Forum:Bot edits

Hi everybody, it's quite some time that I regularly see users doing repetitive maintenance work or clearly using bots program to do them. If you want to do so, please make a bot account or ask to temporary flag yours, I can do it with the consensus of an admin. You are flooding the recent changes and that's something to be avoided in a wiki. Thanks.

Discussion
The edits come from a script that's been added recently that allows for the faster renaming of images. And while it is spamming the feed a bit, there's still been some hiccups in its use though (some through faults of the script and some through faults of the users). For now at least, I personally would like to keep the edits visible, and once the issues have been taken care of then we can hide the edits. 21:51, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, there is an option to display bot edits in the RC, so if you want to check the others' edits, use it. Normal users shouldn't be flooded with those edits.

I'd say it's quite easy to scroll through them and see actual edits, so I don't think it's needed. 22:28, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

It's not if you do more the 200 edits in one go because it will exceed my edits number limit in the RC. With 250 edits the last edit I see is from 6 hours ago. With 500 I don't even see a whole day of wiki activity and most of the edits I see are bot ones. It's MORE easy for you guys to just ask for a bot flag like everybody do. Staff can give admins the power to flag bots, so you either make a bot account and use it or ask an admin to flag temporary your account.

As JSD said, it's a script that still has problems. It's better for all of them to be viewed so we can see if it works properly most of the time. 00:42, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody would check each of those edits except for the team of users who is doing that kind of job, and there is an option for doing that (show bot edits). If you are using AWB you should just check you edits yourself and if you aren't and the script is not safe, more reason to not do that volume of edits at once.

It isn't AWB. Check out the script here. 01:21, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

"Additionally, this script is considered semi-automated editing. Do not use this script without first reviewing your wiki's policies regarding automated editing and obtaining necessary approvals and/or user rights." - from w:c:dev:FileUsageAuto-update. Hence please just bot yourself and check your own edits.

Does this wiki have a policy? Staw asked User:Yatanogarasu to put it into the wiki wide .js, and he did, so I'd see that as admin approval. 02:32, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't like many other things, that's the point. It's normal wiki-etiquette to do so. The fact that he added it in the common js doesn't say anything on how you are using now. Is that too much to asking for using a bot flag, you know, to make bot edits? That's what bot flag are for. Sff9 or roranoa made their bot account, so i don't see why you people shouldn't (and as I already say, you can just bot yourself for a limited time if you don't like making a new account).

Personally, I don't want to view the edits through the RC, but rather the wiki activity, since it shows the image that's added, as well as if it's been added to the broken file links category. It's just easier to track that way for me. Also, the amount of images that will be renamed will lessen over time (the category for them has already been emptied). The wiki's seen larger bouts of image edits before and survived, I don't see it a huge problem with it. 03:59, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Levi that's just a script that saved us TONS OF HOURS. And now the category is empty so we're done edit whoring for the time being. And all of us have marked our edits minor so if you want to check the wiki activity for vandalism, just hide the minor edits. It's easy enough. 05:13, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

@JSD: who said that you have to use RC from now on? If you have to check your script, YOU check it and avoid flooding everybody else wiki activity. @SHL: who said that you cannot use it? It doesn't matter if you are done now, this kind of flooding happens from time to time. If you are planning to edit a lot of page in a short time, you use a bot. That's easy enough. I don't understand why it's so strange for you to do something that's supposed to be common sense, just because we don't have any kind of rule. Sff9, roranoa and even me made bots, I don't see why you shouldn't do it too or simply bot yourself when needed. What you guys are saying it's just as if someone has a super loud stereo and when the neighborhood complains for the noise, he answer him "just cover your ears". It's not him who should cover his ears, you either decrease the volume or use headphones.

Simply cause I'm not using a bot but a script from dev wiki. I don't even know how on earth to use a bot >_> 14:00, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with Levi,.. but I also agree with everyone else here >_> .. so the best solution i can suggest is to edit the JS script ourselves to hide those edits from WA(._.) --

Goa ahead, since you suggested it *giggles* :D. If it's ok with the author of course. But I honestly don't get why this forum even exists. WE ARE NOT USING BOTS. 14:13, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

@SHL: a bot it's just a type of account, it's not "anything you use". It's used to hide edits from the RC or Wiki Activity to avoid flooding them, so whenever someone plans to do a lot of repetitive edits (like you are doing) he either make a bot account (if he plans to use regularly) or temporary flag his account itself. It doesn't matter how you do those edits, if by a script, using python or AWB, you can even do it manually, but if you are doing a LOT of repetitive edits, you use a bot account. Even in the script page it's explicitly said "Additionally, this script is considered semi-automated editing. Do not use this script without first reviewing your wiki's policies regarding automated editing and obtaining necessary approvals and/or user rights.". What you are using is no different then using any other "bot script", hence you should flag your account when you are doing that. @RORA: If can be add an option to flag the edits as bot ones to the script, that would solve the issue (it will simply do what I'm asking here). Also keep in mind that anyone is able to use that script even for vandalism, for this reason I don't think it should have been added globally on the wiki, but locally on the users' pages.

Ok, personally if I plan to mass rename I'll ask you to give me a bot flag. And no, it can't be used for vandalism cause only users with the movefile right have access to it. Which means admins, rollbacks, vstf, helpers and staff can use that script. These are all trusted users who obviously will not use it to vandalize. 14:48, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

I've asked staff to give the admins here the power to flag bot themselves, hence any admin could do that. Also, as far I understand only admins can use that script, are you sure rollbacks can? Anyway it's good to know there is a restriction.


 * Yes Levi,they can we asked staff to give rbs such an ability--

As per Forum:Image Renames rollbacks were given the ability to rename images and not leave redirects when renaming pages. 15:06, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Good, but still, when you use it you should use a bot flag.

Staff did it, now admins are able to flag bots.

Alright, thanks for letting us know! 15:47, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Levi I noticed that now sysops can give rollback to people. I tested to bot flag on me and I got the option to remove my rollback even though before I didn't have such ability. 15:57, September 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes staw Admins can now -Remove groups: Bots, rollback and Chat moderators--

Well, since rollbacks do all the image work, shouldn't they be able to change the bot right too? We can't bother the admins 5 times per day to get temp bot rights, let alone remove them. I believe that it's reasonable enough to have this right but of course to use it only to ourselves. 16:35, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

If you can't bother, just make a bot account like PX-Bot (meaning: just make another account which you will use to make these changes), that's what it's usually done. I don't know if it's possible to let rollbacker to flag accounts as bots, but I'm honestly against it. It's out of their role and it would make them too important. Just ask admins or me, and plan when you want to make these changes.


 * btw, since when you became admin?

He's a temp, fixing blog image redirects and such. 17:30, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

I already had to do it twice, once for me and once for Galaxy9000 which means 4 changes within an hour. Imagine how it will be when more rollbacks will do the job, like some days ago when five rollbacks were renaming images. Do you really want to get a notification every hour for this thing? And making a bot account is not an alternative as none of us is using an AWB or something. Plus this script needs rollback rights to work. We can't have two accounts. Giving rollbacks the right to flag and unflag themselves is the best solution IMO. With the movefile right and the supressredirect right as aditional rights and the rollback right which is standard, rollbackers are already way more important than normal users, or should I say that they already have way more important rights. And this is the reason why I said that we must have some criteria for rollback users and demote those who don't use their rights in the forum I made. And yes I am temp admin in order to fix redlinks in blogs, delete tons of redirects left from pagemove and such. 17:34, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think getting 2 or 3 notifications is worse the seeing the wiki FLOODED by hundreds of edits! That's the point of making bots! Why people would want to see hundreds of edits that they don't care about, since they are all the same, just because you don't bother to ask or making another account? And, for the last time, "making a bot" has nothing to do with using AWB, pyton, this or that script. It's just another account like any others which is flagged as bot, hence whatever that accounts does it's hidden, unless you purposely choose to see bots edits. You can edit manually too, like I'm doing right now answering here. So don't shift the burden onto other people, it's you guys who wants to make hundreds of tiny edits in one go, so you guys have to take the necessary arrangements to do so, even if that means planning when to do them. You don't want to switch account or just ask to be flagged? Well, I don't want to see the RC flooded if you don't mind and because I'm only the one saying this, that doesn't mean I'm the only one who wants that. Also it's quite funny that you are saying it's a pain to ask each time, since you seems having no problems asking for admin rights when you have to do maintenance. So, for the last time, if you want to make these kind of changes you have to ask an admin to be flagged temporary as bot or make a bot account this way:
 * Create another account like "Staw-Hat bot".
 * Ask an admin to flag it as bot.
 * Use it whenever and however you want.  19:30, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

First, you ignored the fact that we need rollback rights in order to use the script! Are you gonna give rollback to ten more accounts just because? And I don't request admin rights every hour or two but I do want to mass edit every hour or two. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do something about it. I said that if it's possible, we should get the ability to flag bots and get this over with. I know that bot is just another account and the account itself isn't connected to any program or what but I find it ridiculous to make a "bot" account when I can't use and AWB or any other kind of program that automatically edits the wiki. If the script automatically edits the wiki for me, I call that a day and if we don't get the ability to flag and unflag ourselves, I will keep on doing it when I want to mass edit while I am temp admin but when that's over, then I am sorry but I'm not willing to make a "bot" account for such a ridiculous reason nor am I willing to see other rollbacks making bot accounts and giving rollback rights to these accounts too. 19:43, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Bot accounts has movefile rights so you can use that script (I test it)."I can't use and AWB or any other kind of program that automatically edits the wiki" - that script is a such a program! It's even said on its page! And it doesn't matter what you use, even if you want to MANUALLY edit 200 pages in one go, you should bot yourself! What I'm saying is a "ridiculous reason"? I'm sorry if it's too much of a bother switching account and wasting 5 seconds, but I guess that a "valid reason" to flood the wiki with hundreds of edits, isn't it? Why the roranoa, me or sff9 made a bot account then? You know, I'm starting to think the whole reason you are against to making a dedicated account is simply because you like boosting up your edits. I remember that Meganoide was banned the second time because he was making countless of edits that people thought they were unnecessary and just flooded the wiki. I can't believe it's so hard for you to accept this when it's the only reason why bot accounts exist in the first place.


 * That also proves that you request a right for rollbackers to use a script meant to be used by admin and bot accounts. You shouldn't be able to use such script in the first place, rollbackers are not supposed to do that.

No, I honestly don't care about edit count. Not anymore at least. But the reason why you, sff, roa and any other person with bot accounts have made these accounts is because you can use a program that automatically edits the wiki. The fact that this script is kinda like a bot doesn't mean that I can use a bot. I imported the script and that's all. If I could flag and unflag myself as a bot, I would do that honestly. And I will do that for the time I am temp admin. But I'm not gonna make a bot account if I can't automatically edit the wiki. And the fact that my script can doesn't mean that I, personally can. I don't like overfloodding the wiki activity with my edits either. I hide my edits when I use the RC and I even imported a script that hides my own edits from the wiki activity bar at the top right corner of the pages because I can't track vandalism and such without it. But please do understand how difficult it will be for me or any other user to request the bot flag multiple times per day. And once again, no, I'm not gonna make a bot account since I can't use any programs that automatically edit the wiki. If rollbacks can get the ability to flag and unflag themselves, then I'll probably be the one that will do that most of the time but if that's not possible, then it is what it is. And I don't get the second part of your post at all. 20:13, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Although you are saying you understand, you clearly don't. A "bot" doesn't mean "hey, I can automatically edit the wiki or use a program" it means "hey I'm doing a lot of edits that nobody care of", even if you wouldn't use any script or program AT ALL, if you are doing that you have to use a bot. And yes, that script it's a "program" as you call it, it's explicitly stated in the script page: "Additionally, this script is considered semi-automated editing. Do not use this script without first reviewing your wiki's policies regarding automated editing and obtaining necessary approvals and/or user rights." It's a semi-automated script like AWB, so if you think someone who uses AWB should make a bot account then you HAVE to either make a bot account or flag yourself, the first method it's the easier in my opinion. You guys have given rights to rollbacker that don't belong to them and are using a script the it can be used only by bot accounts and admin (those with movefile). The fact you had to change the rollback right proves that you cannot use that script unless you bot yourself or are admin, meaning that that script wasn't meant to be used in such a way. Also, I find quite amusing that you neither like flooding the wiki activity nor seeing your edits and as such you use a script to hide them. So explain me again why you can do these edits but only everybody else have to suck it up and be flooded by you and everybody else? The only reason you gave me for not use a bot is "because you don't use AWB" (which I proved to be the same as that script). I'm sorry to say this, but shifting the burden onto others like saying "it's bothersome to ask or make another account" it's quite arrogant if you ask me. As I said it's like having your TV at maximum volume and answer your neighborhood to just cover his ears if he find it too loud.

Rollbacks were given the movefile right so your argument is invalid. And once again I'm saying that I'm not going to make a bot account because a script I use is like an AWB. I said it a hundred times and I'll say it again. Give me the ability to flag myself and I will do it. If you don't give me that ability then I will keep on editing however i want. That's all I have to say and I'm done with this forum for the time being. If other rollback users want to do something so ridiculous they can go ahead. That will just make me laugh. 20:43, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Are you realizing what are you saying? You are saying "I'm not doing it because I said so an hundreds of time". Well, sorry but that doesn't matter how many times you are saying something. I said you should do it as many times, so you should do it by your logic. Imagine if in other forum users will start saying that... Also you don't seem to understand my argument at all: And can you care to explain when someone should make a bot account then? Your script is semi-automated editing, for God's sake! When do you think someone has to use a bot then? You are doing as you please, you don't care if you bother people by what you are doing even if there is a NORMAL way to do that kind of things, but you don't do it "because you said so". Way to go.
 * On a wiki rollbackers don't have movefile right. Hence they can't use that script. Only bot and admins can.
 * Since they can't use that script, instead of just simply make a bot account you CHANGE what rollback users can do, altering the job itself of a rollbacker.

How about some compromise: If a rollbacker intends to automatically rename something like 10 or more file links, they can use some kind of bot editing, whether or not that's from be given it or using a bot account, I don't care. But if they're only gonna rename an image here or there, I don't think it's reasonable to ask them to seek out that means of bot editing. "Flooding the wiki" is only a concern when a lot is being done at once, and at this point, most renaming edits won't happen all at once, and this issue isn't as important as you're both making it out to be. 00:49, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, it's what I'm asking for. I'm not asking for permanently bot yourself or bot everytime you do a specific action. What I'm saying is that if you do a repetitive minor work of maintenance, whatever that is, you have to bot yourself or use a bot account. This is how it's done on all major wikis and even here by sff9, roranoa and me. It has less to do with rollbackers or scripts, it should just be wiki-manners. Even before the use of this script, I saw for example users do a single minor edit on ALL chapter/episode pages, flooding the RC. That always bothered me.

Levi's right, scripted edits should be flagged as bot edits if they are more than a dozen in one go. SHL I don't understand why you don't want to make a bot account. That's just how a wiki works.

In this forum, I'm guilty of not necessarily reading the whole thing. If what I offered is the same as what Levi said, then I guess I agree with what Levi said. Besides, users shouldn't really get credit for automated edits anyways. 19:44, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

@sff9: thanks. @JSD: I may have misundertood what you said, but I think we agree with each other.

Bump.

Well, seems to me like the best option is to post on the talk pages of all the rollbacks and admins about this and get them to post in here. If everyone's fine with flagging mass/automated edits as bot edits, then we're fine and we can stop arguing. I'm still to busy to track everyone down, but if someone else left the messages, we could get on with it. 21:19, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * ill post the messages on the talk pages-- 21:21, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problems with flagging bot edits (although I don't actually use any automated editing scripts). 23:14, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

If we can separate the bot edits and normal edits by flagging or marking, then why not? 21:59, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

I only agree with using bot edits for scripts, but if somebody is editing a lot of pages manually, they shouldn't be flagged as bot edits. 23:24, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy, that's generally true, but it depends on "how many pages" and "what kind of edits" you are going to do. If you plan on adding a template on 50 or 100 pages, then it's much appreciate if you use a bot flag. For example, I remember once someone that decided to remove a unneeded space from every episode page. Even if he did it manually, we are talking of hundreds of edits in a short time span that quickly erased the whole recent changes. That's something very annoying. Bot edits are made to not bother others with edits that nobody cares of.

I also agree that when someone makes mass automated edits, at the very least, they should be "marked as minor by default" to minimize flooding the activity feed for those who opted to hide minor edits (or edit the script to do that for them). As for whether they should use the bot flag or not mainly depends by the convenience of assigning it to editors every time. Unless of course people want to go the extra mile and create a separate "bot" account for such usage. MasterDeva (talk) 10:50, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so are we in clear agreement that any automated edits must be flagged as bot edits in the future? And from here on, users who do continue to use automated edits without bot use can be held accountable for not doing so? By being "held accountable" I mean that they can be warned and possibly lose rollback rights if they continue to be a problem. If everyone agrees to that, we can close this forum.

Finally, can anyone tell me how to go about getting a bot account for making these edits? Thanks. 18:14, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I think you just need to make a separate account and have an admin flag it as a bot account. 20:14, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

^ That's right (you can also ask me). You can also do that with your account, but you have to ask an admin to flag you before making the edits and unflag you after you are done, that can be bothersome.

Alright, I've made myself a bot account, so if I get some authorization, I could get started trying some stuff out. And will I also need rollback rights to get the renaming script to work? JustSomeBot... (talk) 21:21, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't, if you have bot rights you can use the script. In fact if you have only rollback rights you shouldn't be able to use that script at all. Here you can, because staff was asked to alter the rollback rights. Ask an admin to bot that account, I can do it myself, but it's better to have an ok from an admin.

...And remember that you shouldn't use your bot account to hide important edits. Bot accounts are used only for normal maintenance or minor edits.
 * Yeah, of course. I intend to follow the rules and all that stuff, and not to try anything that will get me in over my head. If I ever do something wrong, please tell me and I'll stop/fix it. 21:49, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

* facepalm* Wtf people you made a bot account....wtf.If that becomes a rule, I'm not gonna rename any more images ever again. Just...wtf... It's easy for an admin to say that because they can bot and unbot themselves but making a bot account when I can't even use an AWB is too much. As I said, if that silly thing becomes a rule, don't ever count on me for image work. 10:09, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm amazed about how strongly you oppose something perfectly normal which is done everywhere and can make life easier for other users on the wiki. You still didn't say a good reason why a person shouldn't create a bot account, you know, to use a bot. You still talking about AWB when AWB doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, since it's just one of the many semi-automated editing software like the script you are using. In my opinion, it's quite a selfish behaviour and I continue to think the only reason you are opposing this it's because you like boosting up your edit count. If you so strongly oppose this and you don't want to bother admins to flag you planning when doing that kind of maintenance, then just propose yourself as new admin. That way you can flag and unflag yourself whenever you want. I've nothing against that.

Wtf...I said that it's easy for admins to say that, talking about Deva's post since he can bot and unbot himself whenever. And once again, no I couldn't care less about my edit count. But I'm not gonna make a bot account when I can't automatically edit the wiki. It's just plain wrong. If you make it a rule, just don't count on me for image renames. The category has been empty for quite a while anyway and it won't get more images anytime soon so JSD aint gonna use his bot account anyway. 10:32, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

And there you go again... And once again you still didn't provide any good reason why an user shouldn't make a bot account.
 * Sff9, me, Roranoa made bot accounts when we were just plain users. And many people that are using bots are plain users too.
 * You CAN automatically edit the wiki. How many times I have to explain this to you? It's stated in that script page that it's an automated script and it's considered the same as AWB or any other bots (semi-automated editing). Can you read or you just playing fool?
 * Is it plain wrong? Then what about you flooding the wiki? Is that alright instead?
 * Who said that you are going to do HIS account?
 * You can't really waste 5 seconds or your life to change account and do yuor things, can you? If you don't want to change your account you can use two different browsers: let's say you are using firefox, on that you will keep yourself logged in as Staw-Hat Luffy, while on Chrome or IE you will log in as your bot.

Other rollbacks and admins and whatever can go ahead and do whatever they want. I'm not gonna make a bot account and I'm not gonna rename any more images. If you think that my rollback should be removed just for not going with thee flow, be my guests, like I care. 10:58, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that mere users can't make bot accounts.
 * I can't automatically edit the wiki, the script and its creator can.
 * I said I won't rename any more images if you make this a rule since I'm not willing to make a bot account and you can't force me.
 * I just stated a fact.
 * Not replying to the last point.

I would like to propose a chat bot. I think having a chat log would be good for this wiki. I know this isn't really the appropriate forum for this, but I wanted to see whether other users agreed with this idea before a separate blog concerning this is created. 11:18, September 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Didn't I tell you to make a new forum about it? And no, it's a terrible idea. 11:22, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

@SHL: @Lelouch Di Britannia: Sorry, I don't know how a chat bot can be done (or if it's possible to begin with). You should ask that on community central.
 * You didn't say that. You just said you will laugh at everyone who is going to do something ridiculous as that.
 * Then who exactly can automatically edit the wiki? If that's your definition of "automated editing" then anyone who is using AWB, python or any kind of script or software is not automatically editing since it's the software who does the job. You should be an AI to be considered a bot.
 * I cannot force you and I won't.
 * It's not. I didn't say "every user who is using that script has to use the same bot account". Whoever wants and get the approval can make his own bot account and you don't have to be a rollbacker to use the script (to begin with). Sharing an account with multiple users is weird and I advice to not do it (who will be account for its edits? Which email you will use?)
 * You don't reply to the only point this forum is about and you so strongly disagreed with up until now. I conclude you are just whining then.
 * The forum is about bot edits not rollback rights.

According to Godisme, you don't need a AWB or Python. You just need some js in order for it to work. But you'll need the account to be flagged as a bot. 11:27, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, that's a bit off topic. Make another forum where you explain what it does and how it works.

What are you talking about lelouch? Also levi i didn't reply to the last point because I already replied to it with my above posts. And a chat bot is possible. Some VSTF made it i think. 11:33, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

As far I understood what you said, you don't want to make a bot account (is it also valid for other users or is it just your preference?) because it's "ridiculous", it's a bother and you cannot use a bot, although I said multiple times that you are using one. If you are so kind to explain again why making a bot account is wrong, that would be appreciated.

I think Staw is trying to say that, using a bot isn't "wrong". More simply he would prefer the option of not using one. I'm sure many other rollbackers would like that also, as not everybody will be willing to use a bot. Apart from Px-Bot, Roranoa bot and your bot Levi, no other bots have been used somewhat recently, as not everyone knows how to use or work a bot. 12:18, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Why are you throwing a fit Staw-Hat Luffy? What Leviathan_89 said above is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, bots/bot accounts are commonly used for these kind of tasks and I assure you we are not doing anything pioneering here. Other wikis have been doing the exact same thing for a long time. It is for the convenience of the wiki and its community. The benefits have already been mentioned above but I'm still waiting to hear any sound arguments from you. Instead I've noticed a series of misunderstanding in your posts that should be addressed. You've repeated multiple times that bot accounts and AWB come hand in hand, that is not true.

A bot account is similar to your regular account and using AWB is optional, it is up to the user to decide and the Wikia does not even ask you to use one. There is also this, "I can't automatically edit the wiki, the script and its creator can." which by extension can be interpreted as "I can't automatically edit the wiki, my computer/web browser does." since it has such a broad meaning. AWB, python/pearl scripts, or whatever are just tools at the disposal of a user and nobody can force him to make use of them. You do not have to be a robot/cyborg/artificial intelligence to create and operate a bot account either, lol. Bot accounts are used mainly for specific tasks and image renaming or broken link fixing are some of them. Anything automated is dealt with by being handed to bots, e.g. mass image deletion.

You've further stated that "the category has been empty for quite a while anyway and it won't get more images anytime soon so JSD aint gonna use his bot account anyway" which is true as well for rollback users. Just because rollback users were given rights to use movefile (which is something they shouldn't have normally to begin with) doesn't mean we should go ahead and give them more considering it is outside the framework of their duties!

Adding or removing user groups is something only admin-level users can do and changing user rights can only be done by Wikia Staff members. I doubt that the Wikia Staff will modify add that feature to rollback users and modify it for flagging bots. The implementation of it is possible, setting it though to affect only the user and not other accounts is improbable. Taking into consideration that the misnamed images category is currently empty and the semi-automated script can be used to deal faster with the bulk of the work, it makes them having that feature obsolete.

I agree that it can be a bother to handle two accounts instead of one, that's why I've stated "going the extra mile and create a separate 'bot' account for such usage" hence why we should set a threshold for the amount of "mass edits" that can be considered as such. I do not think we should create a rule that forces us to use/flag ourselves as bots but the use of one should be encouraged by our community. By the way, take it easy with the cursing. You are the only participant in this discussion who behaved like that. All the other editors have been civil and polite up till now. MasterDeva (talk) 13:13, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Staw just wants his edit count to go up. Nobody would protest this much if that wasn't the case.

As for me, I'd be happy to use a bot account if I need to mass rename, but I think rollbacks should retain the rights to rename, since there are one-time cases (such as a new image needing a new name fast, a page getting its name changed, etc). It's not like moving images is a position of power or anything. 13:27, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

So you consider "silly" and "ridiculous" a curse? 13:30, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MasterDeva. @Galaxy: I'm fine with the leave movefile to rollbackers. I'm against giving them the right to promote bots since it would be too much outside the duty of a rollbacker. @Staw: I think MasterDeva is talking about the many "wtf", though it's just an acronym it's still "wtf". @Besty: "as not everybody will be willing to use a bot" - "as not everyone knows how to use or work a bot" - the word "bot" was misused a lot on this discussion, but if you are not willing to use a bot then don't use automated-editing scripts. You can't pretend to use massively such script and not willingly to use bot account. And if the strong opposition of Staw is just due his preference (or anyone else who is using that script), I already pointed out that it's plain rude to pretend everybody else must bear with the flooding just because him/them "doesn't like" make/flag a bot. Moreover Staw himeself said that he is hiding his own edits from RC because otherwise he couldn't watch the wiki properly, so why everybody else must bear with it? I find that ridiculous.

As far what to do, I'm just saying that whenever you plan to do massively maintenance edits it's common sense and polite to flag such edits as bot edits. If you plan to make a minor edit on every 700+ chapter pages, it doesn't matter what are you using (script, software, manual work), use a bot or plan your work to have a reasonable time gap between each edit. The contrary is also true: if you want to rename a single image (hence do just a few edits), I don't care if you are using that script or AWB because that's not a problem for other users at all. It's simple as that.

Levi are you sure that bots can rename images without admin or rollback rights? 14:01, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I tried. They have.

Wait, maybe not. I need to further look into that, wait a second.

they have the suppressredirect but not the movefile right. 14:23, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

No, they can't. I checked on a wiki where my bot was also admin, that mislead me. That script is made for administrators only by default and since we add  to rollbackers, we should do that to bots too. We don't need to make bots also rollbackers. I can ask staff to do that myself.


 * Awesome, thanks for all the help here, Levi. 14:28, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

So should I ask to do that?


 * For sure. 14:31, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Done.

Well, to end this forum I promise to make a bot account but only if every other rollback makes one. 15:29, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Ehmm... you are misunderstanding something: you and the other rollbacker don't have to make a bot account. You have to make one ONLY if you are going to extensively use that script like you did in the past. If one doesn't plan to use that, it doesn't have to make any bot account.

Ah, I'm not planning to do that anytime soon since the category is empty. If it gets many images again, I will make an account, that is. 15:36, September 26, 2013 (UTC)