Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TempDeletionBot


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied.

TempDeletionBot
Operator: --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl, using Perlwikipedia, open source.

Function Summary: To delete old userpages (>1 month) from Temporary Wikipedian userpages

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

Edit rate requested: 6 deletions per minute, probably on the order of 3000 a month. I may stagger this to lighten the load.

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

Already has an admin flag (Y/N): N

Function Details: This bot will require the sysop bit. This bot gathers items in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, and first perform some very liberal tests to check if it is deletable: If the word 'sock' appears anywhere on the page whatsoever, it will be skipped. (This is because pages with sockpuppet templates should not be deleted) Then, it will check for some content - this is simply to make sure it doesn't crash, and prevents encoding issues. It will then acquire the latest edit from the history. It will parse that to find the date. If the last edit was within a month prior to the bot running, the page will be skipped. (The exact limit is 30 days.) If none of these checks results in a skip, the associated page will be checked (User talk <-> User) for edit time. If the associated page matches none of these criteria, then the tagged page - only the tagged page - will be deleted. The associated page will not be deleted unless it is also tagged for deletion.

Discussion
Annotated code exists on my svn. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm waiting to post this until I get a chance to ask a few people to review the code. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm done. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 13:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with the code, and I agree that this is a backlog that could use some 'bot action... But do you think that's wise to request another sysop bot so soon after the last one?    — Coren (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it, honestly. There have been no serious issues with RedirectCleanupBot (have there been any?) and it isn't like they'll form up into a bot cabal and start acting in tandem to destroy Wikipedia... --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Allright. You'd think, by some of the opposes on the other RfA, that some are actually affraid this will happen, mind you.  :-)  Have you run this on a test wiki, just to be insanely certain?  This will be asked at the RfA.  If that's done, give me diffs and I'll nom the bot for the bit (this needs to be done, IMO, before the bot itself gets approval). — Coren (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can do you one better: I can run it on THIS wiki in 'dry run' mode. I'll post a report for you in a bit. (Also, I've already prepared an RfA nom in my userspace) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See User:ST47/DTUPL for the log on part of this 'dry run'. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 19:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Go ahead and post the RfA if you want to.  If you'd rather I did, just ask.  — Coren (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're free to have a look at User:ST47/TDBRFA while I'm setting it up, I can wait for your reply. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and post; I'll support with the "official" BAG seal of approval, whatever that means. :-)  — Coren (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * opened and at Requests for adminship/TempDeletionBot. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 19:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You might want to put a Big Red Switch on the bot's user page, though. — Coren (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Another paranoia check you might want to add to the code: make certain the page name you scraped from the category actually is in User or User talk namespace? — Coren (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can do that ;) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note I'm provisionally opposing the RFA for this account. I think this needs more definition and clarification here.  I am not diametrically opposed to admin bots, but am very cautious (opposed proxy blocking bot/support redirect cleanup bot).  If all potential issues are cleared up here first, with well advertised links to community discussion boards, a RFA would be more sucessful.  Suggesting withdrawing from the RFA until then. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the RfA has been withdrawn, this bot would be unable to perform its function. (Moot, actually, but there is no such status). — Coren (talk) 00:09, 6 November 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.