Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Grim Reaper Bot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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
Request Expired.
[edit] Grim Reaper Bot
tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot
Operator: Android Mouse
Automatic or Manually Assisted:Automatic
Programming Language(s): C
Function Summary: Notify article creators if their article has been tagged with the prod tag or an XfD tag (note, also applies to images, categories, templates, etc).
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Hourly/semi-hourly
Edit rate requested: 5 edits per minute
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function Details: It will scan the categories Category:Proposed deletion, Category:AfD debates, Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion, Category:Images and media for deletion, etc. and check if each page's creator has been notified. It will use custom templates that explain what is going on and that the notification is comming from a bot. It won't issue a notification if there is any occurance of the page's name on the creator's talk page.
[edit] Discussion
Sounds good to me. Just one question: is there any safeguard against abuse? I guess it's not really necessary, but I'll let you or someone else give their opinion on that. What if a banned/blocked user is nominating many pages in bad faith? I guess it's rare enough that it's nothing really to worry about. —METS501 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't think about any such safeguard. It would be possible to have it not issue notifications if the nominator is currently blocked. But I think this would be a rare problem, as I've never had issues with anyone abusing Android Mouse Bot 2, which issues notifications for speedy deletion. --Android Mouse 05:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe delay 1 hour so that any bad faith noms can be closed in the meantime? They are almost all 5/7-day processes, so 1 hour of delay is not a bad thing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a reasonable solution, I'll have it do that. Thanks. --Android Mouse 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, it seems like a great bot, and similair to existing bots. It also helps when editors forget to notify creators.
Approved for trial (50 edits). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, it seems like a great bot, and similair to existing bots. It also helps when editors forget to notify creators.
- Sounds like a reasonable solution, I'll have it do that. Thanks. --Android Mouse 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe delay 1 hour so that any bad faith noms can be closed in the meantime? They are almost all 5/7-day processes, so 1 hour of delay is not a bad thing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is it just me or does this seem like a bad name for this bot? Android Mouse's speedy deletion notification bot still causes people confusion in that they think they bot either nominated it or deleted their article (I know, all they have to do is read the message it leaves, but that seems a lost art). People are going to make the same mistake with this and the name is going to further that. Is there a reason it shouldn't just be a descriptive name? -- JLaTondre 11:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do have to say, that ever since I've changed the bot message for the speedy deletion bot to point to the bot's userpage instead of directly to my talk page, I've had probably a tenth of the confusion because the userpage explains (in large font) that the bot doesn't make nominations or deletions. I'm willing to change the bot's name though. What do you think would be better? --Android Mouse 21:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe XfDNotificationBot? But I like the name, it's reasonably creative, but it might scare some users (people didn't like my FearBot when I submitted that BRFA, since it would be warning users). If you choose to rename, simply move this request and update the form, after registering a new account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- GrimBot? ReaperBot? ~ Wikihermit 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- GrimBot sounds too, well, grim. But I like it, so probably a good idea. Maybe a name not related to death or sadness would be better? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- It looks good, but is there any way to group entries? Maybe instead of immediately writing, to queue the writes, and if there are several to group them. But anyway, have you got out all the bugs etc and can I approve? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- GrimBot sounds too, well, grim. But I like it, so probably a good idea. Maybe a name not related to death or sadness would be better? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- GrimBot? ReaperBot? ~ Wikihermit 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe XfDNotificationBot? But I like the name, it's reasonably creative, but it might scare some users (people didn't like my FearBot when I submitted that BRFA, since it would be warning users). If you choose to rename, simply move this request and update the form, after registering a new account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do have to say, that ever since I've changed the bot message for the speedy deletion bot to point to the bot's userpage instead of directly to my talk page, I've had probably a tenth of the confusion because the userpage explains (in large font) that the bot doesn't make nominations or deletions. I'm willing to change the bot's name though. What do you think would be better? --Android Mouse 21:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a member of the BAG, but since Android Mouse has left wikipedia, I'm pretty sure this could be marked as 
Status Unknown. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 12:44, 24 August 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.
