User talk:RC patrol bot

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to the Homestar Runner Wiki! We're glad to have you as a member. If you need any help, feel free to ask anyone on the welcoming committee. You can also post questions on the FAQ talk page.

Here are some tips to get you started:

  • If you need general information, editing tips, or answers to frequently asked questions, check out the help page.
  • Before you do any significant editing, be sure to familiarize yourself with our wiki standards.
  • If you're not sure what you can do to help out, head over to The Stick.
  • If you're looking for more community interaction, you can also register over at our forum.
  • To practice editing, go to the Sandbox.
  • Above all, be sure to be bold and have fun!

Feel free to delort this message when you're done reading it. After all, your user page belongs to you. I hope this information is helpful, and that you'll have a good experience contributing to our knowledge-base and our community. If you have any questions, just ask me, or anyone on the welcoming commitee.

Sincerely,
Rogue Leader / (my talk) and the welcoming committee

[edit] Robotics department

I do not believe that robots, at least until they achieve human- or sub-human intelligence, can give meaningful contributions to a Wiki, especially since this robot has already flagged a legit edit as suspicious and deleted a perfectly legit (if poorly capitalized, and containing a questionable word as a name) edit. I'm for a ban. Thoughts from others, particularly fellow admins? --Jay (Talk) 05:34, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think a ban's in order (despite being a relatively new user myself, and certainly not an admin), unless we can get proof that it can make meaningful edits instead of just flagging and removing stuff. (Incidentally, it was my edit/revert that it flagged as suspicious.) My one question is: are robotics and A.I. technology advanced enough that a robot is able to make edits like the ones this one has done? --DorianGray
So far, it's only made three edits:
  1. Flagging the removal of text (big deal)
  2. Noticing the word "urine" (which was actually a name) and auto-reverting the edit
  3. Creating a user page to identify itself
Those are nothing to an AI expert. I could probably program them if I knew a little more about online bots. However, we have already seen the problem: the two cases it noticed "vandalism" were both WRONG, and no human would have been terribly likely to make the judgement calls made IMHO. --Jay (Talk) 05:48, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I see... Well, I'm no expert (in fact, I can barely even use HTML), but after reviewing the data, I'd have to say it is a robot. Technology is advancing faster than I thought, which scares me a little. But that's neither here nor there. Yeah, banning it would be a good idea. Meaningful edits certainly seem beyond its grasp. --DorianGray
Well, I have a date with a pillow, so whenever I come back online tomorrow, I'll see if other people have contributed to this discussion before acting (as well as seeing if it makes more edits. Wouldn't shock me much if it noticed my above edit...) --Jay (Talk) 06:00, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Well, I say we administer the Turing test ;) Interestingly enough, a Google search for "RC patrol bot" brought up only one result - a mention on a talk page in Wikipedia. What kind of a self-respecting programmer doesn't have a dorky webpage detailing his bot? ;) Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 06:43, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
You get more hits if you leave out the "bot". --Jay (Talk) 06:36, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Who's "bot" is this? -- Tom 22:23, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to find out with the Googlesearch, but I could only find one inconclusive reference to such a bot. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 22:49, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
The only reason that I haven't blocked this user outright is that I don't think this really is a bot. I'd think someone who has the technical know-how to set up a MediaWiki bot would have asked permission or at least followed some of the protocol for bots in place on Wikipedia. As I see it, this Wiki has no need for a Recent Changes patrol bot. -- Tom 23:12, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward Tom's consensus here, but for a different reason. As the 'bot in question has made no edits since last night, it is looking more likely that it's just a clueless user acting like a 'bot. --Jay (Talk) 05:29, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
When I check Recent Changes, I have hide bots for a setting, and his edits still pop up. This is definately a human. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:52, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That's because an admin has to flag the user as a bot first, for the edits to be hidden as "bot edits". Don't know if it's still this way, but you used to have to make the change directly in the db. --Duke33 13:28, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, if I only received confirmation that this was a bot, I could have marked it as one. But that's a moot point, since we don't really need a bot. -- Tom 18:30, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Identify yourself

Okay, if you're a person, speak up and identify yourself. If so, you're reverting edits incorrectly; please see the standards. If not, this thing has just made another reverting mistake, and we need to block it. — It's dot com 02:18, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm up for a permanent block on this user. This wiki's patrol system is not a good place for a bot or a human pretending to be a bot. —BazookaJoe 02:42, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Being that RC patrol bot is slower at reverting my own user page than I am (this creates problems of its own), I'm thinking this is just a user pretending to be a bot. —BazookaJoe 02:45, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
BazookaJoe is right, RC patrol bot. If you're human, say so now. What you're doing is not helpful; it's borderline vandalism itself. If you do not start conforming to the rules, you will be reported as a troll. — It's dot com 02:47, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
He just made another revert of perfectly good material. This thing should be banned. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 02:25, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, noticing the last edit made by this user/bot/whatever, I'm putting in an official warning. These edits are almost entirely unhelpful. If another trollish edit is made without the user/bot/whatever explaining his/her/itself on this page, I'm going to ban him/her/it. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 02:31, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
It kind of gives us something fun to watch and analyze though, doesn't it? -- Tom 03:03, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
[1] ... Be my guest —BazookaJoe 04:09, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Done, at least for 24 hours. If the user/bot comes back and continues the same behavior without any explanation, then it'll be permanent (we don't want a bot of this nature... it hasn't made a good edit yet!) Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 04:21, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

For me, the #1 surefire hint that this is a human pretending to be a bot (though I'm still willing to admit that it's possible otherwise) is this - the number wouldn't have been altered in a true revert. (However, technically speaking, it could have reverted back to Dot Com's last edit, but I don't know why it would judge BazookaJoe to be a troll... on his own user page!!!) --Jay (Talk) 06:41, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Please permanently block this. Everything that it reverts is legit, and it has made a grand total mof nine edit. It is useless. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 16:47, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Although at least one of those edits is legit, but due to this user's/bot's reputation I immediately guessed it as trolling, and reverted it. Everybody has given adequate warnings if it's a human, and if it's a bot, then it needs one big software patch before version 2.0. Just block it for an expiry period of indefinite already. --videlectrix.pngENUSY discussionitem_icon.gif user.gifmail_icon.gif, 18:01, 19 August 2005 (BST)
Well, I did give a warning of permanent bannination (see above) and it's doing the same old thing again, so... goodbye bot. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 17:21, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools