User talk:SDPatrolBot/Archive/2011/February

Barnstar

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		It's so nice to see this bot running again and to know that when I'm doing new page patrol, I don't need to be regularly reviewing my watchlist to see if any removed tags slipped through the cracks. Many thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks! :). I've completely re-written the bot over the past week or so to use the MediaWiki API rather than DotNetWikiBot, and also put some threading in. The result is basically less resource intensive on my machine, and still faster to respond to removals. So hopefully will now be running more often than it used to. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe that you will help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunel Mustafayeva (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot blocked

I have blocked this bot for now due to its preventing me from reverting obvious vandalism on SpinnWebe. It would not allow me to remove a G1 tag placed by an IP user where said tagging was the IP's first edit, because I was the one to make the first edit on the title about five years ago. Removing legitimate placements of the speedy deletion tag when one made the first edit is one thing, but reverting obvious vandalism is an entirely different story. And if a bot is preventing the reversion of obvious vandalism, regardless of any other circumstances, then it is malfunctioning. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there SchuminWeb. The bot is stopped for now, so if you would be so kind as to unblock, you need not worry about it editing again until this is discussed. If you would like policy changed (i.e. to allow you to remove CSD templates), then you can discuss that separately. However, at the moment all the bot is doing is enforcing policy. It's a very simple matter to get an incorrect CSD tag removed, simply ask someone impartial to review the situation. This is a simply process, and requiring it prevents a huge amount of abuse. Two other related issues: Please do not use rollback except when reverting vandalism, the bots edits are not vandalism. Please do not say the bot "serves no helpful purpose", as I find that very disheartening and unfair to all the hard work the bot does and all that has gone into it. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I have unblocked the bot. Thank you for stopping it for now. That said, I also would like to apologize for the block summary. That was basically my "dammit, I am not getting into a revert war with a bot" reaction, and in rereading it, it came out poorly. However, if the bot is restoring vandalism edits, then it is vandalism.

That said, it should be possible to build in something to prevent the situation that just happened, either by looking at the tagger's history (i.e. seeing no other edits lets the edit go through) or to otherwise lock out instances where the speedy tag is being used vandalistically. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I understand that you were frustrated. However, I would still object to it being called vandalism. It sounds stupid, but the bot's edits are in good faith (as it was programmed by me, in good faith).
I would be more than happy to make the bot check either the tagger, the creator, or both, to look at permissions, edit count, or pretty much anything else. But, at the moment CSD policy states "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it." (empathise original), policy does't get much more clear than this. So WT:CSD is the place to seek change really, rather than here. My personal opinion is that no change is needed, vandalistic CSD-tagging is very rare, and previously when the bot has replaced an incorrect tag, users have been happy to follow process (using the {{hangon}} template created specifically for the purpose of flagging incorrect speedies) and everything has ended fine after a review by an impartial user. Despite that, I would, as mentioned, be more than happy to make an necessary changes to the bot to keep it complying with policy. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Might as well start it back up, but I am going to see about getting the policy that caused this adjusted for the fact that there is now patrolling specifically for this, probably focusing on well-established articles with many editors. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the bot has been editing for more than a year actually. But it's interesting that you mention that actually, because the bot used to not edit pages with more than 50 edits. I'd be happy to put that back in again if you want? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll start the bot up again for now. Let me know if you want that history counting re-implemented as a feature :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)