Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 71

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

Withdrawn by operator.

DannyS712 bot 71[edit]

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 03:52, Monday, June 8, 2020 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available: Not written yet

Function overview: Revert the addition of empty edit requests

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#Disallow empty edit requests

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: ~10 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Discussion on the edit filter noticeboard suggests that there is an ongoing problem of users submitting empty edit requests, despite an abuse filter warning, but that disallowing the edits may be a bit BITEy.

The bot would:

Check for recent edits that tripped the edit filter (Special:AbuseFilter/987)
Check if the edit is the most recent to a page
If it is, revert with an informative summary (if possible, I'd like the bot to be granted +rollback to make the reverts easier, with the bot providing an informative summary but not needing to deal with edit conflicts)

Discussion[edit]

Personally I don't see how reverting the edit is less bitey than disallowing it (indeed, it seems more annoying to save an edit and have it reverted than just be prevented from making the edit). I'd personally prefer to just set the filter to disallow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it wouldn't be instantaneous, but I get your point. No objections to disallowing, this was just as an alternative (the bot could also then post to a user's talk page with an explanation if that is desired) DannyS712 (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb question: would a request be considered "empty" if it contained a signature? Most empty requests that I see have a signature. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Yes, having a signature isn't enough. See Special:AbuseFilter/987 for the checks to determine if an edit request is "empty" DannyS712 (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{BotOnHold}} The linked discussion is a week old, and there is no consensus that a bot is needed; I read the discussion as trending towards disallowing empty requests from being made in the first place. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. The discussion was archived without any consensus, DannyS712 (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2020 (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.