Forum:Amend RS:AWB

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Amend RS:AWB
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 September 2010 by Liquidhelium.

In Forum:Modification of RS:BOTS - Relating to AWB use, the threshold for when a bot account should be used was set at 5 edits per minute. However, Cook told me that AWB doesn't actually require any logout/login step, since AWB is logged into the bot account, while the browser is still logged into the main account.

If that's the case, then most of the opposition's arguments against requiring any AWB to be on a separate account are void, since AWB can be kept logged onto the bot account. It would be more of a hassle to switch onto the main account for AWB under 5 edits per minute. There is absolutely no reason to use AWB on the user's main account. Therefore, I am proposing that we remove the edit limit and require any AWB edits to be done on a bot account. --LiquidTalk 20:46, September 25, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 20:46, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The only reason we are asking people to create AWB accounts at all is to ensure the recent changes don't get clogged. By implementing this, we would be making things even more bureaucratic than before. I can't see any reason to do this that is not already served by the current system. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:35, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

This would make it a bit less bureaucratic, actually. Right now, we have to actually go and figure out if RC is being flooded. With this change, that's a nonissue, as all AWB edits will be done under a bot flag. AWB users should have no reason to complain about this, since they should have AWB logged in as the bot anyways. --LiquidTalk 23:38, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
I was typing this while Liquid was responding, so I'll post this anyways. I'm responding to Steler here - Hardly, it is just as easy for someone to request AWB access for a separate account than it is for them to request it for their main account. Also, I think that Liquid is concerned about people using AWB to inflate their editcounts; a concern that is a big valid, at any rate. What he is proposing will eliminate that. ajr 23:39, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
I will see where the discussion goes and reconsider. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:48, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I say we remove the limit altogether and just leave it at "whenever edits are so frequent and quick that they overtake the recent changes and obscure other edits". kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:52, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

But why? You yourself told me that you don't have to log into the bot on the wiki to use AWB. That means that AWB users just leave AWB logged into their bot account. Implementing this both makes it less bureaucratic (no RC checking) and removes undue influences (Special:Editcount). --LiquidTalk 23:53, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
It just seems unnecessary. A lot of people like karlis and tlul use awb so gradually that you never even notice they're using it at all. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:55, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Less bureaucratic is less rules, not more. This one just wouldn't accomplish all that much. "AMG he made a AWB edit on his main!!" So what? Good for him. -- Degen says Unban TLUL  23:56, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Er, did you actually read what I said? The current rule regarding this is:
The use of AWB at an edit rate fast enough to flood the Recent changes should be taken to a separate account designated for AWB and given the bot flag. Though the exact rate varies, and common sense should be used, a good benchmark threshold is 5 edits per minute sustained for a period of three or more minutes. Users who use AWB at a rate below what is necessary to flood the Recent Changes are not required to use a separate bot account.


With the change, it would be:
All AWB edits must be done on a separate account under a bot flag.
How is that more rules? It would remove a lot of unnecessary text and legal jargon and would simpilfy things quite a bit. --LiquidTalk 23:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Text size is not a function of the complexity of the content. I could have just as easily said "Just because it's really long it does not mean what it's telling you to do is harder." You may notice that the second uses simpler language than the first, but it's longer. Anyway, the proposal only makes things easier if the user does not already have at least one AWB account. For everyone else, it adds a new layer of complexity that is simply not needed. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:04, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The original proposal was to stop rc flooding, not to put someone in cuffs for just using it. I swear this kind of thing happened in the dark ages; something to help turning into strict laws. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:05, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The current system is fine. If someone wants to spam AWB, then go on the bot account; otherwise a few edits can remain on the main account. There is no need to bind users to their AWB accounts for AWB. Remember, not all of us have AWB accounts and editors who want to make a few edits as a one-off shouldn't be forced to make another account that they may never use again. 222 talk 00:35, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Not even the original proposal was decent. Five edits a minute is fairly feasible and there is no way to prove one is using AWB for any length of time. Having the complete ban on using it off a bot account may as well say "Go and create a fully-automated bot because I can't be arsed about your AWB edits." I'll use my AWB right from Community Central as I see fit. This wiki does not have the right to prevent the use as there is no checklist. While you may see it as flooding, I would have done all those edits anyway on my normal account, while slower and still "flooded" the RC because they are still all my edits. AWB just makes it faster to complete. I will not create a secondary account for such edits when needed for maintenance. Ryan PM 03:28, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I think it's pitiful how much comes out of 1 spamming of RC. As long as there's no spamming, there's no problems. I don't think it's good to put a number by it because editing can be very slow during the night, but a lot faster during the day. Meaning 5 edits/minute could spam during the night, but probably won't during the day. HaloTalk 04:23, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn - If this cannot be amended into the de jure policy, I suppose the practical considerations mentioned above will make this the de facto policy anyways. --LiquidTalk 21:31, September 26, 2010 (UTC)