Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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 Request Expired.

FritzpollBot 2

[edit]

Operator: Fritzpoll (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: - Automatic

Programming Language(s): VB, DotNetWikiBot framework

Function Overview: - essentially replacing RedirectCleanupBot - deletes broken redirect pages with only a single revision

Edit period(s): Daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes - will need a +sysop flag

Function Details: Uses the list of broken redirects from the database, checks each page history. If it equals 1, deletes the page. Have run this manually (confirming results) through my own admin account - wish to automate it separately from my normal admin logs.

Discussion

[edit]
Yeah, its what it's designed for. Most of my automation work has been done using this framework. It just encapsulates calls into the API with a .NET interface, so it's pretty much the same. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, I'll wait a bit for more comments and discussion, but this looks uncontroversial to me. MBisanz talk 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and given the nature of its work, I would suspend operation until the bug had been trapped. It'll run once a day, so there'll be no need for an emergency stop - I'll see a talkpage notice to the effect of any errors, and correct them. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (3 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completed trial. Review my personal logs; where the bot has been running through my account, this request for approval has been linked. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible problems:

Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Those two pages only had one edit at the time of deletion - the remaining edits arise because the pages were already deleted, and the code only looks at undeleted edits. Is this a problem? As to the pages, I can G8 them automatically on request, but it does not do this at present. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's best to only look at the number of (undeleted) edits, so that's not a problem. In my opinion it would be better to G8 the talk pages. Anyone else have an opinion on this? – Quadell (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An extra three lines of code added - should handle the issue if people want this done additionally Fritzpoll (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add a " ([[WP:CSD#G8|CSD G8]])" link at the end of the edit summary, mostly assurance that it's a non-controversial deletion, and for conformity. Amalthea 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably also check for {{go away}} and the like. – Quadell (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzpoll, have you implemented Amalthea's suggestion, and my suggestion? – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done the former - working on the latter. Give me another 24 hrs? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For you? I'll give you 25. ;) – Quadell (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates? – Quadell (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late arrival, but I have a few questions:

  1. Will this be operating under the "FritzpollBot" account or a separate account? (In past discussions people have wanted a segregation of elevated user rights; the proposed OversightBot is the first example that comes to mind.)
  2. How does the bot handle redirects like #REDIRECT [[de:Benutzer:Foo]]?
  3. How does the bot handle redirects like #REDIRECT [[mw:Manual:Magic words]]?
  4. Does the bot appropriate account for File: and Category: redirects? (These are relatively new features. Looking especially at File: redirects when dealing with Commons images is important.)
  5. Can the bot include the target page name in the deletion summary? (I consider this a key feature; finding the target without adminship is nearly impossible without this, especially if the redirect wasn't created as the result of a page move.)
  6. Will the one revision rule be strictly followed? (I personally never saw the point.)
  7. Often a user will create a page in their user space, move it to the article namespace, and the article will be deleted, leaving the user page as a one-revision broken redirect page. Should these be deleted? There have been complaints previously that deleting the user page of new users, even if technically broken redirects, is a bit harsh.

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} – Quadell (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. To respond to MZMcBride:[reply]

  1. Currently planned to run it under FritzpollBot, since that is an inactive bot account with no current task
  2. It now logs these for me and ignores them in the automated process
  3. As above
  4. I'm not sure - what does it need to do?
  5. Done
  6. I think the point is to prevent a deletion loophole. Vandal comes in, goes to an article, redirects it to a dead target, bot comes along and deletes it.
  7. Hmm. I'll take advice on this. It wouldn't be difficult to ignore items in the User: space if people didn't like it.

I'm a bit slow in replying because real-life is a little hectic at the moment. I'd appreciate feedback on the questions I essentially ask here. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris G filed a request for a similar bot here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot. Your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Now that User:Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot is going at these, do you still want to do this as well, or should we withdraw it? – Quadell (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. – Quadell (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2009 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/FritzpollBot_2&oldid=1144578892"