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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Gabrielchihonglee-Bot[edit]

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

Time filed: 13:15, Saturday October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: No

Function overview: This bot should be runed by BlakesBotm but it is anready inactive. The bot will search through all templates on wikipedia, and looks for templates with the following subpages: /doc, /sandbox, and /testcase. If the talk page for these subpages does not exist, and the talk page for the main template does exist, a redirect will be created.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): [1] and [2]

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 15422, a list of the redirects created can be found here and here

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This bot doesn't need to be exclusion compliant because there are no bot-exclusion tags on pages that haven't been created yet. This task was requested by User:Pigsonthewing. Look at the relevant discussion for more details.

Discussion[edit]

How are you handling the double redirects (the parent page is a redirect)? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what are you asking about. Maybe you are not sure what is the bot doing? It will create redirects on a new page to it's main template or talk page.--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not read the BlakesBot BRFA where I explained this? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read the page.--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, the very first entry Template Talk:1911/doc --> Template Talk:1911. Template Talk:1911 is a redirect to Template talk:EB1911, because the template isn't called "1911", but "EB1911". So firstly, these are not template's subpages, they are redirect's subpages. And redirecting the talk page to the listed targets would cause a double redirect." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the are pages like this, I will skip the page.--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. As per previous BRFA. Please use a descriptive edit summary. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. I have already did the 30 trial edit with only 1 mistake.--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Adding the redirect" is not a descriptive edit summary. To someone who does not know anything about what the bot is doing, this hardly explains anything. As a bot operator, you are expected to have very good communication, which includes edit summaries.

[3][4] -- I even gave this page as an example, and the bot still made this into a double redirect. How exactly are you determining in code to skip such pages? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for the mistake, it is a problem of my code. I have already changed it. Also, is it ok to change the comment to "Robot: Adding redirect for for this subpage does not exist"?--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Robot: Creating redirect from empty subpage talk page to template's main talk page"? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I will use the summary that you provided. I will do the trial maybe on tomorrow. Also, I would like to create a BOT that fixes double redirect. How do you think?--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the bot account for 48 hours in response to the bot creating double redirects, and because the user's talk page and bot page were red. Where is the Big red button?

I am amazed that anyone considered authorising a person to operate a bot when the user had fewer than 10 edits none of the in article space. At the time I am writing this this user has made a total of 32 edits 10 of which are to this page and none to article space. No wonder Gabrielchihonglee asks above "I am not sure what are you asking about." when asked about double directs. -- PBS (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fools rush in were brave men fear to tread". A problem here is that this bot process is creating pages. Usually if a bot makes a change to a page which is inappropriate then an ordinary revert and a message to the bot owner fixes it. But in this case if the bot crates a page which is inappropriate then to revert it takes an administrative action. I think such processes(that will take administrative action to revert) ought to be under the control of an experienced bot operator and not someone with little experience of editing Wikipedia pages or running bots. -- PBS (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, you are probably correct and WP:BOTNOTNOW applies. In their defense, they did say "If the are pages like this, I will skip the page", at which point I set the small trial. I very specifically set the trial to only 30 edits given user is newish to see how they handle this. Afterwards, I posted about the double redirect case here (it was only 2 pages of same subpage) for them to resolve and they said they have. So I set another smallish trial that was sure to have more potential double redirect cases from the generated list. And about edit count, I check SUL stats (which is why we have the link at the top) in addition to local edits, and the user has a lot more edits on other wikis. There is a language barrier, so I didn't immediately assume them asking for clarification is misunderstanding of the task. Finally, the bot page did have a bot template. And this template has the "block me" link for sysops. The talk pages were redlinks, but I have previously always noted this before any full approval. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has made mode edits in other areas. Edit in all areas put together come to about 2,700 edits in all and looking at the three largest areas (smallest first-- the first two for which I do not know how to run Edic Counter)
The more I look at this specific bot task and this editor's experience, the more I think there is a mismatch, BUT if you think that this editor is ready to start a bot run like this one (where because he is not a editor on en.wikeidpia he can not clean-up if this run go wrong) then I will not stand in way of removing remove the block (indeed I will do it myself ) providing there is someone with administrator rights is willing to delete the edits which prove to be a mistake. I would include in the set of mistakes for this bot run, creating redirects to redirects (double redirects) and also creating redirects from talk pages of redirects of subpages such as docs and sandboxes etc that are themselves redirects to other pages. -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if they are ready, this is why we are having a trial in small increments and I'm checking every edit (I would have requested CSD on those myself if I denied this and I wouldn't approve this unless the botop cleaned up errors). I cannot tell if an editor will exercise due diligence unless I at least trial them. This is not approval and I've denied plenty of bots after trials. The first trial made me dubious and the second would either confirm or refute this. Of course, you blocked the bot with just 2 errors while in trial discussing these errors and deleted the pages. So now it's much harder for me to judge how appropriately the botop will respond. Say, had they nominated the erroneous pages for deletion, then explained in detail why it went wrong, that would be a very good sign. Or if they ignored the pages, made more errors and showed poor communication, that would be a clear reason for me to deny. This is a typical BRFA process. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above my initial concerns were two fold. One of which can be addressed by Gabrielchihonglee without the bot being enabled and that is to fix the lack of information provided on the BOT page including how his bot can be stopped by am ordinary user. I agree with you that a further text will be required, but before such a test is run on pages in the wild, would it not be better for Gabrielchihonglee to create some test pages in his user area and run the bot on those first. If he were to do that it would demonstrate that he understood the concerns raised here and had put in measures to fix them that worked (both regarding double no redirects, not creating talk pages of sub-pages are themselves redirects). -- PBS (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also another possibility: no talk page at the top level, but sub pages exist. In which case does the bot create a talk page, (if so what does it put in it?), or does it not create redirects from the talk pages of the subpages? -- PBS (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really disagree. Just one note, we have never required bots to have a disable button for other editors, there is no WP:BOTPOL rule on this. Some do, because they don't want to be blocked if they are not online. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

THIS REQUEST IS WITHDROWN BY ME. I WILL REQUEST IT WHEN THE BOT IS MORE BETTER. THANKS FOR ALL OF YOUR INTENTION. THANK YOU!--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Closing then. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:47, 8 October 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.
Category