User:L235/sandbox3

RfC on a limited adminbot to address bursts of abuse

Should the community approve an adminbot that takes limited action to address bursts of abuse by non-autoconfirmed editors? ~~~~~

Problem: The time it takes to get an administrator to respond to vandalism can vary dramatically. While during most hours an administrator will action most AIV reports within an hour or two, during certain hours (such as post-midnight in the United States) it can take six hours or more for admins to respond to reports. Even an hour or two can leave far too much room for disruption: it isn't uncommon to see sequences of more than 100 reverts on one article in the course of less than one hour: an ineffective solution that clogs the page history. We don't want vandalism sitting about until an admin can appear (especially in cases like this where the vandalism is serious enough to warrant revdel), so under the current system people just keep reverting until an admin shows up. The problem here is not the number of admins: We could double the number of admins and even if it halved the response time it wouldn't be enough.

Proposal: An adminbot with two jobs:

A. Semi-protect articles for a short amount of time (e.g. three hours) if there have been more than eight reverts (of any kind) of non-autoconfirmed editors in the course of three hours. (We can test for all reverts through the new MediaWiki "Reverted" tag.)

B. Block non-autoconfirmed editors for a short amount of time (e.g. three hours) if their edits have been rollbacked (using the rollback tool, or perhaps also using the "Vandalism" rollback function within Twinkle) four times on all articles combined over the course of three hours.