Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 21

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.

Yobot 21

Operator: Magioladitis

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB is open source. I can provide my settings file if asked.

Function overview: Template and category updates

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): -

Edit period(s): Occasionally

Estimated number of pages affected: -

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Expansion to already approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 15

Using AWB, Yobot will run to:

Substitute/add/remove/replace templates
Add/remove/replace categories
Add/remove/update parameters to templates

BRFA 15 enables Yobot to respond to requests in WP:BOTREQ. I ask this approval to be extended for templates in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (closed TfDs) and for closed CfDs, MfDs, etc. (Only when categories or templates are involved). To be honest, this is something I 've been doing already but then a discussion came to my bot's page saying that this is not formally correct. Thus, here I am. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Could you clarify exactly which templates and categories are eligible? Only ones that have been through a community deletion discussion? I have seen problems in the past where AWB was used to change categories or templates that had never been through a deletion discussion; that sort of thing can't have bot approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to closed xfDs. Merely TfDs and CfdS but sometimes MfDs. No AfDs or RfDs. (I know this initials drive me crazy). the possible oucomes of the discussion can be: Merge, Orphan, etc. The same I 've been doing from requests in BOTREQ but I officially ask to be bold and also participate in implementing closed xfDs discussions without waiting the matter to come to the bots' pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this only includes outcomes of deletion discussions (TfD, CfD, MfD), and not to discussions that only happen on other pages, I can't see any problem with it.

However, since the task would be to just implement the outcome of the TfD, CfD, or whatever, AWB bots should do it with general fixes turned entirely off. The other bots that handle these discussions don't do other edits at the same time, their only task is to handle the outcome of the discussion. It should be that the bots that do it are all interchangeable, rather than each of them doing different extra things in addition to handling the deletion discussion. The edit summary should also include a link to the deletion discussion. In other words the edit should be just like this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit summary will include a link to the discussion. I see no reason to turn genfixes on. I have genfixes on in all others I do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you made a typo in the last sentence, but I also see no reason to have genfixes turned on. The task you are proposing is very simple: handling TfD and CfD discussions. There is no reason that a bot handling those should be making other other changes at the same time. Each bot task should be self-contained, and this type of task is particularly self-contained. As long as Yobot's edits are not distinguishable from Cydebot's edits to do the same thing, I can't see why not to let Yobot do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant "off" and not "on". I would like to do the small things that should not be done as only edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here by seemingly attacking nearly every move of certain users. You don't think it's right to be doing genfixes alone, which to some extent I agree with, especially when there are no visual or otherwise improvements, but you seem to have an issue even doing them as a side task of something else. If you're not going to allow people to be productive, or are just here to cause drama, you'd be much better off leaving the community. Citing bullcrap reasons that people shouldn't be doing stuff "because it clutters RC/watchlists" is nonsense also. MW has features to hide bot edits and alike in both features, so it's nonsense. Anyone would think that the edits Magioladitis is making are majorly harmful, when yes, are not 100% perfect, and I'm pretty sure he'd agree, but when people block the bot, without even attempting to stop it in a simple way of leaving a damned talk message. But errors can be fixed, and should be reported. I mean, sure, if a bot is accidentally blanking pages, a block is probably warranted as a quick solution. Similarily, we have Wikipedia:Don't_worry_about_performance for stuff like this, the edits are fine, can be made, and it won't cause any site issues. And as it works out I'm one of the people who are currently paid to "worry about these issues" in a number of ways. I think you should really grow up and actually do something productive with your time here if you are going to stay. Reedy (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request is supposed to reduce bureaucracy.

Task already done as is for requests in BOTREQ
Closed TfDs have concensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the issue of disabling general fixes. For one thing, Yobot does not have a particularly clean track record with its general fixes (check the bot's block log), so it would make particular sense for it to stick to the straight and narrow for a while. For another thing, we have several bots that already handles these, and I think it's generally good to let new bots help in case the established ones leave, but the new ones should pick up by doing the same thing that the established ones do, so that they are interchangeable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block log is irrelevant with the general fixes. Some people are complaining for not enough consensus. As I said I 've been already doing this task for a long time. I ask only for confirmation because you raised some doubts if the bot should be taking tasks that don't appear in the page where people asks bots to do things. I this is bureaucracy to ask administrators to post every time a TfD is closed to BOTREQ page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To ease your concerns: The task doesn't need to revisit any pages and it 100% performs the main task. AWB provides built-in skip conditions for "Skip if no category replacement" and "skip if no F&R replacement". -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for:

implementing where applicable the result of TfDs, CfDs, MfDs discussions (including holding cell) related to templates and categories for tasks Yobot was previously approved as stand-alone

given that

the edit summary provides a sufficient explanation with a link to the discussion
the bot does not cause conflicts/issues with Cydebot (or any other bot) by doing the same task

While genfixes can be unaesthetic and mix the main task's change in a long list of smaller changes, BRFAs and BAG have generally approved bots with genfixes as long as such are not done on their own. There are certainly no significant performance issues, only the human factor when looking at the diff. I do not wish to hinder this task because of that. Hopefully you can arrive at a compromise separately from this BRFA. In short, if there are problems reported or users have reasonable complaints, then the genfixes should be turned off until the issues are resolved. The BRFA approves the main task, and has no prejudice to genfixes as long as they are done correctly and uncontested by reasonable complaints. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:01, 12 May 2011 (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.