Wikibooks talk:Bots

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Is there a list 2 Votes and/or discussion 3 One small issue 4 Draft of the unstable branch is up for approval as policy

[edit] Is there a list

Is there a list of account that have the bot flag on, available to the common Wikibookian ? --Panic 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Log/makebot lists all bot flag changes Special:Listusers can list current bot flags. For accounts available for mass edit requests, try Category:Wikibookians who are bots (Although I think they have all the same accounts. There's no central place for requests for help with (semi-)automated edits, save WB:SL, so far as I know. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Txs for the info. --Panic 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votes and/or discussion

Support - The only change I'd make is to clarify the sysop bot section. If I use AWB under Mike.lifeguard to do deletions without a flag is that ok? I think it should be - if I wanted a bot flag for those deletions, it'd need the extra discussion and approval at WB:RFA, but without the flag they're subject to the full scrutiny of normal deletions, so the tool used shouldn't matter. If the actions were to be "hidden" by a bot flag, then some prior discussion would be in order. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need a bot account that has been through RfA to take "admin" actions using a bot (I seem to recall being told that running a bot on an existing admin account was not ok). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my impression too - that using a bot for admin actions under an existing admin account isn't ok. But I think it should be - if the account is not bot-flagged (since the changes would be subject to the same scrutiny as any of your other admin actions). – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For what I remember of discussions on the problem, is that all bot action without the bot flag do appear in the changes log. So the main objection is not the use but the length or periodicity of the bot's actions, some admins do use scripts (that's a kind of bot), so the remaining problem is not to clutter the logs and keep a low number on errors. --Panic 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the impression that using an automated admin script is perfectly fine. In fact, I suspect (although cannot prove and refuse to make any such allegations) that certain users are already using such a script. Common tasks that would benefit from automation include mass-deletions (such as images, or books with large numbers of pages that have been VfD'd) or open proxy blocking (blocking large ranges at once). If you run such a script and dont tell anybody, what would be the difference from how things are now? If anything, we should encourage people to announce what tools they are using, so those tools can be opened to public scrutiny and reliability tests. I would say I am generally against giving such an admin-bot a flag, just because we do want all admin tasks to be easily viewable and verifiable. In fact, in lieu of a policy stating that such admin-scripts cannot be used, I would say that such tools should be cultivated and encouraged. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is this proposal still running? If not what about a merge or coming to a consensus with the unstable branch... --Panic (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will rename the thread to only discussion and leave it running as there was no announcement of a vote and no one seems willing to support what seems an adoption proposal (since the objective of the vote can only be implied). --Panic (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One small issue

I really like the current text of the proposal as-is. It's simple and really gets across the point that the bot flag is really not a big deal. One small point I noticed (and I still Support this proposal anyway) is that it's a little bit unclear about where the bot flag comes from. It says no real vote is required, but does that mean, as I think it should, that granting and revoking the bot flag is done at the discretion of bureaucrats only. It's a small issue, really, so I still support this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not let admins give and revoke the bot flag like we do now with the patrol and rollback flag? Would take some load off bureaucrats. --darklama 01:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that decision hasn't really borne any fruit - we still have only a handful of patrollers/rollbackers. Given admins may flag themselves for temp jobs, I don't see the need to make it an admin-settable bit. As well, bots can actually do damage; I'd like to think our bureaucrats are trusted to protect the community from such mishaps.

As well, can we try to keep conversation in one place? I chose WB:AA since it had the background info there. It'll be easier for everyone to see and evaluate what's going on with respect to the proposal if things are consolidated.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I didn't answer Andrew's question. Yes, the intent is that bureaucrats will simply grant the flag in uncontroversial cases. For cases which aren't obviously good or bad, the community should consider the request. Recall that I'm proposing the unstable version, not this one.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft of the unstable branch is up for approval as policy

The process is taking place here Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Bots. The proposed text for adoption is the October 24 2008, as a policy, motion started by User:Mike.lifeguard. --Panic (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)