Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

Helpful Pixie Bot 45
Operator: Rich Farmbrough

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Yes;

Function overview: Change some parameters in Infobox ice hockey player

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player

Edit period(s): One time

Exact number of pages affected: 2876 2669  2457  1969

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: To quote the talk page The logic for a bot would be :
 * For all articles using "Template:Infobox ice hockey player"
 * if template contains " " or " ", insert a parameter of " " above the first occurrence
 * find " " and delete " "  ( becomes, etc)
 * find " " and delete " "  ( becomes, etc)
 * if template contains " " or " ",
 * change  to
 * change  to

Also remove  parameter per User_talk:Djsasso 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Note that a couple of other changes requested are better done in the template itself (adding a maint category) or, at least to start with, on an "as and when" basis (bypassing redirects).Rich Farmbrough 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you plan on running this bot if the account is currently indef blocked?  Rcsprinter  (rap)  20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get it unblocked. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Tum ti tum... Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC).


 * &mdash; Any update on getting the bot's account unblocked? There's little else we can do on this BRFA if any currently-outstanding issues with your bot's code remain unresolved. -- slakr \ talk / 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no issue with the bot's code. Just MSGJ wants wanted to micro-manage the operational parameters.  However I will put an unblock request up on the bots talk page. Meanwhile there is nothing to stop the task being progressed in terms of any discussion, task approval etc.. The status of the bot account is completely orthogonal to the status of a task approval. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Well, it er, was declined. So I don't think the task can really be run, can it? Is this BRFA really necessary now?  Rcsprinter  (message)  17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, its not. Unblocking will take explaining to admins who do not know the background exactly what has happened. They will take some time to understand and think about the history, and may wish to discuss further before an unblock.  Really the intent of the block is only focussed on one tiny aspect of one task, so there are multiple avenues for resolution. Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Nothing seems to be doing.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can get the bot unblocked soon, I move to deny this request until such time that the bot is unblocked. On a side note, judging by the "Exact number of pages affected" (at the moment 18), wouldn't it be easier just to do this task manually? -- Chris 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The dilatory nature of BAG should be correctly documented. The fact that its quicker to manually do a multi-thousand edit than to even get acknowledgement from BAG that a Helpful Pixie Bot task exists, shows that it is not currently functioning. Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Actually, I've been working pretty hard to improve BAG, and keep things rolling smoothly. The fact is, your bot is blocked, and until it is unblocked, this task cannot go ahead. How would you like to see BAG handle this particular situation better? -- Chris 03:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The process could still go ahead, up to approval for trials/ Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

Per the above. Feel free to reopen when the bot is unblocked. -- Chris 08:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reopened per above. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

-- Chris 03:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 27 edits here. Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Why are you messing with dates,interwiki links, references and Orphan templates? -- Chris 07:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These are AWB general fixes, respectively a malformed date in cite template date field, a surplus space between a sentence and a ref, an interwiki in the wrong place and a correct orphan tag. These are generally accepted as incidental fixes which improve the layout of articles without using additional edits. Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC).


 * &mdash; There don't seem to be any major complaints here; concerns raised by Chris/answered by Rich reflect AWB genfixes. Cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 05:38, 12 January 2012 (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 WT:BRFA.