Operator: 28bytes ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 01:48, Thursday March 31, 2011 ( UTC)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Not yet; still in development
Function overview: Remove text inserted in articles by accidentally clicking on edit bar.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Edit filter discussion
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 500-1000 a day, judging by this
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A - article space edits only
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: This bot would remove accidental edits of the type previously flagged by edit filter
18. These are the literal strings '''Bold text''', ''Italic text'', [[Link title]], [http://www.example.com link title], == Headline text ==
and similar strings listed in the now-disabled edit filter. Requests have been made to re-enable the edit filter, but after testing the filter I believe a bot is preferable, as the edit filter uses too many resources, and having an edit filter prevent the edit (rather than simply stripping out the accidentally inserted markup after the edit is made) would annoy and confuse new users. The bot would remove the accidentally inserted text without removing the legitimate changes (if any) made by the editor, and would only operate in article space.
What evidence is there that it would help to leave "good" edits? I have occasionally reverted someone who has made one of these kinds of edits, and I am pretty sure that in all cases I reverted their other edits as well. If a bot removes just the blatantly obvious crud, that would appear to other page checkers that something has "approved" the current content, so reducing the tendency for other edits to be checked. For example, if an editor adds obvious nonsense in one edit to a BLP, while changing the birth date without reason in another edit, any commonsense editor would revert both edits as "unsourced" or whatever. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
From VP discussion. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. For cases with one, several, or combinations of the edit bar default strings without any other changes (except whitespace). Additionally, tag user pages with {{
uw-test1}} or higher where appropriate by the usual
WP:UWUL user message guidelines. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
Is there something wrong with filter 18? It's not matching anything at the moment, and the bot hasn't made any edits. It seems you may have disabled it here. Also, why not just do the whole thing with a slightly more refined edit filter? - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 15:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The bot's up and running now. Question: for the 50-edit trial, is that 50 mainspace edits, or 50 mainspace + user talk edits? Or total edits? It's over 50 total edits now, but most of that is just it logging to User:28bot/edit-tests-found the pages it found that have "mixed" test edits. 28bytes ( talk) 06:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Also here is an example of the bot hiding a possibly bad edit: [2]. This revision remained. I wonder if reverting all recent edits by the user would be better? — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 06:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Trial complete. OK, it's just passed 50 removals of edit tests in the mainspace. I've checked each one of them, and they all appear to be correct.
28bytes (
talk) 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
Operator: 28bytes ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 01:48, Thursday March 31, 2011 ( UTC)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Not yet; still in development
Function overview: Remove text inserted in articles by accidentally clicking on edit bar.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Edit filter discussion
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 500-1000 a day, judging by this
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A - article space edits only
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: This bot would remove accidental edits of the type previously flagged by edit filter
18. These are the literal strings '''Bold text''', ''Italic text'', [[Link title]], [http://www.example.com link title], == Headline text ==
and similar strings listed in the now-disabled edit filter. Requests have been made to re-enable the edit filter, but after testing the filter I believe a bot is preferable, as the edit filter uses too many resources, and having an edit filter prevent the edit (rather than simply stripping out the accidentally inserted markup after the edit is made) would annoy and confuse new users. The bot would remove the accidentally inserted text without removing the legitimate changes (if any) made by the editor, and would only operate in article space.
What evidence is there that it would help to leave "good" edits? I have occasionally reverted someone who has made one of these kinds of edits, and I am pretty sure that in all cases I reverted their other edits as well. If a bot removes just the blatantly obvious crud, that would appear to other page checkers that something has "approved" the current content, so reducing the tendency for other edits to be checked. For example, if an editor adds obvious nonsense in one edit to a BLP, while changing the birth date without reason in another edit, any commonsense editor would revert both edits as "unsourced" or whatever. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
From VP discussion. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. For cases with one, several, or combinations of the edit bar default strings without any other changes (except whitespace). Additionally, tag user pages with {{
uw-test1}} or higher where appropriate by the usual
WP:UWUL user message guidelines. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
Is there something wrong with filter 18? It's not matching anything at the moment, and the bot hasn't made any edits. It seems you may have disabled it here. Also, why not just do the whole thing with a slightly more refined edit filter? - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 15:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The bot's up and running now. Question: for the 50-edit trial, is that 50 mainspace edits, or 50 mainspace + user talk edits? Or total edits? It's over 50 total edits now, but most of that is just it logging to User:28bot/edit-tests-found the pages it found that have "mixed" test edits. 28bytes ( talk) 06:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Also here is an example of the bot hiding a possibly bad edit: [2]. This revision remained. I wonder if reverting all recent edits by the user would be better? — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 06:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Trial complete. OK, it's just passed 50 removals of edit tests in the mainspace. I've checked each one of them, and they all appear to be correct.
28bytes (
talk) 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
reply