Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Sigmabot

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

Request Expired.

Sigmabot edit

Operator: Sigma 7 (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manual

Programming Language(s): Python (PyWikipedia)

Function Summary: Tactical anti-vandalism

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): N/A (manual run)

Edit rate requested: 2 edits per 2 minutes (average) to 6 edits per minute (maximum) Changed 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Function Details: This anti-vandalism bot will revert changes that it perceives as vandalism. This bot will detect vandalism by being specifically programmed for the pages it scans and revert these changes as necessary.

In the initial configuration, the bot will review the recent calendar year articles (e.g. 2007, 2006 through ~1977), and days of the year (e.g. January 1-December 31). Based on what I've seen in these calender articles, the bot will treat the following as worthy of reversion:

Addition of red-linked or unlinked entries into Births and Deaths section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984&diff=175936269&oldid=175800146), which are almost always reverted by humans. Red-links outside this section aren't covered by this rule.
Addition of "I Was Born" variations, regardless of location on page.

Further development may also include the following:

Detection of mismatched dates (i.e. changes to the dates themselves so that they lose synchronization with their associated article).
"Conventional vandalism" changes that are currently detected by other bots.

Discussion edit

Please specify the edit rate for this bot. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_12#Calander_bot --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is pretty slow, but if that is what you want... Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is pretty slow. If it runs at .1333 edits per minute, the edit will likely get reverted by a human before the bot gets to it. Soxred93 has a boring sig 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that you should have an edit timing of say 6 edits per minute, which is a better timing. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, six epm sounds more reasonable to me--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Soxred93 has a boring sig 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on what I've observed from the current target pages, there is a significant delay before the changes get reverted. It's not usually as obvious as someone inserting the Carlin-7 words into a page - you also have to check the addition itself as it appears on the page. FYI, I changed the requested edit rate to a more reasonable value per your input, providing expected and maximum edit rates. --Sigma 7 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as what I put above... Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. Soxred93 has a boring sig 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hate to do this, since this is such a great idea, but it has been 2 weeks since any indication of anything happening. Request Expired. Soxred93 has a boring sig 04:01, 24 December 2007 (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.