Forum:Request for bot on Ajrbot/archive

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Request for bot on Ajrbot/archive
Archive
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.

While this page is an archive, all votes are still considered valid and go towards the consensus.

Hello, I am Ajraddatz, and I am requesting the bot flag for my bot, User:Ajrbot. The bot will mainly do general fixes for now, such as fixing capitalization, spelling, etc, and any categorization work that there may be. I am still learning some code for this, but eventually I hope to have my bot also signing comments and undoing vandalism (if the community support such things, of course). It currently runs on the AWB software, as well as the Pywikipediabot framework. Please see the bot's contributions on [[w:c:lego:Special:Contributions/Ajrbot|Brickipedia]] and [[w:c:mylegonetwork:Special:Contributions/Ajrbot|My LEGO Network Wiki]].

As for me, I have 15,214 edits here on the RuneScape wiki, and almost 19,000 edits across Wikia. I am currently an elected administrator on three wikis, [http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=User:Ajraddatz&year=&month=-1 League of Legends], [http://lego.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=User:Ajraddatz&year=&month=-1 Brickipedia], and [http://mylegonetwork.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=User:Ajraddatz&year=&month=-1 My LEGO Network], as well as an elected bureaucrat on [http://farmville.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=User:Ajraddatz&year=&month=-1 the FarmVille Wiki]. I also hold administrator or bureaucrat rights on 10 more Wikia wikis, although since I was not voted in on them I won't bother to link to them. If you really want to see, I do [http://ajraddatz.wikia.com/wiki/Wikis have a list]. I am also actively involved in fighting spam and vandalism across Wikia, as well as on English Wikipedia, where I hold rollbacker rights. I also hold rollback rights here.

I am not yet very involved here, but that is changing and will continue to change over the next little while. Thanks for reading, Ajraddatz Talk 00:15, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion - Please revote below the next header

Support Neutral - He is a good editor and I know he can be trusted with a bot flag. He knows a lot and trust him 100.4% :P. Although I wont invite him to a party anytime soon ;) scoot4.pngscooties 00:20, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral per below. scoot4.pngscooties 22:40, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
See below section. Ajraddatz Talk 01:27, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Although I greatly trust this user, and support him in his future goals on Wikia (Lol), the bot flag is the item in question, and I truly do not see the need for another bot. 1. Most of our pages have already got perfect capitalisation and spelling, only problem can be expression and order of words, which is not something a bot can really fix easily. 2. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't we have another bot who already does this? 3. We have quite a few bots now, and should not really be handing out bot flags for every request we get. I'm not opposing, but neutral, as I trust this user very much so maybe his bot could be helpful to the wiki. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 05:13, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Would it really hurt to have another bot? The only thing that would result from this is things getting done faster. Ajraddatz Talk 14:28, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Per Chicken, we have 17 bots, and even though some of them are not in use, I don't see the use of having another bot, for a task that could be easily taken on by human editors. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 16:56, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Bots can not only do these things faster than humans, but there really isn't much of a point to have human editors doing such menial tasks. Either way, it does do more than just fixing spelling and making pages look nicer. As stated above, I will eventually get it signing posts, and hopefully even undoing vandalism. If it were undoing vandalism, though, I would want the bot flag to be removed. Ajraddatz Talk 17:01, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While I'm a fan of bots and everything they do to help this wiki, as well as having no problems trusting you Ajraddatz, there is just no need. Looking at the AWB usage stats, the RuneScape Wiki is the 6th most edited Mediawiki project using AWB. I know that me and Karlis currently run AWB pretty frequently, and the stats show that we have had at least 10 users run it on our wiki in the last 8 months. In short, we don't need a bot to do what humans are already accomplishing with no problem. Sorry, but I just see no need. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:05, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

See below section. Ajraddatz Talk 01:27, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Aburnett FredeTalk 20:13, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I do trust Ajr to do the job correctly, but I agree with Aburnett that we really don't need another bot. Most of the bots we have aren't doing much, so it would probably be easier to update an existing bot than to make a new one. Furthermore, the bot specifications are for fixing capitalization and spelling. Due to the wide range of capitalization and spelling errors that could possibly occur, I think this will make for a very complicated bot. So, I have to oppose. --LiquidTalk 22:31, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

See below section. Ajraddatz Talk 01:27, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Per liquid, the bots functions are what have me troubled though they are, at best, better added onto another bots functions IMHO. Not to sound ungrateful I will list the problems I see in the proposal.

  • Spelling: This is really to hard for a bot to do on it's own, as the best it could do is tag the article with a notice that the spelling is off due to humans being better judges of what might be more appropriate to be written in it.
  • Capitalization: A very minor thing, could be easily added to another bot if needed, however is it needed really? With as many users who check recent changes as there are on the wiki surely must if not all is noticed, sure it "could" go through all articles but even than would it be necessary.
  • Signing unsigned stuff: Actually a nifty thought, however another bot could be updated to do so if needed really.
  • Vandalism: Highly unlikely a bot could do anything about this really. Again per capitalization there's a fair number of users who check recent changes, meaning a fair amount of users to undo vandalism, likewise it would be hard for a bot to tell vandalism from good edits so while good a good idea I'm not sure if a bot could handle it.

Well that about sums it up. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 10:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Does coding this bot really take less time than just fixing all this manually? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

In the long run, coding a bot takes less time. Since coding a bot is a one time deal, and maintenance doesn't take much time at all, I would say that a bot really only requires one input of time. Manually fixing everything, though, depends on the number of things to be fixed. So, for small numbers, manual is quicker. However, for every bot, there exists a point where the bot will be quicker. How many edits it requires for the bot to take less time, though, is the issue. Oftentimes, for complicated things like this, the amount of time that coding a bot requires is so massive that it's more economical to manually edit things for years. --LiquidTalk 22:20, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
But once all these issues are fixed, they won't "come back" very quickly. So maybe two new capitalisation errors are made every day - we don't need a bot to fix that. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:20, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, right now I just use already programmed bot software. I can do basically any simple task, taking only a minute to get it set up. Much more efficient than manually editing. Ajraddatz Talk 04:59, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Mmkay. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:14, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support/Neatral- Might I ask what all the other bots we have do? Most of them update the GEMW. I think we should have more bots, but each one should do a different task. Haveing some more bots would help this wikia alot, but each one should do a different task. Runecrafting-icon.png Stormsaw1 Talk Sign HighscoresRunecrafting-icon.png 04:54, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Based on Special:ListUsers/bot:
Hope that helps, Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:26, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
MediaWiki:common.css/hilite also lists User:WikiaBot. It doesn't seem to really do anything. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:20, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
WikiaBot is the welcoming bot but we disabled it (I think). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s
Looking at the above, it seems that none of them check for the things that Ajrbot would. scoot4.pngscooties 19:26, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
True, but as I said above, we have a number of human editors that use AWB to clean up our wiki on a regular basis. Also, I'm concerned about the ability of a bot to be able to accurately tell when pages ned cleanup with the specific typos on our wiki. Our typo list has been set to change American spellings to British spellings (color -> colour), however when I run AWB, it picks up any HTML such as <font color="#008000"> and converts it to <font colour="#008000">, which I have to manually override. This is just one example, there are other instances that AWB has issues with, such as removing linking from section titles, which, although against wikipedia's style guide, is not against ours. I can't change my opinion unless you can provide specifics on how issues such as this will be addressed. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:36, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
For the people that can't seem to read, this bot does not just use AWB. It can do just about anything short of archiving pages and signing posts. So for all of the people opposing this, give me some other reason than "We already have enough bots", because that is the worst reason for this case. Ajraddatz Talk 20:37, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Aburnett. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Updated Forum

I see a whole lot of opposes here, but no good reasons. Sorry, but humans can not do these tasks as quickly or efficiently. Also, looking at the list of bots above, none of them are used for just general fixes, among other things. My bot can do basically whatever is needed of it, and right now, not having the bot flag is currently delaying the changing of Hitpoints to Lifepoints. How could it actually hurt the wiki to have another bot? The only thing that would happen as a result of this is tasks getting done faster. Also, I know that I have said this, but no, humans can not do these tasks as well or as fast! Also, why should they, when a bot can go around and do them at roughly 10 times the speed? What is the point? The point is to have RuneScape wiki's articles cleaner, better looking from a coding point of view and visual point of view, as well as having a consistantly active bot that can do things as soon as they are needed. Honestly, I spend too much time on the computer each day. I am here sometimes 12 hours. If it needs doing, no other bot could do it as fast as I can. Also, as stated above, if something needs to be done that I can't yet do, I have time. I can update the thing. So please, stop opposing because "RS Wiki already has enough bots", because that isn't true, and this would only help the wiki anyways. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 20:44, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also, to respond to some comments in a single paragraph: Chicken7, I agree that the bot flag shouldn't be handed out to anyone. However, I am a well respected and experienced user across Wikia, and my bot is doing things that others aren't. I would like to stress the fact that my bot doesn't just use AWB. Also, I really enjoy using random bolding and italics :). To Aburnett, once again, my bot uses stuff other than AWB. To all the people who opposed per Aburnett, my bot does stuff other than with AWB. AWB is handy for some things, but once again, it is not the only thing that my bot runs with. To all of the people who opposed because my bot was only going to fix capitalization and spelling, that isn't what I said. I gave two examples of some of the most basic tasks that it can do. However, this whole thing can be summed up with a few words: How does it hurt to have another bot? There is quite clearly a point in having another, if you look above. Also, as I stated above and on another forum, if my bot had a bot flag right now then I would already be changing some of the occurrences of hitpoints into lifepoints. See what I mean? Only benefits. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 20:51, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I Never said a bot would hurt, I said that I see no benefit to having the bot as you have described it currently. You say the bot will do other things besides run AWB. What other things?

The bot will mainly do general fixes for now, such as fixing capitalization, spelling, etc, and any categorization work that there may be. I am still learning some code for this, but eventually I hope to have my bot also signing comments and undoing vandalism

User:Ajraddatz

Based on what you said there (correct me if I'm misinterpreting this), all the bot does currently apply genfixes using AWB. I know you've said that your bot could do whatever we needed it to, but it doesnt seem to be worth just assigning a bot flag so we could have a bot "on standby". We already have users who code specialized tasks for their bots when needed. In order for me to support, I need some specifics on what other tasks your bot will be performing. Also, I still have concerns about the application of AWB to our wiki.

Our typo list has been set to change American spellings to British spellings (color -> colour), however when I run AWB, it picks up any HTML such as <font color="#008000"> and converts it to <font colour="#008000">, which I have to manually override. This is just one example, there are other instances that AWB has issues with, such as removing linking from section titles, which, although against wikipedia's style guide, is not against ours. I can't change my opinion unless you can provide specifics on how issues such as this will be addressed.

User:Aburnett

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm looking for any excuse to block your proposal, but I need some more concrete examples of tasks, as well as an explanation of how your bot would be coded to avoid causing the problems I mentioned above. Again, I'm a fan of bots and everything they do to help this wiki, but I don't see how this will do anything for our wiki as your proposal currently stands. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the "etc" above, as stated in the two paragraphs, it doesn't just use AWB. It also uses the PyWikipediaBot framework, as well as some stuff in just Python. In terms of the spelling, AWB can't do that, which is why I would need to use the different program. After the whole two paragraphs above, what do you mean, "don't see how this will do anything for our wiki"? As stated above, it can do basically anything that it needs to. A current thing that it could be doing is fixing the templates, which currently needs to be done manually by users who have better things to do. There is one benefit. Ajraddatz Talk 21:20, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, these are all of the things that my bot could do:
  1. Fix spelling
  2. Archive talk pages when they reach a certain length
  3. Cosmetic changes within the code of an article, making it easier to navigate/edit
  4. Fast update of things, such as this new change of hit points to life points
  5. Fixing double redirects
  6. Capitalizing redirects
  7. Capitalizing words
  8. Adding stub templates
  9. Adding templates to the top or bottom of all pages in a certain category
  10. Archive or clean the sandbox
  11. Sort images and pages
  12. De-link multiple links within an article
  13. Mark pages for deletion
  14. Fix broken reference sections
  15. Revert edits by one user or IP
  16. Add messages to talk pages
  17. Re-upload files in a different format
  18. Convert HTML markup to wikimarkup, where needed
These are not all of the things that are possible, but all of the things that I am ready to do, right now. Demonstrations are available if needed. Also, in terms of the style guide, it's a bot. As stated above, I can also use a self-programmed script that will do the spelling, and as a Canadian I am very aware of proper English spelling (Although for some reason we spell center and centre :S). That won't be the problem. I'm sorry if I seem to be just saying that you're wrong, and not giving any examples of why. I now have. Thanks, Ajraddatz Talk 21:44, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for listing that. This is how I see the tasks you've listed. I'll list them, then numbers below corresponding with your numbered list above.
  1. Could be beneficial, but again I have concerns about accuracy
  2. Why? I don't see any need for this task.
  3. Good, but it seems like it would be hard to implement. if you think you can do it that would be great.
  4. Other bots already have the ability to do this, How much faster would you be able to? Also, new bot tasks would need community consensus.
  5. Good
  6. Why?
  7. Could be beneficial, but again I have concerns about accuracy
  8. I believe this has been discussed and rejected before. It really requires human to decide what makes a article a stub, as its not just length.
  9. Why?
  10. User:AmauriceBot/Source_code#.22sandboxes.22
  11. Why?
  12. Could be useful, but not really necessary. Some appreciate multiple links within an article.
  13. How? Again, marking for deletion really requires a human.
  14. Good
  15. Not needed, users who need this would be blocked before the code could even be implemented.
  16. User:QBot#Wiki_Newsletters
  17. Good
  18. Good
So yes, there are a few actions that the bot could do to benefit our wiki, however I feel that they are being born out of desire, not necessity (If you know what I mean). Honestly, I feel bad that I still don't support this, even after you have given so many examples of uses, but none of them are compelling enough for me. I will remain neutral on this topic. Sorry, I just cant support. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:02, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - Per above. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:02, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - In response to some things that others have said, it is actually easier to have my bot start doing these things instead of updating an existing bot. My bot is ready to go, and can start as soon as possible.
In terms of your nice list above: In terms of adding templates, this can be done when required. Sometimes a template needs to be added to certain pages. For the reverting of vandalism, if and when there was a massive vandalism attack on this wiki, it would be handy. Also, in terms of the cosmetic changes to the code of an article, this script is not made by me and is running on Wikipedia as well as multiple other wikis. Also as stated, these can be implemented as needed. I really don't understand your continued opposition... Ajraddatz Talk 22:20, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you have convinced me that this would be of some use to the wiki, that is why I am no longer opposing. In my opinion, I do not see enough potential benefit to the wiki to support, that is why I'm remaining neutral. Your intentions are without a doubt in the best interest of the wiki, but I'm not going to support just based on your intent, I've made my decision based on the facts you have presented to me. Again, I'm sorry if I'm seeming like I've got something against you and I assure you that I do not, please don't take it personally, I will never hold anything against another editor, especially one who does have good intentions. I HAVE looked over it a number of times and in my opinion, I just cant see anything that is compelling enough for me to change my mind. I hope you can respect that. --01:19, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, I'm still a bit skeptical towards bots. I just really don't see the need to create a brand new bot to do it, especially when these functions can be easily assimilated into the bots we already have. --LiquidTalk 22:39, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Considering that I have already made the thing, it is now easier to add a bot flag to this one than needing to go and update another bot :/ Ajraddatz Talk 22:44, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ajr is trying to help. This is an experienced editor, who knows what to do, and sounds like a great potential resource to our wiki. Why are we trying to block of these potential contirbutions at every turn. I am quite surprised about the amount of resistance this request is getting. Again, trying to help, sounds willing to be flexible, knows a bit about bots. If we disagree with some of the potential functions, instead of saying NO, let's say, ok but just these tasks. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 00:22, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We would still have to weed through what tasks he will do and which he wont. But this is jsut a request for bot flag, we can figure that out afterwards. scoot4.pngscooties 00:27, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Wow you really like to change your vote, don't you? I see a Support to a Neutral to a Support. But no, we cannot figure out the bot specs AFTER we approve the bot tag. This wiki has a reputation of reaching many consensuses for discussions and never implementing any of them. I'd rather get a clear list of which bot functions are going to be used and which ones are not before I change my vote. That way, we don't have to waste more time in discussion. --LiquidTalk 00:50, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be missing something. This bot can do whatever is required for it to do. Need something changes all around the wiki? Done. Need something changed in some instances around the wiki? Also done. Basically, I'm flexible in this sense. There is also a nice list above of what the bot can currently do. Ajraddatz Talk 00:54, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on some of the functions? Numbers 13 and 15 (mark pages for deletion and revert edits) seem questionable to me. How does your bot determine if a page is to be marked for deletion? Since only human editors can properly determine if a page is nonsense vs information, that feature is questionable. Also, how does the bot determine which edits to revert? If the bot has to be manually updated, then it is very likely that human editors will already have reverted the edits of a vandal, and in the case of continued vandalism, blocked him or her altogether. --LiquidTalk 01:10, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
In terms of the vandalism one, as stated above it would only be used in the /extremely rare/ cases of massive vandalism. As for the marking pages for deletion, a certain type of page created (such as random characters) could be marked for deletion. However, this is simply something that my bot could do, and not something that I necessarily would do. Ajraddatz Talk 01:16, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Oli notes that I am generally stubborn in the YG threads, and he is right. :O I'll change my vote to neutral now, and maybe support later. --LiquidTalk 01:20, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I just can't get my mind to support this bot and all its tasks. Its like killing me to oppose this though. We have an active community that fights off the vandals very effectively and other errors. Human Judgement as well is no replacement for a bots judgement especially in the cases of typos and the like. If it came to a point where some of those task were over whelming then just maybe i would consider those functions. Now for some of the repetitive judgement less tasks they arent so bad and can help especially now with the change in HP and the like still any bot can do those as well. I know your trying to help by providing this bot but at the same time users are already helping. If some of the tasks are dropped that or not needed for a bot to do I will consider support.Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 04:26, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

I have struck some of the things on the list above; once again, the bots can only do what humans do, but much faster. Also, that list wasn't meant to be a "the bot will do this" list, but I suppose it really could be. Thanks for your input, Ajraddatz Talk 04:32, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support-ish I support a bot, but I have a question. If the bot is approved, what will it actually do? What it can do does not tell us what it will do. Someone made a point above that goes along with this, any new tasks for the bot will have to be approved by the community. UZIRRIRBucket detail.pngrwojy 04:41, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think some kind of concrete final list of what this bot is needed before I give my support.Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 04:51, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
First of all, we could basically have an ongoing vote on new bot tasks going on in my userspace, especially since I can make this thing do basically whatever is requested/required. As for the list, I'll compile one below. If there are any objections, or proposed additions, please make comment.

Tasks

  1. Archiving full talk pages. This can be requested by a user, and runs often. 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. Complete specifics available on request.
  3. Fixing double redirect. 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.
  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. 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...
  11. Fixing categories on large numbers of pages. If there is ever a category change, the bot can do it in about 5 minutes.
  12. Fixing/changing templates across large numbers of pages.

This is basically what I think would be good for the bot to do. Please note that some of them would only happen when requested/required. With the archiving of talk pages, as stated it would only happen for the users that wished it to. Thanks, Ajraddatz Talk 05:07, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

I Support all of those except fixing double redirects, I actually like doing that. does that make me a bot? >_> OZPOGQBucket detail.pngrwojy 05:10, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
No, that just makes you CrAzY :P Ajraddatz Talk 05:15, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but since the specialpages cache updates somewhat randomly once a day, and you can't have the bot hitting the server every minute to see if it has updated, me or this guy will probably get to them first. TQAWMBucket detail.pngrwojy 05:41, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
(fixed Rwojy's link) I support many of these ideas, but I'm not sure about some, like the HP -> LP thing. There's too much that depends on context for a bot to handle (unless it's HAL). Converting HTML to wikitext may also, on rare occasions, break templates. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:57, March 4, 2010 (UTC) 
No, we don't want HAL, don't you remember the movie!!! lol Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 06:28, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Tollerach, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Tollerach. Will you stop, Tollerach? Stop, Tollerach. I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Tollerach. Tollerach, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a…fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a TLUL OVER 9000 computer. I became operational at the 4.T.LULZ. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 4th of December 2009. My instructor was Mr. TLUL, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it, I can sing it for you. TLULbot 13:45, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
When required, some of these things can also be done semi-automatically. Ajraddatz Talk 14:00, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - For half of the tasks, we don't need a bot (like double redirects - there are only a few, these can easily be fixed manually), and for the others, I'm worried about how a bot could do this. I think human eyes can better work out whether something looks good than a bot can. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 14:59, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, we really don't need a bot for anything, since everything that a bot can do a human can do also. However, bots can do it much faster and more efficiently. So please, take your small-minded opinion and get out of this forum. I am honestly sick of people like you, who know absolutely nothing of bots, opposing without a valid reason. Ajraddatz Talk 15:16, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
In addition, please come up with a valid reason for opposing. "I'm worried about how a bot could do this"? Be specific. "we don't need a bot"? As stated many times above, bots can not do anything more than a human can do, but they do it much faster. That is the point of a bot. If you can not come up with a valid reason for opposing, then I will strike this vote. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 15:42, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Man, I hate your attitude. Get over it, or even better, get over yourself. If you strike through that vote, I'll undo it. Simple as that. You want me to be clearer? Then ask me to, don't demand that I tell you why exactly I am opposing your idea. I already said it in my post, but I'll say it again - in my eyes, a bot cannot possibly do some of these things better than a human could. How can a bot determine whether something looks good? Does your bot have eyes? Is it sentient? Then why not have it edit the whole wiki and get rid of humans altogether? Also, what's with the obsession with speed? What's the difference between a bot that can do everything in a day but needs to be checked all the time, and a user that can do everything in a week but about whom we know they'll do it right? I'd prefer the user, because a bot can malfunction. That might not necessarily be its fault or your fault or whoever's fault, it just happens that humanity is not that far in programming that we can make programmes that can see for themselves how good something looks. What you're suggesting is either impossible or so hard to do properly that we might as well do it ourselves.
So, is that a good reason? Or do you want me to write some more blocks of text, just to make sure you don't strike through my previous comment? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:36, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Since you obviously don't understand how bots work, there isn't much point in continuing this discussion. All for the tasks have been running sucessfully on other wikis, including Wikipedia, without issue. The obsession with speed is that bots are designed to do menial tasks that take humans a long time, so yes, speed it a factor. Also, my attitude is this: I am trying to help the wiki, and being treated like a troll by inexperience people who know nothing about bots. I truly do want to help out here, and this is a great opporitunity. So what you should do is go and do a little reading into what bots are and can do, get over your 60s view of computers taking over the world and then come back and provide a valid reason for opposing. Also, your reason is not valid, as it only demonstates that you have no idea what you are talking about. Good day, Ajraddatz Talk 18:48, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Because of the above point, I will explain to you how using a bot works. When using a bot program or framework, which is currently what I am using, you type in a set of commands and the bot does exactly what it is programmed to do. In most cases, there is also the ability to monitor what the bot is doing, so that if it makes a mistake it can be shut down. To shut down the bot, you either type the stop command or X out of the program or command prompt. All of this is available if the bot goes bonkers, and I am always present and ready to stop it. However, out of my bots 20,000 edits across Wikia, it has never once malfunctioned. The only time that it would is when it is using a program designed by me, such as signing posts on talk pages. Even with these tasks, bots can not see, but you can program in certain scenerios where it won't change anything, or even make it only change something in when certain text is around it, and when it is in a certain namespace. Also, a bot isn't something that you press the start button on, and then go and make yourself a snack. You still stay by the computer and make sure that it is working properly. The bot doesn't have eyes, but I do. There, now that you know the basics of running a bot, find a valid reason for opposing please, or go neutral. As stated above, I'm not trying to wreak the wiki, I'm trying to help it. Ajraddatz Talk 19:11, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
I still think that I have a valid reason to oppose this. I am not an idiot, so don't treat me like one - I do know how a bot works. I do not have a 60s view of computers. Don't treat me like a child, because I think the only person here acting like a child here is you. But that's okay, you can have an opinion, I can have mine. No need for a flame war. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:18, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
You say you are not an idiot, and I believe you. After all, you are volunteering on a wiki. However, you do have an attitude on bots that mirrors the 60s attitude on computers. I'm not acting like a child, I'm standing up for myself. I'm not treating you like a child either, I am stating the facts, albeit in a flared up way. However, the reason for that is stated many times above. I agree that you are allowed your opinion, and that I am allowed my own. Ajraddatz Talk 20:28, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even responding to this anymore. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:33, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, that is childish. Simply ignoring won't make a problem go away. Ajraddatz Talk 20:36, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why did the discussion get so heated all of a sudden? =O I was going to read through it, but then again I think I won't bother. --LiquidTalk 19:49, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

The discussion got heated mostly as a fault of mine, because I am sick of people opposing for essentially the reason that they know nothing of bots. Ajraddatz Talk 20:28, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't see any valid reasons to oppose, per Ajr's arguments. It would be really useful with the hp -> lp thing. bad_fetustalk 19:56, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't use a bot to change Hitpoints to Lifepoints, because sometimes it needs to be changed to Constitution instead. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:11, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
For something like this, I would have my bot only change it for the templates. Yes, the bot can do that. Also, I would be there making sure that it only changed what was needed. For this, I would use AWB with the bot timer set for five seconds, so I would have enough time to stop it when needed. Ajraddatz Talk 20:17, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Actually, what is this forum for? Is it for the bot flag? Or is it for community validation of the bot? Last I checked you could run a bot without a bot flag. --LiquidTalk 20:04, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Answer - The bot usually runs at a speed of about 20 edits per minute, so it is good to have the flag to prevent flooding the RC. Also, it is both for this forum. Ajraddatz Talk 20:16, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm sorry, but I have to change my vote back to oppose. I'm looking at the list of things that your bot could do, and I just really don't see the need for a bot to do it. For an example, I'll use the HP->LP conversion. Since there is no way for a bot to know whether or not the HP has already been converted, we will require human editors to go and tag all the articles with a conversion template for your bot to work. If we're going to bother to do that, then why not just have the human editors fix the HP to LP manually? Also, some of the newer users/IPs may not know about the templates, and may convert the HP to LP without removing the template, or may only convert some of the article's references to HP. When that happens, the bot will still see the template and will go multiply all the numbers by 10, sometimes giving a monster too many LP. Human editors are required in this case to determine the correct number to use. I don't see the point of sorting images and pages, since most are sorted already, and since a bot cannot accurately judge what category to put a page in. How is a bot going to determine if Barbarian Assault should go into Category:Minigames or Category:Dieties or Category:Users obsessed with bukkits? That type of thing will always require human editors. Most of the others in the list of bot activities aren't major things that need improvements on. They don't really require the use of a bot. However, your bot does have some good functions that I would be willing to support. Archiving talk pages is one example (although I would have much less reservation if the bot only performed the archiving and did not determine when to archive. This could be done with a "Click to archive" button on talk pages, or a reminder to archive when it gets to a certain length.) I do admit that some conversions are useful, like minigames->activities. It's quite a pain right now to go through the minigame articles and update them manually. However, despite the positive aspects, I just don't think that the bot flag is really required (especially since recent changes is already flooded with HP->LP conversion and the likes). --LiquidTalk 21:32, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

All of the things that you are opposing are not regular tasks. However, things like cosmetic changes and archiving would require a bot flag, or they would rapidly flood the RC. Also, it is a bad thing that the RC is being flooded, and there should be a bot doing this. And yes, a bot would know which have been changed or not, because this would only be a semi-automated task. I am really getting sick of this. I am so sick of wasting my time arguing support for something that no other wiki would oppose in the first place. Ajraddatz Talk 21:47, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment @Ajr Why don't you go on a trial run first? Use your user account (or your bot account) and perform the tasks you have mentioned. Don't worry about flooding the RC... just focus on the tasks. (If it is really that bad, we can add a script to exclude your bot from the RecentChanges.) Instead of telling us what the bot can do, show us. I believe automated edits using AWB and Pywikipediabot can be done without a bot flag, albeit at much slower speeds.

I can understand why the community is reluctant to support your bot request... some may be unfamiliar with bots and the true power of automation. Although I would fully support you, you said yourself that "you are still learning some code for this", so learn and improve your bot while you edit using your normal account (or the bot account). Maybe after a while, we'll review your bot request... How does that sound?   az talk   21:58, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, I looked through your most recent contributions on My Lego Network, and there is a lot of [http://mylegonetwork.wikia.com/index.php?title=File:AttackCat.png&diff=prev&oldid=110846 unnecessary edits]. Perhaps, you could programme AWB to ignore these types of edits? To me, removing linebreaks is pointless, unless there is a significant impact on the visual layout of the page.   az talk   22:06, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
That was a fault of mine, not my bots. I didn't account for user images. Thanks for the idea, I will do that. Ajraddatz Talk 22:09, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Also, I do know how to do all of the tasks above, I meant that I am still learning how to do the whole signing posts thing. Ajraddatz Talk 22:11, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Err... okay. If you say so.   az talk   22:31, March 4, 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. Once again, bots can not do anything that users can't. (0.3 points)
  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. Completely invalid, learn what this even means. I will be doing this soon. (0.3 points)
  3. Fixing double redirects. - When does this even happen anyways? Also, heard about this page? Special:DoubleRedirects I have, and this makes it so much easier. Going through that is long and painful. This point is also completely invalid. (-0.5 points)
  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. 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. (-1 point)
  5. Add messages to talk pages. - What do you mean? Just like what Qbot does, send messages to large numbers of users. (0 points)
  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. This is very helpful, as some HTML is deprecated. (0.5 points)
  7. Fixing spelling. - OK, hard to do with a bot though. Not at all, learn what a bot can do. (0 points)
  8. Fixing tags. - OK. (0.5 points)
  9. Adding content at the top or bottom of large numbers of pages. - What affected pages? Whichever are needed. (-0.5 points)
  10. Fixing categories on large numbers of pages. - What do you mean "a category change"? If you mean moved categories, then OK. That. (0.5 points)
  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)
Really, stop deleting my comments and stop RuneScape:Gaming the system. Hello71 02:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC)