Problem: Currently, the AIV helperbot (HBC AIV helperbot5) on enWiki only removes entries itself if the user gets blocked or if the entry is x amount of hours old (from what I've seen the number is usually around 4). Unfortunately, not all entries on AIV end up with the user blocked, sometimes the user simply gets warned or the user's edits are determined not to be vandalism, or the user stops editing before getting reported to AIV meaning the user isn't blocked because blocking is only used as a preventative measure and not as punishment. The issue comes when the user starts vandalizing again and the report hasn't been removed. Most admins will probably see that the user has been determined to no longer be an issue and the user is able to continue vandalizing. If someone re-reports the user and the previous entry for the user has not been removed, the bot will automatically combine them, making it harder for the user to properly be reported. There's also the issue of admins not checking the AIV regularly enough and some vandals being able to get away with their vandalism because their report became stale.
Who would benefit: Anyone who reports users to AIV and also admins who manage AIV.
Proposed solution: Add to the functionality of the bot by having the stale timer for each reported user only decrease if they aren't editing after X amount of time, and also having the bot remove any unactionable reports (i.e user being warned, edits not being vandalism) automatically after a bit and if the user vandalizes again, they can be reported again without the new report being merged into the older report that was determined to be unactionable.
More comments: I had discussed this before with Alexis Jazz here, however they told me doing so is not feasible for the time being since the creator of another one of the bots at AIV (Mdaniels bot) has health issues and wasn't the one who wrote the AIV function for the bot. If this isn't something that is able to be done let me know.
This is a proposal to minimally improve a bot running on a single page on one specific community, to fix a rare issue involving many assumptions that are often not true. I personally would prefer the team to address issues that affect many communities on many pages, ideally not only for Wikipedia, but for everyone using MediaWiki. Just to show what kind of proposals I mean, at least one such proposal exists at Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Enhanced Move Logs. If you compare these two, you may see the issue I have with this one here. ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: So are you saying this isn't a relevant proposal here? If so I can remove it. The FAQ related to what out of scope things were be wasn't very helpful in me knowing what is and isn't in the scope. Blaze Wolf (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Community_Wishlist_Survey/How_to_create_a_good_proposal does explicitly mention "creating bots" and "modifying existing bots" as good examples, so I can't really recommend against proposing it – I just think the rare chance to let the WMF work on important community-wished features in the software should ideally be used for MediaWiki- or Wikimedia-wide improvements. That's rather a personal preference than a policy. ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think reports with comments in response should be left to human admins like myself to decide whether or not to remove. We can review them and see whether the vandal has resumed or attempted to discuss; I'm not sure bots are at the point where we trust them to do that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked vandals are stated as finished, but vandals that admins say shouldn't be blocked must be commented by an admin or further discussion before it's removed. Thingofme (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thingofme (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)