Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Courcelles Bot

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.

Courcelles Bot

Operator: Courcelles (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Semi-automatic, as I would have to configure each run.

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: N/A, as it would use a standard AWB configuration

Function overview: After a username change, WP:CHU allows users to change their signatures to point to their new name, however, this has attracted some comments about clogging up watchlists, and is very time-consuming for users with many thousands of edits.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): There's been a discussion on User talk:AnmaFinotera, but nothing on the noticeboards.

Edit period(s): When requested by a user who has been renamed

Estimated number of pages affected: This bot would only run on user request, so depends on how many pages with signatures they had previously edited.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): I'd assume yes, but I'm not actually programming this.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: This bot would replace old usernames and links with the renamed target, which is especally beneficial when the rename is for privacy or RTV issues. It would not do all user renames, rather it would only be ran when the renamed user requests it.

Discussion

The comments this attracted (see here) are not due to the fact that the edits have been clogging up watchlists. I only mentioned watchlists because that's how I came upon the comment. I have some random wikipedia talk page archives watchlisted for some reason, hence I came upon the edits. The questions regarding edits like this are not how they should be undertaken but whether or not they should be undertaken at all. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs wider discussion.. WP:CHU does not specifically allow or deny it, it just points out that the process does not automatically do so and thus it must be done manually. WP:UNC does specifically discourage it. WP:RTV does not apply here, for reasons already addressed at WP:RTV#What vanishing is not.
At any rate, a bot making what many will see as useless edits to thousands of talk pages and archives across the wiki will need a strong community consensus in favor, and not just discussion on one user's talk page (and even there, the discussion shows a lack of consensus). Truth be told I can't see any chance the community will accept this, but in the interest of fairness I won't deny this request before you have your (metaphorical) day at WP:VPR. Anomie ⚔ 21:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and archive this, then. I'm far too busy at the moment to deal with a VPR discussion, I'll eventually get back to it and see what consensus is. (I also have an idea for setting up the account for certain kinds of WP:CFDW problems, so I'll leave the account's userpage as it is for now.) Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents - Watchlist clogging is not the issue, as Protonk says. The intention to hide from watchlists in order to change usernames in discussions is the issue for me. Changing only username signatures might not be an issue if permanently flagged as a change in the signature, (Example -- NewSurpriseUsernameWP:CHU/WP:RTV) in the interest of openness and transparency, and retention of the sense of integrity in discussions. If I chat with User1, I certainly don't expect to return and find that someone has changed the intention of my discussion by changing to whom I was writing, to someone "unknown" to me. "Anybody can edit" other people's comments; that's why there's such a strong (and uncivil) community bias against it. To allow mass changes as it is is outrageous, to suggest that they be hidden from watchlists is worse, and to allow changes to other people's comments is just the ultimate betrayal. --Lexein (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about betrayal. I will say that the process which seems to have occurred in this case was a bit sub rosa. Perhaps there was need for that, I don't know. I can only verify that a rename actually happened because I'm an admin. The renaming crat deleted the rename logs. I have no idea if that is standard practice, but I hope it isn't. In the end this isn't that big of a deal. with the exception of deleted edits, past comments are indefinitely preserved. Talk page archives are simply a convenience mechanism for accessing the history. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a new issue. White Cat used to go on rampages doing this kind of thing years and years ago. It doesn't need bot intervention, it simply needs to not be done.

Comments on talk pages are supposed to be left untouched. A few minor tweaks right after they're posted is fine (copy-editing, whatever), but trying to go back and change the archives is a Very Bad Thing. Anyone who posts to a mailing list or an IRC chat room knows that what you say is usually what is recorded forever. There's no changing that, and there usually isn't a reason to.

In the wiki discussion model, there is the technical ability to run find/replace on talk pages, however there is no basis or justification for doing so. Archives should never be touched, even though we have a few rogue bots (usually using AWB) that sometimes do. You lose very important context in replies when the original comment is changed after the fact. You also clog page histories, watchlists, RecentChanges, and database dumps by needlessly adding thousands of revisions for no gain and usually some detriment (lost context being the biggest, unintentional replacements being another).

This isn't an appropriate bot (or human) task. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Controversial task, much opposition in evidence, and the operator isn't interested in trying to find a consensus. Anomie ⚔ 22:24, 1 August 2010 (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.