Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Eskimospy Bot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Request Expired.

Eskimospy Bot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Eskimospy

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually

Programming Language(s): Python (Pywikipedia framework)

Function Summary: This bot will be used to find and remove vandalism.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):Most likely every day

Edit rate requested: 1 edit per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):N

Function Details: This is the second request (I withdrew the first request) for Eskimospy Bot to be approved. Its purpose remains the same, however the way it will function has changed significantly. The only thing this bot will do on its own is list pages; I will be the one making the changes (under the bot's account)--Eskimospy 23:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This bot will remove vandalism caused by piped links, example: [[*reproductive organ*|America]]. The method in which vandalism will be removed is: using replace.py (of the pywikipedia framework), the bot will search for any thing on User Lupin's list of bad words that is in the left section of a piped link and delete that word ant th pipe (|); in other words, it will look for anything that looks similar to [[*vulgarity*|George Bush]] and replace it with [[George Bush]]. --eskimospy (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

You haven't provided nearly enough information. What exactly does the bot do? How does it make determinations on vandalism? --Cyde Weys 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We need full function details - what Cyde said, really Martinp23 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I am going to fix that. Also I want to mention that my very poorly written function details were also inaccurite, the purpose of the bot has changed.--eskimospy (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about submissive (BDSM)|submissive - bdsm is on the badwords list, would you catch that? --ST47Talk 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context in which it is used: if it was a human sexuality related article (or topic referring to sexuality) and submissive was referring to BDSM, I would leave it alone; in any other case I would remove "(BDSM)|".--eskimospy (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If, as you say above, you are doing this manually, then you don't stricly need approval (and will most certainly not be getting a bot flag for the same reason that AVB and MB don't have one), but I think that, if anyone is interested here, and wishes to help you iron out any flaws, we can drag it through process should you wish. Note that even if it goes through the process, it will be little more than a glorified alternate account for you. That all said - how do you get the pages to check, and is piped vandalism a big problem? Martinp23 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying I can use the bot? Also, just out of curiosity, why don't Martinbot and AntiVandalBot (I assume that is what AVB and MB mean, if I am wrong please tell me) need a flag? I thought they run automatically. Anyway, to check for bad piped links, I will type the following in command prompt (in the same directory as the pywikipedia bot):

replace.py -start:! "[[*badword*|" "[["

And to me, piped vandalism is a bad problem because let's say for example, that I was in a library researching "erasers" on Wikipedia. If there was something like this "[[Image:Penis|paper]]" on the Eraser article and I unknowingly clicked on it, that would be very embarrasing for me as someone ot the male gender.--eskimospy (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

AVB and MB can revert legitimate edits, so we don't want them to be hidden under a bot flag. Are you saying that you want you bot to iterate through each page, and adjust each bad word? I realise that this could be a problem, but I'm not aware of it being a significant problem, and can only see it being a problem. For example, [[Image:Penis|pencil]] would not be a piped link - it would appear as an image. There are millions of valid uses of such piped links, and the high error rate would mean that you bot would be quickly blocked, unless you are going to approve or reject *every* change. I, for one, have never clicked on a link and found myself on a page I didn't intend to get to, and I read this encyclopedia quite often, as well as editing and administrating it. For example, in some articles, [[penis|(vulgar expression)]] will be valid... Martinp23 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to approve or reject every change however, I suppose I could make a whitelist of articles and then run the bot automatically (if that would be better).--eskimospy (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. for 2 epm, come back after you have a reasonable sample. --ST47Talk 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request Expired. - this request seems to have stalled, so I'm expiring it. I also feel that it needs further discussion somewhere, so if you wish to continue with the proposal, please enter a new request and we can go from there. The trial status is revoked as a result of this. Martinp23 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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.