Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot11598 2

Bot11598 2

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: Cameron11598 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 16:00, Saturday, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Function overview: Counter Vandalism bot, purges pages that transclude templates that have been vandalized by appending {{subst:void}} to the end of pages that use the vandalized template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As Needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Varies depending on template

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Counters template vandalism by using the AWB guideline contained at WP:NULLEDIT. This bot would also need the AWB flag granted. The bot does not automatically detect things needing purging - I will activate it myself in response to template vandalism that occurs

Discussion

Could you provide some detail about what you think an appropriate trial would look like? For instance, could you create a test template and trial this in your userspace? (This is a request for an outline of what a trial would look like, not a request to perform a trial.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: Definitely, So what I think a trial could possibly look like would be something along the lines of creating a template in my userspace, transcluding it to a few test pages in my userspace, make the change to the template and have the bot run the edits on those pages. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appending what? A purge action, or even a null edit should suffice. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xaosflux: This is a limitation of AWB. AWB in fully-automated mode will not allow you to submit a true null edit; it will skip even if all skip options are disabled. It also has no capability to perform a purge action. The workaround is to substitute {{Void}} at the end of the page. This is functionally equivalent to a true null edit, but AWB will actually save it in bot mode. This workaround is described at WP:NULL and is generally considered an acceptable way to fix template vandalism. I've done this myself in semi-auto before in response to these attacks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BU Rob13: I've done a subst:void bot run before (on a task approved on another project) - it only presents as a null edit save (e.g. there is no revision created). The description above says by appending to pages. That is what I'm trying to get a detailed response from the operator as to what they are submitting. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - They may have actually literally typed {{subst:void}} above :D — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that's exactly what happened. (Silly Cameron...) I've discussed this task with Cameron at length on IRC, and he definitely plans to follow the AWB procedure outlined at WP:NULL. The bot will not produce edits. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Xaosflux: whops! Thats exactly what I did . Sorry about that! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What edit rate do you intend to process this at? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say approximately 20-30 per min. I'd be open to suggestions if this seems too many or too few. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that such a bot should operate as fast as it can, within reason. This type of vandalism is as priority as it gets. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using what ever inspired you to do this, what historical estimates of volume (# of pages to be touched) would you have done in say the last month? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, the situation described at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot11598 is what prompted this broader request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the last template that was hit with this kind of vandalism it was approximately 495 to 750 pages (495 in article space, the remaining were in project & user spaces). Depending on the number of template transclusions really. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just got home form three days in Sacramento, so I'm still working on "conference brain" I'll answer these tomorrow. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (not that anyone except for you will SEE anything here). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. @Xaosflux: So I had a slight hiccup on the first run (I forgot to set the additional lines to 0) after that everything ran smoothly (you currently can't see any other edits in the history)--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:15, 25 November 2017 (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.