Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 2

At this point, considering the first bot had issues raised, I asked for it to be stopped, others had raised the issue, and CobraBot's owner did not bother to link to a very relevant ANI discussion,[1] I would like CobraBot 1 deflagged and CobraBot task 2 stopped and the bot owner's responsibility to the community revisited until I have time to figure out whether this bot is a good idea and until the community has time to discuss this issue. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It says to put it in a new section. If BAG can't write appropriate directions, then maybe you should find someone who can. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

maybe you need to stop being so aggressive, that BRFA lasted several weeks, and has been approved. Also you need to read the instructions and follow them properly if you want to comment on this page. /sigh β^_command 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please tone down the aggression. But in IP69.226.103.13's defense, until just now the instructions in {{BT}} and {{BB}} did say to create a new section (following the boilerplate of most other section-closing templates). Anomie⚔ 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

and he did not do that, instead, he just commented right after the BRFA without creating a section per the instructions. so either way he was incorrect. β^_command 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that turning this to me and my behavior is grossly inappropriate, and I will ignore all such comments and their posts. If you can discuss the issue rather than the user, please modify your posts as appropriate and do so, if you really want to participate in this discussion. If you don't want to participate, there's no need to include your personal attacks and comments about other editors. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not making any personal attacks. rather I am making a point that you did not follow the instructions. if you want to ignore the facts of why you where reverted feel free to. Just dont complain when it happens again. β^_command 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you said I "cannot follow directions."[2] That's a personal attack. Where is my aggression here? That's being discussed elsewhere.

Do any BAG or wikipedia community members have any comments on the Bot? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be easier for us if you would tell us why task 2 should be suspended - I can see the rationale for task 1, but the second task seems fine. Your tone, probably unintentionally, is coming across as demanding - in a collaborative environment, you are more likely to get a positive response if you explain things. If you want the bot de-flagged, we can't do that - you could ask a bureaucrat Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried explaining things, discussing the issue, raising my concerns, changing my attitude. What I got was dragged into years of garbage dished out to the entire wikipedia community by Betacommand and his personal attacks on me supported here. Every time I try discussing the issue in a straight-forward manner, working as part of this team, BAG members make it clear by their ignoring my posts and concerns that I am NOT a part of the team. To have you suggest that I should try doing something that earned me being personally attacked, stalked, and targeted by Betacommand is over the top. Why not just address the issues I raise when I raise them? I post questions, they're ignored for months. I raised concerns, there's no response.

The time to forestall the issue of CobraBot2 was when I raised the issue of CobraBot1. You couldn't be bothered. But CobraBot2 is running on a flag given to a bot that was improperly approved without community consensus. So, CobraBot2 is, imo, the same as an unflagged bot. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Such illogic. Even if CobraBot 1 were to be invalid in some manner, you have done nothing to even legitimately claim that CobraBot 2 is not valid. Were the bot not already flagged from CobraBot 1, the flag would have been given for CobraBot 2 so your assertion is plainly fallacious.

Yes, Beta was rude to you. You said so. Now take it to WP:AE or drop it, stop bringing it up in every single discussion today. As for the rest, just because no one agrees with you doesn't mean you or your concerns were ignored. Anomie⚔ 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of CobraBot 2 continued for at least 10 days before full approval. Also, the discussion was widely advertised [3] [4] [5]. Was there some reason, IP69.226.103.13, why you could not contribute during that period? HairyWombat (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My illogic doesn't matter. Cobrabot1 is still a flagged bot. That's how Cobrabot2 was approved: on the basis of it being a second task to an already approved bot. Now you say it was stopped. No, it was still a flagged bot. If you keep moving off topic and posting the ridiculous I will keep pointing back to the Betacommand incident. He was allowed to interact with me as if he were a BAG member. He's now stalking me. His posts and his arbcom point out that I am not the only one to raise these concerns about speedy approvals and BAG only concerning themselves with technical issues on bots while ignoring community concerns. I wouldn't have to bring this up if I didn't have it handy after interacting with Betacommand and if it didn't point to how much my concerns have been ignored and marginalized as if I'm the only editor raising these issues. I'm not. Betacommand's arbcom sanctions show clearly that I'm not. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want. Your illogic matters enough to me that I see no point in continuing to continue with this discussion. Anomie⚔ 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will believe what I want. You will, too. It's strange how people are like that. But that's not the issue. Cobrabot2 was approved on the basis that it was a second task for an already approved and flagged bot. You say the bot is stopped, but it's not. If it was stopped the second task would not have been approved as a second task for an approved bot. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, IP - you have to understand it from my perspective, that until these CobraBot incidents, I had no idea who you were. So I do need things explained to me, or prior concerns pointed out to me in order to answer your comments. Yes, Beta was rude to you, and that's a separate issue. The point we keep raising again and again is how do we get the community more involved, so that our consensus is not based on silence - I freely offer the notion that we have no idea. Even though we often force operators to contact relevant projects, they do not come. If you have an idea, tell us - that's the only hope we have, since this is a perennial problem. Otherwise, continuing this is going to get us nowhere. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I started out with a post trying to discuss the issue, and I got ridiculous comments thrown at me, and I got personally attacked. Every time I back down and start out more neutral at bots I get attacked. I get hyperbole. I get called names. I'm tired of it. There probably are ways to gain more community input that you haven't tried, yet. But right now, there's another issue.

If Cobrabot1 was stopped, then it should not have had a flag. If it didn't have a flag and it was stopped, Cobrabot2 should not have gone through as a second task. I want the justification for Cobrabot1 explained by a bureaucrat, and I want Cobrabot2 rerun as a request for a new bot, not a second task. I want Cobrabot1 unflagged and blocked.

Continuing anything with BAG will get me insulted and attacked. That's hardly nowhere. Betacommand probably enjoyed the freebie courtesy of BAG and Xeno. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't defrock bots unnecessarily. That would just be wonkery. And bots are allowed to cease one task if there are objections and continue with another under the same name. The tasks aren't co-dependent and don't require an entirely new username just because you want them to - that would be wasteful. –xeno^talk 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot hasn't ceased the one task. It's still a go for that community unapproved task. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it is not adding OCLC params. –xeno^talk 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not stopped from doing so. It's still approved and flagged for that task. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the community discussion over the OCLC links? As far as I can tell it fizzled out and got archived? –xeno^talk 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some strong disagreement by just a few users about including active OCLC parameters in the template. The discussions are in a few places, and the issue was raised again on AN/I after the bot was approved. There doesn't appear to be community consensus for the OCLC anywhere, as an actively linked filled-in parameter in the template. This is what I originally searched for, a discussion requesting the bot add the parameter or some such. There does not appear to be one. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_book wound down out without a decisive conclusion. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Demanding that CobraBot 1 be stopped pending further discussion seems silly. The bot has completed its run, and will only be run again when user Cybercobra feels like it (approximately every three months, according to the approval request). Three months is plenty of time for a consensus, or more likely a lack of consensus, to be reached. Also, I don't understand why IP69.226.103.13 believes that the approval of CobraBot 2 was contingent on the approval of CobraBot 1. As far as I can see, the two approval processes were independant. Perhaps IP69.226.103.13 could explain why they think otherwise. Finally, I believe it is grossly unfair to criticise the approval of CobraBot 2. After criticism of the approval of CobraBot 1, user Cybercobra went out of his way to publicise and encourage the discussion of CobraBot 2. A discussion which took place for at least 10 days. HairyWombat (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what I criticize, nobody pays attention, but attacks me personally. So I'll pass on your criticism. CobraBot 2's approval was partially contingent upon CobraBot 1's approval, because it was requested as a second task in a bot that already had been approved. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I dug back into the History of {{Infobox book}}. The parameter |oclc= was added on June 10, 2007. This was at the request of a single user, with no discussion. HairyWombat (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And now, plenty of users have spoken out against it. I've asked users to comment about the OCLC issue.[6] --69.226.106.109 (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OCLC parameter linking consensus

I asked at the template, requesting editors who had participated in a prior discussion, to voice their opinions on linking in the template. It wasn't hard to get input from interested members of the community. The consensus appears to be that users like the functionality offered by externally linking the OCLC parameter in the template to the worldcat website.

Still I think that these bots should have obtained community consensus proactively, but my main concern about Cobrabot was adding the OCLC without community consensus when it is an external link. As this has community support after the fact, I'm okay with Cobrabot 1 and Cobrabot 2, although it's American-centric.

I still don't like how these bots were fast-tracked without community consensus, but I am focused now on finding a way to gain community consensus for bots, that would generally eliminate problems or issues about fast approvals. If the community has already given consensus for the task, then the timing of approval is more a mere technical issue, something BAG members seem to handle well.

[7]

--69.225.3.198 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)