Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 32


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied

Yobot 32
Operator: Magioladitis

Time filed: 19:49, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming language(s): AWB / WPCleaner

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

Function overview: Template and category updates per TfDs and bot requests

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: Merge of previous tasks:
 * Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 15
 * Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 21

Using AWB, Yobot will run to:
 * Substitute/add/remove/replace templates
 * Add/remove/replace categories
 * Add/remove/update parameters to templates

Discussion

 * Comment: The bot's edit summary should link to this BRFA or to a page that lists the details of the specific task. Will this bot run AWB's general fixes? If the error that the bot has come to the page to fix no longer exists at the time of the bot's visit, what will the bot do? I have the same comment and questions for all of the Yobot resubmissions, so it would be helpful if could answer these questions in advance for all of the pending BRFAs. Thanks. I look forward to getting a well behaved Yobot back on WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 no part of the this task ever contained general fixes. I will reply to questions posed for every single task. I can't reply to theoretical questions.

AWB contains built-in skip conditions for Add/remove/replace categories.

Add/remove/update parameters to templates is done by custom module i.e. page is skipped when no action is done.

Substitute/add/remove/replace templates is done by custom module i.e. page is skipped when no action is done.

Recall that Yobot never created any duplicated categories in merging in contrary to Cydebot which does similar tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This may come across as a bit harsh, but why not file individual BRFAs when new tasks come up like every other bot operator? I'm unaware of any operator approved broadly to handle any task related to templates or categories as they see fit when a new bot request is put forth. This seems extraordinarily broad, and I think it would be wise to approve these one-by-one as they come up. That allows the BAG to assume the oversight role they're meant to in ensuring there's consensus, allowing the community to comment if they believe a task will be problematic, etc. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: the task seems vague and not well defined. I would be hesitant to support such an open-ended task with this operator's history. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

MSGJ Closed xfDs as delete imply consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also recall that Cydebot works with Cfds since 2008. Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot 4. Moreover, recall that no complain was ever done for Yobot doing the same for TfDs per its approved tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MSGJ, with your history let's not approve such a vague task. Furthermore, I find flooding WP:BRFA with 20 requests all at once is probably bordering on WP:POINT: I suggest you limit yourself to fewer than 5 open requests at a time so you can more easily express yourself clearly and so you and the community can have time for necessary discussion. Once your existing backlog of requests is done, you might consider a BRFA for merely implementing the results of TfD (closed by someone other than you for maximum avoidance of controversy) without the extremely vague "or bot requests" clause. Anomie⚔ 02:16, 3 February 2017 (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.