GuildWiki talk:Bots

I don't think this is necessary, really. Only RT and Dr ishmael have authorized bots, and they are a) both sysops and b) both much more knowledgable than I am. 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, if GuildWiki was to get more bots, this my actaully come in handy :o) -- Shadowphoenix  23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is such a bad idea. It would also be useful if botting becomes a GuildWiki fad lol. Anyway, it would be helpful to have tips on when you shold be using a bot and when its okay to clutter RC because they have to be manual editting, and I think we should have even less tolerance of non-flagged accounts than what is mentioned here. I dont know about anyone else, but RC patrol is my primary way of keeping an eye on things. Its much harder when RC gets flooded with bot tasks. Also, I think it would be useful to make it mandatory to post the scripts for bot tasks that use one just in case we need to reverse the bot actions and the owner disappears. I'm not sure if you can export the AWB settings for non-scripted tasks but having that data would be good too. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 23:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a draft so add your ideas if u feel they are appropraite :) -- Shadowphoenix  23:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ishy's ideas:
 * Not all bots require script+framework - mine will be running self-contained Perl scripts, unless you count the Perlwikipedia module as the framework in that case. I wasn't sure how to reword this, so I left it alone.
 * I'd still like to restrict bots to flagged bot accounts. This may just be my job training speaking, but I worry for what might happen if we allow just anyone to run bots here.  We've recently seen how easily a non-bot user can disrupt the wiki by creating a large number of articles.  Yes, it would be easy enough to have another bot revert unapproved bot edits, but preventing something before it happens is better than having to do damage control afterwards.
 * I don't like the bit about bots stopping due to talkpage edits. This means that any malicious (or even unknowing) user could disrupt the bot just by posting on its talkpage.  That leaves "the big red button" that RT and I stole from Fyrenbot, which I think would be enough considering how active our current admins are.
 * Jedi's idea for when (not) to use a bot is good. There are many tasks, such as spellchecking, image license tagging, image deletion, etc. that require some subjective judgment, and therefore could not be performed by a fully automated bot.  I'll go ahead and write up a section for this.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 04:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page security measure is made incase something was to happen when no admins are online, it is made so that reg. users can stop the bot if it is needed; however, I can see how this could be misused, I still think it should be added. -- Shadowphoenix  04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on 14 hours a day or so, and RT is on the rest of the time. No problem. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 04:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What good is the bot list here?
There is a list of active bots on Bot_tasks. Duplicating that list here serves no purpose. Therefore, I expanded teh stub that was here to make a list of all flagged bot accounts. This is handy, because you can see at a glance who is currently flagged as bot, and it is better than the system generated list, because at the same glance you can see the owners and quickly click on the contributions, i.e. the same useful format that the list of active bots on Bot_tasks has. The information in the list as I wrote it is correct, it is on-topic here, it is not available elsewhere in this form, it has some use to some people (for me, for one). I'd like to see a good reason to delete it. And if you have this reason, I suspect it'll cover getting rid of the list altogether. Gah, how I hate fighting against wasting info. mendel 06:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When I created the proposal I wanted to have all flagged bots added there for reference purposes. So I would like all flagged bot accounts to be listed, not just active ones.  -- Shadowphoenix  13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A policy which, chances are, isnt going to go through tbh.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know this how? -- Shadowphoenix  14:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm psychic. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting and remaking.
We're still using GFDL content. This needs deleting and a total rewrite imo. Discussions can go here &mdash; Warw/Wick 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how much we reword it, its based on GWW's article on it. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Warwick, stop I can handle this. -- Shadowphoenix  14:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidently you can't, because when you copy and pasted this over you had no idea about the fact that it was breaching copyright licensing... &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not as aware as I am now, but you are starting to piss me off. I will re-write it myself, I can handle writing a policy.  I do not need discussion on it.  -- Shadowphoenix  14:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A badly spelt policy imo. Well, I'll be there to clean up the spelling, unless you plan on using a spelling mistake corrector. Yes, I'm sure you can handle writing a policy. Anyone can. But a good one? Hmm.. And anyway, you said "I can have a similar one written out soon". Thats exactly the problem. We dont want a similar one, because it would still, in technicality, be breaking the GDFL licensing, since if its similar you would have used that one as a base. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You do know that insulting me does not help your stance very much don't you. I will make sure that I leave no work for you, would not want you to have to work to hard.  Now go off to trolling someone else, I have work to do.  (fyi, I have written a good policy proposal a few times.  My best one would be archiving, but I decided to move it to the help section of GWW instead of it being a policy or guideline.)  -- Shadowphoenix  14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tbh, you know I'm a troll, and telling me that you're getting pissed off is pretty much troll-baiting. So we'll be waiting a few hours for this page to be edited then. Till then, could an admin delete this page because its currently breaking licensing? Thanks. :) &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * mm, didnt mean to remove my comment there, and I dont know how I did it. Oh well. SF, you're allowed to remove your own comments. Get over it. Afaik you've been allowed to for a long while. You're just not allowed to change other peoples comments. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No bots on unflagged accounts?

 * I suggested the following for the motivation paragraph:
 * There is no policy that forbids the running of bots from regular user accounts. Using a special "flagged" bot account keeps the bot edits out of the default view of the recent changes lag and thus makes it easier for people reading that log. For this reason every bot user is strongly encouraged to only run bots from a bot flagged account.
 * This should be put (back) in to some extent, with maybe just the first sentence changed, because it explains what a flag on a bot flag does and why it is useful to have one.
 * But actually I am still arguing for the first sentence to stay, for the following reasons:
 * Further down the policy restricts unflagged bots to 20 edits per day and requires 100 edits to be shown for a flag to be granted, this implies that bots can run from unflagged accounts.
 * A ban on bots is not enforceable.
 * I see no policy that makes sense to forbid them, if there's a problem with the bot edits you can ban the user for them, if there isn't, where's your cause for the ban? AGF!
 * And I can't imagine a user who goes to the trouble to code and run a beneficial bot who won't have it flagged when it is nicely suggested to him/her, so no policy is needed. mendel 15:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, what are you talking about??? All bots should be ran from their own account, it says nothing about them having to be flagged to make edits in this proposal.  -- Shadowphoenix  16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all? You only made one point. Mendel himself makes a good point, parts of the policy are actually somewhat contridicting themselves, and breaching other policies. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no policy that makes sense to forbid them, if there's a problem with the bot edits you can ban the user for them, if there isn't, where's your cause for the ban? AGF!; what is he talking about I didnt address that becuae I do not know what he is talking about. If a bot messes up you don't block the editor just the bot... Is that it?  -- Shadowphoenix  17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is against AGF to block somone for infinite because of a bot malfunction. :|&mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WTF r u talking about, it does not say that anywhere! -- Shadowphoenix  17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Block bots that malfunction"? &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ''"Bots can be programmed to shut down after any user posts anything on the bot account's talk page. All owners must enable this safety feature.

If a bot account is making harmful and/or disruptive edits or not following the above restrictions, any sysop or bureaucrat are free to block it in order to halt the bots activity. When blocking, the autoblock option should be turned off to avoid blocking the bot owner as well as the bot account." Read the proposal again -- Shadowphoenix '' 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What about bot error? Thats in technicality breaking AGF. And in any case, since most of us are running awb, just leaving a message on the talk page would halt the bot. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole point of what I just put, is to avoid blocking the bot owner if there is an error. -- Shadowphoenix  17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

UGH!
I have said this before, I will say it again: This needs TOTAL rewrite, not just a tad of different wording here, an extra paragraph there. &mdash; Warw/Wick 15:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a link to the thing its a copy vio of. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 15:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Easiest way would be to get permission from the people who wrote the original, perhaps? mendel 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * GWW for the most part dont like us.. >_< &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the parts I did not change, its becuase those are not in the GWW version of this policy. This had a major rewrite and is no longer a copyvio, get off it. -- Shadowphoenix  16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you just changed a little bit of the wording. When you look at the diffs, it has the same meaning, the wording is just changed slightly. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good fucking god, you mean one essay on a subject might be similar to another essay on the same subject? Lord of all tyria 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it has the same meaning, they are about the same thing. GWW:NPA and GW:NPA have the same meaning because they are both about No personal attacks, same goes for this. You make no sense. -- Shadowphoenix  17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean she copy+pasted all of GWW's, saved it, added a few bits to it, got a complaint and then edited it so it was slightly different, but meant the same. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, of course it means the same... It is about the same thing... Your still not making sense -- Shadowphoenix  17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't understand sense. You just edited it so it meant the same but with different words. In technicality, thats still copyvio. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was to write a new version of NPA and put it up here and it has the exact sme meaning as the one from GWW but with diff words it is not a copyvio; reread ur copyright laws -- Shadowphoenix  17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In all technicality, you're trolling me now. Anyway, if you copy+pasted GWW's one over here, and then edited a tad of it so it was in different words, but said the same thing, it would be copyvio. No, you reread your copyright laws, and whilst you're at it, read what I said before responding. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)