Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RedWarn

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 Denied.

Operator: Ed6767 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 14:43, Sunday, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised

Programming language(s): Javascript (ES6)

Source code available: https://github.com/ed6767/redwarn/blob/master/multiAct.js and https://github.com/ed6767/redwarn/blob/master/multipleAction.html

Function overview: RE: RedWarn multiple action tool - a semi-automated tool to review changes and warn users who have engaged in vandalism/edit wars. The use of the multiple action tool is currently restricted to extended-confirmed users to prevent spam by new users. Currently, there are no artificial limits enforced, however, these would be fairly easy to add.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Mass_messaging

Edit period(s): On activation when reviewing pending changes or when selected between two revisions on a history page

Estimated number of pages affected: User Talk pages, variable amoun

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This BRFA is not for the entire RedWarn script itself (which has similar functionality to Twinkle), but rather a feature within it. As a semi-automated tool, RedWarn's functionality boils down to making repetitive tasks quicker and easier for users. One of these tools called the Multiple Action Tool is designed to make reviewing edits and warning users within vandalism and edit wars much easier - however, some editors have expressed concern with the tool being used to replace the WP:MMS user right.

In an edit or vandalism war, prior to the creation of this tool, to warn multiple users an editor would need to a large number of tabs, then manually click through and follow the normal process for adding a UW template via RedWarn or Twinkle which would take considerable time. The multiple action tool is intended to semi-automate this process.

The multiple action tool can only be activated by a normal user in two ways: 1. Via an article history page and selecting between two revisions 2. Reverting pending changes

Upon selecting between two revisions, a user would be presented with a list of users who have made edits between the selected revisions (or the reverted revisions in the case of pending changes). A user must manually select users using the checkbox to the left side of the list, then manually set Wikitext content to be appended to a users page, either under the current date header (i.e. June 2020) or at the end of a user talk page by using the "New Notice" or "New Message" buttons. A preview is provided within the user dialog, then upon apply being clicked these options are set for the selected users. Once a user is happy and has reviewed the changes they have made, they click the "COMMIT SELECTED" button which will then prompt the user one last time whether or not they wish to commit the changes for the selected users. Then, the script will automatically go through all the selected users and add the content as specified. The core purpose of the multiple action tool is not to replace the MMS tool as in normal use, no users can be manually inputted or added to the list, unlike a mailing list.

Discussion

• Don’t really support this or see it as a good thing. One of the suggested uses is mass welcoming people, which is disruptive (yes, there’s a disclaimer, but it will be ignored.) The recent use of it as a way to get around using an MMS list was less than ideal too because the individual user lacks a bot flag and can flood watchlists. I think there are legitimate uses of this tool, such as warning two users at the same time. It is not, however, a replacement for a mass message, nor should it be used for large-scale welcoming or other activities. This request is likely to be flooded with support because the script is popular with a lot of new users who have gotten into vandal fighting, but I see no reason to approve it as an alternative to mass messages. And yes, I’m aware it’s claimed that there is no intent to replace the user right, but it’s been used to send mass messages in a bot like fashion previously, which is why we are here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  TonyBallioni, which was purely an error on my part. I added custom code within that version of RedWarn to allow me to activate the MAT from a search query of people who had RedWarn in their common.js - no normal user should be able to do this, and I won't be doing it again after I was informed that there was a consensus against it. I'm rewriting the documentation now to reflect this. Ed6767 talk! 15:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but this tool doesn't qualify for BRFA, IMO. I would decline this as well. BRFA applies to a dedicated bot account making (semi-)automated edits. A script that can be executed from the user's account means that the account must be blocked for any malfunction, and that is unmanageable given multiple users can run it. This is a user assisted script, and I would suggest making sure it can't run on massive number of pages.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, Ed6767 you are not requesting bot access for an account that will make edits or actions, correct? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Xaosflux, that's correct. Sorry, I'm new to BRFA and never really expected to make one until a suggestion was made in the Village Pump. Ed6767 talk! 20:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Denied. This user account is not actually being used as a "bot" account, and what's being discussed is a user-run script. I note that the concerns regarding mass-messaging and/or mass-editing have been dealt with; further concerns with the tool should be dealt with at a different venue (likely the Village Pump). Primefac (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2020 (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.