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

Revision as of 21:30, 7 May 2009

Revision as of 21:45, 7 May 2009

Line 111:

'''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)

:One way to avoid the problem of the taggee getting a negative impression from the tagger's talk page would be to use a link to a tool as I mentioned; that way, if the taggee runs the tool, he or she may see that admins are agreeing with the tagger in a large number of cases, and it will support rather than undermine the tagger. Also, if the taggee sees that the tagger has only made 2 reports in the last month and they were both rejected, then I think it would be better for the taggee not to take the tag too seriously. Also (lot of also's), I see the valid concerns over opt-in vs. opt-out being less of an issue over time if this works right; I'm hoping the number of disagreements over tagging go down over time. And for the many taggers who only tag once or occasionally, I expect their percentages won't improve over time, but that's fine; then the goal becomes letting them know that we don't consider tagging good-faith attempts for deletion to be a casual thing that we'll always overlook, and letting the taggees know that they're dealing with people who might not know what they're doing, despite the scary and authoritative-looking deletion tag. However, I do agree with Spartacus's thrust that we're going to get an earful if we start implying that deleting admins are right and the taggers are wrong; it's the wrong tone. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

::My first thought when I read your idea of a report that people run like the reports that show how often a user supported/opposed an RfA or how many contributions a user had, I liked the idea. I mean, I could see a grid showing the number of articles nominated by criteria and the number deleted per that criteria. That would help people with knowing how their edits are being handled, but I think one of the purposes of this should be to help users follow the outcome of their CSD noms. Thus, a proactive response would IMO be helpful.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b>^{<small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small>}</b>]]'' 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)