Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CSDCheckBot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:12, 7 May 2009

Revision as of 21:14, 7 May 2009

Line 109:

:::::I agree with McBride that the frequency makes me uneasy; I think it might put off some taggers, and that's a bad thing, we need them. It wouldn't bother me for the notification to say something like "Click this link for information about your recent work with speedy deletions", and the link would run a filter tool on a page to show that user just the entries relevant to that user. They'd get notification the first time soon after the first such tagging incident, and then not again for say two days, if there's one or more incidents within the next two days.

:::::Also, it's often a complete judgment call whether it will be easier to justify db-notability or db-spam to the article creator; whether extra criteria should be added to a db-copyvio; or for that matter, whether the article should be speedied at all. I'm not sure what needs to be done about that, and that's not really an issue for the bot to solve, but the bot will bring this issue into focus, so more (two-way!) communication with taggers will be necessary. - Dank (formerly Dank55) ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

'''Wrong focus''' A couple of things: 1) BOTS should never ''warn'' but rather ''notify.'' A warning implied a mistake, error, or potential negative consequences. 2) The bot should not be informing of ''mistakes'', but rather ''differences''. The bot is not going to be forming an opinion as to whose action was correct. I don't know if the bot is using those words, but your use here makes me a little wary. 3) This should be an opt in only process wherein a separate page is used---eg not on a users main talk page. We don't want to clutter talk pages with "warnings" we also don't want this to feel like an attack, or be perceived by others who might come to a users page as an attack... it must be very carefully worded. The wording should include something to the effect that the message is being posted there so that they can keep track of their past CSD noms. I would sell it not as a means to "correct" others, but rather as a way that users can know if they need to follow-up on a CSD? Did an admin incorrectly deny it did the author remove the tag? Do they need to send an article to AFD/PROD? As such, I say leave the reason the way it is. If it was nommed G1, let them know that it was deleted G3. While the two do have overlap, if the article is deleted by a different criteria consistently, the receipient might start to learn, but the focus HAS to move away from "You made a mistake" to a means in "how can you do your job better." You can do you job better by being notified of how your CSD's were handled.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b>^{<small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small>}</b>]]'' 21:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC) FU: We don't want a user to be able to go to a CSD'ers talk page and see a 100 cases where they tagged an article G1 and the article was deleted as G3 and have the user say, "I see you have a problem with CSD." To that end, we really need to make sure this is a tool CSD'ers would want to use to help them keep track of their nominations---and worded/done in such as manner that it not a "warning."---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b>^{<small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small>}</b>]]'' 21:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)