Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KoehlBot

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

Denied.

KoehlBot

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

Time filed: 20:03, Wednesday, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Clean up work of pages within Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo where the operator is coordinator

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:Dan_Koehl#Zoos_navbox

Edit period(s): Once a month

Estimated number of pages affected: apr 2 500 pages

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

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

Function details: Remove invalid Templates from relevant pages, and add valid Templates to relevant pages, according to consensus within Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, as well as checking pages with AWB built in Autotag and general fixes.

Discussion

Support approval. I'm the user who pointed out to Dan that the {{Zoos}} template was being added to articles where it wasn't appropriate based on WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. He in the best of faith had been adding it based on an outdated to do list at the Zoos WikiProject page, where an item calling for the addition of that navbox to every page had been added back in 2006 (I removed that item in response to it being pointed out, in line with the general guideline) Because of this a great number of pages are out of sync with the general navbox guidelines, and this bot will aid Dan in bringing them into line with it without having to do such manually, a task that would be onerous for edits made in good faith. (I'm sure there are other such things in to do lists elsewhere, as such to do lists are frequently overlooked and often not appropriately updated.) oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'll be a major issue, but there are a few redirects in the navbox; just be sure to avoid accidentally removing the template from those (and/or update the template to reflect the actual article names). --slakr^\ talk / 01:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to be safe, I started an RFC related to this sorta general task (mainly for future instances where similar bot requests arise). I just want to be certain that mass-removals are fully supported by consensus. --slakr^\ talk / 04:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the current status of the RfC, I'm not sure this has consensus. — Earwig ^talk 14:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the recent discussions, and awaiting their outcome, I have changed description in Function details: section, from "Remove invalid Templates, like Template:Zoos, from pages, according to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL," to "Remove invalid Templates from relevant pages, and add valid Templates to relevant pages," Dan Koehl (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's far too vague to make a bot out of. What constitutes an "invalid template" or a "valid template"? Individual cases likely need their own consensus. — Earwig ^talk 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: , I don't think so. presently theres just two alternatives, supported by two groups, one group want the Zoos template on all zoo pages, which was a decided consensus within the Wikiproject Zoo, and which some outside the project support as well, and then theres the group, who claim that a navigation box should only be placed on ages, linked from the navigation box. The latter seem to be supported by WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. It would not be possible to make this an individual case, it has to be a decision which involves all pages, I think. Therefore, we all wait for the outcome for the resent consensus discussion, and after that a decision weather all articles about zoos should have the template, or none of them. Once decision is taken, any user, or a bot, can execute the changes, according to consensus. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So based on the outcome of the RFC, I don't think that the more-general wording of the task is approved; the scope of the task will need to be on a case-by-case basis. So, at best, this can only be approved if there's consensus when it comes to a specific template or clear set of templates on a case-by-case basis. --slakr^\ talk / 05:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. There appears to be no consensus to implement this guideline-level change by bot. The RfC result precludes us from assuming this task should be carried out automatically unless there is clear consensus. The general feeling is that there would be exceptions requiring human review (WP:CONTEXTBOT). Unfortunately, there appears to be no strong recent consensus for Zoo template either, in fact the issue is contested by several editors. It seems manual and supervised is the way to go for now. Closing as "denied" as incompatible with automation at this point, but no prejudice to reopening/recreating if a specific set of articles is given and consensus for those is established, such as what slakr mentions above. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:50, 17 January 2016 (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.