Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VII


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

Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VII
Operator:

Time filed: 09:24, Friday, February 16, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: Area, population and population density update of Infobox settlement in Slovak settlements.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Semi-automatic

Programming language(s): Wikimate, own code

Source code available:

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Requests for approval/Dušan Kreheľ (bot): I, V, VI.

Edit period(s): Standard one time per year.

Estimated number of pages affected: up to 3000.

Namespace(s): Mainspace.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.

Function details:
 * List of pages to edit: list + Western Slovakia (Q696333) + Central Slovakia (Q1541057) and Eastern Slovakia (Q363496).
 * In the pages to change the template call Infobox settlement with parameters (or later similar):


 * Pairing of statistical data with parties is performed on the basis of: Wikidata and STUN/LUA codes.


 * The example of change: Special:Diff/1208032241.


 * A task is a task that is performed on multiple Wikipedias (link).

Discussion

 * Comment to BAG: Please note the sordid history of this editor's bot activity. It is/was blocked for good reasons. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This editor had problems with misspelling and inconsistency in the past. I have concerns that this pattern will continue, evidenced by invalid use of  tags and an unclosed tag in the original post here (I have correct both in this edit), as well as misspelling of "ACCES_DATE" and the proposal to use the YYYY-MM-DD format in articles where another date format may be preferred. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed it. The date of the population will only be a year, and the cells will be displayed via the tooltip. --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I rest my case, your honor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My question is this: the bot's first BRFA was approved, and later revoked. This task is nearly identical to that task. What is different about this task that should allow it to be approved when what appears to be the same task was already revoked? Primefac (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Primefac: Request n. I is a multi-task with several sub-tasks and with a looser specification. Unlike that task, this task determines the boundaries of this task in detail. That task was not canceled due to the reason that "this sub-task of request n. I" makes errors. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember reviewing the original BRFA. I never closed because, regardless of whether the implementation was technically correct (and I remember being a bit unsure of that), I was a bit uncomfortable as to whether the bot operator can comply with the requirements WP:BOTPOL places on operators. Things like WP:BOTCOMM and WP:BOTISSUE for instance. Therefore I'm also unsure about approving this bot task. Perhaps other BAG feel differently here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader: What points from WP:BOTCOMM? Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The past conduct is concerning, but I'm also equally concerned about the comment by ProcrastinatingReader about BOTCOMM compliance from the operator. I'm actually extremely concerned if a botop thinks a bot with revoked approval (which almost never seems to actually occur) should be unblocked without a successful BRFA first (see their noticeboard post, here. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion and others, there is clearly some major reservations from BAG regarding the appropriateness of this task, but there is not enough for anyone to feel comfortable declining it outright. Additionally, the bot operator has gone on hiatus. I am expiring this because clearly there needs to be some space between past attempts and a new BRFA. My recommendation to the bot operator, if they wish to continue this task, is to get consensus and determine what needs fixing, how it will be fixed, and get consensus that the proposed task is a "good thing". After these things happen, a new BRFA can be filed. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Bots/Noticeboard.