Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CeraBot II

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

Withdrawn by operator.

CeraBot II

Operator: Ceradon (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:02, Thursday March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual:

Programming language(s): PHP, Perl

Source code available: No

Function overview: Reverts vandalism an test edits.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard#X.21.27s_bots

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 35-100/day

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: idem, it runs off my toolserver account, I'll put a note on the bot's user page. Thanks.

Discussion

Will you be using X's code or have you re-coded it yourself? MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might have been obvious by the link to the discussion above, but, I am willing to take over SoxBot's Anti-Vandal Bot task. However, I had to completely overhaul the main bot script and program it again in PHP. Most of the original script X! wrote was for IRC, so, instead of removing the IRC bits of code that X! was using, I reprogrammed the bot myself with help from User:Matthewrbowker and User:Pilif12p, however, I used the base that X1 used and built up from there. Thanks. Ceradon ^talk_contribs 23:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and I seperated the IRC bits. :) --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 23:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (350 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 Last I recall, and I'm not saying I recall right, X's bots did a whole lot of things, and had a whole lot of tasks. Are you taking over all of them? Most? Only a few?
Comment 2 User:SoxBot/Tasks redirects to User:Cyberbot I/Tasks. Since User:SoxBot transcludes that page, it would be a good idea to make a hard copy of the old version at User:SoxBot/Tasks, so users are not confused between SoxBot and Ceradonbot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is pretty much a duplicate of RscprinterBot, which does exactly the same thing: reverting test edits. Essentially it is just a weaker version of ClueBot NG. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) (Contribs)
(Not Rcs) 20:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, SoxBot was a vandalism bot and all I am doing is the taking over SoxBot's antivandalism and testing bot. Not just testing. --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 21:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake. Good luck anyway. Rcsprinter (articulate) (Contribs)
(Not Rcs) 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted the bot the rollback permission per request, as the bot is approved for trial. Please record here possible concerns. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ClueBot_NG. Mainly that an acceptable false positive rate was deemed to be <0.1%. Not to mention an extensive report system. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions:

Why is the source code not public? At the very least I think we should be able to see the heuristics that the bot will be using.
What advantages will this bot offer, as compared to ClueBot NG?
What namespaces will the bot run in?
How do you plan on dealing with false positives?
Before starting your trial, please create a userpage, and talkpage, with instructions for users who are affected by false positives.
What warning templates will the bot use?
- Will the bot report users to WP:AIV? When will it report users?
- Will it be able to detect warnings from other users and act appropriately?
- If so, how recent will a warning have to be for the bot to use it?
Please clarify whether the bot will be Automatic, Supervised, or Manual?

That's all I can think of atm. My primary concern is false positives. As stated by Hellknowz, now that we have bots like ClueBot NG, that use very sophisticated methods there is a much lower tolerance for false positives. --Chris 15:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} There's been no response to these questions for two weeks. Are you abandoning this BRFA? Josh Parris 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am working on the source code now. When I am done I will answer those questions as I haven't set the false positive review interface process up. Ceradon ^talk_contribs 01:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified)

How's development progressing? Josh Parris 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response, I'll be closing this as expired in a few days. Josh Parris 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 23:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.