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.
How are "known vandals" data collected ? -- Tinu Cherian - 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't foresee a sanctioned blocking bot ever being approved... BJ Talk 14:46, 8 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
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
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
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
Sort of a stop gap until (and if) the AbuseFilter is enabled. Prodego talk 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
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.
How are "known vandals" data collected ? -- Tinu Cherian - 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't foresee a sanctioned blocking bot ever being approved... BJ Talk 14:46, 8 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
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
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
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
Sort of a stop gap until (and if) the AbuseFilter is enabled. Prodego talk 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply