AzBot ("owned" by Az)
AzBot Talk • Contribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk edits • Edit count
I know this might be a strange request for adminship, and is probably unprecedented in this wiki. However, it is not uncommon for bot accounts to given sysop tools. What AzBot intends to do with this adminship is to delete old GEMH images that are currently located in Category:GEMH images. I could do it myself, but there are over ~300 images. I also feel that marking them for speedy deletion would be too burdensome for other admins.
I have tested the deletion bot using my main account, and I think it works okay. Some of the automated deletions are here.
In the future, it might be possible for Azbot to "rename" images. The bot would download the image, delete the existing image, and re-upload the image under the new name. Then, the links to the old image will be fixed.
The owner of the bot accepts this nomination for bot adminship. The owner has read the policies concerning administrators, and realises that this nomination may fail. If AzBot does get community consensus, the owner promises that AzBot will not abuse the sysop tools because this is a serious offence and if the community finds that AzBot has done so, the sysop tools for the bot will be revoked, and in extreme cases, Azbot could be given a community ban.
Questions for the bot owner
What administrative work do you intend (for the bot) to take part in?
- AzBot will perform deletions for old GEMH images. In the future, it might be used for "renaming" images.
What are the bot's best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
- Uploading and managing GEMH images.
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- I believe that AzBot has not been in conflicts over editing in the past. (And, I don't believe a bot can experience stress.)
Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)
Discussion
Extremely odd RfA...I guess I'll give it a Support for now. 
Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 11:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Support well, it is run by a admin so i guess it is ok...Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Never expected a bot sysop for our wiki, although it is common for other larger projects. I agree, it would be extremely tedious for an admin to do all that deleting. Additionally it would clog the RCs and leave us with a long backlog. cflm (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Per cflm. 
@Gaz#7521 13:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Question - Will you release the source? Butterman62 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Per cflm --Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 15:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Never seen anything like this before, but I understand it'll be useful. Are we going to add "AzBot has been sysopped by..." to the news template on the main page? :P Andrew talk 16:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- A very good point. Does this also mean Azbot's name will be coloured green in edit histories? o.O cflm (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that is necessary. Put in the sitenotice for registered users that at this time and this date an administrative bot will be conducting a few edits. That should give the community fair warning for the changes. 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Conditional support, otherwise oppose - Bots, especially adminbots, have the potential to cause lots of damage. I will only support if you either publicly release the source code or make it available to admins upon request (yes, following Wikipedia's example here; they actually have it as a policy that you have to do one of those two things).
Also, just food for thought, but I do not believe it is very common to have adminbots. On Wikipedia, out of many nominations, there is only one adminbot that was approved; the bot in question had very simple source code, which was publicly released. Generally, adminbots have been very controversial there; see this page (a request for comment is kind of like a Yew Grove discussion here). Butterman62 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Conditional Support - I trust you Az, no reason not too, but I don't think this account would need permanent sysop tools for a few bot runs. I'd recommend making this the official bot for administrative duties, meaning only you would be able to create and function this kind of bot now and in the future (unless you become inactive) meaning all other requests for such thing would be in void and would fall on you. Unless you only plan to use this bot for a few runs, I'd only offer this support for a temporary run. In that case, when you are done remove the sysop tools but keep the bot flag.
19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply - I wouldn't agree with the statement that "there is only one adminbot that was approved". There are 7 adminbots in Wikipedia. See here. The page you referred to was an archive, archived some time in September 2008.
Originally, I wasn't planning to release the source code since it is a semi-automated bot. "Administrators are allowed to run semi-automated tools (assisted use of administrative tools) but will be held responsible if those tools go awry." I will personally take responsibility of AzBot's actions if the bot causes any damage. AzBot runs similar to how AWB runs except that AzBot uses its own code in combination with AWB. I find AWB, on its own, to be inadequate for AzBot's planned duties.
The "source code" (called WikiBotLib) was released by Pointy some time back (I'm not too sure if Pointy was the original author of WikiBotLib.) The link to WikiBotLib is here. Anyway, the original WikiBotLib doesn't work anymore... I've partially updated WikiBotLib so that it runs in MediaWiki 1.14.0.
For now, I'm only planning to delete those ~300 files. In the future, I'm planning to:
- Update Exchange links that point to redirects rather than the actual page, and delete the redirect. I don't know the exact number, but I'm pretty sure there are quite a number of redirects in the Exchange namespace.
- Move Exchange pages and its GEMH image to their correct in-game names. There are over 100 Exchange pages which are incorrectly named. (I'm not too sure, but I believe a bot needs be an adminbot to "suppress redirects". Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
I can accept if AzBot is only granted temporary sysop tools, but I don't want to keep coming back to Yew Grove if AzBot needs sysop tools every now and then...
If the community needs an "official bot for administrative duties", AzBot could be that bot. However, I cannot let it run continuously (i.e. for blocking vandals - Wikipedia:User:AntiAbuseBot). I can only consider requests on a case-to-case basis. az talk 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- (Ugh, went AWOL on this) Sorry, I must really not be keeping up with what's going on in Wikipedia (wiki-old fart much?). Last time I checked was when that RfC actually happened where, at the time, there was only one adminbot, RedirectCleanupBot (or so they say).
- However, one question I have is how automated the bot is. You say it is semi-automated, and I may be misunderstanding what this bot is supposed to do, but it seems like it is just going through the images, checking each one's date, and if it's old, deleting it, which seems like a fully automated process.
- Also, I'm not an expert at programming, but the WikiBotLib just seems to be the framework to edit the wiki; will you actually release the brains of the bot that decides how it will check for dates, etc? Also, I understand that you may just want to keep the source closed as a semi-automated tool, but see my concerns about its level of automation above.
- In addition, I do hope you will present any potential additional functionality for the bot by the Yew Grove before you suddenly give an adminbot new routines, and you have said that you will take responsibility for the bot. I know that bot operators sometimes think (not necessarily on this wiki, but in some places), "The rest of the community are idiots implementing mindless bureaucracy; what do they know about bot operating"?, but I don't want things to end up like this.
- Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. Butterman62 (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support - 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Good reasons are given, I don't see why not. 
Hapi007 Talk! Sign! . 11:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Azliq is certainly trustworthy and since she's willing to take responsibility for any damage it might cause, I don't see why not. C.ChiamTalk 08:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Per all.
10:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Closed - AzBot now has access to administrator tools. Also, AzBot's name will not be colored green in recent changes, unless the community determines that it is needed. 
Laser Dragon 
21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)