Talk:Mason Cox

Should there be a "College basketball" section in this article?

Hi all,
Should there be a "College basketball" section in this article?

• Support: college sports in the US is huuuge news, and there is extensive coverage about his College basketball career.
• Oppose: as the references demonstrate, Cox played a total of 57 minutes of College basketball. How is this of relevance to the article?

Your opinions about this?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If he would've continued/will continue to a professional basketball career (either in the US or Australia) it might have relevance. However as he switched careers to footy, I think the main focus is footy and the college basketball should be a paragraph under the early life section. Even as a college basketball "career" it was short (57 minutes) and not the normal pro route (he was a walk-on). Thanks for all your work and effort on the article :D --SuperJew (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Stats bot response

@The-Pope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mason_Cox&oldid=1363862774

Re this edit: Not sure who I am supposed to get approval from, since realistically I have to do all the testing myself or nothing gets fixed. The reality is that I have to push live updates and take the move-fast-and-break-things approach and clean up any issues as they crop up. I'm not sure if your comment was supposed to be passive aggressive, but regardless my intentions are noble.

With that being said, I am not being careless, but I also realise that once in a while issues will slip through. The reason I am pinging you is to explain my rationale so this hopefully won't be an issue going forward.

1) I run an automated scan every 20 minutes to check if a player page update isn't synced with the AFL Tables database. The reason is twofold:

   i) If a user is messing with the stats, the bot will pick up on it very quickly and fix it using an non-scheduled "healing" edit.
   ii) If a user is making a good-faith effort to update the stats but gets the numbers wrong or otherwise accidentally messes up the formatting, the bot will also run the aforementioned healing process.

2) Regarding if someone makes a manual edit to update the stats, I have no issue with that, naturally, and frankly I get that it's not really efficient or practical to hunt down a citation, especially when it will be done automatically in a few days at most anyway. Therefore, I've programmed it so that if a user updates a player page manually (advances it by no more than one game), the bot is supposed to ignore this speedy fix and take it in good faith. I'm not sure why in this case the bot reverted it, but I'm going to look into it ASAP and run some diagnostics so that hopefully this won't come up again.

If you have any questions or comments for the betterment of the bot or the integrity of the stats, I'm happy to take them onboard.

Electricmaster (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes it was intended as passive aggressive, glad you picked up on that. As I've repeatedly told you before, bots are meant to comply with WP:BOTP. Separate clearly marked bot account (do you have a separate non bot account?) and clearly defined and agreed scope are the issues here. Can't see any issues in getting it approved as per that policy, but you seem oblivious to it.

In this specific instance, where it is relying on a not updated until Sunday or Monday external site, just don't let it run over the weekend. When AFL Tables has updated, then do the check. If you can diagnose why the 1 game rule didn't prevent it editing, I'd prefer for it to not revert good faith updates by others over the weekend, even if they don't update the statsend. Let your bot do that minor clean up on Monday. The-Pope (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)