Forum:Requesting bot flags as per RS:IMAGES

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Requesting bot flags as per RS:IMAGES
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 August 2011 by Liquidhelium.

Okay, first off, let me start by listing a few URL's... RS:IMG#Image_name; Forum:Filenames; User talk:Azliq7#Creating a bot

Okay, now that's over with, I'll give a brief summary. User:Joeytje50 asked me a while back to take over a job that User:Azliq7 volunteered to do, because she seems to have left the Runescape wiki. I then posted on her user talk to find if she was really gone and not continuing his bot, and haven't heard from her since. I recently got a message from User:Rsa23899, that I got the "go-sign".

Anyways, in short, I was asked to create a wiki bot that takes Image Filenames and formats them as per Forum:Filenames. So that's why I want to ask for bot flags.

A detailed description of what the bot will do and what method the bot will use to do it. The latter is important because otherwise, the community may end up waiting and waiting for a bot that will never be able to carry out its intended tasks. How often the bot will run. All bots will run either continuously, periodically, or one time. If the bot is designed to run periodically, it should be specified how often it runs.

The bot will loop through all the images on this forum. First, it will be checked for two things: 1) Is it within the scope of Forum:Filenames? 2) Does it need renaming? If the answer to these two is yes, the image will be renamed according to the scheme. This bot will only be run once, in the best case scenario.

Who will be able to access it? Me, and anybody else who I allow, which is nobody at the moment. Anyways, this is my first time posting such a thing, or anything like this at all on YG. Please be gentle... :] Kolak EWW, runescape 13:51, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Strong oppose - I can't possibly support this. Firstly, you have just 34 edits, with only 6 of them being in the mainspace. Even an AWB flag is generally required to have at least 500 edits outside of userspace, and since nobody really knows you at all, there's no way in hell that's being waived for you. If someone more well-known on the wiki was applying, then I'd support giving them a bot flag, but you're basically a random user with good intentions, but nothing more, I'm afraid. Also, according to your userpage, you're here mainly to annoy Joey. That sends out all the wrong first impressions and I'm inclined to distrust you because of that. Then, I see you told Matt to "gtfo off your talk page". Again, all the wrong messages for someone wanting control of a bot. If you want to operate a bot, A) meet the requirements, and B) make sure the rest of the community sees you as a good, trustworthy editor. Real Nub 20:27, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

That "to annoy me" is a joke, and that is because we know each other irl. Also that gtfo my talk page was very likely a joke. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:03, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Supper strong oppose - I'm with Real here. And having something like that you are just here to annoy Joey makes me not trust you, nor have I seen anytime you have been editing. So basically oppose. Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 07:14, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I know him irl, and I know he won't abuse the bot JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:03, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

How he acts in real life has no bearing on this discussion. Real Nub 22:23, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - we do need a bot to move all files. What if Kolak programs the bot and somene else runs the bot, so that at least the job gets done. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:03, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, if we can agree. 222 talk 12:24, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not a fan of the entire aim of the project. ʞooɔ 20:06, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:27, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't a few people with AWB access do it? I have an AWB account but I know nothing about using it Real Nub 22:23, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
AWB doesn't work that way, unfortunately. I'm fairly sure you cannot automate the moving of files using AWB. 222 talk 01:12, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support bot, oppose Kolak running it - I see nothing wrong with the bot, but I think someone more trusted by the community would be more fit to run it. Matt (t) 05:50, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

To what end? If needed, I could just release the source, have somebody take a look at it and run it. Why does me not being known effect the quality/malicousity of the code? Kolak EWW, runescape 18:57, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
Well, a bot flag is a rather big thing. It allows that the edits made by an account be hidden from the RC. That's a big thing. I'm not saying you will do this, but there are a lot of bad things that can be done, and having a bot flag would allow those things to be done with almost complete transparency. Because we don't know you, we can't trust that you won't. Matt (t) 03:15, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's see a demonstration of what the bot would do, please. Then we can make an informed decision. Do 20 edits or something as the bot. ajr 13:59, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
1 problem is that to demonstrate a filemove bot you'd need custodian rights. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:08, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
How's that a problem? Give the account custodian then. I really don't think that lack of trust should be a deciding factor here - if the user was intent on vandalism, then there are easier ways to do it. ajr 20:23, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem is actually that it hasn't been made yet. I wanted to post this first; for if it got denied I would have done it all for nothing. Kolak EWW, runescape 11:08, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't remember volunteering for this... If I did, I apologise. AzBot can perform this task, but I don't think that the effort is worth it. We have several issues to sort out:

  • Last time I checked there were thousands of images in those categories... identifying which ones need moving proved troublesome, at least for a bot.
  • By moving the images, we will be creating a lot of redirects in the process. Do we need these redirects, or do we update the links to point to the new link? Creating redirects for images is actually not beneficial in the long run. Updating the links is even more of a hassle, since each image is generally used multiple times.
  • Moving images using bots is unreliable to say the least. I have had problems auto-moving image before with AzBot... and the problem lies with Wikia. Occasionally, the images do not actually "move" completely, leaving behind the "description" page. So you have two File pages: the new one without a description page (i.e. blank description), and the old one with the description page, but without an image. I don't know why this happens, and Wikia staff are unable to identify the problem (see RuneScape:Administrator_requests#Stubborn_file_move for one such example.)

So, we need to discuss these things before proceeding with the moves...   az talk   06:09, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Um, why not have it turn auto-redirect off? I have no idea how bots work so I don't know if that's possible but surely it is. We delete all image redirects so that would have to be fixed.. Gaz made me a JS code which automatically unticks the "create redirect" box when moving images, maybe something like that could help? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:12, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is possible. But what happens to all those links with the old name? We might end up with thousands of broken links when all the images are moved to their new names.   az talk   06:49, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was the purpose of the bot, to move the images then correct the file names. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:52, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - If there's no more discussion here in the next 3 days, I'm closing the thread. Suppa chuppa Talk 06:15, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to give Kolak bot rights, and with the issues presented by Az that were not able to be addressed, there is no consensus to have someone else run this bot. --LiquidTalk 14:37, August 11, 2011 (UTC)