Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 2

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

Withdrawn by operator.

RileyBot 2[edit]

Operator: Riley Huntley (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 13:53, Thursday January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: alexa_ranking.py

Function overview: Update the Alexa ranking field in {{Infobox_website}}.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Update the Alexa ranking field in {{Infobox website}}, {{Infobox flash series}} and {{Infobox software}}.

Edit period(s): Once every month

Estimated number of pages affected: {{Infobox_website}} is used by 3681 pages, {{Infobox flash series}} is used by 11 pages and {{Infobox software}} is used by 10578 pages.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Y

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Y

Function details: Alexa rankings change constantly. This bot will use a table of website articles and their Alexa URLs to update the rankings once every month. It will use the templates {{steady}}, {{loss}}, {{profit}} and {{as of}} and it'll add a <ref> to the referencing on Alexa.

This task was originally approved for OKBot (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OKBot 5 but the operator and bot have gone inactive thus, I will be taking this task over. -- Cheers, Riley 13:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OKBot 5 for discussion on the original task.

Requesting speedy approval/bot trial. -- Cheers, Riley 13:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made a prior bot request which you then ignored, and this task is not urgent, there is no reason for a speedy approval. Or you have not stated it and established your long-term merit for being granted one without reason. -166.137.210.24 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not perform this task outside your personal space until the bot has been approved for it. Another strike against speedy, imo. -166.137.210.24 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ello, please note we are all friends here. A prior bot request I have made is irrelevant to this bot request and there is no need to mention it here (If you for some reason think I need to, feel free to ask me to explain on my talk page). While this task is not urgent, all pages with an Alexa ranking are outdated by four months and need to be updated. This task also is uncontroversial and is using the exact code as the previous bot so I don't really see a reason why it couldn't be speedy approved [for trial]. Regarding editing outside personal page, the single test edit I made to check that everything was working was explained with this null edit. :) -- Cheers, Riley 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are all editors here, social networking is confined to subsets. Your non response to a prior RFBA goes against any need to speedy this one for approval, as communication is a part of operating a bot. I would prefer this operator's request to not be speedied. Not urgent, no reason, communicate. -166.137.210.32 (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I am not going to go into discussion here about a different bot request. I am willing to communicate with you, but I am only communicating about this bot and task here. As stated, if you want to discuss a prior request that is irrelevant here, do so on my talk page. -- Cheers, Riley 15:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not expressed any desire to discuss a prior bot request. I bring it up to indicate that you may not be as communicative as a bot operator requesting a speedy approval should be, imo. If you want to continue discussing it, someone else may be interested. -166.137.210.15 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I work in IT and travel, so I won't generally see messages on my IP talk page, but thanks for the welcome and message alert. -166.137.210.15 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I even understand the IP's complaint. What is your problem with Riley? Please explain clearly why you don't believe Riley is fit to be a bot operator, keeping in mind that we're all volunteers here, no one is obligated to do anything they don't want to, and no one is obligated to be here 24 hours a day. Also, if you're concerned about missing messages because of changing IP's, you could always register an account (which would also bring with it the fringe benefit of having your comments/complaints taken more seriously). ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Scottywong, I don't understand the IP's complaint, either. The original bot operator has been incommunicato for at least 2 months now, has not operated their bot since September 2012, and has not responded to any messages on their talk page. So, if you're complaining about Riley being uncommunicative, it is going to fall on deaf ears. I'm very happy that he has stepped up to the plate to get this going. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have dismissed IP comments on RFBAs in so many ways. Yes, you disagree with me. It appears from past interchanges you intend to never wait if an IP is discussing a bot and disagrees with a speedy approval. Why not just ask the Wikipedia community to ban IP editing instead of always trying to prevent my commentary on bots? Is this the biceps flex Chris was talking about?
- This operator has also been incommunicado on a bot request. If the problem is a different op was incommunicado on this request transferring to another incommunicado operator and granting a speedy is a desire to waste time. -166.137.210.42 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ignoring the "IPs are not human issue" (which I don't agree with fwiw), I think we should assume some good faith that Riley understands he made a mistake and is trying to be a better bot operator and not a cookie licker. Lets see how the trial goes, hopefully that will give us a better of idea of how Riley acts as a bot operator. Legoktm (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) Also, being uncommunicative on a BRFA is much different than being uncommunicative when someone complains about your bot making mistakes. The former being true doesn't prevent anyone from having other bot tasks approved, the latter might (particularly if there is a long-term pattern of ignoring valid complaints about one's bot). No one is ignoring the IP's comments; the IP's comments are just irrelevant. You haven't brought up any issues that - even if they were true - would give cause to delay or prevent approval of this bot task. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 01:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Major offense, defense going on here. Really? MBisanz needing it, the team all ready to dismiss, call the IP a liar, etc., etc. Really? -166.137.209.15 (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to prevent your commentary or ignore your commentary. Otherwise I would have granted speedy approval. As I've said in other settings, a trial does not pre-suppose approval. Now that Riley has had an uneventful trial and I've seen no demonstrated issues with his communication, I am minded to approve the task. MBisanz ^talk 22:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you have ignored my comments completely, and it seems the in-crowd is doing its best to support you in ignoring my comments. The ability and willingness of a bot operator to communicate with the community is important because bots play an important roll in Wikipedia. They require the support and confidence of the community. An unwillingness to communicate with community memebers, by operators while requesting bot permissions, or by BAG members, supported by their buddies, is detrimental to the process. Ignoring le completely while not trying to does not inspire confidence in BAG. My concerns should have been addressed in some other way than this old and tired "make the IP fight for a voice like their is no tomorrow" that has been so standard with BAG. It used to be coupled with regret or at least comments about low community input, but there appear to be few concerns about that any more. I al concerned about this operator's lapse in communicating about a prior bot request and about the necessary offensive against someone who voiced concerns about the operator. -22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    - - I apologize, I see you actually read what I posted and acted according to my posted concerns, while I got tangled ineceryone else's arguments against what they thought I posted while not bothering to read what I actually posted. One point for MB. I am still concerned about the operator's level of communication. --166.137.210.16 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in what ways are you still worrying about my communication level? I made a mistake about forgetting about a BRFA during my holiday season and am sincerely sorry for wasting everyones time on the task. Incase you are curious what I am doing with this task; I am trying to find the best and simplest way (although it might get complicated) to make the bot compliant with {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}}. :) -- Cheers, Riley 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair you blew it, but until you say something along those lines, I have no idea. I accept you made an error and withdraw my concerns about your communication abilities. Thank. --166.137.210.37 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Made 100 edits. There were two errors, one made by me and the other by the code. At around 25 edits I noticed that I didn't save an update to the code that changed "" to "" and the other error was this which has happened before but I have fixed it. -- Cheers, Riley 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks mostly as expected.

What date does the bot use? Does it comply with article's existing formats and {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}}? For example [1] - article uses mdy only, but bot adds ymd, and even if fixed by an editor, I assume it will get overwritten.

What about reference style/naming? [2] - reference name was changed from "AlexaHSR" to "alexa". If it had been used elsewhere, it would get broken. Still left over from the last BRFA, but I'm still not sure we should rely on AnomieBot fixing after another bot. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually my fault, not the bots. I recently added some pages to the list (that was one of them) and I set up almost all the pages added but there were a few like Homestar Runner which were already set up and I was going to leave the bot to overwrite it. I obviously was incorrect that I could just let it be overwritten, thank you for pointing this out. Note: I have gone through all I have added and there was one more like this which I set up properly and ensured no references would be broken. -- Cheers, Riley 20:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please reread the bot guidelines for test editing prior to approval. Thanks. --166.137.210.27 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. - OKBot is now active again, please raise concerns about dates with the operator. -- Cheers, Riley 02:57, 1 February 2013 (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.