Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CSDCheckBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 30:
This bot might produce a large number of unnecessary and annoying talk page messages, since, in a rather large number of cases, the retention of a page for which speedy deletion is requested, or the deletion of the page under some CSD other than that cited by the requester, does not indicate that the editor placing the speedy deletion tag has done anything wrong. For instance, [[WP:CSD#G1|CSD G1]], [[WP:CSD#G2|CSD G2]], [[WP:CSD#G3|CSD G3]] are nowhere close to disjoint; [[WP:CSD#G3|CSD G3]] and [[WP:CSD#G10|CSD G10]] have a substantial intersection as well. Thus, a fairly large number of pages will quite legitimately be subject to speedy deletion under multiple criteria. Consequently, the bot's proposed function of warning "every editor who added a tag to the page for criteria that does not match the criteria under which the page was deleted" will result in many superfluous talk page messages for every editor who cannot divine which CSD the deleting administrator will cite. The bot's function of warning "every editor who added a tag to the page for any criteria" for pages that are kept is likewise objectionable, since this situation may frequently result from the improvement of the page for which speedy deletion is requested, rather than any fault by the editor placing the speedy deletion tag: for example, a page tagged under [[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]] may have an assertion of notability added to it. While this request concedes that "The bot's accuracy simply can't be 100%", it is questionable whether, in view of these considerations, even 50 percent of the talk page notices would actually be merited. Finally, the proposed task seems to include no apparent protection against flooding user talk pages with warnings: if an editor tagged 50 pages for deletion under CSD G3, but the pages were subsequently deleted with a summary referencing CSD G10, would the hapless editor receive fifty individual warnings, each placed in a separate edit? [[User:Erik9|Erik9]] ([[User talk:Erik9|talk]]) 15:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:This seems like a good idea; it's probably even something I've thought of when I patrol new pages, but you might want to change it a little in light of Eirk9's comment above. A few questions: do you have any prior programming experience with bots? I want to know this because it seems like something strange to do with pywikipedia, considering the fact that that framework is often used by inexperienced programmers and usually people only use the basic scripts that come with the installation. If you wrote your own code, can I see it? I'm very curious as to how you put the bot together. Thanks! [[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#008800">The</span> <span style="color:#004400">Earwig</span>]] <span style="font-family:Verdana"><sup>([[User_talk:The Earwig#|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/The Earwig|Contributions]])</sup></span> 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well, if this task is going to be run, I would suggest the following alterations to minimize the number of incorrect warnings and prevent talk page flooding:
:#The following sets of CSDs have the property that if a speedy deletion request cites a CSD included in given set A, but the page is subsequently deleted with a summary referencing a different CSD which is also included in set A, no warning is produced.
:#:{G1, G2, G3} (obviously useless pages in which no attempt to write an encyclopedia article is made)
| |||