User:A930913/Open challenge

I propose a bot that will search for common vandal terms such as "penis", "gay" and "sex" in IP edits. If that article did not previously contain the term, it will automatically be reverted. OverlordQ suggested that this would be silly, due to all the false positives. I disagree, and in an open challenge, (to anyone, not just OverlordQ) request that a single instance (prior to the opening of this challenge, 12 June 2010) where the above conditions would be met, would be reverted as a false positive. That is: 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 22:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A legitimate edit
 * Edited by an IP
 * Prior to 12 June 2010
 * Contains the word "penis", "gay" or "sex"
 * Article did not previously contain the word used above
 * Comment I found one with "lesbian" pretty quickly; I imagine it wouldn't be much harder to find a similar edit with "gay". The diff is here.   —  Soap  —  22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Lesbian" was not a word challenged for, "gay" is used by vandals, I'm yet to see "lesbian". 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 22:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's another:  —  Soap  —  22:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article previously contained the word "gay". 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean, in the category? ClueBot and other bots don't search that way. Still, to be fair, I'll keep looking for a better example.  —  Soap  —  23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that one was a mistake; it did have the word 'gay' in it already and the addition I found was only repeating information that was below. My apologies.  — Soap  —  23:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, here you go: . Now, of course, it's unsourced, but that in itself doesn't mean the edit is illegitimate.  Many anonymous users are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, and those who are often become long-term editors and register accounts.  But that is no reason to deny IP's the ability to make edits like that ... if it were we'd just turn off IP editing and be done with it.   —  Soap  —  23:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I told you why this was a bad idea in IRC. Frankly checking every IP edit mindlessly, only to check for the presence of a few key words is a waste of server resources. There's already at least 2 anti-vandalism bots that are full featured, plus another one is in BRFA. Something simple like this is what the Abuse Filter was made for, ask someone who has access to it about the chance of getting it added. FinalRapture - † ☪ 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)