User talk:Lightbot/Archives/2011/October

Messages
Please do not leave messages here, contact the owner at User talk:Lightmouse. Messages here may be removed unread.


 * You know well enough by now that "indefinite block" and "infinite ban" are two very different concepts. Indefinite means "until the problem is fixed" in the case of a bot. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You say:
 * You know well enough that "indefinite block" and "infinite ban" are two very different concepts.
 * I didn't know that. I hope you know what I meant. Sorry. Lightmouse (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you show me the BRFA for the edits for which your bot was blocked? – xeno talk 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The link in the bot box above links to Lighbot 5, whereas that BFRA says it's been superceded by Lightbot 13 ... nothing seems up to date here ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For convenience I removed references to individual tasks and provided a link to the list maintained by BAG. See the text:
 * ''Approved tasks are listed at Bots/Requests_for_approval.
 * If the BAG list doesn't contain all the approved tasks, I'd be surprised but I'm sure we can find it.Lightmouse (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you link me to the BRFA that says you will be converting hard-coded conversions into template-based conversions, sometimes substantially changing the displayed text? – xeno talk 18:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it's in several. You may wish to refer to Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_13 and to statements by user:Headbomb on my talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why you continued with the disputed bot edits after the concern was raised at your talk page? Could you confirm that you will no longer make bot edits for which you do not have approval? – xeno talk 14:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As Headbomb said, this functionality has been running for years. The initial contacts were difficult for me to parse with phrases like 'is generated' and I was seeking explanation of what the problem was. Two of the four reverts undid fixes to arithmetic so I assumed the issue was based in part on misconception. As soon as it became clear it was a bigger deal, I did stop the bot. That was before the block without warning. I hope that helps.


 * I'm happy to confirm that I won't make edits for which I don't have approval. I think people welcome the error correction function of the bot even if that means a switch from manual to template or vice versa. I think the issue raised by the complainers was replacement of manual conversions that had no errors (some of which were put in by me). If the bot can set a high standard for fixing the many bad manual conversions, rather than the good ones, then I suggest that the bot is allowed to run. Lightmouse (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if it's not approved by BRFA. Are you able to revert the code back to an approved one, then link us to both the code and the BRFA approval for it? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've given the links to several approvals, you may wish to refer to Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_13 and to statements by user:Headbomb of BAG on my talk page. There isn't a single approved code, code changes task by task, hour by hour. The rarely-discussed list-management function is at least as important as the code. BAG is well aware of how this bot functions so rather than set up a parallel approval process, BAG may be best placed to re-audit the more limited functionality I've suggested above, with your full input. That'll be a bigger hurdle for me but they already do audit bots against scope. Yes, it can operate on the limited scope I suggested and I'm sure BAG will agree that it can. Lightmouse (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I run an adminbot. Code typically does not change "hour by hour".  It's approved for a task, and unless required to be tweaked to fix a glitch, is steady.  Proper version control always ensure you can roll back to a previous version.  At this point, rather than request unblock, I would reconfirm through the entire BRFA process what Lightbot can and should be doing, and the associated coding. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you do run a bot. I don't know what's typical and I'm sure other people could write a longer single piece of code than I can. There are many units of measurement and many permutations/combinations and formats. My way of coping is to keep things simple and address a few permutations at a time. But I've absolutely no objection to showing you some code if you want. Thanks for referring this to BAG, I think they're best placed. Lightmouse (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent - I'll let you take it to BRFA ... and let me know once something has been approved/re-approved. Show me the approvals and I'll be happy to unblock - even if it's just to allow you to test.  Remember: as a bot owner, you need to be responsive to concerns about your bot!  Thanks for understanding :-)  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the guy who approved those BRFA, and yes I approved Lightbot for conversions as well. I'm pretty sure it is mentionned in BRFA/Lightbot 13, those edits were extensively trialled, discussed and reviewed. There hasn't been any major problem in months (Lightmouse does a commendable job at hearing feedback), so I really don't see the need for a "reconfirmation" BRFA because one guy got annoyed by the bot's edits. The bot is approved, has consensus, AFAIK not malfunctioning, so I really can't think of any reason to keep the bot blocked and burden WP:BAG.


 * If the bot is malfunctioning, Lightmouse should modify the bot accordingly (e.g. if it's doing purely WP:COSMETICBOT stuff, or getting conversions wrong), but that's never been a problem since approval (certainly not one that ever required a block). And that's routine bot operator stuff which certainly doesn't require WP:BAG involvement. Whatever merits there initially were for the block, its purpose seem to have long expired. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there's no public record of any discussion in which Lightmouse stated his intention to replace all manually converted units with calls to convert. I'll take Headbomb on his word that he knew the bot was going to do this, and agreed with it. But if no-one else knew, if no-one else was told, if no-one else got the opportunity to examine the proposal and object to it, then there is not a shred of community consensus for it; it boils down to one guy liked what the bot was doing. Hesperian 02:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times do you need to be linked to the BRFAs before you actually read them or acknowledge their existence? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell you that I've looked and I can't find in there what you're telling me is in there? Xeno has asked too, above, and all either of us can get is a vague gesture in the direction of the BRFAs, and an "Oh, I'm sure it's in there somewhere." The most specific you've gotten is "I'm pretty sure it is mentioned in BRFA/Lightbot 13." As far as I can tell, the key scoping sentence in that BRFA is "Lightbot 5 is permitted to convert miles, but not miles per hour. It is permitted to convert cubic inches but not fluid ounces. This request seeks to correct that." The three explicit tasks listed in the function details section certainly do not cover this. And I'm still looking for a public record of Lightmouse seeking approval to replace all manually converted units with calls to convert.Hesperian 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are whole paragraphs discussing exactly how the bot would use convert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for confirming that what has been approved is clear and explicit. Since the BRFA states "exactly how the bot would use convert", and doesn't say anything whatsoever about applying in cases where there is nothing broken to fix, I guess we must agree that that bot doesn't have approval to do that. Hesperian 06:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I'm more familiar with what I approved the bot for than you are. So please stop wikilawyering. You've shown no example of the bot editing outside its scope, or that the bot is malfunctioning, and you have a pretty clear COI here being judge jury and executioner. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you would be more familiar with what you approved than me, seeing as you have apparently unilaterally approved something behind the scenes: something that was not applied for, not discussed, and has never revealed to the community. That is a violation of the spirit of the bot policy. That being the case, you are as culpable here as Lightmouse. Headbomb, I am asking you to stand down from this discussion. I will apply to the BAG for someone, not you, to address this. Hesperian 09:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hesperian, you make insinuations and innuendo about the hidden agenda in approval of this bot. I agree with headbomb that WP:LAWYER and WP:IDONTLIKEIT spring immediately to mind. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Insinuations and innuendo"? I'm speaking openly and frankly here. If Headbomb insists that he approved something, and there's no public record of it being applied for, discussed, and approved, then it follows that Headbomb approved something behind the scenes without public disclosure or discussion, in contravention of bot policy. Where's the "insinuations and innuendo" in that? "WP:LAWYER and WP:IDONTLIKEIT spring immediately to mind"? Consider the possibility that you're projecting your own predilection for wishy-washy double-speak onto me. Hesperian 11:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)