Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RollbackerBOT


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied

RollbackerBOT
Operator:

Time filed: 18:13, Saturday October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (pywikipediabot)

Source code available: No

Function overview: Revert vandalism

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: It depends of vandalism.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: This is a bot made to revert vandalism, test edits and blanking pages. Also, it leaves a message to users.

Discussion
I assume you are wanting to run the code of eswiki RollbackerBOT? I've not looked into the details, but see for example Bots/Requests_for_approval/ClueBot_NG of what is expected on English Wikipedia of an anti-vandalism bot. You will have to provide much more detail about things like false positives or user warning messages. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the information. The bot use a list of regular expressions to detect vandalism. You can see the list here. Regards, --Sebrev (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but enwiki has a fairly high standard for antivandalism bots. At the moment, I don't think this bot offers any advantage over our current antivandalism bots, and if anything, it is likely to increase the amount of false positives being reverted while not helping to reduce the overall vandalism load. -- Chris 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide a response to the above, or a compelling reason why the bot should be allowed (e.g. will it be targeting a specific type of vandalism that is missed by the current antivandal bots?), I move to deny this request. -- Chris 06:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Per above. Enwiki has very high standards for antivandal bots, due to the high impact of false positives. This bot would cause more false positives than our current antivandal bot, while bringing no benefit -- Chris 01:38, 27 October 2011 (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.