Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 18

Re-examining this task[edit]

Moved from Special:PermaLink/1004016773#List_update

Is there an easy way for the table at User:Monkbot/task_18:_cosmetic_cs1_template_cleanup#hyphenate_cs1|2_parameter_names to be updated? I think a tweak of the bot task may be in order, but I want to see where we are as far as progress goes. If it's a "manually update", I can handle it, but wasn't sure if you had a script or something that could do it semi-auto. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]

Actually, I just manually checked the values. Of the 14 parameters that had 1000+ uses, only 5 (|accessdate=, |archivedate=, |archiveurl=, |authorlink=, and |origyear= are left with more than 1000 (and all but one of the remaining 30 are <100). While I am pleased to see ~~over~~ almost 1 mil uses of accessdate have been removed (and only 5 "major" params left), it is the most contentious of the updates.

Would you be amenable to pausing this task temporarily so that a formal discussion (likely an RFC) can be held regarding these remaining five parameters? The remaining uses of the other 30 parameters can be cleaned up manually and those parameters deprecated, but I do think there has been enough pushback from the community (and outright disruptive editing in some cases) to re-examine the mass removal of the rest. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Updated because I can't count. Primefac (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the removal of |accessdate on a wide scale is disruptive. It renders watchlists largely unusable. There has been no discussion to deprecate the parameter |accessdate, nor does there seem to be a good reason to do so. Such widespread removals fall afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT. An RFC should be held on this subject before this removal continues, as we shouldn't have a template parameter with literally millions of uses deprecated simply because a bot doesn't like it. Removal of |accessdate is a very wide-reaching change, and should have had a larger discussion than a BRFA before approval, as it is a large change. Hog Farm _Talk 19:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's... exactly what I'm proposing? Primefac (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: - My intention was to support your proposal of an RFC, sorry if I didn't come across clearly. I'm just a little annoyed with this, as task 18 is really messing with my watchlist and severely hampering its usefulness in some cases, so I was kinda venting a bit when I shouldn't have. I hope me slapping the template to deny task 18 onto most pages I'm working doesn't count as disruptive editing. I hope I'm not coming across as uncivil, but these edits are causing a good deal of frustration for me, and I'm really wondering why a barely-attended BRFA was sufficient for the authorization of what looks like is going to add up to millions of potentially controversial edits. I think the RFC needed to happen before this was unleashed, but now's as good a time as ever. As an aside, I'm going to be stepping away from this discussion for awhile, as I'm getting very frustrated, and I don't want to risk getting cranky and behaving uncivilly. Hog Farm _Talk 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To make life easier for those who might read this, at the time of this writing these are the approximate numbers:

accessdate: was: 2,804,881; is 1,885,238 (delta: -919,643)
archivedate: was: 837,655; is 455,808 (delta: -381,847)
archiveurl: was: 834,802; is 455,477 (delta: -379,325)
authorlink: was: 268,232; is 87,333 (delta: -180,899)
origyear: was: 44,022; is 9,882 (delta: -34,140)

Not sure where you're getting the notion that over 1 mil uses of accessdate have been removed; close-ish but not quite there yet. Since we're talking numbers: as of today task 18 has made 1,346,461 edits since 2020-11-25 (2 months and 6 days). In that time there have been 150 reverts so a revert rate of 0.0111% – I count all reverts (hostile or not) that I know about (I know about those that cause a 'Your edit on ... was reverted' alert); any other kind of revert I don't know about so isn't included in my count.

I am not enthusiastic about an RFC. RFCs, in my experience, are fraught with emotion – I know, the closer is supposed to be above all of that, but closers are human and humans respond to emotion. I cannot, I will not, be the one to write an RFC because I am biased – if I did not believe that all nonhyphenated multiword parameter names should go away, I would not have written the bot task. If an RFC happens, an RFC happens and I will live with the outcome whatever it is.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist, just out of curiousity, what's the rationale behind removing the non-hyphenated ones? I sometimes update accessdates on mobile, and my mobile setup makes it difficult to switch between alphabetical and non-letter characters, so |accessdate is much easier. Likewise, I owned a computer for awhile with a faulty - key, so simply using |accessdate was generally the best solution for me there. Also, the low revert count is probably due to this not being considered enough to start edit warring with a bot over - in my own and several other editors's I've talked to opinions, this is really a meaningless edit. Honestly, I think the desire for an RFC over this is that this bot task is essentially deprecating a template parameter that just a couple months ago had almost 3 million usages. So de facto deprecation of a widely-used citation template parameter via a bot task with a small approval discussion looks to editors like myself like a backdoor way to deprecate a parameter without consensus. So I think an RFC is probably going to be the best case for handling this, as essentially deprecating the extremely widely-used |accessdate without a discussion is going to get a lot of pushback. Hog Farm _Talk 23:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hog Farm's assessment that a low reversal rate does not indicate the level of disagreement with the bot's actions. I only revert when it's deserved; the bot's edits are very annoying and lack a convincing rationale, but I would never revert them. I suspect many editors are in this camp. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the fact that there's momentum for an RFC on this building is maybe a sign this task should be paused for further consideration. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A BAG has already set the task on hold. See WP:BOTN discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies, I forgot to update here, see Special:PermaLink/1004516877#Monkbot_18. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I have a script that does this (but it also does other things). It basically puts in a button that let's users run it on any given page. I haven't published it because I never imagined anyone would be interested in it, but I am certainly able to if there's a desire. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]