Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AvicBot

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

Denied.

AvicBot

Operator: Avicennasis (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:41, Monday February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: Yes (AWB)

Function overview: Remove test edits.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Currently, less than 250

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: Will compile a list of articles based on "What Links Here from Articlespace" for all example files: File:Example.jpg, File:Example.png, File:Example.gif, File:Example.svg, and File:Example.ogg. It will then scan all the pages for either [[File:Example.???]] or [[Image:Example.???]] or [[Media:Example.???]] and remove them. Since there is no reason for these files to be in articlespace, I believe the chances for false positives will be very low.

Discussion

So what is the exact action you would take when finding such a page? Obviously, any additional vandalism has to be removed and conflicting edits have to be resolved as well. I am not sure how you intend to automate this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question - I added the action above. It would remove them. As for the additional vandalism, AWB does have a preview option for bot mode, so if the vandalism is right around the file, I will be able to see/remove it manually. ^Avic _ennasis @ 20:55, 3 Adar I 5771 / 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, this is not "automatic", but rather "manual". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. ^Avic _ennasis @ 21:12, 3 Adar I 5771 / 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad Idea^TM ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can ask for clarification as to why you think so? ^Avic _ennasis @ 21:01, 3 Adar I 5771 / 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This requires manual review and checking of diffs from when said images where added to now, otherwise you can just bury more severe vandalism deeper into page histories. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. This doesn't seem like a good task for a bot, or for an editor at bot-like speeds. The presence of such links in the article is a good sign that the history needs to be checked for more vandalism, not just "if the vandalism is right around the file". I do encourage you to go through these links and do the history checking to truly clean up the articles. Anomie ⚔ 03:27, 24 February 2011 (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.