Forum:Charm log checking

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Charm log checking
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 September 2010 by Liquidhelium.

(This textwall in a nutshell: We still need to figure a few things out about TLULbot.)

A while back, I proposed a modification to the way charm logs on the wiki work in order to prevent vandalism. The general idea was that charm logs be separated into two pages: a confirmed log page, and a submissions page. The confirmed log page would be fully protected, and the submissions page would be freely editable as the logs are today. Every few days, TLULbot would run through the list of submissions. If the submissions seemed to be reasonably close to the data in the log, it would add them to the log. It would also warn in the case of potential or blatant vandalism.

This idea passed, and I wrote the necessary code for TLULbot. However, the bot has only undergone partial testing, and some details still need to be figured out. In addition, several new ideas for the charm logs have been proposed, which I believe could work well in conjunction with the solution involving TLULbot.

One of the things that you may have noticed with the above summary is that TLULbot is to be editing protected pages, which requires sysop tools. Normally, this is not a problem, however, I do not recall any instance of a sysop bot being run by a non-sysop user such as myself, and it would certainly require that I pass some form of altered RFA. An alternate approach would be to use the code originally written for TLULbot in AmauriceBot, whose owner already is a sysop. The two bots are largely identical, though some minor modifications would need to be made in order to get the code to work.

In addition, it remains to be decided exactly what defines "reasonably close", "potential vandalism", and "blatant vandalism". In my opinion, using the ranges provided by Template:Charm table stats to determine it would be best, as it allows for more flexibility in logs with less data. TLULbot already contains the code required to calculate these ranges, and has passed some (admittedly limited) tests on these calculations.

My idea of "reasonably close" would be that the range for the confirmed data falls completely inside the range for the submitted data, for at least two of the four types of charms, and the ranges overlapping for the others. "Potential vandalism" would be the at least two sets of ranges overlapping. "Blatant vandalism" would be non-overlapping ranges for more than one type of charm.

Since this sounds rather jargon-loaded, I'll provide an example. Let's say that the ranges for charm drops are as follows:

Gold Green Crimson blue
5-11% 7-14% 2-4% 0-2%

A "trustworthy" submission might look like this. It is trustworthy because all the ranges above are completely contained in or overlapping the ranges submitted:

Gold Green Crimson blue
3-15% 7-18% 1-6% 1-3%

A potentially trustworthy, potential vandalous edit might look like this. One of the ranges is completely off, but the others look okay. This would be noted as potential vandalism, to check.

Gold Green Crimson blue
3-15% 18-24% 1-6% 1-3%

A blatantly vandalous edit could look like this. Multiple ranges are completely off, and the others only overlap a small amount:

Gold Green Crimson blue
0-5% 0-7% 5-9% 5-7%

A blatantly vandalous submission would be discarded, and the incident noted.

Several other ideas which were mentioned other places:

  • Keep a complete record of what was submitted, as separate entries
    • This has the flaw of causing increasing lag and server load as the pages would inevitably fill up. My proposed solution would be to keep such a record, but on a separate page from the log normally loaded onto pages. This way, the history could still be easily explored, but only the necessary information used on the main log. This would require additional coding for TLULbot.
  • Create a graphical interface to submit charm logs, similar to Quarenon's GEMW update script
    • This, in my opinion, is a great idea. I think charm logs can be confusing for many people to edit, because of the ambiguity over whether or not kills with charm drops are included in the "kills" parameter (they are). It also allows for some catching of vandalism proactively, though vandals could still make manual edits. This would require no extra coding for TLULbot, and only minor modifications to the GEMW update script.

So, what I'm asking for now is thoughts on the sensitivity for vandalism, the other ideas mentioned above, and on the issue of sysop tools. I will be away for several days, with limited access to the wiki, but I will check this when I get back. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 09:09, July 2, 2010 (UTC) 

Discussion

Rolls eyes at another Charm log thread - Heh. Well, for deciding what a "good" edit is and what a bad edit is, I can honestly say I don't know. Hopefully you'll get answers from others. But the graphical interface for Charm log adding sounds wonderful. Could you explain what you mean by keeping a record of the entries? How is that different than the history? ʞooɔ 09:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like the idea of doing something similar to the GEMW updating script. Would this work as in inserting kills and charms, and the script automatically adds them into the total count? Also, I'm not totally sure what you mean by the separate page to have the updates on. Can you please explain this further? ~MuzTalk 17:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think what TLUL meant is that there is the actual page, and then the page anyone can edit. On the page anyone can edit, anyone can submit kills/charms, and the bot decides how right it looks and adds them based on that. HaloTalk 17:04, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, he seems to have meant that. bad_fetustalk 22:13, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as it doesn't restrict input too much. 222 talk 02:15, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Since we're tackling multiple issues here, it might be best if you clarify what you're supporting (eg. Support charm log script, Support current vandalism detection). I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC) 

OK, I support your script. It should alleviate the diminishing workload of anti-vandals. 222 talk 06:45, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The potential problem I could see is if the bot lets in an edit into the protected page, it would be rather difficult to remove it. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 09:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for Charm log checking. Request denied. The reason given was: denied

Matt (t) 07:28, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Lack of discussion does not merit a closure. Inputting constructive comments may help bring this thread back to life again. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 11:01, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

For heaven's sakes! - This has reached consensus MULTIPLE times! Just do it. We don't need ten threads on this. --LiquidTalk 00:26, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

The point of this wasn't to get concensus on the idea, the point was to figure out some of the details that really do need resolving, such as the issue of sysop powers. The entire idea doesn't work if TLULbot doesn't have sysop abilities, but I feel it would be inappropriate for me to manage a sysop bot account given that I myself am not a sysop. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 07:03, August 11, 2010 (UTC) 
We could get an admin to run a new bot that is a duplicate of yours. Or, we could open a bot RfA 1st ever, wow!. And finally, we could maybe get the UN meet up at a conference and sign a charter binding bureaucrats to your will and let you make yourself and your bot admin. XD 222 talk 07:53, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Those first two had crossed my mind. A good candidate for the clone is AmauriceBot, since my bot is based on it and uses the same libraries - the task code could simply be copied in to the existing instance of the bot. In addition, Amaurice seems to have gotten regular task scheduling for the bot all worked out already. A bot RfA would also be an option. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 08:20, August 11, 2010 (UTC) 
Not the first, just so you know Lol Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:01, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

{{rfc}}222 talk 06:28, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Lack of discussion. TLUL can do whatever he wants to accomplish his goal, as long as the parts that still require consensus go through a discussion process. --LiquidTalk 03:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)