Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RedirectCleanupBot

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

Approved.

RedirectCleanupBot[edit]

Operator: WjBscribe

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automated

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: To delete broken redirects per Wikipedia:CSD#R1 that have no page history

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): 2/3 times per week (when Special:BrokenRedirects is updated)

Edit rate requested: No more than 4 deletions per min

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

Function Details: The Bot will look through Special:BrokenRedirects - any page that remains a redlink redirect will be deleted so long as there has only ever been one edit to that page. All other broken redirects will be left to human review. I would anticipate about 300 such redirects being deleted per week.

Discussion[edit]

I have for some weeks now been dealing with Special:BrokenRedirects. The page updates every few days and usually contains 150 redirects that need to be deleted. Most of those deletions are totally trivial - the item listed is a redirect to a now deleted page and has no history whatsoever. The extent of human review needed in processing the output of that special page is to verify that there redirect has no useful history. It seems to me that this task could be performed just as well by an automated account - though as a Bot cannot judge useful history, I propose that it delete only where there is no history and leave the others to human review. Save for the need to have a +sysop flag, I do not think this task is controversial. WjBscribe 19:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be writing the code for this (which is mostly written), and the test results can be found at User:Eagle 101/RedirectCleanupBot. The code will be open source, and I will release the code as soon as I discuss with someone about what license to release under. (some of the code that I did not write but is dependent in a library). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with your test results, but you obviously cannot run a trial until the bot has the sysop flag, which, based on past bots, will require an RfA - and I'd suggest that you post the code before you do that. Other than that, and the fact that I'd like to see the code first, there are no issues with proceeding with a trial. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I intend to make the whole thing open source, but for now I'll release the primary part of the code (minus the supporting library, until I get permission to release the library). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source code can be found at <http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/rdbot.pl>. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to use a descriptive user-agent and deletion summary. On the technical side, I see no problems - a preliminary test of the bot on my local wiki had no issues, I'll do some more testing later on. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 20:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that its time to start the RFA? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, as soon as you are satisfied - I'll chime in once I'm done, but I don't see any severe issues at this point. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The useragent is changed in the supporting library code, as far as the code that views pages, changing the useragent I don't think will mean much. The deletion summary has been updated in the source. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An RfA has been posted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the Bot's RfA has been successful and it has a sysop flag. Can I have permission for a trial run when Special:Brokenredirects next updates? The other matter that may need discussion is whether the Bot should be flagged. Some have expressed the view that a flag would be beneficial for transparency, but experiments on a couple of test Wikis confirm that its deletions would then not appear on recent changes. Does this pose a problem? WjBscribe 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally want it flagged just so it shows up as an administrator bot, so we can show this kind of thing is approved by the community and relevant processes. I'm sure plenty of people will be reviewing its deletions, so I think it should be flagged. --Deskana (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I to argue with clear community consensus? :)

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., where 'edits' is actually 'deletions'. Daniel 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A steward will have to handle flagging this bot, since it was prematurely given the sysop bit; MakeBot cannot be used on accounts with sysop or bureaucrat rights unless $wgMakeBotPrivileged is TRUE, which I don't believe it is. — madman bum and angel 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prematurely? How do you propose we trial it without the sysop bit? It's a deletion bot. We've thought this through already, I will be contacting a steward once the bot is approved for flagging. --Deskana (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that by prematurely, he meant that the promotions (+sysop -> +bot) were realized in the wrong order (+bot -> +sysop). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to trial the bot without giving it +sysop. We can't give it +bot without a trial. Therefore it was flagged in the correct order. A steward will give +bot if a local bureaucrat requests it so this is a non-issue. I don't get why people are making such a big fuss about it. Stewards will flag it. --Deskana (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A trial run of 50 deletions has been performed. I believe it has been successful having reviewed all the pages myself. Each deletion appears correct though I invite others to check... It has been suggested that the Bot's deletion summary should Wikilink the target page rather than just naming it. That seems sensible. WjBscribe 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the trial deletions.

Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. As suggested, could you please make the deletion summary wikilink the target page and supply 10 deletion edits to test that works alright, and then we can get this bot approved. — E ^talk_bots 09:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Change made and 10 further deletions completed. They also look fine to me. WjBscribe 10:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Flag will be given for running at 4EPM. Good luck with the bot. — E ^talk_bots 10:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.