Brickipedia:BAG/Adminbot - LcawteBot

Brickipedia →

Bot Approval Group Forum

→ Adminbot - LcawteBot

So it appears there has been some varied opinions on LcawteBot becoming sysop. So we're moving the discussion here. --Lcawte 09:24, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

New Discussion

So, I talked about policy changes, not exactly a policy change, but along the same lines. Article comments, some genuis person suggested getting a bot to delete them. Forum. I have a list of comments ready to go to do deletion, so, this should be it, the discussion about admin bots.. as one of the most senior members of the wiki still active (what? May 2009 I cam here!), well one of them, it is highly unlikely I will vandalism, as I would of done it by now, and probally the wiki's most knowledgable person when it comes to bots.. I know when I say that the bot will be fine to run as admin, I mean it.. Comments below --Lcawte 18:34, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Tasks for an Adminbot

• Deleting broken redirects.
• Deleting mass ammounts of pages. Example: Policy changes on Date pages, bot can mass delete them
• If images get converted to PNG, once tagged, bot will mass delete the old JPG's.
• Deleting blog posts/comments? Alot of users want their blog posts deleted when they are done with them, these cause massive RC floods, as generally most have 10+ comments. If users tagged these posts under say, Blog posts for deletion, an admin bot could come round and delete them every now and again, avoiding the painful RC flood, which is very important for CVU members.

Old Discussion

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to move this discussion here. LcawteBot (-2) As operator and nominator. LcawteBot is helpful bot around the wiki, and often marks alot of Broken Redirects for deletion, as Kingcjc will know. I am proposing LcawteBot for adminship so he can delete only Broken Redirects and anything in the Category:Watermarked Images, unless asked to delete anything by another admin. The bot will not do a task that isnt properly assessed. Support Well, I've thought it over, and before you think I am crazy, just listen: Lcawte is a very experienced user here, and if anything bad happens, it's not like it affects the wiki that bad; Lcawte can shut him up and Nighthawk leader will bring him down. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 12:23, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Support. Some tasks of the bot need admin access to work well. Also, it doesn't matter if the operator is administrator or not or have experience or not... Vĕģą-Ďāґķ 17:56, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Well if the operator isn't expierienced he shouldn't have a bot in the first place (not saying Lcawte is inexpierienced; obviously he's expierienced). Construction Worker Do you need help? 21:49, February 12, 2010 (UTC) I think he meant the op experianced with Admin tools and how adminship works.. --Lcawte 11:28, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Sorry, but I don't think a bot should become admin. When you become admin, I will support then. GG 360 14:53, February 7, 2010 (UTC) Per GameGear360 User:Mariofighter3/sig I just don't trust bots enough to have them be admin. Are people that lazy that they can't press a few buttons to delete a page themselves? Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:47, February 7, 2010 (UTC) Ajraddatz Talk 01:24, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Comments GG360, Its not like the bot will be doing any harm, and it wont easily delete the entire wiki, if it did, which it wont, it will take staff like 2 seconds to undo it. If it deletes a page accidently, I could undo, and whats the difference between me being a rollback/patroller to an admin, and how does it involve the bot? --Lcawte 15:27, February 7, 2010 (UTC) It's just that I think when you become admin the bot will come too. Besides, it's just a bot. GG 360 15:35, February 7, 2010 (UTC) May I point out exibit Ajrbot... Ajraddatz is an admin, his bot isnt admin.. When needed, the bot can delete pages alot faster than humans, and will be a key tool for any policy change arounds etc. Plus, I think Kingcjc is getting kinda annoyed with deleting them, it will be giving him a break for starters. --Lcawte 15:41, February 7, 2010 (UTC) Lcawte (and his Bot) is a trusted user of this wiki. The bot has already proven itself helpful and useful across the wiki and would be able to help keep the wiki clean and broken-redirect and watermarked images free. If Lcawte not being an admin is a problem that can easily be fixed. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:37, February 7, 2010 (UTC) I dont mind either way. Its not really the annoyed deleting, Its the annoyingness of not knowing they are up for deletion and then people moaning about it as most people dont use deleting requests. (So more of the normal article deleting, but waahtever :P) Kingcjc 20:55, February 7, 2010 (UTC) I'm neutral, but leaning towards supporting. Lcawtebot has been a great bot (and has the wiki's highest editcount by far). And unless Lcawte has programmed some highly intelligent brain into his bot, it won't be making any policy decisions, just doing a few deletions. But I still just have a few reservations about bots, which is why I can't bring myself to support just yet. NovaHawk 22:00, February 7, 2010 (UTC) By that I meant if a policy changed and a large ammount of pages/files needed deleting, then it would do it. --Lcawte 18:20, February 8, 2010 (UTC) A bot as an Admin, you guys are too funny Gladiatoring 12:05, February 8, 2010 (UTC) I just think when Lcawte himself becomes an admin, his bot will too. GG 360 12:06, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Is that so? Would be worth a think... Maybe we could introduce that. User:Samdo994/sig2 13:34, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Gladiatoring, what? Look around, all over the place there are admin bots. --Lcawte 18:20, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Alright, here I am to voice my opinion. I think that Lcawte is a good user, and will make a good admin here someday, but I really don't like the idea of having a bot with an admin flag. What if this bot started to randomly delete pages? Nobody would notice because it's edits are hidden. I think that any bots running admin tasks should just run on the bot owner's account, unless they are deleting hundreds of pages. Also, this would give Lcawte the ability to ruin the wiki if he wanted to. Nobody would notice since the bot edits are hidden in the RC. Overall, I think it is better if bots stay un-admined. Ajraddatz Talk 19:26, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Thats true, but why would I do that? I've been here longer than Ajr, If I wanted to ruin the wiki, I would just vandalise. Plus, Ajr, you've seen the bot run admin stuff on AOES Wiki... --Lcawte 19:42, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Oh and the deleting loads of pages bit... There are loads of bots that run on the same on Wikipedia, as admins, and I would notice it via the command prompt, its not like the bots on a shell.. --Lcawte 19:44, February 8, 2010 (UTC) A small, barely active wiki like AOES doesn't matter as much as Wikia's largest toy-related wiki. Also, while you most likely wouldn't, why give anyone that temptation? Hey, even I would want my bot adminified. Ajraddatz Talk 23:00, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Well, it's not uncommon that bots have admin rights (see here). But there should be some thorrough technical assessment going on beforehand to assure that the bot will do what it's supposed to do, and nothing more nothing less. And how many pages would be affected by the bot task? How does the bot determine when to delete a page or not? I'm more concerned about unintentional side effects than about the question whether or not Lcawte will wreck havoc ;) which he won't, of course. --User:LegOtaku/sig 12:32, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Techinical assessment? Sounds like a BAG job to me :P. And the bot has been tested, by many people, mainly it will work on deleting broken redirects (by the special page), anything else will be asked by admins, example a group of pages determinded by a category or template transclusion. EG: If the go ahead for the Date pages deletion was given, the bot could easily delete them by using either Category:Date or the what transludes here page (links here). --Lcawte 17:39, February 14, 2010 (UTC) I'm not an expert, but would it make sense to create a new bot account for these sysop tasks? LcawteBot is currently doing a lot of different things and a new adminbot would be restricted to certain kinds of tasks that must be approved everytime before it starts. So it would just be active when there are these special jobs to do. At least during a testing phase. --User:LegOtaku/sig 18:01, February 14, 2010 (UTC) I also think that this is not the right place to discuss whether or not a bot should get admin rights, since this is originally conceived as a page where the users voice their opinions about a user's ability and competence, since he has to make decisions on his own (blocking users etc.). A bot is just a tool and this should be a purely technical discussion. So I would rather take this vote down and move the discussion to a forum, where BAG and admins can discuss this further. --User:LegOtaku/sig 18:14, February 14, 2010 (UTC) At the moment, it fixes redirects everyday, and mark broken ones for deletion, insted of marking them for deletion, it would just delete them. Any extra pages for deletion would be requested by admins, aka Admins approving them anyway. So an extra account wouldnt do any difference in my opinion. --Lcawte 18:17, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Oh and I dont mind if its moved or not, Nighthawk said to bring it to here, so I'm not sure. --Lcawte 18:17, February 14, 2010 (UTC) I don't mind either- sorry I thought this would be the right place to put it as Lcawte makes up half of the BAG, and the other half is opposing. But the place like the one LegOtaku suggested sounds better. NovaHawk 23:51, February 15, 2010 (UTC) {undent} So BAG Members and Admins are allowed to move to the BAG Forum here. --Lcawte 09:26, February 16, 2010 (UTC)