From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > JSBot
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 November 2010 by Laser Dragon.

Well I'm back from my 3 days block (for bot abusing (lol)), then Karlis said "<Karlis> Get a proposal going for your cropping and compressing bot soon".
So yea...
I'm just going to start with the account for the bot is: JSBot,

What will the bot do?

And some more things that will probably come to my thought's later :/

I'll write more tomorrow <.<
--Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 21:26, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - "I might run my G.E bot" --Ikin from the proposal. This shows that she, after a 3-day block, is STILL unwilling to abide by community policies and follow proper procedure for running a bot around here. If she is going to be in contempt of policy, I will not support. --LiquidTalk 21:28, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, she clarified what she meant on the IRC. However, the oppose still stands. Given that she had to be blocked from the IRC recently, I'd be happier if someone else ran this bot. --LiquidTalk 21:32, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
She said "I'll let you decide admins" behind it, so if "the admins" say she shouldn't, she doesn't(according to her) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:40, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd like it better if someone else would run the bot. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:40, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal, not the proposer. ajr 21:42, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
If the proposal is for Ikin to run the bot, then the opposition is valid. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:35, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
True, but it is still a terrible reason to oppose. As I said below, if worst comes to worst, we can block the bot and revert it's edits. But I know it won't come to that. ajr 23:06, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Yep, I can see it now. Ikin gets upset and uses her bot to vandalise the wiki. </sarcasm>. Of all the things that she has done, vandalism has not been any of them. She knows what she is doing, and can do a good job. If need be, she can give me the source code and I can run it, but I see no reason to miss out on this opportunity for the wiki. ajr 21:42, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Ikin doesn't have a clean record, yes, I agree. But I'd rather see this as a chance to wipe the slate clean. As much as I want to say have someone else run this point I'm all up for a second chance. She spammed RC and ran a bot without consensus...she didn't vandalize. With a bot tag, it would all be okay. She wants the wiki, so I'm going to go ahead and give her the benefit of the doubt and a chance to restore her reputation/record here. Per Ajr. HaloTalk 21:47, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While she shows good intentions, her methods of performing those actions are not the best. We have policies, and they should be followed. RS:IAR wouldn't apply to run a bot without consensus because it can wait until the thread is closed, and she didn't break that policy without knowing of it since she mentioned RS:BOTS in her last thread. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:32, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

You just don't love me because I slap you every 5 min :c --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 22:40, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
[17:40] * Megan92 slaps Zamorak around a bit with a large trout It may get annoying, but that is not the reason I put what I did. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Give her a chance? OK, worst case scenario. The bot vandalises. Oh well, revert/block it. But I know it won't come to that. ajr 23:03, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
By that logic.... If I went to create a thread to let User:ZammyBot become a full fledge automated bot with code that has not been tested, it should be allowed? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:15, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
That is different; Ikin has shown us that she knows what she is doing and that the bot will work. The argument here is that she is not mature enough to run it, not that the bot is bad. ajr 23:19, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
I just said that because you basically said "If it vandalizes, oh well, we can fix it." svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:20, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, let me remind you of Forum:Ajrbot and Forum:Request for bot on Ajrbot. After the bot changed all those {{fact}} or whatever it was, we COULD fix it. However, was it easy? No. Was it painful? Yes. Did it leave a lot of people who would love to slowly kill you? Yes. Same story here. If Ikin's bot malfunctions, and she refuses to fix them, what do we do? --LiquidTalk 23:26, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
This is a completely different scenario. There is no doubt that Ikin's bot would function correctly; she has demonstrated that. The issue here is that some people are unable to accept that she has good intentions, and to be blunt, think that she will use the bot for intentional vandalism. It is obvious that she knows what she is doing. ajr 23:30, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Also, it would be different here as well. It was hard to revert mine because a lot of my edits were good; here, if the bot asploded, all of the edits would be bad, so it would be very easy to run down contribs and rollback all the edits made in the time frame. ajr 23:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that she should be allowed to run under a bot flag because of how little she seems to care of our policies. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:32, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Violating policies doesn't necessarily mean that she doesn't care about them. She is a noob, you know ;). Beyond that, how does that have any effect on this proposal? She will follow the policies even if she doesn't like them, and that doesn't matter anyways. The bot isn't going to be doing stuff that remotely involves the policies. ajr 23:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Zamorak said it nicely. I'd be much happier if someone else, like Quarenon, Amaurice, or Rich Farmbrough operated the bot. Now, Ajr, she deliberately violated policies even after she was warned not to. How do we know that she won't violate them again in the future? This thread is about Ikin running a JS bot, so that is highly relevant. --LiquidTalk 23:35, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
For one, she has specifically stated that she won't intentionally violate them. Second, has she since she was unblocked? No. Third, RS:AGF. Fourth, that still has little bearing on this discussion. Either she will vandalise with the bot or she won't. Her respect of our policies really don't play into that. ajr 23:41, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
She violated policy because she wanted to help without having to go through a bureaucratic process to be allowed to help. Do we have any reason to believe she's going to use her bot maliciously? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 23:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
No, not a shred of evidence to that point. Quite to the contrary, actually. ajr 23:58, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
I do not trust her because of how little she cares for the policies on the wiki. It is true she has good intentions, but some vandals think they are helping by telling the readers to "get a life nerd" and stuff like that. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:00, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
There is no proof of the last statement, and as such it should be regarded as an opinion, not fact. My point is this; has she vandalised? No. From her past actions, is it likely that she will? No. Will she violate another policy? Debatable, she has said that she wouldn't, but there is always a chance. Speaking of chances, why not give her another one? How is doing that possibly hurting the wiki? You have no grounds on which to say that she will abuse the bot flag - no past incidents have shown that she vandalises. Like Chia said, she bypassed a few overly bureaucratic policies and helped the wiki. While that is still wrong, she has said that she won't do it again. RS:AGF. ajr 00:21, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
Changed stance to Slight support. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:23, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per Ajr. AzurisProblem, wiki? 00:28, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Ajr. May some disregard for policies but vandal you are not. And question, what does the "JS" stand for? JavaScript? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:03, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support It is really a sad reality that people will often oppose a good thing that will benefit others because of a dislike for the person who will do those good things. From the local village mayor who stops a diners permits, to a job supervisors blocking an employees proposals to implement positive cost saving measures, to wikians opposing a bot. Those truly interested in betterment of a situation can put aside their feelings and focus on the issue itself. This bot will benefit the wiki. No, I certainly do not condone many of Ikins actions/words. But that should not be what drives mine or anyones "vote".--Degenret01 01:19, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ikin's bot is highly useful and would help out. Denying help due to the dislike of a user willing to help is a really bad thing to do, as Degeneret01 said. I don't see any problems of letting Ikin use her bot. --Callofduty4 02:18, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Slight support - While Ikin's attitude and ignorance of specific things may be enough to warrant an oppose. For now, I am supporting; I am willing to ignore the poorer aspects of her as I know she can design and run bots that can do a multitude of tasks, and uploading the music files has already been done to another wiki anyway, so there is concrete proof of success. I just hope you will improve your attitude in future. 222 talk 05:49, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Starting a Yew Grove thread so you can run a bot takes, at most, a week and is an incredibly easy thing to do. There really is no excuse for not doing so apart from immaturity, impatience, and poor judgment, and someone with those qualities should not be operating a bot. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 06:13, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

How about IRL issues, some mistreatment from other editors, and a genuine desire to help the wiki? Do those play no role in this as well? ajr 13:00, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
First: no, we determined with stinkowing (?) that real-life issues don't affect how we treat users. Second: no, mistreatment is the same as real-life issues. Third: that's debatable, but some users will assume good faith to a fault; there's an extent to which we should assume good faith, and I'm personally getting to that point already. Leftiness 18:22, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant editors on-wiki for the second, which isn't irl ;) ajr 18:24, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
If she lets IRL issues negatively affect how she started with the bot, then she would logically allow IRL issue to negatively affect how she runs it. Good intentions are meaningless without maturity and good sense in implementing them. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:06, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
How does that have any bearing on running a bot? A bot will maintain a consistent quality in all its edits. Either Ikin will program it to do harm or to do good. Has Ikin vandalised at all up until this point? No. Is there any indication that she will? No. She has agreed to follow our policies from now on, and she has. As such, I see no reason to rob the wiki of this opportunity. ajr 22:31, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
One's maturity and judgment affect all aspects of their behavior, including what they choose to do with a bot account. Sure, the program that she would be running right this instant wouldn't do anything bad, but once ikin has the bot account, she can change the source or assume manual control of it, and that is where her immaturity worries me. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:24, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
You have no factual evidence on which to base that claim. Has Ikin ever vandalised? I've already said three times that she hasn't yet. Also, since the block expired, she has been active in a mature fashion, and has not violated the policies further. RS:AGF ajr
I haven't made a claim that can be disputed, nor did I imply that she has vandalised, however I do believe that its possible she would do something rash without getting proper consensus first, or that she would do something even though consensus or a policy says she shouldn't. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:36, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
We all have the potential to do something rash. We also have the potential to learn from out past mistakes and not make them again. As I've also said above, at the absolute worst case scenario we'd need to block the bot and revert a couple of edits. Oh well, we will live. However, there is no indication that that will happen, so once again, RS:AGF. ajr 03:38, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
My interpretation of AGF is a lot different than yours, it seems. I do not use it to say "sure they did bad things in the past, but I'm sure they won't do it again", instead I use "this appears to be bad behavior, but I'm not sure so I will give them the benefit of the doubt". In other words you use AGF to assume things about future behavior, but I use it to assume things about past/present behavior. Regardless, if there were a bit more time between her rash actions and her request for a bot account I would readily support, but since it is so soon I have no significant evidence that she will not be so rash in the future when confronted with similar obstacles. You must also consider the extremely minor obstacle she was presented with. All she had to do was create a thread but she wouldn't do that. There are way more tougher obstacles for her to overcome if she continues editing, and given her past actions I don't think she will handle that well. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:45, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support bot, slight oppose Ikin running the bot - I think the bot's a great idea. But, as much as I'd love to trust you, I don't really for what should be obvious reasons. Matt (t) 06:21, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

90% support - The bot will help the wiki and Megan has proven that the bot runs well. This could also be the first step to getting that ge bot up and running. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:33, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support - Althrough I don't see a point to compress or crop images for few kilobytes saved on client side, it doesn't hurt anything to do so so I support this proposal on one condition that the bot will be run in seperated channel that everyone could join (i.e. not +i) because when she spam #wikia-runescape it make conversations (if any) died. willwill Talk 08:20, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm willing to forgive and forget, Ikin can manage the bot, and it will only help the wiki, I can't see anything wrong with that. Ruud10KRalph.png 13:38, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to forget me :c --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 13:55, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
Forget what has happened ;P Ruud10KRalph.png 14:01, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As I've said, let the mistrust end, and allow another opportunity to make decisions. If bad decisions continue, don't feel any pity handing out short blocks that primarily prevent further detrimental action and secondarily serve as warnings. If bad decisions still continue, apply a lengthy block of a few months or more and forget about the user - again without pity. Such a system of prevention and less temporary prevention should solve our problems... Leftiness 18:22, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Yes, she did break a few rules, but did she have good intentions? Yes. That's enough for me. bad_fetustalk 19:13, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

80% oppose, 20% support - I was so strongly supportive of the bot you had made for the grand exchange. I saw you put effort into coding a bot and want to be allowed immediately to run it. However, it was made pretty clearly that the bot should be approved by the community. But in light of what's happened recently, how can we trust somebody that doesn't trust the community's own policies? If you had just been patient, I'd pretty sure you would have garnered enough support for your bot to pass, but this incident shows that the operator of the bot can be impatient and uncooperative, which is not exactly qualities that the bot operator should have. ADDITIONALLY, the bot tasks aren't defined very well, and I don't think you know what you want to do with the bot either. The fact that you didn't even care to spend enough time to write up a proposal for the bot just shows to me you haven't put too much effort into getting community approval. I guess, for me, you need to: 1. Demonstrate that you genuinely want to use to bot to help out the runescape wiki community and not for the sake of just having a bot and 2. Have the bot duties clearly defined in order for me to fully support this. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 05:29, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

LiquidHelm told me to remove it from the info -.- Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 09:36, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment <ircnotes> [17:14] <Ikin> Java Scriped Bot I assume :/ </ircnotes> --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 22:17, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke -.- --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 22:44, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Added a new command >:3 --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 10:17, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the command to be better :/ --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 02:36, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Added a new command "Add catergory" $AC Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 18:13, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You've been acting much better recently and the bot seems really useful. After looking through you history, I think you didn't mean any harm but just jumped the gun a bit. You're actions were a bit concerning but I think you were just a bit impatient at the time and were feeling restricted. I always think people deserve a second chance so I'm willing to take a chance and back you up with my support. Best Shield EVERAnnaLove scarves! 21:38, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closing - Requested by Cook. --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 21:46, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Withdrawn. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Reopened - Misunderstanding; Ikin wants the request closed as a positive consensus. Leaving this open until a crat sees this. ʞooɔ 23:39, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - JSBot will receive a bot flag. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 00:03, November 2, 2010 (UTC)