Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 51

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Withdrawn by operator.

Helpful Pixie Bot 51[edit]

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

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Correct the capitalization of "Internet Orchid Species Photo Encyclopedia"

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Demonstration of consensus, This work's title page, for reference.

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: ~~1770~~, ~~1723~~, ~~1495~~, ~~829~~, 420

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: These pages have the incorrect capitalization - with both "internet" and "species" lower case.

Discussion[edit]

Note:Started manually, in case BRFA is hugely slow. Rich Farmbrough 01:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are apply for BRFA, you should wait for BAG to approve a trial before "starting manually". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please find me the policy where that is stated. Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The task description does not mention any other edits besides capitalization. That should mean that only capitalization is done under that description. If there will be other tasks, they should also be described (e.g. "general fixes built into the latest version of AWB", or similar). I don't think anyone would object to that, I wouldn't. But in any case the task description needs to be complete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PerWPCOSMETICBOT these are allowed. Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

COSMETICBOT does not allow bot edits that are not approved as part of a BRFA. If the task description does not include cosmetic edits then the task doesn't include them, and the bot might end up blocked for making unapproved edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{BotDenied}}. This is clearly a cosmetic only modification prohibited by the Bot policy. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, especially given your history, starting this task manually before approval is clearly not acceptable. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First, WP:COSMETICBOT ánd Rich Farmbrough's edit restriction disallow purely cosmetic changes. "Cosmetic changes (such as AWB general fixes) should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time.": meaning it is should for every editor, and due to the edit restriction more a "Cosmetic changes (such as AWB general fixes) are only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time."for Rich. Although it could have been made clear that these edits would not be performed if they would result in a total edit which is purely cosmetic, I am sure that it is meant here that that is the case.

Also, there is no restriction on Rich, nor from the WP:BOTPOL that states that a task can not be performed manually with WP:AWB (as long as it does not violate WP:COSMETICBOT and Rich's restriction on purely cosmetic changes and Rich's edit restriction on mass page creations - the latter not applicable here).

Snowolf, I kindly ask you to reconsider your evaluation - only cosmetic-only edits are disallowed (and if I understand correctly, WP:AWB has recently been modiefied so it does not save these edits), doing this task as an automated part of other edits, on a bot account, is certainly not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention anywhere here that this task would be run as part of other changes. This is a request for this task stand-alone, ie, go thru the db and replace the uncapitalized version with the capitalized one. I have no issues with it being run when the bot already edits page X, that's obviously allowed and doesn't need a BRFA :) I hope Rich can clarify if I'm misunderstanding something. I intentionally left this request open so that if there are misunderstandings or problems we can sort them out before closing it formally :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick discussion with who was around on IRC and concerns raised on my talk page seem to suggest my view of what constitute a cosmetic change is somewhat broader than accepted. I have hence reverted my closure of this task, and very much welcome more input on whether it is or not a cosmetic task, tho so far it seems I'm the only one that thought it was one so :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually question whether this is a purely cosmetic change. Changing 'us' to 'US' (talking about the United States are meant) is correcting the name - Changing 'microsoft' to 'Microsoft' is correcting the trademarked name .. now it is "the Internet orchid Species photo Encyclopedia" to "Internet Orchid Species Photo Encyclopedia" - where the organisations homepage states the name in the opening sentence: "Welcome to the Internet Orchid Species Photo Encyclopedia". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I can see, this is not a cosmetic task -- the visual output changes. I wouldn't really have any issues with that, but we should at least wait until the active ARBCOM case is closed. That's just my opinion though. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it seems clear that my interpretation was not correct, I thank you, Beetstra and Jenks24 for pointing it out to me and enabling me to quickly correct my error. It seems clear at this point that the task is not cosmetic and that the request should proceed normally, I'll leave another BAG member to process it :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to consider it in the first place. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Funnily enough, the only consensus that has emerged is that more stuff going through BRFA is a Good Thing. I don't blame you for not following the ArbCom case, where even I get a little annoyed, but putting this on hold while the drafting is going on (I assume it is going on) is not really helping anyone. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note a speedy approval on this, would be useful as I have another 75 articles which need manual fix-up when this is done. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

BAG: has a trial been approved for this? Based on the edits to the top of the page, Rich seems to be doing the task without approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you obdurate, obstinate or obtuse? Or all three? Clearly no trial has been approved, and just as clearly I am proceeding with the task manually, as experience has shown that sometimes a BRFA can take an amount of time disproportional to its needs. And you know all this, and yet at every BRFA there you are, endlessly repeating "Oh look an editor is editing". This is disruptive behaviour, and you know better. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

To BAG: I believe it is in your purview to decide whether an operator can take on more bot tasks. If you feel that Rich is flouting the bot policy by running aunapproved trials, or is not following best practices (or if you think he is fine), I hope that you will make that known. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, it seems a bit innapropriate to me for you to follow Rich around and snipe comments at every edit or discussion he participates in. There is no problem with this submission as far as I can see and it seems perfectly reasonable. Additionally, for what its worth, the number of articles affected, at less than 1000 and for this type of edit seems to me to be a bit of a waste of BAG's time. Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Bot task no longer necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 2 May 2012 (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.