Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ParaBot I



ParaBot I
Operator: —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback) a door?

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl (using perlwikipedia)

Function Summary: Add { {subst:NoMoreLinks}} to pages in Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Most likely one-time, althought it may need to be re-run in a few month's time if the category is rapidly changing

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function Details: Simply adds { {subst:NoMoreLinks}} to pages in Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup - this was proposed a long time ago somewhere on the bot requests page, and I contacted User:Nixeagle regarding it (he does some antispam work), and it seemed like a good idea to him.

Discussion

 * Why? Doesn't the cleanup tag cover this? Is it really necessary to edit every page just to add a big html comment? Seems too minor to bother with unless combined with another edit, ike adding a date to . Gimmetrow 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't neccesarily say that it's too minor to bother with—it warns spammers with a little more "force", without defacing the actual look of the article. What does everyone else think? Cheers, —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback) a door? 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * seems somwhat wasteful IMO. Something that I think needs a human/monkey to do.   CWii ( Talk  22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember - bots do tasks that would be extremely tedious do manually (aka what monkeys would do). In what way would you say it's wasteful? —paranomia happy harry's high club 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have bots doing just any tedious task, but (hopefully) only useful tasks. I don't see this as very useful. Gimmetrow 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we combine it with another task like you mentioned before— any other ideas regarding that? If not, I may withdraw this request, because, as CWii mentioned, this could probably be accomplished by a team of editors armed with AWB. —paranomia happy harry's high club 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's tedious but it shouldn't be for something that could possibly need human review. If a bunch of people went through with AWB it could be clean in a few hours.   CWii ( Talk  20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point; although I don't see how this would need human review—although you're regarding the fact that it's a relatively simple task that could be accomplished in a few hours with AWB or some existing bot anyway, I'm not going to withdraw this request yet though, as this may be able to be combined with some other tasks (see above). Cheers, —paranomia happy harry's high club 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the warning may be a bit too BITEy to be linked in all of the instances where is use - it should only be used where spam is a confirmed problem, something that should probably be done with human judgment and review. I agree that using AWB is probably a better idea here.  krimpet  ✽  23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, you've convinced me ;-). It seems AWBable, so I'm withdrawing this request. Cheers, —paranomia happy harry's high club 22:55, 16 May 2008 (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.