Forum:Let admins assign bot flags

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Let admins assign bot flags
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 January 2013 by Dtm142.

This has been created per the closure of Forum:Recent changes patrol. Title says it all.

Reasoning from previous thread linked above - Admins can assign the [[MediaWiki:Common.css/hilite|relevant highlight]], add users to the AWB checklist but cannot assign the bot flags themselves. To me it seems unnecessary to limit this particular function to 'crats given their relative inactivity compared to admins listed as active.

Just as a point, the last bot flag was assigned back in July 2012 and Scary Feet Sacre does appear, judging from the user rights log, to be on top of the requests.


Support - as nom nom nom. cqm 22:37, 30 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Strong support - sacje nub <3. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 22:44, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Bot requests are highly infrequent. Our bureaucrats easily and efficiently take care of them on the rare occasions that it is necessary to. Why we like trying to buff sysop abilities to make the usergroup exactly the same as buttocrats as of late, I'm not sure, but there's no need for it. Pls. Ronan Talk 22:46, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Seems unnecessary and bot pages aren't really frequent Cat mask.pngMaceyPantsOvergrown cat (white).png 22:49, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral - Our bureaucrats are lovely as it is. As bots aren't frequently requested (if they are, it's usually on the same bot, different task), it's not much of an issue. AWB bot requests aren't as frequent, as users are asking current AWB users instead of creating their own bot account, so that isn't much of a problem either. A user can wait 30 minutes to get their bot flagged if absolutely necessary. Hair 23:00, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Some are opposing because it isn't an often problem? Sure that might be reasoning enough not to make a thread, but since this thread has already begun, that is a moot point. The only thing it can do it to allow things to get even faster. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 06:14, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The bot flag can easily be misused. While it's true that admins can add the hilite, that's completely cosmetic, so it's irrelevant to this discussion. Furthermore, it's true that admins can add names to the AWB checklist, but that only permits the usage of AWB on the wiki in a way such that the edits are visible by default to people looking at recent changes. However, assigning the bot right takes things to a new level as those edits are hidden except to those looking at the history of the page or checking recent changes with bot edits visible (which, given the mass of GE price updates and whatnot, would render them effectively invisible anyway at certain times). I'm not saying that I don't trust our current administrators to hand out the bot rights properly, I'm just saying that it eliminates some possible complications that could result in the future from having too many users able to hand out rights like this. --LiquidTalk 18:28, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect us to misuse the more fun tools before the bot flag. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:06, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
What complications? cqm 14:49, 6 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Support - Why not? No seriously. Completely ignoring the "they're not often and b'crats can handle it" argument, I don't see how this would be an issue. If there is a trust issue with the large amount of admins we have, perhaps we should see to removing the inactive ones or those who are not trustworthy. They're just more tools. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:32, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

#BreakingNews: we don't need over 80 people to add a bot flag following a request that might occur once or twice a year. In an army, field marshals have powers that generals do not -- not because people have a "trust issue" with the generals, but because giving such a large number of officers the same abilities as the low number of field marshals is an unnecessary risk to take. There's just no need for it. If they weren't handled on time, or were too constant for such a small group of people to keep up with, it would be a different matter -- but that's not the case. These highly irregular requests are already dealt with just about as fast as they could possibly be. Ronan Talk 19:26, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Does it hurt us to give the possibility for things to go even faster? There is no need for us to protect pages since we can just undo the edits. There is no need to have chat moderators since admins can administer the kicks and bans as often as they are needed. There is no need to have rollbackers because we can just undo the edits using the undo feature. There is no need to have AWB accounts because you could just make all of those edit themselves. However, they all give things the possibility to go faster. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:06, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
These are not apples-to-apples comparisons. A more accurate comparison to the point of this thread would be whether a one-day delay in assigning rollback or chat moderator rights would severely inconvenience anyone. (Not to mention that chat moderators are for urgent cases when administrators aren't available.) The answer is no. No one ever died from having to undo edits for an extra hour; anyone looking for rollback would have had to do that for a few weeks to begin with anyway. And I doubt anyone will die from having to wait an hour to remove an extra whitespace from 1000 pages with AWB. This is especially true considering that AWB edits are mostly maintenance edits that aren't time-sensitive, unlike the countervandalism nature of rollback or blocks. It's just not something that's necessary. --LiquidTalk 22:15, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
They might not be time sensitive, but I'm sure we'd all prefer them to be done sooner than later. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:20, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a reason not to go through with this since we've already started a discussion on it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:23, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
"removing the inactive ones" Sounds like you have a proposal for the YG Wink Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:56, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
not again pls Ronan Talk 18:57, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying actually go ahead and make the proposal. I'm just saying it sounds like she has one. Blaze_fire.png12.png 22:39, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Let's just not go there. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:52, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Opopopose - Bureaucats are more... lets say advanced on the wiki, and will decide if a bot needs a tag, or only for show off. Some admins will just add it, and some can spam rage add bot tags lol.Jr Mime (talk) 00:37, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Some admins will spam rage add bot tags? What? Ronan Talk 00:39, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that: bureaucrats are more mature than some admins, and bureaucrats decides, with great logic, if the requested bot tag really needs it, or just to show off they have a bot. — Jr Mime (talk) 00:43, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're being serious. ʞooɔ 00:47, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Of course you can't. You don't have great logic. Ronan Talk 00:48, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Some admins have logic of the crats... More "advanced" logic, not admins have no logic, my first message didn't have logic. ._. — Jr Mime (talk) 00:57, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
what on earth are you talking about Ronan Talk 00:59, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever even met a b'crat ._. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:00, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Note to self: when complaining about "aura" of bureaucrats, link here. ʞooɔ 01:01, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Bearcats*. Or buttocrats, that will suffice. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:02, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Flay, read second message, and Fergie: DTM in chat and some others in the forums. — Jr Mime (talk) 01:03, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight -- speaking to Dtm in chat made you think he was logical? ʞooɔ 01:04, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
"derpderpderp (H) derpderpderp" Ronan Talk 01:06, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not in the chat, but in the forums yes. — Jr Mime (talk) 01:06, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Last time Dtm posted on a thread was almost a year ago, infact, before you were even on this wiki :p. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:08, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
O_O.. Ok then.. Better to just leave it here until I make the wiki all confused and make a parade! — Jr Mime (talk) 01:11, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's is some logic in there I suppose. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:45, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
please leave forever again Ronan Talk 15:53, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I've been following this thread for a while, and I agree mostly with Liquid on this one. It's a tool that can be easily abused by our ever so mature admins. It's a tool that is very solemnly needed, so infrequent that we should just leave it with the 'crats. It makes no sense to give about 70-100 admin accounts a tool that is used once or twice per year, when we have our 'crats to do that. It's just asking for trouble, it would make more sense to me to nominate a new 'crat if activity is an issue. Don't break what isn't broken. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 07:09, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

If we were going to abuse a tool, the ability to assign a bot flag would be at the very end of that list. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:34, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, I frequent my abuse of bot-assignment on a regular basis. :P Also, I think I can handle assigning the bot flags once a year. I check the wiki multiple times a day, you can always drop a message on my talk page if I happen to overlook it. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 17:41, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant to this thread, I still think it's ridiculous to think that admins would abuse a feature. Do you mean accidentally? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:48, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
In both senses... I don't see why 70 or so admin accounts need a tool that they will never essentially use. It's there to be abused, whether it is serious, a joke or an accident, and how many admins will actually use it for any good? Probably one or two. Karlis said it himself, the 'crats are here to help when they're needed. I don't see why we need to continue to close the gap between 'crat and admin abilities. Give me a good reason why 70+ people need a tool that will be used once or twice a year, and I'll support, otherwise, I'm standing in opposition. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 17:54, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
If you think that there are 70 admins who have bad intentions, that should be dealt with separately. There are so many other things they could be abusing, like, gee, the block tool? What is this nonsense about admins abusing their tools?? I don't see a reason why not to assign the tool to admins since we've already bothered starting a discussion on it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
If "Bothering" to make a thread is legitimate reason for consensus, I'm applying for admin tools tomorrow. (But we all know that it wouldn't pass, just because I bothered to apply.) I still don't see an answer on why 70 people need a tool that one person will use once in a blue moon. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 18:09, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
To quote the most common and annoying of YG stances: Because it wouldn't hurt anything. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:11, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
How many admins actually abuse their tools? Rhys, you're acting as if admins abuse their tools on a regular basis. The only problem with that is I'm pretty sure they don't. Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:39, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
My point isn't that they frequently abuse their tools... Although, I do see a fair bit of that in places such as the IRC when admins are joking around... My point is, why add an unnecessary risk for something that doesn't need to occur? The 'crats are perfectly fine handling this job. We don't need to open the door to 70 or so admins on this also. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 18:44, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
I'm just not understanding the supposed "risks" you're mentioning. IRC is a separate matter. It makes zero sense to think that admins would abuse this tool only, when they could block everyone or black out the entire wiki or vandalize the mainpage or remove users' rights or mass rollback page edits or protectsite or.. Um yeah, it just doesn't make any sense to base your argument off of that. If you don't think it's necessary than fine, but to go so far as to say an admin would abuse their tools, that's a different matter entirely. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what? Your initial paragraph was essentially based around how the admins would abuse it. You even came and said "It's there to be abused, whether it is serious, a joke or an accident, and how many admins will actually use it for any good?" How exactly is this not saying that they wouldn't frequently abuse it? Blaze_fire.png12.png 19:09, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Knowing how the maturity of some admins has deteriorated over the last couple of years? It wouldn't shock me... Abuse doesn't necessarily imply destructive intent either you know. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 19:43, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding your points very silly. You're trying to tell everyone that admins will abuse the tool of assigning bot flags, not make any use of it. There is no evidence that any admins will use the tool incorrectly. I'm still confused on why you're trying to defend the point that assigning a bot flag would go bad, when there is so many other things that could be abused. The instances of the tools being abused are very low to none. The last time I can provide actual evidence of misuse of the tools is with PureMexican. Which then had his tools stripped. In 2009. If this is a trust issue between an admin, a user who had to have consensus to be given the rights, then that admin might want to be reconsidered. Your statements are becoming more and more fabricated. I'd really like to know who you think would go rouge assigning bot flags all over the place. Hair 20:12, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Apparently people are being too ignorant to understand my argument, so forget it. It's rather appropriate that 4-5 admins just flamed and trolled me out of the IRC anyway. Invalidate or nullify my point or whatever, apparently my opinion counts for fuck all anyway. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 20:33, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
This is a debate. In debates, one must provide evidence for one's position. Which you have not done. Also please note that I am not against you. I am in opposition to this as well. I am just asking for evidence to back up your claim. Blaze_fire.png12.png 20:40, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, if you're frustrated that we didn't make sense of your points of abuse in IRC, but I wouldn't consider that flaming. I would consider flaming "omg you're stupid for thinking that", though we didn't say anything of this. As you originally said 5 admins were flaming you, when Ty said along the lines of: "Our admins can't be trusted." This wasn't signified towards you or anyone, and isn't flaming. You might of taken it the wrong way, which is understandable but is incorrect to call flaming. Now, your opinion does count, but we're trying to understand it better, whilst at the same time disagreeing with it. If there is controversy with a statement, it's always best to provide evidence. As there was no evidence, we didn't agree with your argument as we couldn't see who would abuse the tool. Who knows, if you give further rational reasoning on why an admin would abuse it, some users might agree with it and not argue. I'd rather point this out than be accused of flaming. Hair 20:42, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Forget it. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 20:44, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Well, I do agree that they are infrequent, but I have full faith in the admins that if this passes, there won't be an abuse of it. I can't believe that claims that the admins will abuse it is even an argument being made >.> That being said, I'm all in favor of them having it, but since the bureaucrats can already handle it, it's not needed. Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:39, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral - First and foremost, this wiki is the only wiki I know of that Wikia Inc. has allowed non-staff and non-helpers to assign bot rights out. These were only given to bureaucrats due to the lower number of users solely and I don't think anyone here as actually asked whether they would accept administrators assigned the bot group right. As usual, unnecessary banter is also on this proposal as seen above and makes it hard for me to support a proposal if the users in the thread can't take something seriously. Until someone can show that Wikia is willing to do such a change and users continue the parade of indents, this will stay neutral. Ryan PM 18:52, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

[[w:c:cod:Special:Log/rights|Call of duty wiki]], [[w:c:avatar:Special:Log/rights|Avatar wiki]], [[w:c:wow:Special:Log/rights|WoW wiki]] and, I believe, Uncyclopedia (I could find no recent reference in the rights log, but remember reading it on an old version of Sannse's talk page there) all have bureaucrats able to assign bot flags. It's not so uncommon on the larger wikis. As for Wikia's willingness to make such a change, I contacted them regarding recent changes patrol (see link right at the top), and also queried letting admins flag bots -
Wikia can tweak both the rights of groups and the ability of other user groups to assign people into groups. If you wish to have a tweak done to what groups can grant which rights, Wikia will be happy to do so after seeing community discussion and also being told exactly what requests are made so we get the permissions correct.
Perhaps Wikia are less cagey these days about bot flags? cqm 02:32, 8 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Neutral - I hate the maturity argument, but it will probably be brought up after a certain happening in the IRC a few minutes ago. I can trust that the admins will do the right thing, but I really don't see the point in giving them the tools. There aren't that many requests being made, and there's bound to be a bureaucrat skulking somewhere in the vicinity of the wiki if they're needed. RfAs happen way more often than bot requests, and we're able to stay on top of those, usually closing them within hours of their required closure. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 20:48, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - There doesn't seem to be any need whatsoever for it. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:08, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

In further explanation, the way I see it is is kinda like an RfA: rather than granting one user a bunch of tools, its granting a bunch of users one additional tool. So I ask myself the two questions I usually ask myself on an RfA [modified to fit]:
  1. Is the user trustworthy/Can they be trusted to not abuse the tool? [Do we trust our admins?]
    Some users seem to have trust issues with admins, as a whole or as individuals. That's a topic for another thread really. For me, I would trust all our admins to not abuse this tool - given the wealth of other, more destructive tools available to them, if they passed an RfA I don't think there should be an issue.
  2. Does the user have a need for the tools?/Would the user use the tools? [Do our admins need this tool?]
    To me, no. In the rare case where a bot flag is given out, it is taken care of quickly anyway. Karlis has already said he checks the wiki often, Sacre idles in our IRC channel all the time; and so both are about and easily accessible. Bot threads run for at least a week, so if any of the 'crats do not know of it in that time, maybe we do need some more 'crats. In regards to AWB, its not as if an AWB account without the flag cannot edit - as long as they are on the checkpage they can, its just a bit messy for RC. If what they need AWB for is massively urgent that second (hint: it probably isn't), they can go ahead once an admin has checkpage'd them, or pester one of the many other users with AWB access.
As such, I don't feel I can support this because of the lack of need for 83 (I don't know how many active... 20? whatever) more bot-assigners when the 13 (3-4 active) already handle everything fine. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 01:10, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone actually bring forward a single case within the last two years or so in which a bot request experienced a significant (or even insignificant) delay in being dealt with? Ronan Talk 21:47, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone actually bring forward a good reason why inoften use is a reason to oppose, instead of just one to not bring forth the discussion? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:55, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
I think he's referring to how long it takes to deal with a request, rather than how often they're requested. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 23:29, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
I would assume if there was any delay within requesting bot flags and assigning them, it would have been brought up in whatever thread allowed admins to assign custodian and rollback. Judging by the infrequency of bot flag requests, I'd be surprised if there was any delay of more than a couple of days. Indeed, reading through both discussions that involve the idea of adding extra user-rights management to admins (I'd forgotten how long Forum:Bureaucrat discussion was) I can see no obvious mention of bot flags. cqm 02:32, 8 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
I'm assuming thus as a result of peoples' silence that there has not been a delay, significant or insignificant, regarding these requests. Ronan Talk 08:32, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe there's a delay, significant or insignificant, in receiving peoples' responses Lol Blaze_fire.png12.png 08:36, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - As for now, there is no real reason to give administrators the ability to assign bot flags. The question which always needs to be asked when making changes is "Does the change create any real benefit?" For now, the answer is a resounding no. If in the future, there is suddenly a huge stream of bot requests, this issue should certainly be revisited. Clearly there are arguments that show there are no benefits to making a change, however, there are few, if any arguments that suggest that this change is negative. The "trust" argument is pathetic at best. To the people invoking this line of argument - if you think there are certain administrators who are untrustworthy, please, request that they have their tools removed. There are several more "destructive" tools in the administrative arsenal, including blocking and deletion. Hell, rollback has greater potential to damage the wiki than assigning bot flags, and we don't even vet them outside an edit requirement. 222 talk 02:26, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral - First let me say that the argument that our admins would abuse or misuse this right is completely absurd. Everyone who has passed an RfA has more than enough credibility, intelligence, and common sense to use this tool without incident. That being said, who really cares? If this passes, the occasional bot request will be filled a tad faster. If not, it won't. Will that really impact the wiki in any way? No. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:53, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Unapproved bots always have the potential to be harmful due to malfunctions or bad code etc. In addition, these bots could consume unnecessary resources and slow down the site. Thus, it's an important right that needs to be handled carefully.

The way this wiki works, it's much more difficult to become a bureaucrat than it is to become an admin since bureaucrats are expected to be more trustworthy than admins. Bureaucrats also tend to have more experience in things such as closing discussions and other wiki functions, which are important when it comes to assigning bot rights.

Considering the potential harm that these bots can cause, it would be ideal that the most trusted users on the site be given the ability to decide whether or not to give a user bot rights. Since bureaucrats are the most trusted users on the site (in theory, anyway), and this tool is not used often (as others have pointed out), it would be best if we let them handle the tool. Smithing (talk | contribs) 02:22, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Utterly neutral - There aren't any good reasons to support or oppose this. Bureaucrats aren't any better at handing out bot flags than anyone else (and if that's the most dangerous admin right you can think of, think again). Still, this is a very rarely used tool, and the result of this thread will have zero impact on anything, ever. ʞooɔ 13:49, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to make these changes at this time. Dtm142 (talk) 20:20, January 13, 2013 (UTC)