Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval/KuziasBot
- Operator: Kuzia
- Automatic or Manually Assisted: manually assisted
- Programming Language: PHP
- Function Summary: templates, redirects
- Edit period: irregular, on manual run
- Edit rate requested: ~5/min
- Already has a bot flag: N
- Function Details: Changes and additions of templates for external sources. Redirects for combiations and synonyms. Later on, automatic species page creation with the aid of WoRMS-based-databases, IndexFungorum, Mammal Species of the World (only for "red-linked" species/subspecies on pages of respective genera/species).
Oppose The bot is being used to make contentious edits prior to approval, even in specific cases where the edits are known to be potentially contentious (and then direct personal approval was sought after the edits were made). Since the bot is being used irresponsibly, I have to oppose, particularly as the owner seems intent on justification after the fact rather than process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Explain, please. Some examples? Bot is waiting for approval more then week, without response. I don't see the reason to block. Ark (talk page) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- See the discussion on my talk page for a bit more information. Among other points, yhe bot has been used to replace templates prior to asking if the change is OK, then the owner has asked for acceptance after the bot has made the run. This is backwards, and suggests that the bot is not being used responsibly. If there is doubt on the part of the bot's owner (as indicated by the request for an OK), then the run should not have been made first. A request I made to correct a problem introduced by the bot was met with a response that criticized the wording of my request without actually answering whether the correction would (or would not) be made. Part of the reason we regulate bots is to ensure problems will not become quickly widespread. If a bot's owner is unwilling to even give a "yes" or "no" to this kind of issue, then that bot probably shouldn't be allowed to run, as it means that other people may have to manually correct a widespread problem. The bot has also made many, many edits beyond the "test" edits allowed by policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have seen discussion and I agree with Andrey. Operator can make limited testing without approval. And we should talk with him, not block without any response on request. Which template do you meen, and what is wrong? Could you show an example, please? Ark (talk page) 06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ark. The discussion is about Template:ALGAE and Template:AlgaeBase. On the 14th of April I created the latter one to make possible direct links for AlgaeBase pages. A week later, on the 21st of April it was modified to allow citations without linking to a taxon page, so additionally to the first intentioned features it got the functonality of the Template:ALGAE. As Template:ALGAE was used only on a few WS-pages I changed it in preferece of a more wide Template:AlgaeBase and asked EncycloPetey (as the only interested person) whether he was against the deletion of the Template:ALGAE, which became redundant. After a reply on my rash behavior, the user asked me to change the name of the date parameter to accessdate, and that was immediately done. Kuzia (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Several of your statements are untrue. I pointed out that your template uses a parameter name (date) for the (accessdate) of a webpage; on all other projects (date) refers to date of publication and (accessdate) is used for the date of access. Your edits to taxon pages changed the parameter name, and I asked you to change that back. You told me that no change had been made (which was untrue) and you now claim that a fix of the problem was "immediately done", which is also untrue. The problem on all the pages you edited still exists, and your implemented solution has made the problem worse by making the two parameters (which mean different things elsewhere) to mean the same thing. You have yet to correct the problem that you created with your bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Concerning the AlgaeBase: we are talking about 151 pages which use "date" instead of "accessdate" (the latter one is the only mentioned in the template manual). I see no problem in that as AlgaeBase webpages have no official date of issue except of the year. If you suppose that's an extremely severe problem (so greate as it was necessary to lash me) I can make a change. Dear EncycloPetey, (excuse my unawareness about your name and degree), could you be so kind as to avoid personal attacks of that sort as your methods of conversation (unnecessary blocks, subjective "untrue" labels etc) are extremely uncommon for me and the communities I belong to (scientific or programming). I have to ask our colleages for mediation in our discussions as they have crossed the line of objectiveness and constructiveness. Please, use other admins to announce your replies. Kuzia (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- While you may not see problems, that doesn't mean that problems do not exist. I would have thought that telling you once that it is a problem, and asking once to fix it would be enough. How many times do I have to ask before you agree to fix the problem you created with your bot? I know that you can fix the problem, and you've said that before. Instead of saying again that you can do it, please just do it. I don't understand your reluctance to actually fix the problem. This reluctance to act makes me oppose further your running a bot, since a bot owner should be ready and willing to fix problems created by their bot. Also, you may have the opinon that my block (of your bot, not of your account) was "unnecessary", but you did invite me to "solve the problem by applying your administrative tools in the way supposed for such a situation" [1] if I was concerned, so I don't understand why you are now complaining when I merely acted in accordance with the suggestion you made yourself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see you are ignoring my request. Ok.
I've neverI hadn't (to clrify the issue Kuzia (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)) said it is unnecessary/necessary to block the bot. That act was your admin's right and there were different ways to solve the situation. (Meanwhile the bot had not been running by the moment of the block for a day: the last edit was at 06:29, 1 May 2011, while you blocked it at 10:59, 2 May 2011, and you were aware that I was informed and wasn't going to run it further before the situation would be solved). By blocking the bot you blocked me for several days: I don't know whether you have noticed that, but the block was applied to IP. That is quite a surprise for me that you were unaware of that consequence. And that was especially impolite in the light of your replies (to me?) on this page made after the block. I am not going to run the bot before other admins allow that. The first run will cope with my AlgaeBase-crime if you wish and that is considered necessary by the community. I ask you once more not to replie to me directly. Kuzia (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)- It is unfair to ask me not to participate in a request for bot approval. Doing so biases the discussion, and you should know this.
- I see you are ignoring my request. Ok.
- While you may not see problems, that doesn't mean that problems do not exist. I would have thought that telling you once that it is a problem, and asking once to fix it would be enough. How many times do I have to ask before you agree to fix the problem you created with your bot? I know that you can fix the problem, and you've said that before. Instead of saying again that you can do it, please just do it. I don't understand your reluctance to actually fix the problem. This reluctance to act makes me oppose further your running a bot, since a bot owner should be ready and willing to fix problems created by their bot. Also, you may have the opinon that my block (of your bot, not of your account) was "unnecessary", but you did invite me to "solve the problem by applying your administrative tools in the way supposed for such a situation" [1] if I was concerned, so I don't understand why you are now complaining when I merely acted in accordance with the suggestion you made yourself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Concerning the AlgaeBase: we are talking about 151 pages which use "date" instead of "accessdate" (the latter one is the only mentioned in the template manual). I see no problem in that as AlgaeBase webpages have no official date of issue except of the year. If you suppose that's an extremely severe problem (so greate as it was necessary to lash me) I can make a change. Dear EncycloPetey, (excuse my unawareness about your name and degree), could you be so kind as to avoid personal attacks of that sort as your methods of conversation (unnecessary blocks, subjective "untrue" labels etc) are extremely uncommon for me and the communities I belong to (scientific or programming). I have to ask our colleages for mediation in our discussions as they have crossed the line of objectiveness and constructiveness. Please, use other admins to announce your replies. Kuzia (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Several of your statements are untrue. I pointed out that your template uses a parameter name (date) for the (accessdate) of a webpage; on all other projects (date) refers to date of publication and (accessdate) is used for the date of access. Your edits to taxon pages changed the parameter name, and I asked you to change that back. You told me that no change had been made (which was untrue) and you now claim that a fix of the problem was "immediately done", which is also untrue. The problem on all the pages you edited still exists, and your implemented solution has made the problem worse by making the two parameters (which mean different things elsewhere) to mean the same thing. You have yet to correct the problem that you created with your bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ark. The discussion is about Template:ALGAE and Template:AlgaeBase. On the 14th of April I created the latter one to make possible direct links for AlgaeBase pages. A week later, on the 21st of April it was modified to allow citations without linking to a taxon page, so additionally to the first intentioned features it got the functonality of the Template:ALGAE. As Template:ALGAE was used only on a few WS-pages I changed it in preferece of a more wide Template:AlgaeBase and asked EncycloPetey (as the only interested person) whether he was against the deletion of the Template:ALGAE, which became redundant. After a reply on my rash behavior, the user asked me to change the name of the date parameter to accessdate, and that was immediately done. Kuzia (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have seen discussion and I agree with Andrey. Operator can make limited testing without approval. And we should talk with him, not block without any response on request. Which template do you meen, and what is wrong? Could you show an example, please? Ark (talk page) 06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- See the discussion on my talk page for a bit more information. Among other points, yhe bot has been used to replace templates prior to asking if the change is OK, then the owner has asked for acceptance after the bot has made the run. This is backwards, and suggests that the bot is not being used responsibly. If there is doubt on the part of the bot's owner (as indicated by the request for an OK), then the run should not have been made first. A request I made to correct a problem introduced by the bot was met with a response that criticized the wording of my request without actually answering whether the correction would (or would not) be made. Part of the reason we regulate bots is to ensure problems will not become quickly widespread. If a bot's owner is unwilling to even give a "yes" or "no" to this kind of issue, then that bot probably shouldn't be allowed to run, as it means that other people may have to manually correct a widespread problem. The bot has also made many, many edits beyond the "test" edits allowed by policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Explain, please. Some examples? Bot is waiting for approval more then week, without response. I don't see the reason to block. Ark (talk page) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I find it odd that you claim you "wasn't going to run it further before the situation would be solved", when you have in fact made over 10,000 edits with your bot already, and many of those in the time since the problem arose.
- You have also, once again, ignored my request to fix the problem by implying that I have not made it clear that I wish the problem fixed. Well, let me clear up the persistent confusion: I want the problem fixed. If you choose to call it a "crime", then you are the one charging the situation and setting up your own personal attacks. Please refrain from using such charged language as you have been doing. You are a person requesting approval for a bot, and yet you have not corrected the problem you created (with your "limited test run" of 10,000 edits) that I have several times now asked you to correct. This is by far the biggest problem I see with your running a bot; you have made thousands of edits in a short time and are reluctant to correct a problem created by those edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to understand more from EncycloPetey what the objections are. Overall I think the use of templates and automatic creation of articles (where it works) is a good thing. If the issue is that we need more discussion about the parameters and use of reference and link templates, then let's discuss that. In the meantime I think this bot should not be running. It seems that there have been enough edits required for testing. Open2universe | Talk 13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK. By the way, the runs with automatic page creations are absolutely under my own control: I check every created page, because (besides problems connected with variations in reference formatting) there are some mistakes in the database (IsoList in this case). Kuzia (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question: If I had not pointed out the serious problems with using the Plant List as a source, would you have planned to use your bot to create species pages from their database? Given that the source is highly unreliable, why haven't you removed the citations you added from their database? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, in our discussion I told you that I was aware about the problems persistent in the Plant list (though I thought they are not so serious for species authorrities and species assignnments for angiosperms) and I never claimed or planned to retrieve information from there. Make a look at the pages using the template. One of them has the citation in the "Links" block (and that was added by me manually) (Amaranthaceae was of the same sort). The other two mention the List in the "References" block where it existed before my edits. Kuzia (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing that issue for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, in our discussion I told you that I was aware about the problems persistent in the Plant list (though I thought they are not so serious for species authorrities and species assignnments for angiosperms) and I never claimed or planned to retrieve information from there. Make a look at the pages using the template. One of them has the citation in the "Links" block (and that was added by me manually) (Amaranthaceae was of the same sort). The other two mention the List in the "References" block where it existed before my edits. Kuzia (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question: If I had not pointed out the serious problems with using the Plant List as a source, would you have planned to use your bot to create species pages from their database? Given that the source is highly unreliable, why haven't you removed the citations you added from their database? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK. By the way, the runs with automatic page creations are absolutely under my own control: I check every created page, because (besides problems connected with variations in reference formatting) there are some mistakes in the database (IsoList in this case). Kuzia (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. I see personal conflict, not essential. We need bots and users with initiative, so I propose to approve KusiasBot for trial period. Ark (talk page) 12:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think things look okay. The issues I see are not bot issues but communication issues about handling links and references. Unless there is more discussion I will mark this as a bot later today. Open2universe | Talk 13:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Approved. Open2universe | Talk 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)