Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EllisBot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

EllisBot
Operator:

Time filed: 03:29, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Blanks warnings on IP user talk pages which contain only stale (2013 or earlier) warnings.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): A similar task was discussed at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: One million

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes, implemented in AWB

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Blanks all content past and including the first section header on IP user talk pages which have no occurrences of the strings "2014" or "2015", and replaces it with a transclusion of template:OW. Thus, notes about the users' ISPs and other content which should be preserved will remain on the talk pages, as they occur before the first section header. Attempts to avoid the blanking of welcome notices by excluding pages which contain the case insensitive strings "Welcome!" or "Welcome to Wikipedia!". Excludes any page which already has OW template or any redirect to it.

Discussion
Are there any precautions being taken about blocked IP addresses (like User talk:66.226.79.49 and User talk:202.93.8.68 and User talk:66.197.164.245 and User talk:195.194.39.100), pages containing sock templates and other things mentioned at WP:BLANKING, etc? -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the content which needs to be preserved appears before the first section header, as in most uses of the open proxy and sockpuppet templates, it would be retained. However, I gather that we actually care about retaining certain notices which are posted below the first section header, which would require hundreds of rules to exclude. Therefore, I'm withdrawing this BRFA. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.