Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Yapperbot 2
Timing[edit]
@Naypta, Primefac, Sdkb, and Thryduulf: I've created User:Yapperbot/kill/Uncurrenter. Consider me the first to complain: 5 hours is far too short for {{current}}. Deryck C. 00:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to recommend the bot be voluntarily reconfigured to wait 24 hours before removal. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)- And I'm going to object to that recommendation. As I've explained at User:Yapperbot/kill/Uncurrenter, Deryck has misunderstood the purpose of this template. If anything, this bot should be removing this template closer to 2 hours after the last edit than 5 hours, leaving it for 24 hours is actively misleading to our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- You make a fair point (in both locations), so I'll strike my recommendation for now. Seems like more discussion is needed, though, and I would suggest holding it at WP:BOTN to get more eyes on the matter. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Deryck Chan, Primefac, Thryduulf, and Sdkb: Hello! We did discuss this at the BRFA specifically, as I'm sure you've read. If you think it was insufficiently discussed there, I'm happy to discuss it further in an appropriate location such as WP:BOTN as Primefac suggests. I would like to echo what has been said already that the kill page for a bot is emphatically not the appropriate page to disagree with what it is doing, though; this sort of thing was exactly what I was worried about when creating those pages, and I'm going to request some modifications to the editnotice to perhaps make it clearer. A bot kill page is for where the bot task is malfunctioning, and malfunctioning in such a desperately bad way that it needs to be disabled urgently, before its botop can be contacted. That's pretty clearly not what's happened here. No hard feelings - the fact that this has happened suggests the editnotice text I wrote wasn't good enough, so I'll need to improve it! - but just a note for next time
Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised that this bot task is generating a bit of controversy — using {{Current}} for more and more cases beyond its original intention has become very culturally ingrained in Wikipedia in the years since its predecessor stopped, and wresting it back is undeniably a shift that'll take some adjustment. Further discussion at WP:BOTN might help, but I think the discussions specific to the bot are mostly just symptomatic of the lack of agreement on the role of {{Current}}, and that's an issue that's wider than just bots. The recent VPR thread wasn't able to come to any firm conclusions, but perhaps the next big discussion will have better luck. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Deryck Chan, Primefac, Thryduulf, and Sdkb: Hello! We did discuss this at the BRFA specifically, as I'm sure you've read. If you think it was insufficiently discussed there, I'm happy to discuss it further in an appropriate location such as WP:BOTN as Primefac suggests. I would like to echo what has been said already that the kill page for a bot is emphatically not the appropriate page to disagree with what it is doing, though; this sort of thing was exactly what I was worried about when creating those pages, and I'm going to request some modifications to the editnotice to perhaps make it clearer. A bot kill page is for where the bot task is malfunctioning, and malfunctioning in such a desperately bad way that it needs to be disabled urgently, before its botop can be contacted. That's pretty clearly not what's happened here. No hard feelings - the fact that this has happened suggests the editnotice text I wrote wasn't good enough, so I'll need to improve it! - but just a note for next time
- You make a fair point (in both locations), so I'll strike my recommendation for now. Seems like more discussion is needed, though, and I would suggest holding it at WP:BOTN to get more eyes on the matter. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- And I'm going to object to that recommendation. As I've explained at User:Yapperbot/kill/Uncurrenter, Deryck has misunderstood the purpose of this template. If anything, this bot should be removing this template closer to 2 hours after the last edit than 5 hours, leaving it for 24 hours is actively misleading to our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note that the comments left at User:Yapperbot/kill/Uncurrenter have been moved to User talk:Yapperbot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- From what we have discussed so far, what is being proposed here is very much not automating an existing task, but rather introducing a new standard (or the original standard, according to Thryduulf) by asking a bot to enforce it. The fact that other editors have changed the purpose of a template from its original design purpose can mean that consensus has changed, rather than that the original design should be enforced. We should note that (1) the date parameter recommends month-level accuracy is actively suggesting that this template can stay on for over a month in some cases; and (2) most derivatives of this template on other Wikipedias are for marking ongoing events in general not just pages that change on an hourly basis. Deryck C. 11:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- That some editors have misused this template is not evidence that there is a consensus for that usage. Leaving this template up for a month would very, very clearly be contrary to both the documentation and the WP:NODISCLAIMERS consensus (that has only gotten tighter over the years). The place to argue for a change to the purpose of this template is not on the talk page of a bot operating with approval to maintain the explicitly documented usage, but in a more general discussion. The most recent discussion clearly found consensus against deprecating the template but didn't discuss the extreme expansion to the meaning you seem to be advocating. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- From what we have discussed so far, what is being proposed here is very much not automating an existing task, but rather introducing a new standard (or the original standard, according to Thryduulf) by asking a bot to enforce it. The fact that other editors have changed the purpose of a template from its original design purpose can mean that consensus has changed, rather than that the original design should be enforced. We should note that (1) the date parameter recommends month-level accuracy is actively suggesting that this template can stay on for over a month in some cases; and (2) most derivatives of this template on other Wikipedias are for marking ongoing events in general not just pages that change on an hourly basis. Deryck C. 11:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)