let it slide, or I do my own research in private. I don't go off suggesting that they are sockpuppets in public, and then announce that I'd presume them to be guilty if they are to refuse my probing. You should be thoroughly ashamed. Alakzi (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After talking on and off wiki about this, it was apparent that I am in the wrong here. So I apologize for unintentionally accusing Rob of socking. Alakzi, I apologize for upsetting you in this matter. It was certainly not my intention. I will drop the stick and go away now.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.. The edits are the most recent 50 in Special:Contributions/BU RoBOT. Through spot-checking, I found no blatant errors where the script operated in an unintended manner. Only one edit resulted in an error where the script failed gracefully. It was caused by the presence of a footnote in the playing_teams parameter which caused the teams/years to be of unequal lengths. I moved the footnote where it belongs and ran the script again, which was successful the second time around. See [2].

One "side effect" of this script that wasn't intended was the removal of deprecated parameters that were already removed entirely from the template. In the edit linked above, PFR was removed, as the module only passes through parameters that are currently in use. I consider this a happy accident, as it's performing useful clean-up of parameters that no longer serve any function. If necessary, I can seek consensus that this is a useful secondary purpose for this task. I don't expect it will be hard to come by. ~ Rob^Talk 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} ~ Rob^Talk 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: All of the edits I checked seem fine. I'm a bit confused as to why we're adding lots of blank fields, though. Is that necessary or useful? Pinging @Alakzi: as the module author. — Earwig ^talk 02:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the blank fields should be filled out for all or almost all players. Things like name, image (because we do want to encourage the addition of images), height, weight are basic things that all players should have. I spot-checked, and the only thing that probably shouldn't be added would be the parameter "NFL" and everything related to the CFL and NFL draft (CFLDrafted..., NFLDrafted...). Everything else is a field that should have information in almost all articles (or, in the case of death stuff, an expectation that information will eventually become available). ~ Rob^Talk 03:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly my point. I agree with name and image, but something like this adds a lot of unnecessary bulk – CFL/NFL are not things we will have for all players, for obvious reasons. I think making those groups of four parameters optional is a good idea, although maybe we can add e.g. the NFL stuff if |NFL= is given. — Earwig ^talk 03:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: Hey, I just realized I know some Lua from modded Minecraft. I feel old; that was a long time ago. All the parameters we discussed (including CFL/NFL) are now optional, as are high_school, college, and CIS, which may not all be present for some players (CIS and college are generally mutually exclusive, for instance). The drafted parameters will all pass through if any one of the set is present, since NFLDraftedYear should never be present without NFLDraftedTeam for instance. Can I have a 50 edit extended trial to verify this is working correctly? I don't expect any issues, but best to be safe. ~ Rob^Talk 03:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 04:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. From spot-checks, this is working exactly as intended with significantly less blank parameters compared to the previous trial. ~ Rob^Talk 04:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: Forgot your requested ping, and here's the link to the edits. ~ Rob^Talk 04:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errors spotted in 1 and 2, but as noted, human attention will fix it. Everything else looks fine.

Approved. Good work! — Earwig ^talk 05:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.