Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Velociraptorbot

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.

Velociraptorbot

Operator: The Utahraptor (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available:

Function overview: To minimize and revert the amount of vandalism on certain articles.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Variable, depending on the amount of vandalism and the need for maintenance.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Velociraptorbot's job is to minimize and revert vandalism and perform routine maintenance on articles that include, but are not limited to, the following:

I especially would want Velociraptorbot to look after the Noah Munck article, as it has been undergoing mild vandalism lately.

Discussion

You need to be a little more detailed. What will it do to vandalism, revert it? Why limit it to only six? Why not use page protection. You could also add these articles to ClueBot's angry list so it will ignore it's 1 revert rule. Tim1357 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get that changed as soon as I can. Plus I said it's not limited to the six articles. I said the list includes those articles, but isn't limited to them. The Utahraptor (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why, exactly, is there a need for a bot? Tim1357 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, its purpose is to stop and revert vandalism and perform maintenance. The Utahraptor (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This task is currently too broad for approval. "Maintenance" and "vandalism prevention" isn't enough information to gauge whether or not this bot will work. We'd need to know how the bot determines what is vandalism. And specifically what the "maintenance" would consist of. Also why not use alternatives as Tim mentions, such as ClueBot and protection? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say "We'd need to know how the bot determines what is vandalism?" The Utahraptor (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well presumably you have some logic in the program to decide which edits to revert and which to not? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, revert the edits that do not relate to the topic the article is about. The Utahraptor (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us your source code, so we can see how the bot determines if an edit is not related?--Tim1357 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, the source code has not yet been implemented. The Utahraptor (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you explain how the bot will determine if the edit relates or not. Q ^{T C} 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said at this time. As in, I'm working on it. The Utahraptor (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I motion to deny this request. From reading through the comments I would not trust the Bot Operator running this bot. I feel you lack the necessary experience to code and run an effective/safe anti-vandalism bot. --Chris 06:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untrustworthy? What makes you think I'm untrustworthy? The Utahraptor (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. User seems to not understand bot operation, and cannot say how the bot will actually perform its task. Q ^{T C} 00:02, 1 March 2010 (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.