The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

 Approved. remember to blue link contribs and userpage. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operator: Mr.Z-man

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Python (using my framework, source)

Function Summary: Adminbot: Delete old pages from CAT:TEMP

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

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

Function Details: My bot already clears pages out of CAT:TEMP that don't belong in the category: Pages of users who aren't indef-blocked, pages in the wrong namespace, and pages transcluding ((do not delete)). I'm open to more suggestions as well. With the indef block check, it does not remove pages of users whose block expires in > 300 days; for some reason admins have been using indef block templates but only blocking for a year, whether they clicked the wrong time, or used the wrong template, I'm not sure. I'd be willing to adjust the time or remove the feature if people object to it.

Currently the only check the bot does before deleting (other than the checks done by the non-adminbot part) is checking that the last revision to the page was more than 30 days ago, which, AFAIK, is the current check done by admins now when deleting such pages (I believe most also use a script of some form). I'm open to adding other checks as well if desired. A list of pages the bot would have deleted (if run shortly before this comment) along with the timestamp of the last revision is here Mr.Z-man 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the bot check to see if the user was blocked for Abuse of Multiple Accounts? Such pages should in my opinion not be deleted. Blocking admins may be unaware that certain templates like ((indefblockeduser)) toss the page into CAT:TEMP by default. After deletion, such pages no longer show up in a sockpuppet category, thus gradually erasing the details of a sock case. If the bot can't look at the type of block, at least it could check to see if the page was in a sock category or carried a sock template. If it finds this evidence, it should remove the page from CAT:TEMP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All sock templates transclude ((do not delete)) and are already removed from the category regularly. Mr.Z-man 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to get this task automated. Otherwise, we'll continue to have the never ending backlogs. Mr.Z-man is a competent bot operator and admin so I don't see any reason he shouldn't be the one to run it, so let's get it going. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was sure the category was already dealt with by a bot, to be honest. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with approving this. --Kbdank71 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 'Approved.'MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 15 January 2009 (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.