Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/タチコマ robot (07)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Symbol delete vote.svg Denied. — Coren (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

タチコマ robot
Operator: User:White Cat

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming Language(s): python or AWB (whichever is better depending on situation)

Function Summary: Mass revert of edits of a specific user

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Manual run when necesary

Edit rate requested: less than 10 edits per minute

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

Function Details: This function of the bot would be used to mass revert disruptive mass edits such as left overs of vandalism only accounts or vandal bot strikes which are typically kept at bay. It can also be used for non-vandalism related edits and would be exclusively based on consensus. I hope to never need to use this function but want to be able to should the need arise. -- Cat chi? 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Just to make this clear, this bot's function would be to revert all edits from a specified editor? If that is the case, then I would insist on seeing broad consensus that this is desirable before approval.

A secondary (technical) concern is how the bot will react to edits that have since been modified. Will it revert edits that can be undone even after later edits? How will it deal with those it cannot undo? — Coren (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you revert with AWB?  Ρх₥α 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If this bot is approved, you are expressly forbidden from using it to make or revert changes made to your signature. You are also strongly advised to seek confirmation that the bot needs to run from an admin before executing it, and it is suggested that you only run without some measure of discussion where blatant vandalism has occurred. If this bot is approved and used on non-blatant vandalism, it does contribute to the operator's revert limit, and if it is used improperly, it will be blocked. (Approval is up to the rest of you.) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This request is far from uncontroversial, and I would require broad community consensus before we proceed. I have asked the community at the village pump to comment so that such a consensus can be reached. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this task is easiest accomplished with Javascript and a +sysop flag. Such edits can also automatically be marked as bot so they don't flood recent changes (see Help:Administration). MER-C 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm particularly worried about a bot performing this activity, especially when dealing with proxy's or school based IP address where not all edits are vandalism based and multiple users are involved. This could result in it doing more damage than it fixes. Although I can see where the idea has come from, as frequently I will follow my bot around the wiki, and seeing the other contributions people have made. Usually 9 times out of 10 if they have vandalised something chances are high they have done the same somewhere else. Perhaps instead of creating a bot to do mass reverting in the chance that all the edits were destructive, create a bot that purposely follows or shadows the other Anti-Vandalism bots around, and looks at the top edits of people warned for vandalism to see if they have made unwanted edits to other articles? Just an idea Lloydpick 01:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At this time, it appears fairly obvious that there is no consensus (here or on WP:VP that this proposed but would be useful and harmless, and several editors have pointed out that existing tools are able to perform this function without the assistance of a bot, something I agree with. In addition, the bot as suggested would cause significant RC noise as it operates unless it had a sysop bit, which would require an administrator as operator.


 * 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.