AVID:Requests for Comment/Introduce Bots on this Wiki

Introduce Bots on this Wiki
Well, I have thought of something new that will help the wiki be clean as possible. Bots.

Advantages:
 * They will help the wiki automatically revert vandalism, if there's one on the page.
 * New RfCs will automatically be added on the main Requests for Comment page. Closed RfCs may be automatically archived as well. Admins may not need to manually add/remove such stuff..
 * Bots may automatically do cleanup on this wiki, and may automatically revert page moves.
 * Bots also add/remove notices on the top of the page, if checked properly.
 * All in all, the presence of Bots on this Wiki do not need for AVID administrators/moderators to manually revert vandalism, add/remove RfCs whether newly-created or closed, do cleanup on this wiki, etc.

PokeRapMonster (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Abstain
Sounds good but bots are not foolproof (Talk!) 09:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This could work on paper and in theory but bots have multiple flaws sometimes, so in practice this could either not work or work. Россиябол (украина хороша) (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

per above   (Talk to Me!) 15:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Isn't there already bots on the wiki? For instance, FuzzyBot. Camenati (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you, the proposer, willing to put in the work required to get the bots to reliably perform what you are suggesting? If not, this proposal automatically fails regardless if the idea is nice. I can tell you already nobody in the staff here likely has the time or even the background it would require to make it happen. --Raidarr (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be slightly more helpful I'll suggest paths to do some of what is suggested in the OP, though the same issue on time and skills still applies. Vandalism: abusefilter. New RfCs: probably a query of items in a section that updates the notice. But this can be tricky. Cleanup: Depends on the task. An extension like ReplaceText could be useful in the mass correction of certain entries and if it's a similar menial task with someone who knows what they're doing with bots, a bot could be able to do them. But the bot must be competently designed and probably operated only by bureaucrats. The notices line is too obscure for me to usefully respond to. If fuzzybot is already the choice of bot operated by wiki staff it could possibly do certain large automated tasks. But these tasks only I would think, correcting double redirects would be a waste of time to engineer and is something that requires a level of discretion anyway. In fact there is a lot of cleanup that is best done by people because it involves discretion. This is why automating everything is not always ideal, either. --Raidarr (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do have a pywikibot setup for this wiki (User:CLGBot). As it was done pre-rebrand (hence the outdated name) I need to reconfigure it for the new domain and get it renamed. I am yet to figure out how to get it running tasks on an automated basis. As for RFC's I'm working on automating that via Dynamic Page Lists. Talk ·&#32;Edits 09:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)