Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 6


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

MetsBot
Operator: Mets501

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, starts on command

Programming Language(s): C#

Function Summary: updates User:Mets501/Old userpages of indef-blocked users

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): daily

Edit rate requested: 3-4 edits per day

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function Details: User:Mets501/Old userpages of indef-blocked users is a list of old userpages of indefinitely-blocked users which can be deleted as they are over a month old, and are not sockpuppets or banned users. All that MetsBot will do is update that list every several hours or so removing any deleted userpages and userpages marked as socks or banned users. (It loads all of the pages through one big export, by the way). I just ran a couple of tests in my sandbox, and it works perfectly: removing deleted pages, removing sockpuppets, removing more sockpuppets, removing deleted page).

Discussion
Trials approved, go ahead and trial all you want; let us know if you have any issues. —  xaosflux  Talk 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Can anyone give me the approval? (I can't approve my own bot :-) — Mets501 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got some questions though, is this intended to keep this page in userpace, or to move a noticeboard or somewhere else?
 * I'm imagining that there may be reasons to keep a user-talk page around, even for an indef-blocked user more than 30 days, can you refer me to where these should be deleted in the deletion policies? —  xaosflux  Talk 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in policies, but it's done in practice. I guess you can say it's per DENY.  This process has existed through Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages for quite a long time with no complains except for sockpuppet pages, which are no longer in the list.  There really is no reason to keep talk pages of non-sockpuppet indef-blocked users as the users are done and there is no reason to keep a record of past communications with the user public (admins who really need it can get it through Special:Undelete. As for keeping this list in userspace, I don't really see a problem with it because it's just temporary for userpages tagged with the old template, instead of permanent (as new indef-blocks will be in the category).  Now that you mention it, it would probably be good to expand this request to go around removing sock puppets from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages every day or so too. — Mets501 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that I'm not deleting talk pages with significant amount of communication outside test1, test2, bv, unblock denied, etc. (For example, User talk:Xino would be a page I would not delete) — Mets501 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what the criteria for "significant" are? (Makes more sense to me if you're just deleting the warnings of those that are long since past being warned...) Alai 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. It really depends on the case. A user blocked by an arbcom decision, for example, would probably have a bunch of discussion on their talk page, and I would not delete it. The talk page of a user who caused significant (sorry to use that word again) disruption to the point where many editors were involved in the discussion I would not delete. A user talk page with a few standard warnings and 26 warnings by orphanbot, and nothing else, would be deleted. Hope that clarifies things a bit. — Mets501 (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It does, thanks. Though I belatedly realize that such considerations don't really affect the operation of the 'bot... (Which seems pretty straightforward and sensible.) I blame Xaos for that, though... Alai 04:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.