Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 3

DatBot 3

Operator: DatGuy (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:45, Friday, November 4, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Function overview: Reports users who have either tripped 5 filters quickly in a list, a filter that is in an "immediate report" list, or a very suspicious username-related filter.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 2

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This task was previously done by Mr.Z-bot (talk · contribs). However, Z-bot and Z-man are currently inactive. I have used the previous code, but added a section for username-related filters that should be reported to UAA. If/once this task is approved (for trial), I will create User:DatBot/filters.js. It will contain
immediate=
vandalism=
UAAreport=
When the bot will report, it will contain the filter in the "reason for reporting" box. More details can be found at this BRFA.

Discussion

Wonder if using a in some way protected page that isn't a userjs page is also an option. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that will also be fine. Extended-protected page that contains mostly only immediate = , vandalism = , UAAreport = and some comments starting with # should do the trick. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is normally OK'd Jo-Jo Eumerus as it will let the operator and admins update it, but not others. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will which filters are in your scope, which are "immediate", be part of the onwiki config? If so, can you build this out? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Done at a js per your comments and the fact that there are barely any non-admin EFMs. The non-admin EFMs I do know I'm sure can email an administrator. Also, I believe that Mr.Z-man thought of a hacky workaround, so that even if the filter is private it will still be able to access it? Either that or the filters haven't always been private. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]