Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot11598 2

Bot11598 2[edit]

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

Approved.

Operator: Cameron11598 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 16:00, Saturday, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Function overview: Counter Vandalism bot, purges pages that transclude templates that have been vandalized by appending {{subst:void}} to the end of pages that use the vandalized template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As Needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Varies depending on template

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Counters template vandalism by using the AWB guideline contained at WP:NULLEDIT. This bot would also need the AWB flag granted. The bot does not automatically detect things needing purging - I will activate it myself in response to template vandalism that occurs

Discussion[edit]

Could you provide some detail about what you think an appropriate trial would look like? For instance, could you create a test template and trial this in your userspace? (This is a request for an outline of what a trial would look like, not a request to perform a trial.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: Definitely, So what I think a trial could possibly look like would be something along the lines of creating a template in my userspace, transcluding it to a few test pages in my userspace, make the change to the template and have the bot run the edits on those pages. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appending what? A purge action, or even a null edit should suffice. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xaosflux: This is a limitation of AWB. AWB in fully-automated mode will not allow you to submit a true null edit; it will skip even if all skip options are disabled. It also has no capability to perform a purge action. The workaround is to substitute {{Void}} at the end of the page. This is functionally equivalent to a true null edit, but AWB will actually save it in bot mode. This workaround is described at WP:NULL and is generally considered an acceptable way to fix template vandalism. I've done this myself in semi-auto before in response to these attacks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BU Rob13: I've done a subst:void bot run before (on a task approved on another project) - it only presents as a null edit save (e.g. there is no revision created). The description above says by appending to pages. That is what I'm trying to get a detailed response from the operator as to what they are submitting. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - They may have actually literally typed {{subst:void}} above :D — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that's exactly what happened. (Silly Cameron...) I've discussed this task with Cameron at length on IRC, and he definitely plans to follow the AWB procedure outlined at WP:NULL. The bot will not produce edits. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Xaosflux: whops! Thats exactly what I did . Sorry about that! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What edit rate do you intend to process this at? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say approximately 20-30 per min. I'd be open to suggestions if this seems too many or too few. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that such a bot should operate as fast as it can, within reason. This type of vandalism is as priority as it gets. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using what ever inspired you to do this, what historical estimates of volume (# of pages to be touched) would you have done in say the last month? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, the situation described at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot11598 is what prompted this broader request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the last template that was hit with this kind of vandalism it was approximately 495 to 750 pages (495 in article space, the remaining were in project & user spaces). Depending on the number of template transclusions really. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just got home form three days in Sacramento, so I'm still working on "conference brain" I'll answer these tomorrow. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (not that anyone except for you will SEE anything here). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. @Xaosflux: So I had a slight hiccup on the first run (I forgot to set the additional lines to 0) after that everything ran smoothly (you currently can't see any other edits in the history)--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.