Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AntiAbuseBot

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

Speedily Re-Approved. While the AbuseFilter has been active since March 2009, its ability to block has not been enabled. An AN discussion in August 2009 also revisited the bot's approval, and consensus there was in favor of the bot continuing to run. Therefore, I am speedily re-approving this bot to continue running. If the AbuseFilter's blocking ability ever is enabled, this and other blocking adminbots should be evaluated for continued necessity and consensus. Anomie ⚔ 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Approved. until such time as the AbuseFilter extension or a substantially indentical technical feature is turned on by the sysadmins at the English Wikipedia. At such a time, a report should be made to the bot owners' noticeboard requesting that Chris G either to turn off the bot or seek re-approval in a Wikipedia:BRFA. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AntiAbuseBot[edit]

Operator: Chris

Automatic or Manually Assisted:

Programming Language(s): PHP using my classes

Function Summary: Admin block bot

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details: Watches the rc feed for actions that match known vandals and takes necessary action (e.g. send off an alert on irc, revert the edit, revert the edit and block the user or just block the user), currently I have it setup with regexes that match grawp and also some spambots. Also I have been running this bot under my main account for some time now.

Discussion[edit]

How are "known vandals" data collected ? -- Tinu Cherian - 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things like a page being moved to ON WHEELS, etc. All of those decisions would be manual. Prodego ^talk 04:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community Discussion[edit]

I don't foresee a sanctioned blocking bot ever being approved... BJ^Talk 14:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below ~~Yes, I agree and would oppose such a bot, due to the lack of human discretion involved in bot blocking.~~ Additionally, you mention that you were running the bot under your account, I trust it was userspace only editing? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been running under my main account since late last year, a list of recent blocks that it has made can be found here, although some of those my have been made by me --Chris 03:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As are other admins. Unlike them Chris is asking his be approved. If you approve of these other blocking admin bots silently, how would a more open version of the same thing hurt? Prodego ^talk 04:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the thing, I don't approve of administrators being allowed to run adminbots without permission. We give them adminship for the tools, not for less scrutiny when it comes to breaking policy (and please don't give me any excuses, I believe the risks outweigh the benefits). You'd think sentences like Operation of unapproved bots [...] is prohibited and Bots must be approved before they may operate found in Wikipedia:BOT would paint a clear enough picture as to the wiki-legality of running unauthorized bots. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's here asking for permission, what's the problem? Because he broke the rules previously we should bar him from running the bot, even if he follows the correct procedures? Mr.Z-man 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for opposing this bot was that I think human discretion is required in blocking users, if only for the few cases where the bot makes a mistake and bars a potential editor (who was not being disruptive) from the 'pedia. My above comment is in response to Prodego's sentence If you approve of these other blocking admin bots silently. I do not wish to bar Chris G from running this bot due to breaking the rules, I just don't believe it is a Good Thing, although I am open to sound reasoning. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we have to be ~~very~~ extremely careful with bots such as these however I don't think there is any good editor would make edits like these [1][2][3] or moves like these --Chris 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I agree that a simple HAGGER??? and pageblank/badword heuristic would yield next to no false positives, but what other matching criteria does the bot use in detecting vandals? Is the source (or at least the heuristics) public or available for private viewing? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source code can now be viewed by users with accounts here if you would like an account please email me with your username and an MD5 hash of your password (this can create a hash for you) --Chris 10:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After viewing the source code, and conferring with Chris G over IRC, I see that there are no regexes of consequence in the bot's code. The current set of regexes would yield next to no false positives. I now support this bot. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This bot has been running for a while without problems (or at least too many; there are occasional glitches, but no false block that I've ever seen while in IRC). If Chris is asking for approval, why not give it to him? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I have no problem with a bot doing this sort of thing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree in principle that bots are programmed to have the ability to block someone. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the 4chan incident should show why this bot is necessary.

I believe that not only are bots of this sort acceptable, but that they are almost necessary in fighting known vandals like this. They're not going to yield any false postives, as these vandals revel in being noticed, and, as explained, many admins run bots like this anyway. I have no particular opinion on this bot, but I do feel that the idea is sound. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this page, I don't see a problem with this bot. --Kbdank71 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A log of blocks made by the bot can now be found here --Chris 09:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this bot seems to be capable of doing excellent work and is greatly needed until/if the abuse filter is finished and ready to go. Very capable operator. - Taxman ^Talk 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Discussion[edit]

With the Abuse filter supposedly coming in just a couple months, this doesn't seem necessary. Mr.Z-man 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And additionally, the Abuse filter would be a community affair, with all admins etc, being able to control the filter, I don't like the idea of entrusting the only bot that can utilize the blocking feature to one user. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would hold up other solutions to a problem because AbuseFilter is allegedly going to be installed at some point in the future. RevisionDelete, image moving, FlaggedRevs have all been finished for months and are still not active here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly Werdna has been hired as a contractor to finish it and make it usable for Wikipedia and, unlike FlaggedRevs, it already has a consensus. I normally wouldn't oppose for something like this, but this is pretty much exactly what the abuse filter does, except with less community oversight/input and fewer features. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the abuse filter is installed I'll happily shut the bot down, however it hasn't been installed yet (much to my disappointment) and it could be quite some time before it is installed so I feel there is a need for this bot, and I would rather get it properly approved than run it under my main account like I have been --Chris 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a stop gap until (and if) the AbuseFilter is enabled. Prodego ^talk 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there's definitely a need for this, consider my objection withdrawn. Mr.Z-man 13:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the bot is indeed performing a useful service as of now, and I hope we can get it a temporary authorization until the AbuseFilter comes live. Getting that bot approved means more community oversight, not less. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.