Forum:Modification of RS:BOTS - Relating to AWB use

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Modification of RS:BOTS - Relating to AWB use
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 20 September 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Now the AWB tool has been in use for sometime on the wiki and has most certainly been a useful tool, however, there is always a downside to everything and AWB is no exception. Basically, AWB is a semi-automated tool that allows for rapid editing and as well as making it easier to make small improvements to articles. While there is not an intrinsic issue with AWB being used in moderation, the tool has become more widespread recently and unregulated. AWB has not only resulted in Severely inflated edit counts, it can also flood the recent changes as fast as a bot.

What is it I'm proposing? Simple, have AWB used in AWB designated accounts with the bot flag (basically, use AWB for bot accounts). Now to avoid having the possibility of a user circumventing the bot process I'd prefer for these to be semi-bot accounts (basically bot flag but you can't use an automated bot from that account).

This allows use to have the benefit of AWB, allows the wiki itself to choose who is able to use the tool (rather than Wikia), keeps the recent changes clear and useful, and will put an end to the inflated edit counts that run rampant.

How will AWB use be determined? Simple it will be similar to the rollback system, at RuneScape:AutoWikiBrowser/Requests users who meet basic requirements ( I propose a minimum of 500 non user/user talk edits and 2 months active on the wiki, though this can be changed as necessary and should be considered separately from the rest of the proposal). At which point, a 'crat can view the proposal and use common sense as necessary. The AWB accounts will be distinguished by simply adding AWB to the end of the user's username.


Support as nom.Please note: This forum is not meant to single any one editor out in particular, Evil is simply used as an example not a scapegoat.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

02:38, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

... one time... Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:41, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. ajr 02:39, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The requirements Azaz has suggested make sense, only people who really want to be here for the good of the wiki bother getting that many or staying that long.-- Degen says Unban TLUL  02:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it now...but I thought there used to be a requirement of 500 edits on the talk page and such. I don't have a problem with it, but I dunno about some of the other things. HaloTalk 03:17, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I've seen the inflated edit counts part, but not the flooding of the recent changes part. But, I do like this idea. --LiquidTalk 02:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I swear there was something that said edit counts don't matter... you can turn minor edits off. SHEESH! Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:53, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Turning minor edits off presents a problem to the people who fight vandalism. If a someone creates a throwaway account and vandalizes here, marking all edits as minor, then we would miss it. I never turn minor edits off. Besides, how hard is it to log on to a different account? --LiquidTalk 02:57, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Not many vandals are that smart, but you do have a point. HaloTalk 17:34, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as-is - I would like to see this only if a user intends on making over 1000 AWB edits per month, or over 5 edits per minute when editing. This seems like overkill for those who just fix the occasional typo. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:55, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Question - While the Community Wiki has the list for this, and as it does ask what Wiki(s) you use it for, does this mean that upon the potential support and closure of this forum, would said users lose the use of AWB on their main/current account or would the use of AWB extensively on this Wiki at any one time permit consequences (as I don't see any)? Say I want to eliminate all of File:X.yyy's now red-links, how would it be determined I didn't use AWB for, say, 20 edits instead of using tabs (as I've done before with tabs)? Ryan PM 02:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

AWB is quicker. --LiquidTalk 03:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but not always depending on your internet speed and browser choice. Speed aside, how would one successfully determine use of AWB per RS:AGF? Also, I thought only the Community Wiki could authorize use of AWB? Ryan PM 03:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Mini-proposal - Could we make a group called "AWB user" that has the ability to add and remove bot flag (or just add and remove the hidden edits, if possible)? This way the edits are hidden when AWBing and everyone is happy. And if the user ever misuses it, like using hiddenness to vandalise, crats can remove them from the "AWB user" group (and add punishment and what not). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:05, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean a new Special:ListGroupRights, how would we get Wikia to want to see that a new group/user privilege is necessary? Ryan PM 03:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
By saying 'pretty please'... I don't know... we could give this ability to rollback as everyone (AFAIK) has rollback who uses AWB. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:14, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that means they could access Special:UserRights? Meaning they could make sysops/'crats etc. Meaning wikia would never do it. HaloTalk 03:19, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
On most wikis, bcrats cannot add/remove the bot flag. It is possible to create a group that has access to only the bot flag, and no others, but what I don't think is possible is the ability to control only ones own user rights. I don't think this mini-proposal is a good idea. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:25, August 16, 2010 (UTC) 
Oh yeah...I forgot how special we are...=D HaloTalk 03:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
You can edit your own group, I did on my wiki:
  • 03:30, 16 August 2010 Evil1888 (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Evil1888 from Bureaucrats and Administrators to Bureaucrats. [1]
Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)'re a 'crat on your own wiki bud. Unless you are suggesting that you must be a 'crat to use AWB in which case I'm going to slap you with a large trout. HaloTalk 03:35, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that Wikia would allow that. ajr 03:35, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
They might allow assuming that they help (and I'm not sure if they do help with it) maintain and update AWB to create a new and permanent checkbox that wouldn't appear in a normal browser. Such would be [X] AWB edit, but this is assuming that they do have access/help update AWB and are willing to. Seeing what rights this Wiki gets versus others, I wouldn't doubt that they would ignore/put more weight on this subject. Ryan PM 03:40, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
as far as I know, awb is entirely user-based. It has no 'official' support. BGCBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Even if that is the case, wouldn't Wikia have to change/add a new extension/feature for quite a few things within the database itself, such as RecentChanges and more? I doubt non-staff have access to those areas. Ryan PM 03:54, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT:You don't need to be a crat to give and take rights, just have the group your in give you that ability to give and take rights like just give and take bot which is very possible without having the ability to give and take sysops and other groups. It would look like this:
  • Add groups: Bots
  • Remove groups: Bots
Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it's possible to program, I highly doubt wikia would do it. HaloTalk 03:46, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
It's not hard to program, just a few lines. And is wikia REALLY that lazy? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm 99% sure that Wikia would not do that. It has nothing to do with difficulty, but Wikia finds that the less custom user groups, the better. ajr 03:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Aburnett. I often run AWB while slaying. It varies how often I check it to see if it's ready to save, but I'm not exactly fast about it. I don't want to make a new account to be able for me to continue to use it. Questions - 1 - Doesn't a helper or somebody have to add you to the checkpage on central (meaning our own checkpage couldn't be used)? and if we can use our own, I believe we should use the same requirements as community does, as much as possible. 2 - Would the grandfather rule protect people who already have it on their original/main wiki account, just like with people who had rollback before the thread? HaloTalk 03:10, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But only for heavy editing, such as Evil's. A typo fix every once in a while, or 20 quick updates one day to remove redlinks, should not necessarily require a bot account. However, all AWB edits should be clearly marked as semi-automated, bot account or not. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:23, August 16, 2010 (UTC) 

The AWB signature is "clean up" with the optional ", typos fixed: (typo) -> (correct spelling)", but you probably already knew that. HaloTalk 03:26, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Even though we see many users flood the RC with AWB often, I think 500 is too high and even so, I'd rather not create a second account just for AWB, might as well learn how to make an fully automated bot rather than what I can do already. I mark most of my edits minor already and last I check few even mark minor in their edits. You can hide minor edits already and I would have thought this was good enough. Ryan PM 03:28, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Auto wiki bot is a bot as said in the name and should be treated like a bot. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:11, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

AWB stands for AutoWikiBrowser... no "bot" in the name... Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 06:20, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
It's semi-automated which is basically what a bot is, you tell it what to do and it does it, I believe that that means AWB is basically a bot. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
It is not a bot, by definition. Users SHOULD check every SINGLE edit, before clicking save, (I dunno how many do anymore, but they are supposed to), which makes it very unbotlike. HaloTalk 11:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per nom LordDarkPhantom 06:56, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support - I support your general idea, however this should only be done for users who use the AWB frequently/in large amounts. If you fix a few pages a week, why bother. I suggest 500 edits per day week as a benchmark. 222 talk 07:13, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

No one does 500 edits per day with the AWB, someone who uses AWB a lot (like Cook) may do a few hundred in a day rarely but he has taken 9days to do 500 edits (not sure how many of them are actually bot edits i think it was 200 in a day though). Note i only used Cook because he seems to have a lot of edits with it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:57, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. bad_fetustalk 08:30, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above;

  • I don't like seeing inflated edit counts because of AWB. User X's browser did it, not User X. User X shouldn't be getting edits added to their edit count for something a bot did for them while they were AFK. User X didn't earn those edits, they simply input some settings and pressed "Go".
  • As Liquidhelium said, turning off all minor edits in the RC does just that; not only does it filter out the AWBer's edits, but it also filters out and edits that we need to see, such as disguised vandalism.

A bot account would be a great idea to solve such problems. I do not mean to insult any AWB users in this opinion. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 09:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

You are playing to an extreme though. Most people who use AWB aren't making enough edits to drown rc. No one can AFK AWB edit...unless you tape down your which case you should have AWB access removed from your account. Users are SUPPOSED to check every edit before they click save, and I do, I can't speak for others. I run it while I slay. I stopped worrying about edit count long ago...I'd rather stop using AWB than make a new account. I wouldn't try to hide my AWB edits either. It may take a while but you just go to someone's contribs, look at 500 per page, use control+f, type in clean up, and count. Some people probably use it to boost their edit count, I won't deny that, but there are others that don't. HaloTalk 11:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the RC is usually not drowned out, but when AWB is running, multiple long summaries appearing on the list every minute does confuse my counter-vandalism, and will continue to do so. When using AWB, it isn't just 2 or 3 edits; I don't see why someone would even start up AWB for 2 or 3 edits, they'd get the job done faster by hand. AWB is used for mass editing, and the RC suffers for it.
  • Well, I didn't know that each edit must be checked and saved. I thought it was automatically done. I thought the "semi" in "semi-automated" meant that it had to started and stopped by the user with preset settings, it wouldn't run on a regular basis on it's own. Now I know.
  • Again, I wasn't trying to insult anyone using AWB, I was only giving my opinion. I know there are people who don't use AWB to boost their edit count, but even if unintentionally, I'm still not in favor of it. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 17:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I run it while slaying, (it's currently broken, and will only load the 100 newest created pages, or previously saved lists), but I used to run it in RC. Especially after updates when there is the flood of pages/edits that have tons of wrong spelling/grammar. Sometimes I might go 10 minutes without checking it while I'm slaying. The RC does not suffer from people like me using it. If someone needs to make a ridiculous amount of edits, they can just ask for a temp bot tag from a 'crat. HaloTalk 17:32, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We can drone on and on about RS:AEAE but at the end of the day, people with 10000 edits are going to be approached for guidance and be more trusted than someone with 1000 edits. It's a fact, that any amount of policies won't change. 222 talk 09:59, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:32, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The said proposal does not allow for enough flexibility. When I use AWB, I often perform tasks that require the Admin tools to carry out such as page deletions and file moves. If I had to carry out all AWB tasks on a bot, that bot would also need administrative tools for me to use AWB for any of the reasons I originally downloaded it for. Therefore, I would rather see an Admin-AWB usergroup and AWB usergroup created with the appropriate rights if Wikia is fine with such a change. Another possible option would be to create a single AWB group with the bot user-permission for the main account, which allows for the ability to hide all edits as if the user was a bot. Even then, it is possible to override this should you have the bot permission similar to how one can mark an edit as minor. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - When a person becomes an admin They are sysopped not their account, any admin can have the second account sysopped. (For instance, TheElijah was made a forum admin on his account Instantwinston, however, since an RfA is a reflection on the community's decision to trust the user, the tools were switched to his new account). There's no issue to be had with admin tools required.-- 17:14, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I really don't know what side to take on this. I've probably "spammed up" RecentChanges more than anyone else, and I understand that a lot of people find that to be a pain to deal with. However, I think that the other reasons given for implementing this proposal are a bit odd (like the inflated edit count). My question to all of you is, is the nuisance of creating this new bureaucratic process worth the advantages of having these edits hidden? Just something to think about. ʞooɔ 18:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Copied from my talk page and Rwojy's talk page:

Because of the discussion going on about awb, Karlis had an idea to make a checkbox to hide such edits like bots and minor edits, but it seems that is impossible based on the response given from uberfuzzy. Do you think there may be another alternative than separate accounts? If so, it would be very helpful. Any help would be appreciated. OXJGQNBucket detail.pngrwojy 23:53, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to make a pseudo-flag with checkboxes on the RC and page histories using JavaScript, maybe by having a list of people in the group and then using a tag like "#awb" in the edit summary would cause it to be hidden by default. I can already think of numerous disadvantages to doing that though:* It would add a loading delay to the RC and page histories and will fail if the JavaScript was unable to run

  • They would reduce the number of entries being shown, so if the last 50 edits on the RC has nothing but AWB edits then you would see nothing at all on the list.
  • The edits are still being made under the standard user group which means they aren't being treated as bots by the software and don't gain the same bot rights as listed in Special:ListGroupRights, including higher editing and API limits, ability to suppress move redirects, and the ability to prevent "new message" boxes when making minor talk page edits.

I think AWB users should operate through the standard bot flag if at all, because that is the point of the flag: to hide the edits of a trusted user who is making repetitive edits that a typical RC patroller doesn't care about. I don't think AWB is different enough from any other bot to require a different group for them. --Quarenon  Talk 22:46, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

--Quarenon  Talk 04:23, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal

I firmly believe the average AWB user does not drown RC. Thus I have two other options for us to consider:

1. Make an account along the lines of AWB bot. I would probably want Cook and/or Aburnett to have access, as they are both trusted, active, and have an understanding of AWB. This account could have the bot flag, and do AWB tasks that would drown RC.
2. Just have people who feel the need to drown RC leave a message on a 'crats talk page for temp bot tag, and then another message to have it removed. Easy enough.

Comment - I personally like the second one...but I just thought I'd throw both of them out there. HaloTalk 17:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - 2 won't work. Too much work for the crats. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:04, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

-.-... work... from this page it's 'click' 'click' 'type' click' 'checkmark' 'click'... if they can't handle that much work, they shouldn't be crats. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:13, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
There are only a few instances that people would NEED bot tags, not everyone using AWB makes tons of edits in short amounts of time. The majority of people aren't spamming RC, so it's fine. HaloTalk 04:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oppose 1 and 2. The second is unfeasible as it requires users to ask for a flag that depending on the time can take well over an hour to even take effect once the 'crat has implemented (one of the reasons Evil's edits were still visible on the RC is that flags can take awhile to take effect). Why waste time having to get a 'crat to give you a flag that you'd already have under the original proposal? 'click' 'click' 'click' - New account, 'click' 'click' 'click' - Request that will allow you to edit without issue or need to be concerned about your editing speed or quantity... if they can't handle that much work, they shouldn't be physically capable of using AWB.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

22:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

it was 10 mins before it started, so wait 10 mins. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 04:51, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Most AWB editing is done at your's not a rush thing. Works well enough for rollback does it not? The average AWB user doesn't need a bot flag, so there's no point in giving them one. HaloTalk 04:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as it stops flooding the RC I'm fine with it. I'm sure not that many people will be banging on the 'crats talk pages, "AWB Bot plox! Bot flag now!". But everyone else who does a few edits with AWB shouldn't need them. 222 talk 07:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, oops. I misread, everyone is sharing one account! I change to Support 2, Oppose 1. 222 talk 08:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose 1&2 -
One Having multiple people using an account is a maintenance nightmare, plus this would mean a small amount of users would only be able to use it and none simultaneously.
TwoCrats aren't around all the time, mostly days between visits for each one, and giving a temporary bot flag each time is a lot more effort than giving one bot flag to an AWB account. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The goal wouldn't be to have multiple users using it. Preferably, there would be a page set up along the lines of "AWB bot requests" and if there was a legit req there, whoever happened to get ownership of it would set it up and run it. HaloTalk 20:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose 1 & 2- Per Sentra and Azaz Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 18:26, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You guys do realize that 98% of AWB editing by no means requires a bot tag. AWB editing is also not urgent, meaning you can leave a request, and it doesn't matter if it's not checked for 3 days, when you next see that you have been given bot flag, you do your stuff, and say your done, they remove bot tag when they get the chance...there you go. HaloTalk 20:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

If it's not that urgent, then we can do without the hassle of constantly adding or deleting bot tags. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 15:41, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
It's not anymore of a hassle than rollback. HaloTalk 16:04, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Except rollback tools aren't removed after being used. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:59, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
You guys are still blowing this way out of proportion. HaloTalk 17:01, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
How is this anywhere out of proportion. This is a legitimate concern. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 17:04, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
That 'crats can't look at a talk page message and then add/remove rights? HaloTalk 17:12, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Not if there's a load of people requesting it and of course they'd also have to check whether the person can really be trusted with the flag and whether the flag is really necessary for the task they're going to do. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

An Outside View

I've seen Evil1888's post at [[w:User_talk:Uberfuzzy#About_the_new_user_group_emails]], and thought I'd weigh in.

  1. If AWB runs on a bot flagged account, it can run in full auto, not just semiautomatic, i.e. as a real bot; and with the advanced replace functions, can screw up a lot of stuff very quickly if care is not taken. I suggest that users throttle AWB to 6-10 edits/minute at most; AWB will stop if you post to its account's talkpage, so that gives some time to stop runaway edit sprees before too much damage is done.
  2. Since an AWB bot works almost the same as another bot, there should be only one user group with bot flag. Accounts that intend to use AWB only semiautomatically should not have it.
  3. It looks futile to me to ask Wikia to give anybody else (but bureaucrats) the right to add or remove "bot" from accounts; that's just not done. You have enough active bureaucrats, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Azaz129 wrote: AWB has not only resulted in Severely inflated edit counts, it can also flood the recent changes as fast as a bot. Here's another proposal:

  • Encourage AWB users who qualify to get bot accounts for their AWB use.
  • Make it a policy that semiautomatic mass edits can only be done on separate accounts (the usernameAWB proposal seems fine, though using AWBuser makes them easier to list. That way, runaway AWB sessions can be blocked while still allowing the user to access the wiki from the non-AWB account.
  • Set a throttle for mass edits from non-bots; block accounts that exceed it.
  • Block users who do semiautomated mass edits from non-AWB accounts.

These changes will at once take care of inflated edit counts, as mass edits won't be allowed on "regular" accounts any more. By encouraging users to flag their AWB as a bot, RC flooding is cut down some. Requiring a throttle allows any user to review the mass edit as it happens and, if needed, stop it with a post to the talkpage of the AWB account.

Disclaimer: it's been awhile since I last used AWB; I hope its operation hasn't changed significantly since then. --◄mendel► 07:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

You little talk page stalker Wink. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:06, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Some of that is a bit extreme OMG!. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:09, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
"Set a throttle..." I think one warning should be given. Some of them can be accidental. 222 talk 08:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In my opinion, this is kind of ridiculous. The minor edits are there so you can hide them, the same reason bot edits are hidden by default. One hour of RecentChanges a week is hardly a problem. And if you are really relying on the RecentChanges to fight vandalism (as if vandals have minor edits), you shouldn't, no tool should be relied upon, like relying on a watch to tell time, it will eventually fail, and how much vandalism happens in a mere hour, 1... maybe 2 and is usually caught by someone if missed. When someone goes on an AWB streak (can't think of a better word) they usually do it quickly and only a few hundred and you can have RecentChanges show 500 edits and even 5000. I don't plan on making another account to do something I am able to do now on this account, like what Bluesonic said "might as well learn how to make an fully automated bot rather than what I can do already". Most people support don't use AWB (never seen Degen use it) and are not fully aware what AWB is, like Sentra said, "Auto wiki bot is a bot as said in the name and should be treated like a bot." (which could not be more incorrect). And it's not like this is really enforceable, there is no proof that a user is using AWB and you are able to edit as fast as AWB by many means, what this policy may turn into is a "Don't edit fast" policy ("ADMIN:You have been blocked for using AWB on an non-AWB account. USER:I'm not using AWB, just editing really fast..."). And as Halo would describe this thread, as "Belongs in the Whining forum" as most are whining that the RecentChanges are covered in edits by one user (oh, a person is editing, *whine*) if you really want to see LOTS OF EDITS, by all means, click my 5000 RecentChanges link. Want more? Here's 5,000,000. After clicking that you should have more than enough changes to fight all vandalism. By now you shouldn't have an excuse that I didn't address. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 09:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The "whining" I see here is from a clearly immature argument you are trying to make. You focus exclusively on a single issue of the multitude I've pointed out, decry the other side as "whiners" and try to slander them as ingorant because of a single comment, and you do know that vandals can mark their edits as minor just as easily as you or I? It was fairly common back when I was an admin to find at least a few blockable vandals a day using the minor tag. Also RC is the best tool available to fight vandalism and you act as if it's inconsequential and not a problem to have a tool go unregulated that has the ability to hamper our vandalism response ability? "I don't plan on making another account to do something I am able to do now on this account" - Literally the only argument I've seen thus far, I don't want to make a different account, it's too much effort to log in to a different account. I have to log in anytime I close my browser, the effort required is laughable to cause such uproar. Typically I'd show more tact, however, that is a luxury for which I have been afforded none.-- 16:31, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that when User:Ajrbot was running around without a bot tag, people got pissed at Ajr for flooding Recent Changes. What's the difference here? The only one I see is that your name doesn't have "bot" in it. Furthermore, seeing more edits isn't going to help. What anti-vandals would have to do is literally fish out the non-AWB edits in a sea of semi-automated edits. After we verify, we have to re-click Recent Changes and hope we can find our place again. That's quite difficult, if you've haven't tried it when someone's flooding the RC.
About the fact that you don't want to make another account: Are those five clicks really that difficult? You said that AWB is semi-automated, meaning you have to click for every edit. If you're flooding the RC with about 500 edits, are 5 extra clicks really going to break your day?
Now to the point you made about the "Don't edit fast" policy. Administrators are NOT going to block people who are editing fast. Normal people can probably get 1 edit in every 10-15 seconds. That's 4-6 edits per minute. 4-6 edits per minute are NOT going to flood the RC. If you count the number of edits you made in the picture Azaz put at the top of the thread, you had 19 edits in the 21:02 minute and another 19 (and counting) in the 21:03 minute. That's almost an edit every 3 seconds. How many humans do you know that can edit every three seconds? My internet connection isn't fast enough to do that, assuming I can get all the editing done in that time.
If you want to do a few slow edits on AWB, no one's going to stop you from doing it on your main account. But, if you want to do mass, fast editing, it's quite easy to see that it's AWB, and that it's flooding the RC. For those edits, take it to another account. Thanks. --LiquidTalk 16:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if it still works like that, but AWB wanted to use IE to access the wiki. So I keep IE logged into the bot account, and Firefox logged into my main.
It is sometimes possible to get a lot of edits committed in a very short time when you have several tabs open for editing because you paste the same info into each, and then save all of them at once. However, this "burst" is quite distinctive. AWB used to be throttled by the speed that Wikia would save and load pages at, making this kind of burst impossible to achieve. This may have changed, however. --◄mendel► 20:19, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Azaz, your proposal targets an extremity. You have only one case at hand in which the RC was spammed. Most people don't even notice when I edit with AWB, because I make edits the same speed or slower as I do when I'm just browsing RC/checking my usual list. As to the inflated edit count scenario-does it matter in what way the edits were made? How much work was put into them? Or does it matter the quality of the edits? If you care purely about the wiki being the best it can be, you shouldn't be worried about edit count. Edit count doesn't mean much to most users, and in fact, when people place emphasis on it, like this thread has, that makes it mean more. Making a new account would not kill me, and I'd happily do it if this proposal passes, but I'm simply stating that you aren't targeting the average person. HaloTalk 17:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Edit count doesn't mean anything to most of the users who have posted on this thread. But, think of a new user, or an unregistered user. They do not know that edit count is more or less meaningless, and that it's quality>quantity. To them, jumping to the person with the highest edit count is normal. I'll admit that when I first started reading here, and before I created an account, I thought the people with higher edit counts were "better" and had more "experience" simply because they edited more.
If we have artificial inflated edit counts due to this, it could cause several social issues. First of all, compare people like User:Rich Farmbrough and User:Iiii I I I (I'm not trying to single anyone out, just using it as an example). Both of them have high edit counts, but Rich Farmbrough attained his mainly through GE updates before Smackbot was moved to a separate account. On the other hand, 3i+1 never used a bot, and got each one of his edits through his own work. It doesn't matter to most of the community's regular users who has the higher edit count, but it could very well matter to new users unfamiliar with the things like AEAE and UCS. This is detrimental to the wiki, as the more experienced users are often in a better position to help new users with their problems. I'm not saying that 3i+1 is better than Rich Farmbrough at everything; I'm saying that on average, due to his increased community involvement and his overall professionalism experience, 3i+1 is in a better position to answer questions and offer help than Rich Farmbrough is. In the future, if too many users get artificial inflated edit count, new users are going to run to AWB'ers for questions. I'm not saying that they can't answer any questions, just that they generally are not the best ones to ask for things other than maintenance. --LiquidTalk 17:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I would think that anyone who would get approved for AWB would at least be smart enough to answer basic questions, or redirect the asker to someone who could answer them. HaloTalk 17:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment What if we asked wikia staff to enable a new type of edit, "semi-automated edit"? Editors could mark their edits as semi-automated just like they could mark their edits as minor. It could be set up so that all edits with the AWB are marked as semi-automated, which cannot be overridden. Additionally, any non-AWB semi-automated edits could be taken care of with an option on the user preferences to "Mark all edits as semi-automated", just like the current option for minor edits. There would of course be an option to hide semi-automated edits in the recent changes and other places where hiding minor edits is currently an option. Once semi-automated edits are separated from other edits, it should be possible to stop them from being added to the edit count. I think this solves all issues with AWB edits while not doing anything to drastic such as putting an edit throttle or requiring the use of a ancillary account. I also think this is useful and simple enough that wikia would actually consider working it into the next update, so everyone could use it, thus making it so that we don't get extra super special treatment. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Have fun getting Wikia to rubber-stamp it. --LiquidTalk 17:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
^^ What he said. HaloTalk 17:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Love the idea, but Wikia will never do that for us. ajr 17:53, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be just for us. They could enable it for everyone, since every wiki could make use of it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Still won't happen. Wikia would never do anything that its users actually want :P ajr 18:06, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'll show you, I'll show you all! Mua ha ha ha ha! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure Wikia would. They allow Sysops and B'crats on this Wiki with more privileges than others (ProtectSite, ability to give/remove bot flag, and CheckUser rights). Ryan PM 20:07, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
That is rather simple to accomplish though. That is just adding a line of code to a page. This would require more programming, which they will probably not deem necessary or worth it. HaloTalk 20:15, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Soooooo........ I'm confused, first 2 sentences, your like "Easy-peasy!" than last 2 "Super hard!!!". Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
It is the difference in this or that. This is what Psycho is referring too. That is what Ryan is referring too. HaloTalk 20:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
This requires changes to AWB and to MediaWiki itself. You have to convince the AWB and MediaWiki developers that it's worth doing, wait for them to do it, and then wait for Wikia to update to the MediaWiki version that has this feature. It's a rather long-term approach with dubious chances of success, but it won't hurt to try. I'm rather certain that Wikia isn't going to invest into doing this on their own. --◄mendel► 20:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
To add to what I, and M.mendel said above, Wikia is also busy with other things. Also, while Wikia does enable extensions like protectsite for us, they won't enable a lot of extensions - Some with the reason that the extensions would require a bit of modification to make them work. If they aren't willing to take 20 minutes re-modelling an extension, I doubt that they would go and add another base function to MediaWiki for us. ajr 22:08, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have had to sift through a mass of AWB edits on Recent Changes far too many times. Andrew talk 06:34, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

comment - I've been pouring through extensions and I've found one that's almost what I was looking for, found here. I'll keep looking but I'm going to stick this here in case anyone knows enough about js or mediawiki to make it work for us. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:05, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Love that extension... ajr 22:58, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Ok so I give up on finding an extension, and on finding someone who could code it for me. So the only recourse I see is allowing editors to create another account (if they want to) and request a temporary bot flag (if they do not want to create another account). Although for the account name, does it have to be their username suffixed with AWB? Why does it matter what the account is called as long as it identifies itself as an AWB account belonging to someone on the bot's userpage? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to include AWB in it, that is just recommended. ajr 22:52, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
You've just presented an opinion equivalent to an oppose as a gift-wrapped middle-ground which accomplishes nothing. Well played sir.-- 23:15, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
How doesn't it solve anything? Also I don't appreciate the implication that I was being manipulative or disingenuous. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:03, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Your compromise doesn't solve some of the issues presented in the proposal. Sure, it deals with the problem of RC floods, but it doesn't solve the problem of inflated edit counts and its associated social problems. --LiquidTalk 00:08, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I've been mostly staying out of this discussion, but I just have to ask: What is wrong with a high edit count? You're implying that all people who edit using AWB are doing it for a higher edit count, which I can tell you is completely false. If you say you don't care about edit count, then why make a so-called "inflated" edit count a bad thing? ʞooɔ 00:16, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Because a high edit count is more often than not a reason for people passing an RfA, whether or not we want to openly admit it. ajr 00:18, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Then let's change the idea that high editcount = green name, and stop creating hurdles for people who are trying to help the wiki. If that's the best reason we have for high edit count being bad, then I'm not convinced. And Liquid, can you tell me what these social problems are? ʞooɔ 00:23, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I would rather not put it on the wiki for everyone to see. If you catch me in the IRC, I'll tell you. --LiquidTalk 00:27, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not in opposition to the proposal, but I'm just wondering where high edit count was a problem. I'll be the first to tell you that I used AWB to aid about half of my edits, but I don't understand why the number of edits you've made should affect anything, good or bad. ʞooɔ 00:30, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Cowardice. If you're going to oppose something because of an opinion you have, but you won't share what that opinion is, then you should just keep quiet. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with a high edit count. The debate that goes on in an RFA is more than scrutinizing enough to pick up when an editor's edit account is not reflective of their maturity, experience, and trustworthiness. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:34, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


Alright, this has been open long enough. I've re-read some of the points made by the opposition. The main point seemed to be that it was too troublesome to log on into another account, especially for users who do a few AWB edits on a whim. I hope that we can reach a suitable compromise on this.

Like I said above, it's difficult to edit fast enough at the rate that AWB edits at. Therefore, for the users who use AWB at a rate slow enough to be considered normal editing, it's fine to keep it on the user's main account. For users who AWB above this rate, then it must be taken to an alternate account which will be given the bot flag. (Note that sysops can have the AWB account sysopped without another RfA, since the sysop must manually approve all edits, so it's technically still a sysop making the edit.)

A good threshold for what is considered "quick" edits would be 5 edits a minute for a constant period of three or more minutes. Anything over that should be taken to an AWB account. 5 edits a minute is 1 edit every 12 seconds. Even the quickest editors still need some time to make a manual edit, and 12 seconds is really just for repetitive stuff that can be done quickly by hand. If a user runs AWB on his main account at a level significantly above this threshold, then he or she should be warned. No disciplinary should be taken, unless the user has made a high number of infractions. Even then, it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

This should address the concerns of the majority of users. It prevents RC floods, as 5 edits a minute is not enough to flood the RC. It also doesn't present an unreasonable burden on the AWB users, as the ones who do it at a leisurely pace don't have to switch accounts. --LiquidTalk 01:35, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since requests for AWB aren't going to be that common, it will be done via a crat's talk page. Of course, the crat should use common sense to determine if the user should get the bot flag, but that's only to rule out brand new editors who don't know yet if we can trust with a bot flag. --LiquidTalk 02:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Though I don't think we should set any strict limits. For example if I use awb to do like 15 edits in rapid succession, and stop after that, then it wouldn't be a big issue. Its best to just use common sense. Though if you want to have quantifiable limits, then we could say that editors must use another account if they will be editing at 8 edits per minute or faster for 20 edits or more" though I don't imagine anyone is going ot be counting or using a stop watch to enforce this. "aha! that was twenty one edits before he stopped! Banhamz!" kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:40, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Modified proposal to account for that. --LiquidTalk 01:43, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per psycho, it makes sense. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:42, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like what Psycho said especially. HaloTalk 01:46, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not sure if 8 edits will work. It seems quite slow in comparison to the often 40 edits per minute that some people (including myself) often go to, but it will still obscure the normal edits. Looking at the RC for right now, we are averaging around two edits per minute as a wiki. Even if someone did 8 per minute, they would still decimate the rest of the Recent Changes. (Around 80% of the edits usually counts as flooding.) Any number of edits per minute that we set as a threshold would probably not satisfy either side. Even if we lowered it to 4 edits per minute, that person would be taking up two thirds of the edits, even if it's at the comparatively slow pace of 15 seconds per edit. ʞooɔ 01:47, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

What if we abandoned the edit per minute metric and did edits per 10 minutes, which is the average span of time covered by the rc? Like say... 30 edits per 10 minutes or more gets moved to the AWB account? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:49, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree with you there, Cook. Even if someone continuously edits at 8 per minute, it will still take six minutes to reach 50 edits, which is what most users have their RC set to show. That means that any edits in the past six minutes will still be there. That's show enough for users to see the vandalism and remove it. For twenty to forty edits per minute, it takes two minutes max to flood the RC, meaning that any potential vandalism is gone quickly. If we lower the threshold to four, then it has the potential to block out users who are editing quickly. --LiquidTalk 01:54, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Even when you told me I was flooding the RC, I think I was averaging around 6 edits per minute. My point is, it's still covering up the RC regardless of the number of edits per minute. ʞooɔ 02:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fine. I changed it to 5 edits per minute, which is what was suggested by Aburnett at the beginning of this thread. --LiquidTalk 02:07, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Is my recent AWBing to fast for this limit? 222 talk 01:56, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Its not all about speed, its about your edits dominating the recent changes, making it difficult to patrol for vandalism. Edits such as yours would need to be on a bot'd account. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I see, I just noticed I've pretty much edged out everything in RC. Don't worry though, that was a one-off, I just categorised every single monster's weakness from Level 1-100.OMG! 222 talk 02:02, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - AWB is not an everyday thing, it is easy to dominate the RC (which can be larger than the last 50 for those freaking out about that), I edit regularly faster than this if I doing something. It is also impossible to prove if I was using AWB, AGF and all that. Why not call this policy the Edit Limiter Policy. And everything cook said. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

How do can you manually flood the entire RC list? 222 talk 02:20, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Well..... Copy-paste something onto a large amount of pages, and then hit save on them all. Depending on how active the Wiki is at the moment, and how many tabs you have open you can over take it. If you make over 50 edits in half an hour you can sometimes over take the recent changes. It really does matter on when during the day it is. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
It's still not possible to edit that fast manually, though. First, you have to find the page. That takes 5-6 seconds if you're fast. Then, you have to find the spot to edit, which is another 2 seconds. Then, you click, and hit control-v. That's another 2 seconds. Then, you click save and wait for the page to refresh. 2 seconds again. Add that up, and it comes out to 11-12 seconds per edit. Now, try to repeat this intense process over a period of 10 minutes. You're not going to be able to manually edit that fast. --LiquidTalk 02:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
If I'm going to copy-paste a lot of stuff, I'm going to open a large amount of tabs, paste it, switch tab, and go through all the tabs, and once I have it down for all the tabs, go through them right after each other. But I do acknowledge that only leads to sudden bursts, not absolute flooding, unless it's a slow hour. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you that I can do at least 15 edits per minute manually if I know what I need to do and it's copypasta. ʞooɔ 04:45, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Would it be possible to ask to make an edit spree on your normal account occasionally, for example, my weakness categorisation about 10 minutes ago was a one-off that would exceed the proposed limits for normal accounts, but I could have requested to be allowed to make that edit spree as a one-off, without having to make an AWB account. Just a thought, 222 talk 02:38, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's not the ideal solution for either side, however, that's why it's a compromise. Without a little give and take from each side, this wiki would be a poorer place. Therefore, I support, this addresses the issues with the RC, while not preventing casual editing.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

23:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Please sign below if you would like the bot flag for your account

By signing, you acknowledge that holding an account with a bot flag is a level of community trust, and that the flag can be revoked at any time the community finds necessary. Should your account get any additional tools beside the bot flag, you agree to uphold the same standards levied on that particular usergroup. By signing, you also acknowledge that you will only use the AWB account for semi-automated edits, and acknowledge that you will be subject to disciplinary action if your bot account is running fully automated, as it is a violation of RS:BOT. You promise not to violate wiki policy with the bot account. You also forfeit your right to participate in community discussions with the bot account (please use your main account instead). Signing below is an indication that you accept these terms and would like to request the bot flag.

Please sign in the following format: #Bot account: (bot account name), Additional usergroups: (usergroups), (signature)

Users are recommended to request rollback or sysop for their bot accounts also to take advantage of the noratelimit tool.

  1. Bot account: LiquidBot, Additional usergroups: Sysop, --LiquidTalk 02:22, September 20, 2010 (UTC) (I don't want the bot flag and LiquidBot is not a legitimate account; I just want an example here.)
  2. Bot account: Sentrabot, Additional usergroups: Rollback, Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:46, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Bot account: SaraBot, Additional usergroups: Rollback, SardominSign Me! 03:48, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Bot account: ZammyBot, Additional usergroups: Rollback, svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 03:50, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Bot account: BrainBot, Additional usergroups: Rollback, 222 talk 07:08, September 20, 2010 (UTC) (room for one more?)

Comment - Gee-wilikers, is the thread being closed? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:40, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The thread really should be closed before we go to far with this. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:43, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment -I'm closing it soon. This has enough support to move forward. Too many users are making AWB accounts now, so I want to get some kind if framework ready for the requests. --LiquidTalk 02:48, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The compromise mentioned in this section will be implemented at RS:AWB. --LiquidTalk 23:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)