 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 22 January 2013 by Hairr. |
With the arrival of TyBot in Special:Chat, it is apparent that RSChatBot no longer holds the monopoly on the automated chat experience. Therefore I believe it is time to create an approval process for bots in Special:Chat. Ideally I would like this to be a lowkey minor approval request like RuneScape:Off-site/IRC/Bot requests. No drama, just a simple request.
I would also ask that if a bot has already gained approval in a Yew Grove forum for operation in S:C, then a further approval is not needed. For example, RSChatBot's Forum:A Bot for Chat. For accessibility, just add a link to the relevant approval page through the chat header, along with the other links (stats, logs, info, etc.)
For anyone interested in making a bot for s:c, Hairr has made a page detailing the process.
Discussion
!support -
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
- I hope you realise that this means oppose... MolMan 19:45, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
- +1 to Mol --Kangaroopowah (Talk) 04:06, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
Yes - Get yo' unapproved butts out of here. Ronan Talk 14:17, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
+support - Pls keep tybot in chat though. Hair 14:17, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Support - As long as I can oppose them somewhere. Whether it be here or on a requests page. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 14:31, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Though lets keep TyBot because he's awesome. User:TyA/sig 15:01, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Support - More bureaucracy! Woo! But seriously, I do think it is a good thing to have bots approved before they're allowed in the chat. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 21:09, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe support - But for what kind of bots? Are we going to have the approval process to decide if they're useful, or just that they can't do any damage? Are we just going to turn bots into a measure of our computer science dicks (say:'programming skill'), or will each bot have an actual, worthwhile function? It's already annoying enough in there sometimes; we all know what happened with auto reply scripts. As long as this is being proposed, we should set up its guidelines as well. MolMan 22:28, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with this, as they are more than likely all going to be made up of the same script (the same module), it'd be silly to include a little one function script into a new bot that could be in a pre-existing one. All dependent on what it does though. Hair 02:01, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
- The current YG bot approval threads essentially ask what the bot is used for, what it responds to and whether it's deemed useful. I would think describing the bots overall function, listing it's commands and actions and how it might affect wiki pages (if applicable) is enough for us to deem it useful/beneficial to the chat.
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
- The big thing I'll need to see is a whitelist of some sort; we don't need everybody to be able to execute these commands. More than half of them like abusing the ability to get a non-human response for some reason... MolMan 19:45, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, more than likely we won't have an Evilbot type bot, so executing silly commands more than likely won't happen. In the requests though, I do think the commands should be listed (just a short little documentation), to know if it will be a problem. If any further commands are proposed, it can be decided in chat (depending on what it is of course, if it doesn't edit the wiki pages), to be decided if the command won't spam the chat for the giggles. Hair 19:53, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
Support- Per allHaidro (talk) 22:55, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Support utility bots - My signature is here. User:Jr Mime/Signature 22:57, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
/msg NickServ support - Per rest of ya'll http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 01:19, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support - I believe this idea is unique and justified. There should indeed be an approval process. 343 TheGuiltyProphet (talk) 20:38, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Per Fergs Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 15:44, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Just because someone has the ability to run the same generic bot as everyone else, doesn't mean they should be allowed to. 222 talk 03:02, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
Closed - There is consensus to allow more chatbots in the chatroom, after going through a nomination process on a requests page. The bot's in the chatroom should have their commands listed on a reachable subpage and should follow the chat rules like any other user (ie. No spamming the chatroom). Any unapproved bots will be removed from the chatroom until approved. Hair 14:04, January 22, 2013 (UTC)