Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoABot II

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:VoABot II[edit]

This bot is basically part of what VoABot did, but I decided to split the functions up. This bot watches certain pages and reverts edits using regexps denoted as blacklisted. It can check for added content, summaries, and logged-out IP ranges, depending on what is needed to stop recurring AOL/Shared IP vandals. Its been running for a while as part of VoABot[1], and I'd just like to have this second account flagged, since it can sometimes make a lot of edits in a fairly short time period (though nothing like Rambot). Here[2] are the pages that it watches (it updates the list hourly).Voice-of-All 03:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the idea that these functions should be from separate accounts, I'm missing where the reversion function of VoABot was approved, the original request does not mention this "feature". What are the parameters and other tests used to prevent bad reverts here? The page for this bot also states that it has already been approved here??? — xaosflux Talk 04:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also just saw edits like these, that don't look like obvious vandalism, with no discussion going on on the talk page. — xaosflux Talk 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VoABot's page says that its functions are approved, but not VoABot II. VoABot IIs functions were tested as part of VoABot for a while. Also, it does not try to find general vandalism, as TB2 and the like already due. It goes after edits typical to specific banned users or AOL attacks. The edits you were looking at were by a revolving IP adding the same consensus-rejected spam links for weeks. That and Gibriltarian-like stuff is what this reveerts. It uses the standard rollback method (revert to last non-X contrib, check if X is actually the last contrib) and whitelists admins.Voice-of-All 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed note (assuming now it was a copy and paste of old bot page.) Wouldn't sprotecting the page be more effictive then revert warring with an anon though? — xaosflux Talk 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually they just give up after a while. Also, they may just make throwaway accounts to get through, which does little if the edits are reverted promptly. Additionally, the AOL/shared IP RC patrol has stopped several trolling streaks to many randomn pages, something sprotection is useless against. Also, the note you removed was a legend, all the checked features where approved (VoABot II had no checked feautres).Voice-of-All 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voice of All is careful and intelligent. I think he would make a great bot. —Centrx→talk • 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edits such as this one seem to violate Wikipedia:BITE and Wikipedia:AGF, and are being made without so much as a talk message, with a edit summary that the edit is RESTRICTED. — xaosflux Talk 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the regexps "from previous vandal streaks" so it wont revert that edit again (or any edit with 7 or so periods in a row). I've modified the edit summaries to include "vandalism" and "spam links". Also, what should the edit summary be changed to? Should it notify all non-AOL shared IP users (as notifying AOL users is pointless as the adress changes)?Voice-of-All 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may want to check with the Tawkerbot team, they have a notification sytem built in to their reverts, as for the edit summary, telling someone that their editing is restricted goes against the "...that anyone can edit", without any forwarning (like {{sprotect}} does. What some other have dne is create a subpage on your bot, and have the edit summary link to it, where the page explains to the user why they were reverted (generically of course) and how they should avoid getting reverted again (assuming good faith, and not requiring that they get an account). — xaosflux Talk 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Subpages, good idea. I'd work on those now. I'd like to get the RC patrol for this bot on again asap, as AOL vandal streaks can really come hard sometimes.Voice-of-All 23:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I started the subpage, and the edit summaries now link there.Voice-of-All 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What little I've seen of this bot, it's done a very good job and stopping IP hopping aol vandalism.(Where a vandalbot hops all over the place on a subrange vandalising). I like the basic idea. Though xoasflux is probably correct about how socialable it is, its technical capabilities seem quite accurate. You should fix it up a little, and it will be a nice compliment to what the tawkerbots do. Kevin_b_er 01:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One week trial approved, please maintain a record of any complaints (except those from obvious vandals), and link to them (if any) along with some difs here. Don't get discouraged if someone blocks you along the way, even the tawkerbots got blocked at the start of their runs. — xaosflux Talk 14:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too many times I might add (well, Tawkerbot2 got the worst of it, Tawkerbot4 only got a user block methinks) -- Tawker 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting Operator Response[edit]

  • Moved to expired {14:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)}, no response from operator. — xaosflux Talk
    • What should I put here? A report? What should it focus on?Voice-of-All 10:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, lets see, as for problems pointed out we had:
      • [3] a bad link regexp in the blacklist causing it to revert the "good" versions of the Rajput page.
      • [4]. An edit reverted as vandalism by mistake. regexps fixed.
      • [5]. A vandal IP blanked a page, and then another one vandalized it, which the bot reverted, but to the blanked version unfortunetely. This prompted the "vandalism may still exist" message that shows up in some edit summaries.
      • An edit to a math page was reverted due to heavy special character length, so the blackist for those was extended only to very high consecutive usage (huge nonsense words).
      • A page was reverted due to special language chars being seen as "?" by the bot (missing the laguage support). I raised the bar for this type of revert to avoid that in the future.
      • [6] a revert to a porn article due to key words triggering. A quote checker should fix this.
    • The "vandalism may still exist" message is the only fix I had to make to the script, rather than just the blacklist.Voice-of-All 18:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved NO FLAGs. — xaosflux Talk 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/VoABot_II&oldid=1136105388"