Forum:Bot policy clarification
About a day ago the AWB CheckPage was made to be consistent with the AWB requests, which says:
|“||...you will be subject to disciplinary action if your bot account is running fully automated, as it is a violation of RS:BOT[S].||”|
Taking a closer look at RuneScape:Bots, the relevant passage said:
|“||All bots must run on separate accounts from their creators, as it is important to distinguish between automatic and manual edits.||”|
In my opinion, an "automatic" edit is any one where there is no editor involvement in the revision and there is a higher chance for mistakes. A "manual" edit is one where there is some human involvement, whether it's making the changes with the edit button on the article, or pressing save after reviewing changes on AWB.
Anyone see the conflict here? We only allow bots to make automatic edits, but we do not allow bot-flagged AWB accounts without autosave to make automatic edits, as a result of the changes to the CheckPage. To resolve these inconsistent policies we can change RS:BOTS to be accommodating to AWB, or we can allow all bot-flagged AWB accounts to use autosave.
Another problem is whether users with access to AutoWikiBrowser will be allowed to be bold and put themselves in the autosave group. Given that in the four autosave-account requests there has been no opposition, one could easily make an argument that the policy is an obstacle to good work being done, and either request to be added to the CheckPage, or to do it themselves. Is that allowed?
Also, I am requesting CookBot be re-added to the bots section of the CheckPage. I have used autosave for over a year now (apparently in violation of the policy) to no ill effects. While recently I have not used the account all that much, I expect that some time in the next month or so I will have a fairly urgent, multi-thousand page task to do, like removal of the Category and Summary headers or changing of a parameter name. When that occurs, I'd rather not go through a week-long thread where to be honest there is very little chance of failing. ʞooɔ 01:07, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Strong support - I was going to make this thread, but then I kinda forgot about doing it because I was focused on a few things on Community Central. It is simply an unnecessary hassle and a health risk to force non-orange hilited bots to use semi-auto. I mean, it is a good idea to semi-auto a few of the first edits to ensure nothing is being screwed up, but afterwards, there shouldn't be an issue full-auto or not. I'd also like to admit that I've violated the policy many times before I got the full bot hilite. 222 talk 04:06, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Support - It should be noted that any edits made by your bot are the responsibility of the editor, so if the bot does something unexpected, this is still the owner's responsibility. I think the policy page should clearly warn users for this, and say that using autosave might let through some edits that should not have been made. A user should be certain all of the edits made will be good edits before turning on autosave. Also, maybe users should put an "AUTO" prefix or something in the summary, so it is clear to others what is done with autosave and what is done semi-automatic. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:40, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Question - Will any users who gained full bot rights just for AWB autosave lose this full bot right, turning it into regular AWB rights, which then includes autosaving? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:45, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
- No, no reason for that to happen. ajr 13:43, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Per Brains23:20, October 4, 2011 (UTC)