RedirectCleanupBot

This is a request for a fully automated adminbot.

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/1/1); Scheduled to end 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RedirectCleanupBot (talk · contribs) - This is a very different RfA from the type I am used to writing nominations for. In fact in many ways the title is wrong - I am not proposing that a new administrator be created, but that a Bot account is given a +sysop flag. It is incapable of the judgment we require an administrator to show. I will however outline why giving it the ability to use a sysop tool will be beneficial to the encyclopedia.

The task

Special:BrokenRedirects list pages that are redirects to deleted or non-existent pages. They meet the speedy deletion criteria - CSD R1. When reviewing that list the only human action that is necessary is to ensure that each page does not contain useful history otherwise it is deleted. The page is updated every 2/3 days and I delete well over 100 redirects each time. It occurs to me however that this trivial task could be done just as well automatically.

Of course, a Bot cannot discern useful page history, so this Bot will only delete pages that have no history.
It will work off Special:BrokenRedirects and if an entry there is:

1. A redirect to a deleted or non-existent page
2. Has only one entry in its history

It will delete that redirect.

Technical details

• BRFA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RedirectCleanupBot
• Operator: WJBscribe
• Code written by: Eagle 101
• Source code: <http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/rdbot.pl>
• Test output: User:Eagle 101/RedirectCleanupBot

Conclusions

This task is largely uncontroversial other than the fact that the Bot requires the ability to delete pages. If the Bot deletes a page other than a broken redirect with one revision, it will be blocked on sight. Blocked accounts cannot delete pages. This Bot will not be taking on any future tasks - this will be its sole function and its scope will not be expanded. Bots are designed to perform repetitive tasks that can be performed just as well automatically as manually. I believe this is such a task. WjBscribe 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the Bot

Ask any questions below:

Questions from AA

1. What will be in the edit summary?

A:It is in the source code, line 41, currently it is BOT: Deleting dead redirect per CSD R1. Changing this is not that hard to do. Suggestions are welcome :). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about including the target in there (e.g. BOT: Deleting dead redirect to @@@@ per CSD R1)?

That has been suggested, and I will include it shortly, I must get some food now, but I'll have code updates within 8 hours or so. As it is open source, if someone wants to give me a unix patch file they are more then welcome to e-mail that to me ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are there instances when a broken redirect should not be deleted from user/user talk space?

A: I can't immediately think of any. If there are some we can restrict the Bot further. In my experience such redirects arise either (1) where an article was drafted in userspace, moved to the mainspace and subsequently deleted or (2) where someone is renamed and deletes unwanted subpages, forgetting the redirects left over from the rename. It seems appropriate to delete these redirect. As with other namespaces, the Bot won't delete if the page has more than 1 edit in the history. WjBscribe 21:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times.

Having reviewed the code for the bot, I can pretty confidently say that the bot is unlikely to misbehave and will perform as specified. My reservation, however, is that I'm not sure the scope of the bot's function is really one necessary for an adminbot. The task it is performing -- deleting approx. 300 pages per week -- is one that could be accomplished quite simply by a single admin, or small group of admins, in under an hour per week. What concerns me is that granting this bot adminship stands to set an, as of yet unestablished, precedent that adminbots are generally accepted. This is a precedent I would be fine with having set, but would see it more appropriately established through the promotion of Curpsbot or similar currently active, though "illegitimate," adminbots. I also worry that the scope of this bot will be expanded to include other admin tasks following its promotion and with only the consent of the bot approvals group, a group that generally shares my view and readily approves most adminbot functions. My support for the promotion of this bot would be strictly on the condition that the bot's scope not be expanded to include any other tasks without bringing the bot back to RfA for reconfirmation by the community. Should the bot undertake any additional tasks, with or without the approval of the BAG, the bot should be stripped of its admin status and deactivated on sight. If the bot's operator and writer can agree to these terms, and if the BAG agrees not to authorize any further tasks for this bot without a further RfA for the explicit tasks, then the bot has my support. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will say right now, this bot will not do any further tasks. I have always advocated that admin bots should have one task per approved account. That allows the community to make its own choices on a task by task basis in a more public fora then WP:BRFA. Any new tasks warrent a new bot account, and a new RFA. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Bot will perform no other tasks. May a steward take both mine and the Bot's flag if I lie. As Eagle says, a new task means a new Bot and a new RfA. WjBscribe 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

1. Per general support for adminbots. Is this a move towards sanity? Moreschi ^Talk 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. As the programmer, I support my code. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as bot operator who has reviewed and tested the code - it works as expected, there are no security issues or potentially bad situations that could cause the bot to perform unexpected operations. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support This will be very useful to have, and of course I trust the owner and coder :) Majorly (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support (note: Bot approvals group member)) - code is public, its hard to screw up, no judgment involved whatsoever on the bots part. It's a no brainer support -- Tawker 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - (many edit conflicts) The concept is good and I trust that the code is sound. I was initially concerned on understanding that this was to be an admin bot, and no less a deletion bot, but since it will only delete under such strict circumstances, I cannot imagine it being a problem. Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support ➪HiDrNick! 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support — if it won't make decisions, why not? --Agüeybaná 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Obvious support. A job that a bot can easily perform and a bot with thoroughly reviewed code. Will (aka Wimt) 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Job is uncontroversial and tedious, perfect application for a bot. I have read, and understood the source code, and it will function as described. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - code makes sense, and is a good opportunity for us to take the step of allowing admin bots, especially for menial chores such as this (where the human admin is effectively taking on the role of robot when deleting the redirects). Important point is that bot only deletes pages with one edit, so most applications will be to pseudonyms created by the author of a bio article since deleted under CSD G7. Effectively, most applications of this bot will simply extend the human speedy deletion procedure. Martinp23 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Definite support! We definitely need a bot like this. I'm pretty sure that anything coded by Eagle101 would handle just fine. :) *Cremepuff222* 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support As someone who's done this tedious task, it will be a relief for a bot to take over! I'm happy that with the restrictions specified, there is little chance of any problems. I trust the author and code reviewers judgements that it's bug free. → AA ^(talk) — 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support, and I also recuse myself from closing this RFA. Andre (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - This looks to me like a bot task, and the bot will be operated by an admin. Od Mishehu 21:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support as BAG member. Simple bot task, a matter of giving a +sysop flag to a +sysop user already. An incredibly simple task, no major requirements. Code is available which is a big plus. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. I am in general support of this bot getting an admin bit, but I have to wonder if there are more pressing tasks that deserve admin bots. The reasoning behind the nom is that the task is fairly tedious and it is a "trivial task [that] could be done just as well automatically." That describes many admin tasks... (CSD backlogs, anyone?) This task does not seem so pressing, but if it can allow a kind-of back door allowance for more admin bots with solid code and trusted operators, why not? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Hmm, let's see. No answers to questions, no indication that it will communicate well with users, not enough prior experience in the area where it plans to use its admin powers, and an edit count of 0 is a bit low. Yes, I'm joking.
    I've just reviewed the code. I can only see one way it would go wrong, and it's in an extremely improbable situation: an announcement is added to the Wikipedia interface, containing a bulleted list, and one bullet point begins with a link to a page that's only been edited once. The bot would then delete that announcement page, thinking it was a dead redirect. I can't see this happening in reality, and it wouldn't be a huge problem even if it did, since it would only affect one page and would be easily fixed. Human admins are much more likely to make much bigger mistakes.
    In short, I trust this bot to do what it's meant to do, and I support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, meets all of my criteria in User:Gracenotes/Admin bot. Two not-so-essential requests, though: 1. Could the bot recognize the {{bots}} templates for exceptions? 2. Could the bot please include the target page in the edit summary? The former will allow for (as stated) exceptions, in case one is needed, and the latter can allow for human review, and help in situations where retargeting is more appropriate than deletion. Granted, these changes will make make the code less pithy, but in my opinion they're worth it. Gracenotes^T § 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We can include the target page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support - the operator is an admin and the coder is an admin. The bot has already been approved by WP:BRFA. I've read the code and it seems fine assuming the format for our history pages don't radically change. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot has not yet been approved, approval of the bot is pending the result of the RFA, at least that is how I understand it. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Strongest possible oppose. Bots should not have admin bits. Corvus cornix 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Why? Moreschi ^Talk 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Bots are not people. Bots are left to run on their own with no checks and balances. Bots have no edit histories. Corvus cornix 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Bots are not people - well, duh. Bots do have human operators, however, and we can certainly trust these operators. They serve as check and balance, and bot will only do what they tell it to. If it ballses up, we can block it and if necessary desysop it in around 30 seconds. Your paranoia is unjustified. Moreschi ^Talk 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I should let you know though, the source code is public, thats probably better then an edit history, its like being in the "admin's" mind. ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The code is public, and has been reviewed by - so far - three bot operators. Based on my review, I'm not saying that there is little chance the user will misuse the tools, I am saying that there is no chance whatsoever that we will have problems. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Checks and balances are exactly what bots have. It will not do anything except what the code tells it to do. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Bot's are nothing except checks and balances. Thats how they work - they make simple checks, and simple decisions. If its not simple, it lets a human decide. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral pending reassurance. As a non-botwise person, I have an irrational phobia of rampaging admin Franken-bots that I’m really trying to overcome. Do I understand right that, if bots start getting sysop bits, a two step process will be required? First, it goes through WP:RFA, with a detailed summary of exactly what tasks it will perform. If that is successful, it goes through WP:BRFA, which will verify that it does what it claims to, and only what it claims to. If it passes both, a 'crat gives it a sysop flag and a bot flag. Every time a new task that requires sysop permission is thought up, either a new bot is nominated for RFA, or the old bot goes thru RFA again. Right? We won’t be in a position where, as time goes by, new tasks for a previously-approved bot only go through BRFA?
   The reason I mention this here, on this relatively uncontroversial task, is that this is obviously the thin end of the wedge. I don’t share Corvus cornix's complete rejection of admin bots, and I think it would be good in some cases for the community to approve bots with sysop permission. But I wouldn’t want to go down a slippery slope where soon, admin bots are given new tasks without the entire community (i.e. RFA) being able to approve.
   If it is already specifically enshrined somewhere that any new admin-related task has to be approved by the entire community, rather than just at BRFA, I’d support (and please point me in the right general direction of where that policy is). If not, I’d oppose until such an assurance was made. --barneca (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If you read the statement, this bot will accept no further tasks. The code will only change to make the bot better at what it does. I will probably add in a mechanism by which the bot will confirm that the page that was redirected to was deleted over a day ago before deleting the redirect. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I read the statement, and certainly believe WJBscribe that the scope of this particular bot will never change. Again, I'm just concerned that if we're going to start giving sysop bits to a bot, that there should be some mechanism to ensure that it will always be like this, and I'd prefer that mechanism be in place first. If this were not the thin end of the wedge, I would support. But it is, hence my question. --barneca (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What mechanism would you like? It seems to me that if this Bot doesn't do what it says here, any of our 1000+ admins may block it. Admins are amazingly trigger happy in blocking Bots that do something they're not authorised to do (or do it too fast). Warnings are not given, the Bot operator is not consulted. Because the task is so simple, it will be very easy to show it is doing something wrong - whereas admin actions by humans are open to more interpretation :-) ... WjBscribe 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   All bots need approval by the bot approval group which understands how bots work. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No problem, please do remember that this is setting a precedent and a good method for approving admin bots. There is no policy on it yet, but policy can always follow the practice. As it is now, the practice is following what you consider to be the ideal case, and this is what I consider to be the ideal case. One task per admin bot account. Each new one goes under a new account, and is approved at RFA, rather then BRFA (which is not all that public as far as people that see those pages). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Very Weak Support - I've always hated the idea of having a bot become an admin, but ressurence counts. I'll give it a go for now. --Hirohisat ^紅葉 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]