Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 63

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
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 Approved.

AnomieBOT 63

edit

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

Time filed: 02:51, Saturday May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/RedirectBypasser.pm

Function overview: Bypass redirects when a formerly-used name is being usurped

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#user:N

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: about 880 for the initial run

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: There are certain cases that are exceptions to WP:R2D. One example is where a user uses a particular name for a time, then changes to another name, and then a different user wants to usurp the original name; to avoid confusion, it may be helpful to update links to the old name in old discussions.

This bot task would be available to bypass redirects in these sort of cases, subject to consensus that the bypassing is actually needed.

Discussion

edit

The initial run will be to change reference to User:N, User talk:N, and subpages to the corresponding pages under User:Nard the Bard and User talk:Nard the Bard, as there is another user who wishes to use the name "N".

This bot task would only be used for the rare cases where an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN is to be made by consensus; for example, the common(er) case of a user who changed names and wants their signatures updated just to avoid the redirect from the old name would be denied, as there is no reason to avoid those redirects.

On a technical level, the bot will replace a link [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]] and a link [[redirect|text]] with [[target|text]]; in other words, the visible text will remain the same. Any pages that are protected or bot-excluded, or pages with template-generated links, will be logged for human attention. Anomie⚔ 02:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple suggestions and you probably already thought of the first. If text is the same as target in [[target|text]] then I would recommend making it [[target]] rather than have something that looks like [[target|target]].
The second is just a suggestion for a task to do with this. Currently Template:Portal is protected because its on over 4 million articles and Template:Portal box which is on about 26000 and redirects to it is not. I would recommend as part of the run, to replace Portal box with portal so they are all under the protected template. Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a good suggestion, although I'm not sure how often it will occur in practice. The second is not something I would do, as it would be simpler to just protect the redirect. Which, in fact, I just did. Anomie⚔ 03:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first happens fairly often in regular editing. AWB handles a lot of cases. Not sure how much it would come up on your bot though I admit. Well that fixes the redirect problem for now. I still admit that I am not a fan of template redirects but I also realize I am nearly alone in those feelings. I feel they are completely different than regular redirects but again, that's just me in my weird little world. :-)Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP shortcut case: By "new target", do you mean "completely different page", or do you mean "updated section name on the same page"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that if at some point in the future overwhelming consensus was to do something like change WP:BN from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard and consensus was that old links to the shortcut should be adjusted, the bot would be able to do it. Not that I foresee anything like that happening, and if it really worries people I could strike it out (and file a new BRFA if at some point such a thing were needed). Anomie⚔ 22:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems a bit broad an approval for a task like this. How often do you expect to be doing these types of runs? It might be better to deal with these on a case by case basis, rather than giving carte blanche approval. --Chris 17:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's what we want to do. I doubt it would happen often at all. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa I'll think about it some more, but this sounds like a bad idea at first blush, going and changing a lot of old and archived talk pages to make a username mean something different. Any diffs, permanent links, snapshots, etc. that refer to those pages will still show the old name. Usurping a name that's already been heavily used can cause pretty bad confusion in general, so I'd rather that the requester just choose a new username. Usernames should also in general not be considered to be transferable between users. Last thing we need is domain name squatters camping on wikipedia usernames. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not quite correct:
      • In this case the rename was done because the contributor who owns the SUL account wanted to usurp his missing account
      • The diffs don't show the correct name because the username was renamed
      • This BFRA only finished the username change
    • Regards, mabdul 18:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The SUL thing mitigates one issue (at least partly) but still, people change usernames all the time. It's inappropriate to go change every talk page archive the person ever signed. It's just like when someone changes their name in real life (e.g. The Artist Formerly Known as Prince). We don't go and furiously revise every publication that contained their old name prior to the change. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note this request is specifically not for when anyone changes their name. It's only for a case where someone new is going to use the old username. Anomie⚔ 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh wait, I misinterpreted what you were saying about SUL. In this case it doesn't mitigate things much after all. The new user should pick a new username for reasons I described further up. It shouldn't be possible to enroll a SUL account when the name is already in use and has a lot of edits (WP:SUL/C). 66.127.55.46 (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As anticipated, someone has filed the usurpation for my former account. See Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#N_tmp_.E2.86.92_N -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – Any and all links to N (talk · contribs) made before 22:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC) do need to be changed as this name now refers to a different user. These changes are far better than the alternative, which would cause incredible confusion. Nard the Bard (talk · contribs) did link to this BRFA in the other user's usurp request and no objections were raised. However, like others involved in this discussion, I'm concerned that the scope of this task may be overly broad. Can we narrow it to this general case (a user is renamed then the old name is taken) and then handle any other general cases as we encounter them? Thanks, — madman 22:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Have there been links made after 31 May 2012? Anomie⚔ 02:46, 6 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AnomieBOT_63&oldid=1146367355"