Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DagothBot 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
Denied.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): Perl
Function Summary: Will fix vandalism in any articles about A Series of Unfortunate Events.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):
Function Details: Will revert vandalism on the Lemony Snicket articles and the article "The Gothic Archies".
Discussion
editI am doing my SECOND rq for DagothBot after the first was snowed.
Question: Someone makes an edit to one of the articles in question. How does the bot know if it's vandalism or not? Pseudomonas(talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Answer: It finds some gibberish in the pages then reverts it. Dagoth Ur, Mad God 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Have you ever programmed a gibberish-detector before? Pseudomonas(talk) 00:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- No. Dagoth Ur, Mad God 03:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- No further questions, m'lud. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- No. Dagoth Ur, Mad God 03:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Have you ever programmed a gibberish-detector before? Pseudomonas(talk) 00:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Answer: It finds some gibberish in the pages then reverts it. Dagoth Ur, Mad God 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Code please. I have serious concerns that the operator can operate such a bot. CWii 2(Talk|Contribs) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Seconded. 'Gibberish' is a very vague term. Q T C 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem that you are trying to make a bot to protect just a page where you have an obvious COI and you have zero experience in coding bots. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, we already have a few antivandalism bots (ClueBot, VoABot II, et al.) which do a good job, as well as huggle users (who often beat said bots to the revert, and by the virtue of being human, can detect different types of vandalism), is an antivandalism bot which only works on a small set of articles really necessary/useful? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, before this can be approved for a trial, it would have to be explained how it can detect vandalism better than ClueBot and VoABot on Lemony Snicket articles. Mr.Z-man 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also it would be better if it detected vandalism on other articles also 9.9 CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, before this can be approved for a trial, it would have to be explained how it can detect vandalism better than ClueBot and VoABot on Lemony Snicket articles. Mr.Z-man 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, we already have a few antivandalism bots (ClueBot, VoABot II, et al.) which do a good job, as well as huggle users (who often beat said bots to the revert, and by the virtue of being human, can detect different types of vandalism), is an antivandalism bot which only works on a small set of articles really necessary/useful? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem that you are trying to make a bot to protect just a page where you have an obvious COI and you have zero experience in coding bots. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Denied. A limited scope "gibberish detector" is not needed, if you have suggestions for a better filter forward them to Cobi. BJTalk 05:39, 6 July 2008 (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.