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.

Operator: Mr.Z-man

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Python (source)

Function Overview: Report abuse filter violations to WP:AIV

Edit period(s): Continuous

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

Function Details: botreq:

The bot would continuously monitor the abuse log, and report users who trigger certain filters or users who trigger non-whitelisted filters too many times

• The code is the same thing that I've been running in #wikipedia-en-abuse-log for a few months now, with a few improvements to make it less sucky, a function to report users to AIV, and some changes so it can automatically restart if it crashes or the toolserver is rebooted.
• It also maintains 2 lists (not yet determined) of:
  • Filters to automatically report to AIV for - these would be filters to stop blatant vandalism where no warning would be needed before a block.
  • Filters to ignore - the bot will also report users who trip 5 filters in 5 minutes, so it needs a list of non-vandalism filters that it should ignore entirely.
• I did a quick test in userspace of the reporting (with neither of the filter lists set) - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Output format seems very hard to read. Perhaps switch to a table and liberally apply <small> tags for the WHOIS, etc. links? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It uses roughly the same format that ClueBot uses for reports. It will report to AIV, so it has to use something that the other bots there can understand. (Presumably users will be blocked quickly, so there won't be 40 results on the page at a time) Mr.Z-man 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the format that the bots currently use sucks? ;-) Personally, I think all the links on the same line is hard to read, but I don't deal with AIV ever, so I don't care. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the links were smaller/easier to read, but I am willing to Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running trial. (Based on a quick scan of the list) The current list of filters it ignores is:

• 5, 43, 81, 93, 96, 98, 105, 106, 117, 119, 134, 149, 152, 155, 161, 164, 167, 168, 171

And ones that it will automatically report for:

• 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 38, 44, 47, 54, 52, 54, 58, 68, 72, 102, 116, 139, 140

The lists will probably need some tweaking; I'm open to suggestions. The links in the reports come from the standard ((Vandal)) and ((IPvandal)) templates. Mr.Z-man 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on my talk page and AN, the operation has changed slightly.

• Users won't be reported to AIV until 10 hits in 5 minutes.
• Rather than excluding certain filters, it now uses a list of filters to include when counting hits
• The lists are in a public config page - User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. The current lists are from comments by Luk and Wknight94 on my talk page.
• Multiple filter hits from the same edit attempt (that is, where the username and timestamp for 2 hits are the same) will only be counted as 1 hit.
• The reporting to IRC won't change and won't be affected by the filter lists.

-- Mr.Z-man 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with AIV, and I don't know what those numbered filters are, so I don't understand the task well enough to approve or reject it. But it looks like the trial is up. How do you think it did, Z? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the hiccup on the first day with the reporting frequency, which is now fixed, it seems to have gone well. Based on the history, almost all of the reports seem to have been acted on. Mr.Z-man 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Special:Contributions/Mr.Z-bot it seems to be trying to report the same user for the same filter (duplicating another report which is already in place, as you can see here). There should probably be some catch against this methinks, as lots of the same filter tripping jut takes up space. The AIV helpbot was automatically indenting the duplicate reports. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It waits 2 minutes before it will report the same user again. I could increase that. (note that each report was for a unique hit). Mr.Z-man 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, didn't realise it had a time limit. Something I would suggest though, is to post it as a comment (which gets done anyway by the Helperbot) which'll mean there doesn't have to be two edit, of course it might be kinda pointless, so if it's too hard to bother doing, don't, but just an idea - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:22, 16 June 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.