Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AmeliorationBot 2

AmeliorationBot 2

Operator: ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic but edits are manually confirmed in bulk

Function Summary: Remove Image:Replace this image female.svg and Image:Replace this image male.svg from articles.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

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

Function Details: Remove Image:Replace this image female.svg and Image:Replace this image male.svg from articles per the request here and the consensus to deprecate these images here.

Discussion

Is there really consensus for this action? IMO, the discussion you linked to shows a distinct lack of consensus for removing these images. Anomie ⚔ 21:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the conclusion at the top:

From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits.

There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male and these should no longer be used on article pages.

~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 06:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the poll in the second section of that page (with comments dated April 30–May 11) and saw 13 or 14 people in favor and 14 opposed, and a few more somewhat in the middle. It looks like the attempt at getting a wider consensus failed after the April 11–April 23 discussion; looking into that earlier discussion, I see a fairly weak consensus there too. Anomie ⚔ 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I only looked at the conclusion above the archived discussions, which generally reflects the consensus. However, looking through the revisions indicates that there may be a bit more to this. I've left messages for the user's who added (and edited) that conclusion. Obviously I will withdraw this request if there isn't actually a consensus to do this (I have no opinion for or against the images), but if that is the case (there is no consensus) then the archiving and conclusion on that centralised discussion is very confusing, if not, misleading. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background first: The discussion on placeholders was a surprisingly contentious issue mostly, I believe, because of the personalities of a couple of key people on both sides of the debate which crossed the lines of Wikiquette and AGF several times. It became clear, however, that the images for the placeholders were disliked by a significant number of editors and suspending use of them seemed to gain a consensus view. The idea, however, of permitting a quick and simple way to add a free-use photo to bios of living people was seen as positive and discussion of how to replace the images with better means was well-underway and seemed near conclusion. The majority view seemed to be to not mass-add or remove the images but rather replace them with a better system. An editor, however, continuously attempted to stop that discussion and battle-fatigue set in. It is very difficult and time-consuming for anyone to get a clear idea of the concluding discussions since a key editor refused to use the talk page and requires examining differences through the history of the page as well as the discussion on replacement.

On this bot task: It is certainly not easy to use the debate to argue that there is consensus to remove these images. The consensus, in my opinion, was to replace them with another system. However, since replacement discussion, though nearly completed, has been suspended for several months and it was consensus that the images were undesirable, I do not now object to having the images removed en-masse. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like DoubleBlue, I was an active participant in that discussion. Though we diagreed on many particulars, I came to have a great deal of respect for DB's general approach to the issue. I personally agree with DB's view that it would be good to simply remove all the images (and am a little surprised to see that DB now supports it), but I also agree with the assessment that nothing close to a consensus was reached on that matter through the discussion. I think in order to establish a basis for this bot action, it would be necessary to seek a new consensus. It's possible that some of the emotion has died down, and that might not be as difficult a task as it was the first time around. I don't know. -Pete (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification that I do feel the placeholder idea is a good one and I saw nothing in particular wrong with the images. However, I recognise a significant number of editors disliked the images and I respect that. My views haven't changed on those elements. My opinion on mass-removal has changed because a replacement system has not been established in a reasonable time. Though I do believe one was developed, it did not reach the final stages of implementation due to fatigue and its being placed in a subpage erroneously called an archive. Now that several months have passed, I don't see it being easy to continue discussion and am still a little tired of the drama from the initial rounds to start again. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of the removal of the image placeholders, although (like others above) I'd agree that the centralized discussion process failed to reach a clear-cut conclusion. (Equally, I don't see a lot of continuing support for their use. . . .) --Klein zach 23:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is because people seek out ways to object to them but not ways to support them. In any case I could technicaly build a system that would fix most of the objections within a couple of days but I would need admin acess and I would need the existing images left in place intialy (for about 24 hours).Geni 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course people seek out ways to object to them - there's so much that is objectionable. That's why they should be removed. – jaksmata 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these placeholders were originally added by scripts without going through a bot request. Aside from the consensus issue, that meant many errors in the coding went undiscovered. Some infoboxes now have two "image=" fields because an existing, empty field wasn't checked for. Some infoboxes use the field "image=" and others use "img=", so scripts designed for one style of infobox added false fields to the other style. Some edits added extra pipes and varying html-comment text. Technically, the edits vary enough that merely cleaning them up would be difficult. Before any automatic script tries to fix these, I want to see a detailed description, including regexes, of what it's going to do. It's not enough to just say "Remove Image:Replace this image female.svg and Image:Replace this image male.svg from articles." Gimmetrow 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know very little about bot scripts so that may be why I don't understand why one could not just remove those. It does no harm to leave the editorial comment that only free-content images are allowed. I have never seen any instances of the false fields being added but presumably if they still exist it would do no harm to remove the image call from those either. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This involves about 50,000 articles, I'm estimating. For a task that size, I would like to see other stuff done than just a simple removal of some match text; it should also try to fix most of the other quirks introduced in articles, and perhaps some other general cleanup. Gimmetrow 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From an outside view; if there is a consensus to not use the images, wouldn't also requiring a consensus to remove them be needless bureaucracy? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I should confess, I really have no idea what kind of consensus was or wasn't reached. I didn't really understand the way the discussion was concluded. I think an outsider's view of the consensus is likely to be clearer than mine -- but, it should take into account the extensive discussion, and it's important to note that many people with strong views seem to opt out of the discussion before the conclusion was written up. -Pete (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The discussion didn't really have a conclusion, it just sorta petered out (pardon the expression). Consensus was only conclusively demonstrated on one point: that the placeholder images should not remain as-is (paraphrased from here). From that, it's a short jump to the conclusion that Image:Replace this image female.svg and Image:Replace this image male.svg (specifically) should not be used. The non-consensus-reaching part of the discussion was about how those images should be replaced. Consensus was not reached on eliminating all image placeholders, just these two. Therefore, in my opinion, it is ok to remove those two images per demonstrated consensus even though consensus was never reached on their replacement, if any. – jaksmata 16:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was such a wide range of opinion over what change them meant (such as sat makeing the image lighter) that cannot reasonably be considered a consensus to remove them.Geni 19:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, could you give a diff on that? I don't remembering anything so trivial as lightening the image being proposed, or used as a meaning for "change the system." -Pete (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't pay attention to the graphics lab request then. Aside from that there are multipe suggestions floating around on the page that would best be implemented by uploading over the existing images (actualy that isn't quite tr. The remaining tended to come from people who clearly failed to grasp how the system worked.Geni 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, I would be happy to pay attention to the graphics lab request, if you would be so kind as to provide a link. As to the failure to grasp how the system worked -- I remember you repeatedly asserting that people didn't understand, but that doesn't make it true. -Pete (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no correction the comment would be at File talk:Replace_this_image_male.svg#Why_does_the_background_shading_look_dramatically_different_on_different_computers.3F. Suggestions to turn the image into a stub notice suggest either a lack of understanding of the image or a lack of understanding of the problems that face new users.Geni 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a new system were developed that editors widely accepted, there would probably be little objection to changing the template code to automatically use that new system whenever the image field was blank. Therefore, I'm not convinced that keeping the currently-existing placeholder links would facilitate any future system. There may be other reasons not to remove the links, however. Gimmetrow 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting about how the final stage of the system works.Geni 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work? Gimmetrow 02:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step 4. Add your image to the article.

Once you have uploaded your image, go to the article you want to put it in. Click the "edit" tab and replace "Replace this image.svg", "Replace this image male.svg" or "Replace this image female.svg" with the name of your image.

Geni 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this mean the links should stay? Couldn't someone just change the instructions to say "Click the edit tab and replace the space after image= or img= with the name of your image"? Gimmetrow 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see a precedent of people removing these images manually for a while and not encountering objections. Bots should not be used for controversial tasks, because they act in ways that would be quite inappropriate for a human -- they don't discuss their edits, they don't listen to objections, and if you revert them they just revert you back. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

Withdrawn by operator. I'll reopen this if there is, in future, a distinct consensus to do it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.