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: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:30, Thursday October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: No

Function overview: Reverting test edits

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 30

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: The bot is similar to inactive bots User:AmeliorationBot and User:SoxBot III, where it simply removes any 'test' edits. It looks for pages with [[File:[[File:Example.jpg]]]]''''Italic text'''''Bold text'''''<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki> and the like and rolls it back. It then warns the user and moves on. The list of pages is generated four ways:live data from Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Example.jpg, combing Special:RecentChanges in a similar way to ClueBot, searching for example test stuff in the Wikipedia search, and searching for example test stuff on Google. It is all then reverted and/or taken out, and if it is severe enough warns the user with the warnings listed at User:Rcsprinter123/Bot based on Template:Uw-test.

Discussion

• "Automatic supervised", so then the bot will only be running when you are around?
• I don't like the idea of searching, and using Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Example.jpg; I don't think it would work properly. You'd end up with too many situations where someone else has edited over the top and you can't revert it. I think if the bot starts trying to remove text like that itself, its bound to cause problems.
• False positives? How will the bot deal with them?

--Chris 07:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it can only edit when I am here to keep an eye on it.
• Searching produced very good results with AmeliorationBot, so I have taken the idea in the hope it will work as well. Checking the what links here also works very well with me when I do it with my regular account. As well as reverting an edit with test things in, if the bot senses it is reverting other constructive edits, it can remove it directly from the text instead. Then it can find the user who added it in the page history, and warn them.
• False positives: If one is reported I will stop the bot while I work out how to solve the bug and add it to the code not to revert that kind of thing again.

Hope those answers helped. Rcsprinter (orate) 11:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not happy that it is appropriate to warn a user who, for example, just accidentally clicked and left a <nowiki></nowiki> behind - particularly if it was a new user making otherwise constructive edits.  Chzz  ►  10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally see your point here, and agree with it, and there is already a solution. If constructive changes were made in the same edit as the accidental tags it will not warn, only remove the spare code but not reverting the constructive edits or warning. That way it is only a removal bot rather than revert-and-warn bot, but the purpose is the same. Blatant vandalism type testing will be dealt with in the normal way. Rcsprinter (state) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit uneasy over this (I'm seem to recall bots like this have hit into problems in the past), however seeing that this is supervised, lets see how it goes Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --Chris 06:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day 1 done. Edits. I won't be able to do seven days in a block but will do seven days' total editing. Rcsprinter (rap) 16:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you plan on searching through Google if their Terms of Service (§ 5.3) prohibit automated querying? — The Earwig ^(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the legal question: you have a bug in your edit summary here. mabdul 00:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So they do. Well, I haven't actually run the Google search thing yet, so I won't. As for the edit summary bug, that is all sorted out now (it was the first edit after all). And Day 2 done. Edits. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3 done. Edits. Rcsprinter (rap) 16:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Day 4 done. Edits. Also, the bot has started editing pages outside the mainspace. Is this OK? Rcsprinter (message) 14:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Day 5 done. Edits. Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Day 6 done. Edits. Nearly finished. Rcsprinter (yak) 17:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Trial complete. Rcsprinter (state) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good  Approved. --Chris 03:49, 17 November 2011 (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.