Forum:Expand use of AWB and bot accounts

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Expand use of AWB and bot accounts
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 November 2010 by Degenret01.

In case you do not know, we approved separate AWB accounts for users editing with the AutoWikiBrowser. Such accounts are given the bot flag, and are regulated at RS:AWB. The spirit of the forum was to prevent floods of Recent Changes from the rapid rate of AWB edits.

However, now, a new problem has emerged. There have been multiple instances of RC floods occurring due to an editor performing minor trivial edits too quickly, resulting in the RC flood. Such edits cannot be done via AWB, due to the personalized nature of each edit. In several discussions, Cook, refused to take the editing to his AWB account, arguing against the creation of a "dangerous precedent," and going against RS:BOTS.

I think this is a case of common sense. The minor and trivial edits are menial enough that no one is going to complain if they are hidden under the bot flag. They can also be done at a rate fast enough to flood the RC, like AWB can. Thus, I am proposing that we allow menial and uncontroversial edits to be done on the AWB account when doing it on an editor's main account will cause a Recent Changes flood. --LiquidTalk 22:51, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Previous similar proposal at Forum:Extending the usage of AWB accounts (Closed per nominator withdrawal) I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 22:38, November 16, 2010 (UTC) 

Discussion

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 22:51, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Cook is fast editor, get rid of personal vendetta. HaloTalk 22:52, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

... I'm not forcing him to edit on his AWB account. This is just to open up the possibility. Editors are still free to make edits on their main accounts if they so choose. --LiquidTalk 22:53, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There is a thing called minor edits. They're usually used when people do "minor and trivial edits", as you say. You can obviously choose not to peruse those minor edits. In addition, this sets a dangerous precedent as people will misinterpret this idea as forcing people to do any "fast editing" on a different, flagged account. ʞooɔ 22:57, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Also, Forum:Extending the usage of AWB accounts. ʞooɔ 22:58, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Minor edits were made for a reason. If you have minor edits set to on, then prepared to be spammed by minor edits. Vandalism isn't not going to get caught, there'll be RC patrollers with minor edits set to off, and of course the CVN channel in IRC with umpteen people monitoring it. So I see no benefit of moving manual but fast tasks to a bot account. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:00, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no need. The RC, and the wiki, will live even if one username is dominant on it. ajr 23:00, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Errr... either I'm reading this wrong or I'm in trouble... the only AWB edits I do are "menial and uncontraversial"... - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 23:03, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

He means allowing non-AWB edits that are "menial/uncontroversial" to be done on bot accounts. ʞooɔ 23:04, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
Oic, *phew* - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 23:17, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. Seems rather unnecessary. Suppa chuppa Talk 23:07, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think you guys (with the exception of Cook) are misunderstanding this proposal, especially Gaz. This is not forcing anyone to move fast edits to AWB accounts. This merely removes a policy obstruction to such act. Users are still free to edit quickly on their main accounts if they so choose. What is wrong with providing more options? Furthermore, to address a point Cook made about misinterpretations, I highly doubt that they will occur. With a properly written policy, coupled with the fact that the AWB account holders are all veteran users who know their way around the wiki bureaucracy, the chance of a misinterpretation is small. --LiquidTalk 23:13, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Every point I made stands. In fact it being voluntary brings up an extra point of why go through the bother of swapping accounts, when you could get a good portion of it done in the time it takes? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:23, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
If I were to do that, I would consider it a common courtesy to edit under a bot flag. --LiquidTalk 23:26, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
Is this seriously a big problem? The only reason that an RC flood is bad is because it can lead to unreverted vandalism (or rather a small chance of it). There are currently 10 people in the cvn channel, which isn't flooded by user edits. So this isn't really a problem. ajr 23:28, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - AWB accounts were created because the RC were being flooded by repetitive edits, regardless of the level of automation. Asking everyone turn minor edits off was not a decent solution to this problem. We don't program every bot to mark their edits as minor, we just hide their edits. The level of automation is not the concern, it's the volume they create, so I don't see a problem with this proposal. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:59, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose - You are proposing "that we allow menial and uncontroversial edits to be done on the AWB account". As long as you are just allowing the edits be done on a bot; sure why not, allowing is fine. But if you are forcing these edits to be on a bot account; no, forcing is just mean, get off cook's back. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:12, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

I've said numerous times throughout this thread that this is not forcing anyone to do anything; it just opens up the AWB accounts and allows them to be more versatile. --LiquidTalk 01:14, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't see how allowing small edits on the AWB accounts would be controversial. The opposition is mainly concerned with forcing people to edit on the AWB account, but I don't think that's what the proposal is. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 05:11, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While I am against using AWB accounts for anything other than through the Auto Wiki Browser, I understand the reasoning behind the suggestion. Albeit, I also feel that this is telling users that it is alright to edit where most people won't see it (since some people don't even know about the RC, the activity feed at WikiActivity will never show a bot flagged edit. In the RC, you can hide minor flagged edits and I suspect most edits done by vandals are rarely checked (not to mention IP's can't flag for minor at all and the CVN-IRC bot checks all IP edits). I don't use my AWB account often, and I don't plan on using it for anything but AWB related material. To me, it feels like a misuse of the bot flag with hiding certain edits. The only time I really see the RC flooded (note I keep RC at 250 at all times in my prefs) is when someone uploads several dozen images at a given time (not to mention when the GEMW charts are updated, making it hard to look at other users uploads, but that's another story altogether). Ryan PM 05:29, November 16, 2010 (UTC)]

"While I am against using AWB accounts for anything other than through the Auto Wiki Browser," Why? When we give somebody an account with a bot flag, it means we trust that they will not abuse it. Cook's edits (using him as an example) are of the same type that inspired the AWB accounts to begin with, so I don't see why the one technicality should stop him from using CookBot if it will make things cleaner. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:22, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I suggested and almost identical idea a few weeks ago, the only difference being that it was worded poorly. Of course I support, or we can always desysop cooknub... 222 talk 05:39, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Why? - Labeling these edits to an AWB account is pointless. It will get confusing because people will think they are done in AWB, when they are not. It could lead to problems. You just want the edits on a bot-flagged account. So why don't we have accounts for recent-changes-spamming-edits in general? Matt (t) 05:55, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above, although it does seem a bit unnecessary to start a YG. - [Pharos] 07:23, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Minor edits -.-? Ruud10KRalph.png 09:06, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - They are called AWB accounts for a reason. Stop being lazy and turn minor edits off, or don't complain. bad_fetustalk 12:41, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous, ignorant, and insulting things I've heard in awhile. I am not going to support or oppose this proposal right now, but I feel that this needs to be addressed. Some of us don't turn off minor edits on recent changes because we like to monitor every single new edit, just in case. If you dismiss that as lazy and complaining, you shouldn't even be here. Andrew talk 21:50, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
I don't turn off minor edits either, and I occasionally see Cook's spam on Recent Changes. Am I complaining? No. I don't think I can be ignorant to myself, can I? bad_fetustalk 13:38, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
...and as usual you've completely misconstrued my comments. Andrew talk 20:49, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Turn off minor edits. This would no doubt lead to misuse and further issues. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:22, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per all opposers. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 22:38, November 16, 2010 (UTC) 

Oppose - AWB accounts are supposed to be for basic edits performed in AWB, not to hide your edits in. If it's not done in AWB it shouldn't be done on the AWB account as that would violate the purpose of them being AWB accounts. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:43, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

What the opposition is not addressing is why AWB accounts must be used only for AWB. The first question that needs to be answered is "why did we make AWB accounts?" To prevent RC spam. The only purpose of AWB accounts are to prevent RC spam, we just named them AWB accounts because that was the only program being used to generate RC spam at the time. Now there are RC spam edits being created that are completely identical to AWB edits with one irrelevant exception, they are not being done in AWB. Why does it matter? What abuse can be done on an AWB account that we are preventing by limiting their use to AWB only? Nothing comes to mind. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I support a rename of the AWB and the inclusion of using other methods of RC flood be made on those accounts. It should only be edits that are basic edits that will cause no issues. As long as we identify them as AWB accounts we should let them remain that, an AWB account. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:13, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
"As long as we identify them as AWB accounts we should let them remain that, an AWB account." Why is it that important? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:32, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Because it would be a misleading name. If they are going to allow multiple different semi-automated tools they should have a more vague name. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:12, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that in and of itself is a valid reason to oppose this proposal if you support the principal. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:22, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Stelercus. Every editor should not have to turn minor edits off to remove the spam from one individual. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:13, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

That is, quite frankly, insulting. Calling my categorization "spam" just because I do it quickly is completely wrong. Many other people do categorizing, albeit at a slower pace than I. Why should I have to edit slower or go onto another account just because you don't like seeing my name so much? ʞooɔ 05:17, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, many other users do categorizing, so why take it as an insult when I did not say I was specifically talking about you? (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:46, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Because this thread is quite obviously about me and it even says so in the proposal? ʞooɔ 05:49, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully, I was not specifically talking about you. My comment applies to any and all users who would do quick edits like that. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:53, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Okie Smile ʞooɔ 06:28, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - per all, also how often are bot edits checked? This could be an extremely easy way to abuse the bot flag and do some damage without anyone realising. LordDarkPhantom 09:19, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

You can already do quite a bit of vandalism through AWB alone. I don't see what damage we are preventing that can't already be done. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:25, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Phantom, you forget that, even if they are not often checked in the RC, they are checked if someone sees vandalism, and it appears to be the AWB account. Then the controller of the AWB account can get 1 warning and an immediate block when doing it again(while keeping RS:AGF in mind) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:50, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just to note that any users which are trusted with the bot flag usually have enough edits to be trusted enough to not abuse their "powers". 222 talk 09:43, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If they are spamming the rc and they want to use there awb account why should we stop them from using it? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:21, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - To prevent spamming the RC. However, if ever is discovered someone abused their AWB account, they should only get one warning and immediately be blocked after it if they repeat it. Because this could be abused easily, there should be strict rules about it(while keeping RS:AGF in mind). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:50, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed The wiki is against using AWB accounts for non AWB edits, manual edits should be done on non AWB accounts.--Degenret01 20:54, November 22, 2010 (UTC)