Forum:Request for bot on Ajrbot

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Request for bot on Ajrbot
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 March 2010 by Calebchiam.
Previous discussion moved to Forum:Request for bot on Ajrbot/archive. Those discussions are still valid, and count towards the consensus.

Well, now that all of this text is gone, I suppose I need to explain what is happening. I am going to be running the bot here without a flag for a while, even though it really takes the point out of this forum if I could just do it anyways.

I must say, I am very upset at this. The first time that the forum went around, I should have been more specific into what I was going to do with the bot. I'm sorry that I wasn't. However, now that I have, the continued opposition really makes me upset. I am trying to help this wiki but offering my bot's services. I am a very established and trusted user across Wikia, and my bot has around the same amount of edits as I do. I was, and still am, volunteering my services to help make this wiki better. What is the response? Oppose, oppose, oppose.

Now, this isn't even what bothers me. What bothers me is that not one of the opposes is a valid reason. The problem here is that the community has no idea what bots are. So I am going to show you by running the bot without community approval or flagging. This was actually suggested by an administrator, so I will do it. I can only hope that people will learn from this.

If you think that the bot is a great idea, then please vote (yet again) below. If you are neutral on the matter then feel free. If you oppose, then think about it for a second. Do I know that this is a valid reason, or am I just opposing because of what I think I know about bots. These reasons include everything from bot malfunctions to the bot not being able to see which edits are good or not. All of these are explained in the archive.

To be blunt, this has turned into a waste of my time. I am trying to help, but the community obviously doesn't want that. However, I am still going to push this, in high hopes that it will maybe allow some editors a chance to look around, and get over their fears of robots ruining the wiki. However, if the community still opposes then I will leave. This isn't my main wiki, I'll live without editing here. Also, this isn't about me. I don't get some reward for running my bot here. All that I want to do is help, and I am very offended at the amount of opposition that this has gotten. I am a pretty experienced bot owner, and I can personally assure you that my bot will only help here, not hinder.

Thanks, and happy editing. Ajraddatz Talk 23:54, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

To be completely clear on what the bot will be doing, I have made a list. Please note that not all of these items are going to be preformed every day. Most will only be on request.

  1. Archiving full talk pages. This can be requested by a user, and runs whenever a talk page reaches a certain length, or after a certain time has passed. This is an optional feature, and can be used when requested by the user. This is more just a handy little feature, and not the bot's main duty.
  2. Cosmetic changes within the article code to make to easier to navigate/edit. This is a very handy script that just performs minor changes to the article's coding, which allows for easier editing. Things like an extra line here and there, or spreading out a template.
  3. Fixing double redirects. A very boring task for editors, and this bot can do it whenever it is needed.
  4. Making fast changes to a large group of articles. This new HP update messes up templates and pages, but all of this could be fixed within 15 minutes by a bot. This is done with supervision, and there is no chance of error.
  5. Add messages to talk pages. There is already a bot that does this, but for this it really doesn't hurt to have two doing this. As I argue above, this would only make things happen faster.
  6. Converting HTML to wikimarkup.
  7. Fixing spelling. I would do this manually using AWB, however the edits still should be marked as bot IMO.
  8. Fixing tags, such as <ref> tags without a /references. It would add that.
  9. Adding content at the top or bottom of large numbers of pages. It can do this, but only when required to do so. An example might once again be the latest update, adding {{Outdated}} to the affected pages.
  10. Fixing categories on large numbers of pages. If there is ever a category change, the bot can do it in about 5 minutes.
  11. Fixing/changing templates across large numbers of pages.
  12. Signing posts, and giving users a friendly reminder to sign their posts afterwards. This is not yet working, but should be in the near future. A pretty handy feature, I think anyways...

Before you go and oppose because "humans can do all of 'dat stuffs", please think for about two seconds. Everything that a bot can do, a human can do also. Bots just do it faster and allow the human to do something else.

Please discuss below.


Comment - I'm glad that we will be able to see what the bot does. --LiquidTalk 23:57, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Due to a problem with my computer, my Pywikipediabot framework is currently not functional. This means that I am stuck to basically just general fixes and unicodifying. Ajraddatz Talk 00:37, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame. I was going to ask you to do me a favor and change all of the category links in Category:Minigames to Category:Activities, due to the recent name change. I've been doing the first couple by hand, but it's getting really really boring and I'm not even through the D's yet. <.< If the bot can do that quickly, then it'll have my complete support. --LiquidTalk 01:59, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
I can do that, just give me a second to get it set up. Ajraddatz Talk 02:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose overall (Invalid point) but here's my separate opinions:

  1. Archiving full talk pages. - Semi-useful, users can do it themselves, as all users have the move capability by default. (0.3 points)
    • Once again, bots can not do anything that users can't. - Ajr
  2. Cosmetic changes within the article code to make to easier to navigate/edit. - Semi-useful, again this is not really necessary, as a) This already has been done on most pages, and b) It is rare anyways. (0.3 points)
    • Completely invalid, learn what this even means. I will be doing this soon. - Ajr
  3. Fixing double redirects. - When does this even happen anyways? Also, heard about this page? Special:DoubleRedirects (-0.5 points)
    • I have, and this makes it so much easier. Going through that is long and painful. This point is also completely invalid.
  4. Making fast changes to a large group of articles. - Hard to do with a bot, and if it requires templates, might as well just have editors do it. (-1 point)
    • It is extremely easy for a bot to do this, and do this well. See what I've been doing with Runescape -> RuneScape? Once again completely invalid. - Ajr
  5. Add messages to talk pages. - What do you mean? (0 points)
    • Just like what Qbot does, send messages to large numbers of users. - Ajr
  6. Converting HTML to wikimarkup. - Like what? The most is really tables, which don't really happen in HTML anyways. At least on the wiki. (0.5 points)
    • This is very helpful, as some HTML is deprecated. - Ajr
  7. Fixing spelling. - OK, hard to do with a bot though. (0 points)
    • Not at all, learn what a bot can do. - Ajr
  8. Fixing tags. - OK. (0.5 points)
  9. Adding content at the top or bottom of large numbers of pages. - What affected pages? (-0.5 points)
    • Whichever are needed. - Ajr
  10. Fixing categories on large numbers of pages. - What do you mean "a category change"? If you mean moved categories, then OK. (0.5 points)
    • That. - Ajr
  11. Fixing/changing templates across large numbers of pages. - Same as the last one. (0 points)
  12. Signing posts, and giving users a friendly reminder to sign their posts afterwards. - Doesn't really happen again, but sure. (1 point)

That's a score of... 1.1/12. Doesn't seem all that useful... Hello71 01:26, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Go and read the archive please. Also, I have striken this post as it is an invalid point. I have added comments in italics to the list above. This is the type of oppose that is not acceptable on this forum, that is an oppose mainly because you have no idea what a good bot can do. I am going to be demonstrating what my bot can do over the next little while, so learn from that and then come back and vote. Ajraddatz Talk 01:34, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Ever heard of this policy? Also, you have no rights to determine what is not acceptable and acceptable on the forums. Hello71 01:40, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and *unstrikes post* Hello71 01:40, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
I am not deleting it, however it is completely invalid. Ajraddatz Talk 01:41, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
It is against the principle of the policy, which states that other people's posts should not be deleted OR EDITED, unless for archival purposes. Hello71 01:46, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - (edit conflict x2 <.<) After seeing Ajrbot in action, I have to say that it's quite an impressive bot. I used to oppose on the grounds that we don't need another bot, but now I have to say that the bot will definitely make our lives on the wiki easier. If the bot performs all of the tasks listed, then I anticipate that we would have a much easier time with menial tasks. --LiquidTalk 02:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The first point I'm going to touch on is your attitude. You seem adamant on your bot getting approved despite the community disapproval. If there is no consensus for it, don't archive the entire discussion and restart it, in the hope that it will work out the second time. Your mindet that "not one of the opposes is a valid reason." really ticks me off as well, it seems to be a very arrogant way of thinking. Furthermore, you immediately archive comments that you deem irrelevant or when they have been addressed. All editors are equal. Hello71's opinions were just as important as yours, and you don't have any authority to be striking through or removing other users' posts whenever you think they are irrelevant or unnecessary. Also, RS:DDD, note that I readded some of the discussion that you deleted, in this edit. Finally, I don't think you should be running the bot when there hasn't been community approval for it, whether or not an administrator suggested doing so.

Now, moving on to the bot itself. I disagree that it does tasks as efficiently as humans. If you've seen today's Special:Wantedpages, there are more wantedpages than usual, and after some clearing, I noticed that a lot of them are caused by the changing of "Runescape" to "RuneScape" (be it in file names or update links). According to you (Fixing spelling. I would do this manually using AWB, however the edits still should be marked as bot IMO.), you fix this manually, which makes me wonder why the redlinks were caused. It even makes edits such as these. As such, I do believe that leaving us users to do this work manually is better than getting a bot to do it. Cheers. C.ChiamTalk 08:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

What also strikes me as ironic is that in your response to Hello71 above, you actually told him that: "It is extremely easy for a bot to do this, and do this well. See what I've been doing with Runescape -> RuneScape? Once again completely invalid." C.ChiamTalk 09:24, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Or do I not have a "good reason" to oppose? This community is not a bunch of donkeys as you describe us. We already have some bots, we know how they work, and we know that you want to do the right thing, but some of us jus tdon't think that this bot will do that much good to the wiki. Your repeated attacks to people who oppose also don't help. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:44, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose—Per Caleb. On a page I recently worked on, I fixed several errors the bot introduced last night. The errors were minor—the bot mistakenly capitalized Activities in the article—but I just quickly glanced, and it looks like the bot made the same mistake elsewhere. Horsehead Talk 13:17, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sorry to hear that Pywikipediabot is not functional, as it would have very useful... Looking at the erroneous edits pointed out by some (and some of the contributions mentioned by the OP in the archive), the bot operator needs to fix his/her AWB. Ajr, I guess you should be using your normal user account first, with the "Robot/Bot/AWB" in the edit summary.

For now, I would recommend that others postpone their judgement while the bot is on a trial run (2 weeks?). We should monitor the bot's edits and continue giving feedback, and we shall discuss the approval of the bot flag after the trial run.   az talk   16:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

No, this request is Closed, since it is obvious that the community here doesn't want any help that I can offer. Also, the problems with the general fixes are my fault, because this was the first time running the bot here I did not program in the required exceptions. As stated above, since the community is very firm in their opposition, even without giving me a chance, this is done. ajr 17:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
without giving a chance? I believe that was what Az did few seconds ago -.- bad_fetustalk 18:32, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
I should not need to prove anything. I am, or rather was, trying to help the wiki. Since it is painfully obvious that that help isn't wanted, this is closed. ajr 18:35, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
OH my god, we're unfair people who don't want to give you a chance!!! Oh no! Seriously. Stop the attitude. If you don't accept what the community wants, you can leave. Don't claim they don't have "a valid reason" and they're "not giving you a chance." Live with it. It is obvious that the author wants this request closed, so I request closure. 20:23, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I never paid attention to Ajr's actions on this forum. Now that I know about them, I can not honestly support such tactics. --LiquidTalk 20:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - coming from me this sounds odd, but can u guys calm down a bit? Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 01:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't understand how the bot is still running even with a community consensus. I've seen some of the bot's edits and they didn't really seem to be all that useful. Lil cloud 9 01:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Ajraddatz has withdrawn his request to bot Ajrbot. C.ChiamTalk 13:19, March 8, 2010 (UTC)