Template:Bot is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Given that a bot which has had approval for a limited trial is not fully approved but is nevertheless allowed to make limited numbers of controlled edits, could a suitable alternative wording be added for this? ClickRick ( talk) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 ( talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group. |
This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 ( talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group. |
This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 ( talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
File:Crystal Clear question bot.svg
, then change:{{ombox |image = [[File:{{{image|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{status}}}}} |active |approved |trial = Crystal Clear accepted bot.png |inactive = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |unapproved = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |#default = Crystal Clear action run.png
To:
{{ombox |image = [[File:{{{image|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{status}}}}} |active |approved |trial = Crystal Clear question bot.png |inactive = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |unapproved = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |#default = Crystal Clear action run.png
to reflect the above consensus. Thanks & regards, CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have archived this talk page to clear up any confusion and left the above proposal here. Cj005257 ( talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
}}, please [{{fullurl:Special:Block|wpBlockAddress={{PAGENAMEE}}&wpBlockExpiry=indefinite&wpAnonOnly=0&wpEnableAutoblock=0&wpCreateAccount=0&wpBlockReason=Bot%20malfunctioning:%20}} block it] {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{awb}}}}}|yes |or remove from the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage|approved accounts]]
This (and some earlier lines) creates the following with the default templates: "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it ."
I want that space moved so it appears only for AWB bots, which seems to be what the one who added it wanted.
}}, please [{{fullurl:Special:Block|wpBlockAddress={{PAGENAMEE}}&wpBlockExpiry=indefinite&wpAnonOnly=0&wpEnableAutoblock=0&wpCreateAccount=0&wpBlockReason=Bot%20malfunctioning:%20}} block it]{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{awb}}}}}|yes | or remove from the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage|approved accounts]]
81.231.245.214 ( talk) 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
| or remove
instead. The full requested edit may be seen
here.
Anomie
⚔ 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|inactive
Should be changed to
|inactive = File:Crystal Clear inactive bot2.png
This will add clarity to the difference between inactive bots and unapproved ones. Thanks. FinalRapture - † ☪ 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I recommend that the coding be changed on this template so that the status displays more obviously (perhaps in bold). Currently it is not obvious what the status is. -- Kumioko ( talk) 23:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Extended content
|
---|
Please replace this:
with
|
— cyberpower ChatOnline 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
|unapproved=
switch option." or "Please sync with the sandbox." —
Bility (
talk) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to the wording about stopping bots. I suggest the following instruction as a least-controversial start, but maybe it could be improved by showing the link without a pipe, or even using the redirect=no parameter in the link. Suggested change is from
to
Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a redundant word "here" in the following excerpt from the source which points people to a bot's local approval:
The first "here" should be deleted, so that the line becomes:
Since this is a minor typographical error, I am omitting step 1 of Wikipedia:Edit requests#Procedure as suggested for uncontroversial changes.
Thank you! TheSophera ( talk) 01:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to suppress the text "the relevant request for approval can be seen here" in this template? User:BattyBot has 20 BRFAs, and linking to the first approval may give the impression that it is only approved for that task. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 04:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|brfa=
parameter that lets you point to a different subpage of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/. For AnomieBOT, I created
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT/TaskList as a redirect to a list of all AnomieBOT's BRFAs.
Anomie
⚔ 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|brfa=
with an invalid parameter, it suppresses the text. Since my list of tasks (and their corresponding RFBA links) are directly below the {{
Bot}} template, this works perfectly for me. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
GoingBatty (
talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Pinging some people for awareness: @
Anomie,
GoingBatty, and
JJMC89: I propose a new parameter, |overridebrfa=
, which will ignore the default BRFA path ("Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/"), and allow us to substitute our own. The change is already in the
sandbox. Behavior spec: if overridebrfa
is not empty, treat that as the full path and ignore the brfa
param completely.
Example:
{{Bot/sandbox|Anomie|overridebrfa=User:AnomieBOT/TaskList|status=active}}
→This
user account is a
bot operated by
Anomie (
talk). It is used to make repetitive
automated or
semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the
bot policy. The bot is approved and currently active – the relevant
request for approval(s) or tasks can be seen
here. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it with this special link that disables autoblocks. |
.
We essentially allow directly linking to something like User:AnomieBOT/TaskList, rather than jumping through the redirect. If there are no objections, I'll update this in a day or two. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 19:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The wording of the "awb=yes" option needs to change. Thanks to Wikipedia:Notifications, I don't think an AWB bot can be stopped by posting to its talk page. -- John of Reading ( talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Category:Wikipedia bots by status says "In theory, this category shouldn't contain any pages itself; they should be moved to one of the subcategories." However, the {{
Bot}} template is adding pages to this category, even when the |status=
parameter is used properly. (See
User:BattyBot for an example.) Could someone please update the template? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 17:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
|text=
parameter of the {{
ombox}}
, and four (
Category:Wikipedia bots using AutoWikiBrowser,
Category:All Wikipedia bots,
Category:Global Wikipedia bots,
Category:Interwiki bots are set in the |imageright=
parameter. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |#default = {{{nocat|[[Category:Wikipedia bots by status]]}}}
to |#default = {{{nocat|[[Category:Unapproved Wikipedia bots]]}}}
, with the rationale that the safest default subcat is 'unapproved' (i.e. for situations where no cat has been specified). --
Slivicon (
talk) 15:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello all, I have created a photo for inactive bots, and I wonder if mine could be implemented. Here is the link. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inactive_Bot_tag_(wikipedia).png I do not know if this is okay because of the continuity of the Crystal Clear bot images, but my photo makes it clearer that the bot is inactive. Also I am not an admin so I cannot edit it.
Cheers, Groiglery1217 ( talk) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. That is sort of what i thought. Maybe we could modify the template to state the the bot is inactive in the wording? It would help some newer users and/or users who are unfamiliar with bots Groiglery1217 ( talk) 15:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This
user account is a
bot operated by
John Smith (
talk). It is used to make repetitive
automated or
semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the
bot policy. The bot is currently inactive but
retains the approval of the community. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it. |
This user account is a
bot operated by
John Smith (
talk). It is a
legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually.
|
Weird. When I put the tag on one bot, it never said inactive. Let me check now Groiglery1217 ( talk) 13:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright it's there now. Thanks Anomie! Let's end the discussion here Groiglery1217 ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's not trump Ahecht's idea though. Users should use both. Groiglery1217 ( talk) 13:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change #default={{codebase}}}}
to #default={{{codebase}}}}}
(as per
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Bot/sandbox&diff=848215099&oldid=848215049) in order to fix the error in the last (newly added) testcase on
Template:Bot/testcases (use your browser's find within page function (ctrl+f, cmd+f, etc) with the text "mwparserfromhell" to jump directly to the sandbox/main testcases for this testcase).
Garzfoth (
talk) 14:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rephrase:
in accordance
-> to the bot policyin accordance with the bot policy
See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20accordance%20with and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20accordance%20to
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have discovered a bug in this template. If an
interlanguage link prefix is used in |site=
, the template doesn't link to the user page properly (displaying like: ()), because the link is interpreted as an interlanguage link. This affects about
127 user pages.
I have fixed this in the sandbox by adding a colon so the interlanguage prefix will be escaped and link as expected: diff
I have also added a new testcase for this (though the diff showing it added is a bit messed up because I also changed the name from "John Smith" to "Example" in the same edit.) Retro ( talk | contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I had a bot previously in good standing, and which was BAG approved (I was a BAG member and was and still am an admin). The bot - User:Kingbotk - last edited in 2008. It's quite reasonable that after 10 years of inactivity the bot was blocked, but as I link to the account from my own user page it is quite disheartening for it to display "This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn, and therefore shouldn't be making edits" and for it to be in Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots. Separately and together these messages seem to me to paint a picture of misbehaviour which just isn't the case.
I have a couple of questions:
1. Could we have a status=expired with "nicer" text to cover bots which were approved but are no longer active?
2. What purpose does the Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots serve other than naming and shaming?
-- kingboyk ( talk) 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
|status=expired/obsolete/whatever
, that's fine by me. As for the indef category, I don't see that at implying misbehavior. It's a tracking category, and serves to tell people who might wonder 'Hey, I haven't seen FooBot edit in a while, I have something it could do, let's ask the operator to run the bot on these pages" that the bot isn't operating at the moment, and that they are probably better off making a
WP:BOTREQ.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
status=expired
as an alias for the existing status=retired
. Setting {{
bot}} to either of those will automatically place it in the category
Category:Retired Wikipedia bots.
Wug·
a·po·des 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated the category for deletion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
As a developer hoping to understand the logic implemented by bots, I would love if we encouraged linking to the bot's deployed source code and configuration. Introducing template parameters such as download
and configuration
would be one easy way to do this. Or maybe there's a reason I'm not aware of, that we shouldn't publish bot source code?
Adamw (
talk) 22:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ OM BOX TEXT
-'''This [[WP:VALIDALT|user account]] is a [[Wikipedia:Bot|bot]]
+'''This [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legit|user account]] is a [[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]]
@ PURPOSE
-It is used to make repetitive [[WP:BOTDICT#Automated editing|automated]] or [[WP:BOTDICT#Assisted editing|semi-automated]] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the [[WP:BOTPOL|bot policy]].
+It is used to make repetitive [[Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Automated_editing|automated]] or [[Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Assisted_editing|semi-automated]] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Bot policy|bot policy]].
Summary: Change wikilinks to direct link rather than link to redirects. ~ riley ( talk) 04:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In the sandbox here, I've added an overridable automatic short description, "Wikipedia editing bot run by [User]", similar to what {{ Userpage}} does for non-bot users. It applies only in userspace non-subpages and only if a single bot operator is specified. Please let me know if there are any concerns before I implement. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Many (if not most) bots these days have multiple tasks, but this template handles them poorly. Unless overriden with |brfaoverride=
, it links only to the first BRFA while claiming that it's linking to all of them. Could we set it up so that if there are multiple BRFA pages, it changes its wording somehow accordingly? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 20:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
...the relevant request for approval can be seen here" with "here" being a link to the first-approved BRFA. In my opinion that sentence does not indicate that it links to all BRFAs by the bot so I don't think it needs updating from that perspective. Primefac ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I propose changing
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.
to
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it with this special link that disables autoblocks.
The real purpose of that sentence is not to encourage administrators to go blocking bots for little things, it is to get them to block it with autoblocks off. So I think making this more explicit would be helpful. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Bot is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Given that a bot which has had approval for a limited trial is not fully approved but is nevertheless allowed to make limited numbers of controlled edits, could a suitable alternative wording be added for this? ClickRick ( talk) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 ( talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group. |
This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 ( talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group. |
This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 ( talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
File:Crystal Clear question bot.svg
, then change:{{ombox |image = [[File:{{{image|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{status}}}}} |active |approved |trial = Crystal Clear accepted bot.png |inactive = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |unapproved = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |#default = Crystal Clear action run.png
To:
{{ombox |image = [[File:{{{image|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{status}}}}} |active |approved |trial = Crystal Clear question bot.png |inactive = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |unapproved = Crystal Clear denied bot.png |#default = Crystal Clear action run.png
to reflect the above consensus. Thanks & regards, CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have archived this talk page to clear up any confusion and left the above proposal here. Cj005257 ( talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
}}, please [{{fullurl:Special:Block|wpBlockAddress={{PAGENAMEE}}&wpBlockExpiry=indefinite&wpAnonOnly=0&wpEnableAutoblock=0&wpCreateAccount=0&wpBlockReason=Bot%20malfunctioning:%20}} block it] {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{awb}}}}}|yes |or remove from the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage|approved accounts]]
This (and some earlier lines) creates the following with the default templates: "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it ."
I want that space moved so it appears only for AWB bots, which seems to be what the one who added it wanted.
}}, please [{{fullurl:Special:Block|wpBlockAddress={{PAGENAMEE}}&wpBlockExpiry=indefinite&wpAnonOnly=0&wpEnableAutoblock=0&wpCreateAccount=0&wpBlockReason=Bot%20malfunctioning:%20}} block it]{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{awb}}}}}|yes | or remove from the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage|approved accounts]]
81.231.245.214 ( talk) 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
| or remove
instead. The full requested edit may be seen
here.
Anomie
⚔ 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|inactive
Should be changed to
|inactive = File:Crystal Clear inactive bot2.png
This will add clarity to the difference between inactive bots and unapproved ones. Thanks. FinalRapture - † ☪ 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I recommend that the coding be changed on this template so that the status displays more obviously (perhaps in bold). Currently it is not obvious what the status is. -- Kumioko ( talk) 23:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Extended content
|
---|
Please replace this:
with
|
— cyberpower ChatOnline 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
|unapproved=
switch option." or "Please sync with the sandbox." —
Bility (
talk) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to the wording about stopping bots. I suggest the following instruction as a least-controversial start, but maybe it could be improved by showing the link without a pipe, or even using the redirect=no parameter in the link. Suggested change is from
to
Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a redundant word "here" in the following excerpt from the source which points people to a bot's local approval:
The first "here" should be deleted, so that the line becomes:
Since this is a minor typographical error, I am omitting step 1 of Wikipedia:Edit requests#Procedure as suggested for uncontroversial changes.
Thank you! TheSophera ( talk) 01:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to suppress the text "the relevant request for approval can be seen here" in this template? User:BattyBot has 20 BRFAs, and linking to the first approval may give the impression that it is only approved for that task. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 04:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|brfa=
parameter that lets you point to a different subpage of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/. For AnomieBOT, I created
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT/TaskList as a redirect to a list of all AnomieBOT's BRFAs.
Anomie
⚔ 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|brfa=
with an invalid parameter, it suppresses the text. Since my list of tasks (and their corresponding RFBA links) are directly below the {{
Bot}} template, this works perfectly for me. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
GoingBatty (
talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Pinging some people for awareness: @
Anomie,
GoingBatty, and
JJMC89: I propose a new parameter, |overridebrfa=
, which will ignore the default BRFA path ("Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/"), and allow us to substitute our own. The change is already in the
sandbox. Behavior spec: if overridebrfa
is not empty, treat that as the full path and ignore the brfa
param completely.
Example:
{{Bot/sandbox|Anomie|overridebrfa=User:AnomieBOT/TaskList|status=active}}
→This
user account is a
bot operated by
Anomie (
talk). It is used to make repetitive
automated or
semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the
bot policy. The bot is approved and currently active – the relevant
request for approval(s) or tasks can be seen
here. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it with this special link that disables autoblocks. |
.
We essentially allow directly linking to something like User:AnomieBOT/TaskList, rather than jumping through the redirect. If there are no objections, I'll update this in a day or two. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 19:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The wording of the "awb=yes" option needs to change. Thanks to Wikipedia:Notifications, I don't think an AWB bot can be stopped by posting to its talk page. -- John of Reading ( talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Category:Wikipedia bots by status says "In theory, this category shouldn't contain any pages itself; they should be moved to one of the subcategories." However, the {{
Bot}} template is adding pages to this category, even when the |status=
parameter is used properly. (See
User:BattyBot for an example.) Could someone please update the template? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 17:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
|text=
parameter of the {{
ombox}}
, and four (
Category:Wikipedia bots using AutoWikiBrowser,
Category:All Wikipedia bots,
Category:Global Wikipedia bots,
Category:Interwiki bots are set in the |imageright=
parameter. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |#default = {{{nocat|[[Category:Wikipedia bots by status]]}}}
to |#default = {{{nocat|[[Category:Unapproved Wikipedia bots]]}}}
, with the rationale that the safest default subcat is 'unapproved' (i.e. for situations where no cat has been specified). --
Slivicon (
talk) 15:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello all, I have created a photo for inactive bots, and I wonder if mine could be implemented. Here is the link. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inactive_Bot_tag_(wikipedia).png I do not know if this is okay because of the continuity of the Crystal Clear bot images, but my photo makes it clearer that the bot is inactive. Also I am not an admin so I cannot edit it.
Cheers, Groiglery1217 ( talk) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. That is sort of what i thought. Maybe we could modify the template to state the the bot is inactive in the wording? It would help some newer users and/or users who are unfamiliar with bots Groiglery1217 ( talk) 15:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This
user account is a
bot operated by
John Smith (
talk). It is used to make repetitive
automated or
semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the
bot policy. The bot is currently inactive but
retains the approval of the community. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it. |
This user account is a
bot operated by
John Smith (
talk). It is a
legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually.
|
Weird. When I put the tag on one bot, it never said inactive. Let me check now Groiglery1217 ( talk) 13:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright it's there now. Thanks Anomie! Let's end the discussion here Groiglery1217 ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's not trump Ahecht's idea though. Users should use both. Groiglery1217 ( talk) 13:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change #default={{codebase}}}}
to #default={{{codebase}}}}}
(as per
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Bot/sandbox&diff=848215099&oldid=848215049) in order to fix the error in the last (newly added) testcase on
Template:Bot/testcases (use your browser's find within page function (ctrl+f, cmd+f, etc) with the text "mwparserfromhell" to jump directly to the sandbox/main testcases for this testcase).
Garzfoth (
talk) 14:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rephrase:
in accordance
-> to the bot policyin accordance with the bot policy
See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20accordance%20with and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20accordance%20to
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have discovered a bug in this template. If an
interlanguage link prefix is used in |site=
, the template doesn't link to the user page properly (displaying like: ()), because the link is interpreted as an interlanguage link. This affects about
127 user pages.
I have fixed this in the sandbox by adding a colon so the interlanguage prefix will be escaped and link as expected: diff
I have also added a new testcase for this (though the diff showing it added is a bit messed up because I also changed the name from "John Smith" to "Example" in the same edit.) Retro ( talk | contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I had a bot previously in good standing, and which was BAG approved (I was a BAG member and was and still am an admin). The bot - User:Kingbotk - last edited in 2008. It's quite reasonable that after 10 years of inactivity the bot was blocked, but as I link to the account from my own user page it is quite disheartening for it to display "This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn, and therefore shouldn't be making edits" and for it to be in Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots. Separately and together these messages seem to me to paint a picture of misbehaviour which just isn't the case.
I have a couple of questions:
1. Could we have a status=expired with "nicer" text to cover bots which were approved but are no longer active?
2. What purpose does the Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots serve other than naming and shaming?
-- kingboyk ( talk) 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
|status=expired/obsolete/whatever
, that's fine by me. As for the indef category, I don't see that at implying misbehavior. It's a tracking category, and serves to tell people who might wonder 'Hey, I haven't seen FooBot edit in a while, I have something it could do, let's ask the operator to run the bot on these pages" that the bot isn't operating at the moment, and that they are probably better off making a
WP:BOTREQ.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
status=expired
as an alias for the existing status=retired
. Setting {{
bot}} to either of those will automatically place it in the category
Category:Retired Wikipedia bots.
Wug·
a·po·des 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated the category for deletion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
As a developer hoping to understand the logic implemented by bots, I would love if we encouraged linking to the bot's deployed source code and configuration. Introducing template parameters such as download
and configuration
would be one easy way to do this. Or maybe there's a reason I'm not aware of, that we shouldn't publish bot source code?
Adamw (
talk) 22:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ OM BOX TEXT
-'''This [[WP:VALIDALT|user account]] is a [[Wikipedia:Bot|bot]]
+'''This [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legit|user account]] is a [[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]]
@ PURPOSE
-It is used to make repetitive [[WP:BOTDICT#Automated editing|automated]] or [[WP:BOTDICT#Assisted editing|semi-automated]] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the [[WP:BOTPOL|bot policy]].
+It is used to make repetitive [[Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Automated_editing|automated]] or [[Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Assisted_editing|semi-automated]] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Bot policy|bot policy]].
Summary: Change wikilinks to direct link rather than link to redirects. ~ riley ( talk) 04:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In the sandbox here, I've added an overridable automatic short description, "Wikipedia editing bot run by [User]", similar to what {{ Userpage}} does for non-bot users. It applies only in userspace non-subpages and only if a single bot operator is specified. Please let me know if there are any concerns before I implement. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Many (if not most) bots these days have multiple tasks, but this template handles them poorly. Unless overriden with |brfaoverride=
, it links only to the first BRFA while claiming that it's linking to all of them. Could we set it up so that if there are multiple BRFA pages, it changes its wording somehow accordingly? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 20:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
...the relevant request for approval can be seen here" with "here" being a link to the first-approved BRFA. In my opinion that sentence does not indicate that it links to all BRFAs by the bot so I don't think it needs updating from that perspective. Primefac ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I propose changing
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.
to
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it with this special link that disables autoblocks.
The real purpose of that sentence is not to encourage administrators to go blocking bots for little things, it is to get them to block it with autoblocks off. So I think making this more explicit would be helpful. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)