Forum:New Bot proposal
This is my first post to the grove, so bear with me if I ramble or sound like elvrag's eaten my sense of reason.
My idea for a new bot is simple. It would be a security bot, that would work periodically on demand. The reason for the combination is that the bot would be programmed to track posts by certain users/ip addresses and deleate them. Why? To combat vandals and spammers. Once called upon to work (multiple bots could be used) the requester would add the offender in question's ip/username to the source code and then activate, and it would search every hour for offenders, for 48 hours. After 48 hours it would stop that task. However, a periodical task it would do when not hunting for spammers would be to hunt for terms that should be wikilinked (say, redberry pie) and then link them ( redberry pie )
My only problem is I do not know how to code wikibots, if this idea is accepted could someone assist in this? Or point me to how-to sites? Thank you.
[b]Axslayer33[b]-the ultimate killer 17:29, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Heck no - The whole idea is flawed. First, by having the bot automatically revert edits from defined users (I say users because this could be applied to registered and unregistered users), you are acknowledging that the user has repeatedly vandalised or is known as a persistent spammer, both of which are stopped by a block from an administrator or bureaucrat. As far as I know, spammers really aren't that much of a problem here, with the possible exception of the koala outbreak a couple of months ago. Any other spammers are sporadic and generally leave after a couple of blocks. Also, we have RS:CVU if an administrator doesn't notice severe vandalism. Also, the wikilinking is a terrible idea. Making all linkable terms into links is not necessarily a good thing, as it can lead to excessive and therefore pointless links. Using common sense is a deciding factor on where to put a link in an article, and bots don't have that. Also, as stated above, we have inquired as to whether Cluebot could be borrowed for this wiki, but it didn't happen and the wiki appears to be alright for now. Real Crazy 19:21, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Not really needed, since AbuseFilter catches 99% of stuff, and our small but dedicated team of countervandalism people gets most of the rest. But, if someone made a good one, then I'd fully support giving us yet another thing to help combat vandalism - everything helps. ajr 21:49, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - You'd be surprised at how many bad edits our abusefilter catches; most stopped, and the ones that don't are found easily. We don't really need a bot to track certain IPs edits either, because it would still take a human to ascertain whether or not it's vandalism and it breaks RS:AGF. Also, we don't need multiple links in an article. There was another YG post regarding this issue (I don't remember what it was called, it was sometime last year), and iirc, the consensus was to not have multiple links to the same article in 1 page of the article. ɳex undique 16:34, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - What Rsa said09:01, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
15:18, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - No consensus for such a bot. Suppa chuppa 20:30, August 22, 2011 (UTC)