Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot VII

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval


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 Approved.

SoxBot VII

edit

Operator: Soxred93 (u t)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Summary: Tagging pages for cleanup, including {{wikify}}

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

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

Function Details: Ever since Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V was withdrawn, I wish it never was. Therefore, I have written something similar, but with a lot smaller chance for false positives. Currently, it only does this:

  1. Tags new pages more than 1 hour old with {{wikify}} if there are no internal links.
  2. Tags new pages more than 1 hour old with {{unreferenced}} if there are no <ref> tags AND no external links.
  3. Tags new pages more than 1 hour old with {{uncategorized}} if there are no categories on the page.
  4. Tags new pages more than 1 hour old for speedy deletion if the creator blanks the page.
  5. Tags new pages more than 1 hour old for speedy deletion if it redirects to a missing page.
    • and possible notify the creator.

It only checks the mainspace for pages created 1 hour ago, and skips bot edits. I have produced an output at USer:Soxred93/NPP.

Discussion

edit

Shouldn't no internal links be tagged with {{deadend}} instead of {{wikify}}? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. :) Soxred93 (u t) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to points 1-3. 4 should be done if the article's creator is the page's only editor, and I believe 5 is covered by RedirectCleanupBot. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For number 4, I have seen many people tag a page for G7 if another person tagged for speedy deletion for any reason. Example: NewUser created a page, with the text "John Doe is a really funny guy. '''Bold text'''''Italic text''[[Link title]]". NewPageWatcherGuy tags for G2. NewUser doesn't like this, so he blanks the page. NoBlankPages comes along, and checks the history. It shows those 3 revisions, and so he puts a G7 on it. I have seen many people do this (and I have even done this occasionally). For number 5, I'm not sure how often RedirectCleanupBot runs, but SB7 could tag it and an admin delete it before RDC even gets to it. Soxred93 (u t) 12:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For number four; the difference is that it's done by a human. I'm all for automation, but this is a task that humans should do—if you want to help fight page blankings, have an IRC bot monitor Special:ShortPages or something like that. I'm against having a bot do that just because it's possible—I'd rather see what the urgency is first (not accusing you of anything, just sayin').
For task 5, the same deal. There's no urgency in having a (most likely orphaned anyway) broken redirect around for a few extra hours. Yeah, RedirectCleanupBot isn't always running, but there really is no massive harm done there (plus, I imagine few admins patrol those CSD categories now that the bot does it). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about number 2. <removed depreciated> should be reserved to the cases where at least one person wants more references. We all know there are tons of unreferenced pages. It's bad, but slamming banners of all other place doesn't help. It just makes people care less about <removed depreciated>. The other tasks seem fine to me. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if no 2 is implemented, it should detect the {{cite journal}} family of templates, which may reference a book without providing a link, in a list of references - perhaps cited via the Harvard style or with the ref note template family. Smith609 Talk 13:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the bot should avoid editing pages tagged with {{inuse}}; I would also considering leaving articles for perhaps 2 hours - I have often created a very short stub, then used the next hour or more to expand it; reaching an edit conflict with a bot is always irksome! Smith609 Talk 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, updated. No more speedy, and no unreferenced. Task 1 and 3 are still in place. Also, it ignores {{inuse}}. Soxred 93 04:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He operates too many bots ;-) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Tasks 1 and 3 above (wikify and uncategorized). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. What's the status on this? Mr.Z-man 03:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talked with user on IRC, didn't notice any blatant screwups in the log.  Approved. Q T C 05:09, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SoxBot_VII&oldid=1144575154"