Forum:Regarding bot accounts

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Regarding bot accounts
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 August 2012 by Thebrains222.

This topic that I'm bringing up is about AWB bot accounts, not fully-automated bot accounts.

In the past 2ish months, 5 AWB accounts were added on the wiki's checkpage (bots being "non-human" like Bot50, HairyBot, HofBot, etc...). With the rise of the AWB accounts, it makes me question the overall need for the owner to have their own bot account. I think that users are starting to have the thought, "If I have my own bot, It'll be something that nobody else has!", turning it into some sort of status. Here's an example of how a bot isn't needed: Jr Mime requested for his bot account, MuudyBot, to have AWB status. 2 day's after the request, he began to ask how come the bureaucrats haven't given his "bot" account, bot status. So I bugged sacje to do it since I thought Jr Mime needed it to do a task soon since he kept mentioning it, so sacje did. Then it sat there, for 13 days until I questioned him about it. The thing that bothers me with this is that he said he needed an AWB, for no tasks whatsoever, and no idea in his mind what to do with it, but merely just to have it. When a small task came up, it could've easily been given to someone with the bot access at the time instead. Also, when I say it's a "status" that can be showed off, it really seems to look that way. Neitiznot added a large link to his new AWB on his userpage (1) and on his signature (2), as did Jr Mime with his signature, making it seem like it's only to show it. So, here's what I got to: Personal AWB bot accounts can't be added to the list anymore. If a user needs a repetitive task done, they need to look here and contact someone on the list. This goes to a certain extent though, if it seems that nobody on the list is near active and a task that an AWB bot needs to do, then it can, of course, be requested.


Support - as nominator. Hair 20:34, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support & Comment - From the AWB Page. It is designed to make tedious or repetitive tasks quicker and easier not as a status symbol. If you're applying for one, you better have a tedious or repetitive task you plan to accomplish with it. 21:12, August 2, 2012 (UTC) (EDIT: Forgot to log in) Cursed Pyres (talk) 21:14, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Remove access for NeitizBot and Jr Mime's bot + comment - I agree that the access was not needed in that case, going against Status and opinion-weight. But in other cases the rule is not so clear cut, so a bot request should be honoured as if it were needed and acted upon after the fact. In short, Assume good faith. This comment doesn't support adding new policies, only using existing ones.

 a proofreader ▸ 

23:56, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

At first of my bot, I only wanted it for further use. Then I setted it up, bugged hair to bug sacje. After that I got in a trip in the USA so I couldn't use my bot. Not long ago, I got my custodians rights so I started moving files (main account) and fixing links (awb bot) so, I think my bot is ok right now since I use it almost daily. — Jr Mime (talk) 00:07, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
AWB Bot accounts are meant to make many tedious edits at once, not to fix 3 file links every 5 minutes. Hair 00:17, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/MuudyBot I average on about 10/5 minutes since I need to switch what to change, get the file links, start the AWB & repeat. I also did a big task for The Mol Man by adding 720 music pages in his category: Category:Needs instruments. But, if you always think it's useless, go ahead, remove the bot. — Jr Mime (talk) 00:26, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
The file link fixing is tedious. >_>  a proofreader ▸  00:29, August 3, 2012 (UTC) (I've also gone ahead and removed my support for this removal. 00:31, August 3, 2012 (UTC))

Suggestion - Along with my comment, my suggestion was a section with a series of questions (for example: What will you use your bot for year-wide) so there are no un-used bots or just lack-of bots. — Jr Mime (talk) 00:11, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I think all it takes is for the bureaucrat to demand a reason for having an AWB bot. Not some vague, stupid reason like "I need it to do something repetitive", but something specific like "I need to move 50 images in Category:X". 222 talk 06:37, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Why does that user need to do it though? Can't that user just request someone with an AWB account, a user that knows how to operate it already? Hair

Comment - I have no stance yet but I would like to say a few things:

You say large links were added on multiple pages; all I see is some text within their signatures that without a hilite would not even be noticeable. Yes, I notice the <big>'d "it's offical" on Neitiznot's page (what catches my eye more is the "You are allowed to vandalize" sentence that links to one of mine and two other users' sandboxes), but I think he's just a bit excited. I see these two users in question (Nez and Mime) as not show-offy about their bots, but rather they are eager to make use of them (Mime, as a custodian, has turned his into a dustpan; Neitiznot is always bugging me for a tedious task some sort). I also see the addition of mentioning their AWB accounts as a way of saying "hey, I can do tedious, repetitive crap if you ever need me to." (furthered by the fact that NezBot has a requests section) In regards to MuudyBot fixing file names: who wants to actually see a flood in recent changes of "fixing file name"? I like the idea of having a bot to clean up the mess made by moving files. I never move files (and probably never plan to) but I trust proofreader in him saying that fixing file names is tedious.

I think the real problem is that these two users are just a bit overexcited to have their new found tool (as seen by their supposed rivalry, an example of which can be seen in a randomly pulled edit summary here and the description here - Cåm had confronted Neitiznot about using that inappropriate edit summary whilst AWBing) but other than that I've seen both users make great use of their AWB (one moreso than the other) and believe that rather than making this thread, it would have been more appropriate to just tell the two to calm down.

Perhaps we should take this moment to further elaborate on what we've already got written on our page about sysops to explain that additional rights are not a big deal. MolMan 07:27, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - You can remove NezBot's bot flag if you want to. And I have done a few tasks. Wink Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 13:57, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The reason we even started using AWB bot accounts was because before we were editing loads of pages really fast and it was really spamming the Recent Changes. You can use AWB on your main account. Though we didn't set a definite editing speed for which you have to use AWB, most often with how few pages some of these tasks have affected, you could have used your own account. I don't know why it seems people believe you have to have an AWB account to use AWB, since that's false. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:43, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I would expect someone with AWB access to use it maturely and to use some common sense whilst operating it. Back when Proof's image renaming bot was active, I used to fix the wanted files desolation manually and in relatively large quantities. Cook makes my work look amateur, but not so many of us can stand such tedious tasks. I would personally have AWB advertised in the way Matthew does - it's there if someone wants to request a task done for them, but unless someone can show that they have a need for an AWB account, as opposed to changing a dozen file names, then they should submit a request to someone with access. Having access just so you can have a request page seems kind of pointless as you apparently don't need it yourself, just have it to show off. cqm 00:31,4/8/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose - No need to close down AWB requests completely. I do agree people should not just get a bot account for show, so I think they should put atleast one useful task of more than 100 edits along with the AWB acc request, before they can get the rights. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:37, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see it causing a problem with the bot. And admittedly, these personal bots have been useful, for example, your own bot, hairybot, you've done it many times for doing repetitive stuff haven't you? Did you originally have it made because you had in mind a complete set of tasks that it was to do, or to have it do repetitive stuff quickly and fast without spamming up the recent changes page? The fact is that those personal bots, while bringing no problems to the wiki that I can see, it provides many more tasks. As you are proposing, you are only having bots that have a set task to do, such as image compression, link removal, etc, to be left, and that all other bots be done away with. But truth is, many things, for example, the beta, have had many things that need to be changed, maybe putting a template on every page, or removing one, removing certain words, etc, but you can't possibly ask the bots that already have a set order to do this, and it sets back other things. I for one, have asked many of these people to borrow their personal bots to make certain edits, and I would not wish to see them closed down. Dragon longsword.png Cire04 TalkAttack.png 10:23, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the purpose of this forum. It is not to get bots shutdown, it is to prevent people from creating bots for the sake of it. 222 talk 11:05, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - AWB bot accounts are not to be used as a status symbol. Bot flags should no longer be automatically granted whenever they are requested. It is recommended that bureaucrats applying the bot flag to users requesting rights for an AWB account discuss the specific tasks the user plans to perform using the tools, and that they are not requesting the rights as a status symbol. Users who may require a one-off task performed should considering asking another user who already has access to AWB to perform the task for them. Users are also reminded that an AWB bot is not a requirement for use of AutoWikiBrowser. AWB can be used on your main account if it does not overly spam Recent Changes. 222 talk 10:27, August 23, 2012 (UTC)