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)
 * We don't want anyone who isn't a flagged bot running large-scale automated tasks for two reason: 1. you have to be very careful with automated tasks, and 2. because it clutters RC which most of us use to monitor wiki actions. However, for some careful tasks (5 or 10 minor edits), its not unreasonable to use a bot. I ran a bot when a posted reminders about my mafia game on people's talk pages. I ran it with AWB. I'm not sure offhand, but AWB might only let you run it automated if you're a sysop or bot anyway but thats an example of when it might be okay to run one on a non-flagged account. However, we shouldn't encourage it. To quote from Wikipedia's bot policy: "Because bots are potentially capable of editing far faster than humans can, have a lower level of scrutiny on each edit than a human editor, may cause severe disruption if they malfunction or are misused, and are held to a high standard by the community, high standards are expected before a bot is approved for use on designated tasks." &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right - AWB will only run fully automated if the account has the bot flag, otherwise it has to run in a monitored state. Unless anyone else wanted to write their own bots in Perl/Python like I'm doing, allowing AWB bots on unflagged accounts wouldn't be a huge issue.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 19:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarifying: If you see a user running a bot, you think he's up to no good. Well, you shouldn't, you should AGF. Look at the edits, if they're no good, you can ban straight away because the edits are bad, no need to invoke bot policy. If the edits are good, tell him/her that his bot spams RC, and that it's better to get a bot flag, and to demonstrate that his bot is harmless. If (s)he's taken the trouble to write and run a benficial bot, (s)he's surely going to comply. And not banning bots by policy leaves a sysop free to run a bot from the sysop account when pages need to be mass-deleted or some such. We're agreed that it's best to follow procedure, but there is no point to wave a big stick that you can't well enforce anyhow. You'd be banning users for "spamming RC" basically. Do you think that should be policy? Spamming RC gets you blocked? mendel 20:42, 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)
 * Do they not make you write research papers in the UK? If you paraphrase from the original source, it's not plagarism. (Citation is still necessary of course). [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shes copy+pasted the whole thing from GWW, dispite conflicting licenses, and then modded a small amount of it. And to add to that, no attribution has been given at all. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I modded the entire thing, most of the sections are not in GWW version of this. The original I admit was a copyvio and that is why I changed it. It is no longer a copyvio so please stop May -- Shadowphoenix  17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at GWW:BOTS, I fail to note any similarity besides the most basic formatting style. Indeed, it seems that our version is a good deal more detailed. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the revisions, a few words have been changed and a paragraph or two added. Thats not much of a difference. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * that is what she is talking about, the proposal there is not as detalied and is not worded the same as this one. They do mean exactly the same thing, but that is not a copyvio.  They are both potential bot policies and that is why they are ver y similar and have the same meaing behind them.  I used GWW's version as a basis for what is there now, but I did not use GWW exact version.  -- Shadowphoenix  17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're very similar because you copy+pasted the original version word-for-word from GWW.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take the time to read both of them and you will see that they are not the same May -- Shadowphoenix  17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done so three times now. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't going to get anywhere with this, May. Because as of now, it is not the same article. If you're so obsessed with the original being a copyvio, get someone to delete the revision. Lord of all tyria 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Responsibility, Bot Flag, Shutdown and Restriction sections are almost exactly the same, apart from some differing wording. The added sections are pretty much the only difference, except for a few removed and changed words. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Shadowphoenix  17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right, Shadow. We shouldn't feed you. You're the one doing the trolling tbh. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May, you can't copyright meaning, you need a patent for that. Please look it up. mendel 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. What I'm referring to is the fact that this was copy+pasted from the GWW article with very little changes, imo. Just a few added paragraphs and an extra word or so. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Intro, Bot Flag, Responsibility, and Shutdown could use some revisions to further clarify that the text wasn't copied from GWW. JonTheMon 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems better now. I'll look to it again. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I reworked sections that were overly similar. Some sections had indeed been significantly changed and some sections were almost exactly the same. The sections that were exactly the same, were unfortunately already so well worded that it becomes hard to say the same thing a different way when it's already there. Still, its ok now. No more copyvio tags or else. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions
mendel 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC) mendel 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * clarify "attended": what are the responsibilities for someone who "attends" a bot?
 * does/should the policy cover using AWB in half auto (i.e. user clicks Save on every page)?
 * should bot code or AWB rules be posted to the wiki for review 24 hours before job start? (exception clause for adins and urgent tasks like vandalism)?
 * The summary line should indicate bot version; whenever you make a change to the bot rules (even AWB normal mode), increase the version number and keep a record (save the settings to a file named after your summary line/version). This is a preventive measure to allow error analysis if/when an error in programming occurs. (Yes, I can make a sublist from your contributions with just the contributions that have a certain code in the summary.)
 * If the policy states that bot code has to be provided, then AWB settings files should be put on the wiki.


 * The person who attends a bot is responsible for its actions, even if (for whatever strange reason) they did not make the bot themselves.
 * I consider AWB to be botting, even if it is semi-manual - you can still make plenty of mess if you aren't paying attention, very quick.
 * I would prefer the most current version of all bots' code/files/rules/etc. to be posted somewhere that they are publicly accessible. This allows for peer review which should help catch stupid mistakes like spelling errors or extra spaces - things which can totally bork some projects.
 * Bot edit summaries ought to be informative - they should mention which project they are working for, what bot is being used, and a version or other identification. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For edit summaries, I'd think a link to the bot task page and a version number would be sufficient, as all other info (language/tool used, etc.) should be given on the task page. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Entropy's points :

attended: what I meant was, what's the difference between "attended" and "unattended"? I'd assume that in both cases the user would be responsible, or would it be the bot author in the "unattended" case? What is it that the "attender" is supposed to be doing to be properly attending? Even if you can't proscribe that in detail because that may depend on the bot's exact task, some examples could be given. Should the botter continuously sample and review the latest edits of the bot?

If you cover semi-manual, some of the rules I am proposing need to be somewhat relaxed: you are going to be modifying rules on the fly while doing semi-manual work, and while it is no problem to increase the version number and save settings each time, going to the trouble to post the thing each time is impractical. Perhaps there should be a threshold: And a new one:
 * If more than 20 edits have been made using a particular ruleset, the rules should be posted; the same goes for an "evolving" ruleset, post the current version after 20 edits. AWB counts the edits in the status bar, it's easy to comply.
 * Corollary: Using AWB in semi-automatic for less than 20 edits does not constitute "botting" in the sense of this policy.
 * Fully automated bots should do a test run of 20 edits, and these edits should be carefully reviewed (24 hour period if practical) before doing the "real work". AWB bots should run these edits in manual mode, with the user reviewing every edit before saving.
 * No ban button requirement for semi-automatic bots if the talk page mechanism is implemented (and yes, AWB refuses to continue unless you visit the talk page, even in semi-automatic).

There is another drawback to semi-auto being a real bot: when you're doing a lot of manual editing using AWB, these edits would profit from review by the RC patrol, but if they're made from a bot-flagged account, not as many editors see them. If you're not doing them from a bot-flagged account, you're in violation of policy if you're doing more than 20 on a given day. 20 to 30 per hour might be ok, though, that's the speed of a non-automated editor doing a project, though I think blue rellik (contribs) is faster than that. A possible solution is to start using AWB on your main account until the ruleset is stable and the speed picks up, and then switch accounts, but that means the edits for this project are on the contributions lists of two different accounts, which makes them more inconvenient to track.


 * A semi-manual bot is considered a bot in the sense of this policy if it does 30 edits per hour (30 e/h; 30 eph) or more.

The deciding factor for flagging bots shouldn't be the spamming of RC; it is an annoyance, sure, but it has little permanent effect. The deciding factor is that an automatic bot makes less errors than a human (or, at the very least, is more consistent in the type of errors it makes) and thus needs less review. The speed of the bot is where you can see if the user really reviews the edits, or if he's on "manual full auto". Vipermagi wrote: ''A bot really stands out as other edits are only singular edits, and irregular. If someone's crashing RC with exactly 4 edits per minute and exactly the same edit each time... (source)''. And of course that's not true for AWB-assisted editing in most cases.

Now I have to go and make a task page for Marvin. That sucks. mendel 08:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Too long
Too long, too much red tape. Needs to be tightened. Parts should be labeled as guideline. Clearly state who gets a bot flag, and what actions will lose you the right to run a bot on the wiki. AGF bot users? --◄mendel► 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not enough bots on the Wiki that I think it needs to be hard codified. It's fine as is, but I will make some small clarifications I guess...You can also Be bold and DIY based on the conversations of this page and stuff. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean, I can also do the work myself? ;-) I may, at that, but as you write, the need is not great. My comment was mainly intended to prevent the policy's status from suddenly changing to "accepted" when it is, in my opinion, either "needs more work" or "failed". --◄mendel► 09:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)