Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot VII 3
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): Perl
Function Summary: Replacement for User:CSDWarnBot
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Every 30 minutes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: An exact clone of User:CSDWarnBot, it goes through CAT:CSD, and finds the user talk pages of the creators. It then warns the user that it may be deleted. Not too complicated.
Discussion
[edit]Hmm. Running every 30 minutes is bound to miss a good deal of speedy deletions, no? From my experience, quite a few pages are tagged and deleted in under 30 minutes.
Also, which criteria will it be notifying for? Notifying for pure maintenance deletions (R1s, G8s, etc.) is simply silly and wasteful. If these questions are answered elsewhere, feel free to simply point me there. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am saying every 30 minutes, because looking at CSDWarnBot's contributions, they all seem to be around the half hour. I might be able to do every 3, 5, 15, or any number of minutes. Also, here is a list of all the templates that it will use, and it should be clear what it tags for then:
- Soxπed93(blag) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some of those are exactly the type of notifications I'm hesitant to continue allowing. While on the one hand, it's important for new users to learn about broken redirects, having a bot constantly spamming talk pages about them seems to do more harm than good. I'd be interested to hear what others think. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, this seems a bit counter-intuitive to the notion of speedy deletions, in a sense. They're supposed to be entirely uncontroversial, specific deletions which are maintenance-related. Having the janitor tell you every time he takes out the trash is bound to get annoying. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- CSDWarnBot seems to have been restarted by ST47. Are you still interested in pursuing a clone? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little unsure on what's going on with ST47, as the IRC BAGBot started too, even though mine works. Soxπed93(blag) 21:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- CSDWarnBot seems to have been restarted by ST47. Are you still interested in pursuing a clone? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
So what's up? Is this bot still needed? – Quadell (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would still like to run it, but I'd like to hear from ST47 if he is on. Soxπed93(blag) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a need, but I don't have a problem with a clone as long as they don't interfere with one another. Per MZMcBride, I don't have a problem with users opting out from this task like I do with my imagebot, because users usually keep track of their articles. If you do want to set up a copy, we'd need to coordinate any opt-out requests. Also, I'm curious as to whether you've made any modifications or looked at the code I use to identify the original uploader, because I really don't like it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Be sure to coordinate with st47. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I notice the trial hasn't started. You still want to do this? – Quadell (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag.
Withdrawn by operator. Soxπed93(blag) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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.