Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QxzBot


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

QxzBot
Operator: Qxz

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language: Visual Basic .NET

Function Summary: Remove old user warnings

Edit period: Once per month

Edit rate requested: 6 edits per minute

Function Details:

One of the problems with warning anonymous users about vandalism and the like is that, over time, the warnings accumulate until the page becomes a jumble of messages. This makes it difficult to pick out recent warnings, causes users to ignore warnings they recieve as there are so many there already, and leads inexperienced users to mistakenly believe that older warnings are targeted at them, not some previous user of their IP address.

WikiProject user warnings states that "messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings", so this should be acceptable. This bot would clear anonymous user discussion pages not edited in three months, leaving templates such as in place, and add a short note to the effect that old messages had been removed. For some of the longer, more cluttered pages the time might be reduced to one month – Qxz 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I see no problem with the task, but it there definitely consensus for this? I know that the WikiProject page says that, but that page is not a policy page and it could just be the opinion of a minority. — M ETS 501 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed WikiProjects are not policy (although this one likes to think it is; just try leaving a "warning level" they don't agree with). Anyway, I had a feeling someone would ask that, so I've put together some evidence. User talk:150.203.2.85, User talk:169.204.230.166 and User talk:66.158.77.250 are three examples that I've found. One user seems to have made themselves a template for the purpose. I've also found this thread in the archives of the discussion for Criteria for speedy deletion – apparently people used to delete out-of-date anonymous user discussion pages altogether, the thread suggested blanking instead, everyone agreed and the speedy deletion policy was changed. In conclusion, this seems to be established practise, but done only on odd pages from time to time, not systematically. I mentioned a number of positive benefits, and I can't see any negative ones; the comments are still in the page history in the unlikely event that anyone is interested in them – Qxz 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, here's something else interesting: it seems that when Criteria for Speedy Deletion was changed – nearly a year ago – it never quite got dealt with: Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion still exists and has many pages in it, and was only noticed and nominated for deletion today. User talk:128.211.250.168 is one page that still has a deletion notice on it. The category page actually now reads "No new pages should be added to this category; a bot will begin blanking these pages per the discussion..." So there were plans to make a bot, but it never got done. I guess this bot is a year late – Qxz 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This definitely is a good idea, as long as the time warnings can persist is set right, then its hard to see what a reasonable objection to this would be.  Voice -of- All  17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that templates like and  have sometimes been 'substituted' when they shouldn't be (see here and here). This bot could fix this at the same time by un-substituting them – Qxz 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I ran a bot that did a similar task, it wasn't exactly popular. This might be one case where I'd throw things to a straw poll, it's more policy than technical -- Tawker 01:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yours was the bot that was going to deal with Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion after the speedy deletion rule was removed? Hmmm... OK, if it's going to be unpopular, I'll withdraw the request. I certainly don't want to have to start going through a straw poll. Thanks anyway, everyone – Qxz 04:59, 24 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.