→Discussion: note |
→Discussion: strong support |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
#As the programmer, I support my code. —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font><sup>[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]</sup> 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
#As the programmer, I support my code. —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font><sup>[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]</sup> 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' as bot operator who has reviewed and tested the code - it works as expected, there are no security issues or potentially bad situations that could cause the bot to perform unexpected operations. --[[User:ST47|uǝʌǝs]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|ʎʇɹnoɟ]][[Special:Contributions/ST47|ʇs]]</small> 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' as bot operator who has reviewed and tested the code - it works as expected, there are no security issues or potentially bad situations that could cause the bot to perform unexpected operations. --[[User:ST47|uǝʌǝs]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|ʎʇɹnoɟ]][[Special:Contributions/ST47|ʇs]]</small> 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
#'''Strong support''' This will be very useful to have, and of course I trust the owner and coder :) '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'') 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''Oppose''' |
'''Oppose''' |
||
#'''Strongest possible oppose'''. Bots should not have admin bits. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
#'''Strongest possible oppose'''. Bots should not have admin bits. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:59, 4 October 2007
RedirectCleanupBot
- This is a request for a fully automated adminbot.
(talk page) (0/1/0); Scheduled to end 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
RedirectCleanupBot (talk · contribs) - This is a very different RfA from the type I am used to writing nominations for. In fact in many ways the title is wrong - I am not proposing that a new administrator be created, but that a Bot account is given a +sysop flag. It is incapable of the judgment we require an administrator to show. I will however outline why giving it the ability to use a sysop tool will be beneficial to the encyclopedia.
- The task
Special:BrokenRedirects list pages that are redirects to deleted or non-existent pages. They meet the speedy deletion criteria - CSD R1. When reviewing that list the only human action that is necessary is to ensure that each page does not contain useful history otherwise it is deleted. The page is updated every 2/3 days and I delete well over 100 redirects each time. It occurs to me however that this trivial task could be done just as well automatically.
Of course, a Bot cannot discern useful page history, so this Bot will only delete pages that have no history.
It will work off Special:BrokenRedirects and if an entry there is:
- A redirect to a deleted or non-existent page
- Has only one entry in its history
It will delete that redirect.
- Technical details
- BRFA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RedirectCleanupBot
- Operator: WJBscribe
- Code written by: Eagle 101
- Source code: <http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/rdbot.pl>
- Test output: User:Eagle 101/RedirectCleanupBot
- Conclusions
This task is largely uncontroversial other than the fact that the Bot requires the ability to delete pages. If the Bot deletes a page other than a broken redirect with one revision, it will be blocked on sight. Blocked accounts cannot delete pages. This Bot will not be taking on any future tasks - this will be its sole function and its scope will not be expanded. Bots are designed to perform repetitive tasks that can be performed just as well automatically as manually. I believe this is such a task. WjBscribe 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Questions about the Bot
Ask any questions below:
General comments
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times.
Discussion
Support
- Per general support for adminbots. Is this a move towards sanity? Moreschi Talk 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As the programmer, I support my code. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support as bot operator who has reviewed and tested the code - it works as expected, there are no security issues or potentially bad situations that could cause the bot to perform unexpected operations. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support This will be very useful to have, and of course I trust the owner and coder :) Majorly (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strongest possible oppose. Bots should not have admin bits. Corvus cornix 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Moreschi Talk 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bots are not people. Bots are left to run on their own with no checks and balances. Bots have no edit histories. Corvus cornix 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I should let you know though, the source code is public, thats probably better then an edit history, its like being in the "admin's" mind. ;) —— Eagle101Need help? 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bots are not people. Bots are left to run on their own with no checks and balances. Bots have no edit histories. Corvus cornix 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Moreschi Talk 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral