This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone able to help me write a bot that will revert obscene image vandalism with edit summaries such as: Example: (BOTNAME: Reverted edits by UserName to last version by OtherUser - obscene image removed)
If anyone knows anything about how to do such a thing in Python, I'd appreciate the help! -- SunStar Net talk 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
People watching this page might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Rise_of_the_bots. Also, does anyone here want to have a go at updating Wikipedia:Types of bots and Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots, which could be interesting if they were updated. Carcharoth 04:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots (protected) suggests users might be looking for Wikipedia:Bot policy. The main page for bots is not now Wikipedia:Bot policy but Wikipedia:Bot. Please can this be changed. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the process please for trying to build a consensus for change of policy on this point? It seems unecessarily harsh. I believe that automated spell bots should be permitted. The only quoted reason for not allowing them currently is "It is not technically possible to create such a bot that would not make mistakes". I do not see this as a good enough reason for not allowing automated spell checking bots, on the basis that the same rule does not apply to other types of bots - AntiVandalBot, for instance, frequently makes false positive matches, yet is allowed to operate. Even if the policy was changed to allow spellbots, each individual bot would still have to go through the rigorous bot request for approval process and satisfy the bot approval group that it operated in a satisfactory manner. I would like to get a consensus to change this policy. - PocklingtonDan 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't foget thaty spellling mistaks sometimes need to be kept. [sics] Such as on talk pages. They can demonstrate a contributor's grasp of spelling. Also, sometimes people are discussing and quoting spelling mistakes. Even in articles. Maybe we need a way to label deliberate spelling mistakes in articles. Please don't correct spelling mistakes on talk pages. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a redirect link there? {Slash -|- Talk} 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been numerous complaints on User_talk:OrphanBot, but the bot is still running. What should we do? Kirils 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like a couple of more eyes to review Shadowbot's behavior. My comment is here. -- Dystopos 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I just added a new section on Repairing damage. — Steve Summit ( talk) 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about bots, so I'm posting here with a concern. 6w3 seems to be acting like a bot, but it has no info on it's user page so I don't know who the operator is. It's going around tagging all images that have copyright info in a non-standard format as being unlicensed. Macduff 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have confirmed with the developers via the wikitech-l mailing list that there are no technical issues with bots editing faster than the six edits a minute currently allowed by Wikipedia:Bot Policy. Would anyone have any objections to changing the policy to allow editing at rates of 15 edits/minute? That would leave four seconds between edits, enough time to stop a malfunctioning bot before it makes too many bad edits. This would not affect the recent changes, as bot edits are hidden by default, and if a bot hit a large portion of your watchlist you can hide bot edits by simply clicking the "Hide bot edits" link. — METS501 ( talk) 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, it seems like there's consensus here and on the mailing list. I've updated the relevant policy accordingly. — METS501 ( talk) 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What would be nice is a meta tag or something that will direct a bots of a name or all bots to avoid a page (maybe even a section). Something that all bots should try to respect. I would like to use something like this a on a few pages that bots love to chomp (my user page for one). ZacBowling talk 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Four different internationalization bots have mistakenly tried to link Gaff rig to it:Gaffe in the past couple of weeks. While "gaffe" may very well be the Italian word for "gaff," the meaning of it:Gaffe is "gaffe" as in "faux pas," not "gaff" as in "four-sided sailing rig." Complaining to the individual bots in question won't really solve the problem; what's needed is a way to prevent future i14n bots from edit warring on this point. I turned off bots altogether with \{\{nobots\}\}, but that's a rather blunt instrument, and specifying individual bots to allow or deny doesn't help, either, because the next internationalization bot to come along will repeat the same mistake. Some sort of categorization of bots, with the ability to lock out a particular category of bots, would be awfully helpful here. Susan Davis 18:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is another internationalization bot that makes erroneous links. Several have been pointed out in User talk:Thijs!bot but the operator makes a point of not checking his English talk page. Instead he refers editors to his Dutch talk page, which is incomprehensible to most people. IMHO he should not be using bots to edit pages unless he monitors talk pages in all the languages his bot is making edits in. -- Harumphy 11:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can bots be written in PHP or VisualBasic? ~ Step trip 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Bots don't trigger "you have new messages", right? -- TeckWiz Parlate Contribs @ 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
More than one bot has added it:Veneto Fronte Skinheads to the Rock Against Communism article as if it is an Italian version of the same article. A quick look shows that they are not about the same topic. I left a message on one of the bot's talk page awhile ago, but I can't find that message again. Clearly it is a problem with the bot itself, so that should be corrected. Spylab 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The featured.py bot make this [1] kinds of mistakes, can someone see what's wrong? - Warddr 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Due to the recent issues with Betacommand and more specifically the bot issues surrounding the ArbCom case, I want to try to update the bot policy to be clearer. First, I would like to add information on the treatment of admin bots. We have unwritten policy, but it should be added for clarity. Secondly and more importantly, we need to clarify the types of bots and what their levels of oversight are. For example, we differentiate in the approvals process between "Unsupervised Automatic", "Supervised Automatic", and "Manually-Assisted". The term "semi-automatic" is not really defined, but is being floated around. None of those terms are defined on the policy page. The first two always require approvals and the last may or may not. The last issue I'd like to cover is what role bot policy and the approvals process should play in development of "semi-automated" scripts. Betacommand believed that running his script was ok because he manually confirmed everything, because frankly that's what policy says. However, he was running too fast and as such ran afoul of policy. That said, what if he ran it slow, at say, 2 edits per minute? Do our policies apply in that case? The script is still making automatic decisions that could be run improperly, so does such a script require approval or not? -- RM 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposed: No sysop shall operate a bot that uses any of their privileged functions without explict permission from the Bot Approvals Group and consensus from the community. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Disucssion moved to WP:BOWN. — xaosflux Talk 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:B could also be looking for Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. I'm not sure if I should add it to the template yet. If fact, I'm not sure how. Chrishy man 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Both bots in the Wikipedia bootcamp room are missing. Real96 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be wise to specify a specific maximum edit rate a user may edit at. There is a concern raised at Betacommand's Arbitration case about this, I'm not sure how related to the case it is, but it should be something of common sense. Any fast editing of more then say 10 edits per minute over a period of 5-10 minutes can be considered botlike activity and a bot account should be used. The exact numbers is not a major concern, its the idea.
So this is what I propose, adding a new line to Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Assisted_bots that says something to the effect of editing faster then XX edits per minute for a duration of YY minutes can be considered something that needs its own account. X and Y can be whatever, I suggest 5-6 edits averaged over 5-10 minutes. Just tossing the general idea out from the arbcom case. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I'm just throwing this idea out there to generate discussion. I haven't decided whether I support it yet. To reduce the overhead on BAG, to prevent WP:CREEP, to avoid allegations of shrubbery, and to advance the project might it be a good idea to have some trusted bot users ( Cyde and Rich Farmbrough are possibilities) who can take actions that are not likely to be controversial without further approval? I think BAG is important, and I think some sense that administrators can't make up rules for themselves is important, but perhaps we can find a way to make everyone happy without being inconsistent. -- Selket Talk 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the edit rate section of the policy is unnecessarily wordy. It also needs to be updated to reflect recent opinion of the devs (up to 60ppm for large, important tasks) and the new maxlag parameter. In particular, bots which implement maxlag (without being too aggressive in the setting) need not have a specified maximum edit rate at all. -- kingboyk 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading through the MfD of BAG I have gathered some observations and thoughts regarding a rewrite of our bot policy. Here's some points I believe we should change. First the BAG:
Now on to issues of bot operation and "approval":
Since this is just a rough sketch, additional input is welcome (in case I missed something and you spot a gaping hole in this system). Миша 13 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, here are a few gaping holes:
There is no control in that, it's anarchy, and anarchy doesn't work. ST47 Talk 12:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd question whether or not the proposal would have any chance of success when under community-wide scrutiny. Weakening the system for theoretical benefit is not something that *most* people want. A major policy change could take months to hammer out if it is similar to some of the other official policies that have changed. That effort could be spent on actually solving the real problems facing approvals.
You have some good ideas, but in general your suggestion is to change the process so that approvals are totally optional at the discretion of the operator. You also want to rename BAG which won't help anything. Is this a "control the language, win the argument" type of thing? -- RM 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) -- RM 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this proposal doesn't reflect the way the wind is blowing on the MFD at all. Please see the section above for a more pressing proposal based on recent dev feedback. I'll try and get something written later if nobody beats me to it. -- kingboyk 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I support this as long as it's not a permanent block. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason we are conservative with bots is because we want humans to do the work. We want humans to do the work, because we want humans to think. If we didn't want people to think, we'd use bots.
In some situations, you really don't care whether someone is actually thinking, or thinking is unimportant. In those cases, using bots is fine.
Some people are misrepresenting policy as thinking that people haven't allowed bots because bots are dangerous. I don't think anyone much cared about that at all.
-- Kim Bruning 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked this bot for 24 hours so that the repeated reversion of valid links on 7th Armored Division (United States) can be fixed. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Discussion is here. DES (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is somewhat relevant to the recent MFD on the Bot Approvals Group, so I'll post some information here. I have recently closed the BAG MFD as "reform", as that is generally what the community has called for. Some of the main concerns raised were:
Of course, some people also expressed the sentiment that it isn't broken, and doesn't need to be fixed. I wish the community and BAG luck to whatever you plan on doing. This is a cross post to multiple venues. Sean William 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
One is permitted to run an untagged, unrecognised, undeclared, unapproved bot, provided it does not edit at a rate fater than one edit per two minutes. Is this still an entirely correct interpretation of the guidelines on this day?
If not, why was this changed?
-- Kim Bruning 16:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think saying they need "manual approval" is referring to how they are operated - the operator is supposed to verify each edit individually, rather than let the bot run without supervision. The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted bots, which says an assisted bot does not necessarily need approval, referring to the BAG process. Any script editing at a reasonable pace, with specific supervision that replies promptly to questions, is pretty much indistinguishable from any other editor. Gimmetrow 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, when I said "manually approved", I was referring to the edits, not the bots. Gracenotes T § 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The admin that closed that MfD noted the cautionary shot that was fired over the bow of BAG; if action is not taken, action will be taken for them.
Reading Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Rewrite_proposal, a number of points are raised. I'd like to refocus on one particular point. As it stands, BAG is not open to membership. One must pass an election process to get in. The arguments in favor of this arrangement have focused on the desire to not add additional work to the bureaucrats, thus taking the responsibility of determining consensus on bot approvals from the bureaucrats and placing it with the BAG.
There's a number of inherent problems in this, not least of which is that to get on the BAG, you have to be voted in by the current members of the BAG. This was derided in the MfD by a number of people.
I propose that BAG be reformed such consensus making decisions are made by bureaucrats, and not by an elected BAG person. We're not talking about a huge amount of traffic here. Looking at the log, we've been averaging about 23 flaggings per month. If RfA is any measure, about 1/10th of these are ones that might be marginal. This isn't an onerous amount of work.
This proposal removes
-- Durin 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We can continue the discussion above, but I need to clarify some points that are confusing. BAG is responsible for two things:
Perhaps we can discuss each issue individually? -- RM 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My observations:
Regarding your recent addition to policy, I don't think there is consensus on this either. There has been no consensus within the ArbCom for this ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed decision#Admin bots), let alone in the community at large (ArbCom works by voting, not by consensus). Tizio 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
When using the add action of Category.py is there a way of getting the categories to be added to the end of the articles rather then at the top? / Lokal _ Profil 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I hope this is the right location for such a query. I am looking for a bot operator who can help me replace over 400 {{WikiProject Palestine}} with the new {{WikiProject Palestine}}. It is a simple search and replace that is limited to the set of pages that link directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine, for example this list of pages. Is this something that a bot operator can help me with? If anyone can help and has the time to help, please reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine. Thanks for your time. -- 70.51.232.124 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Children_of_Curpsbot regarding the secret use of adminbots. Dragons flight 06:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, What are the policies on Read Only bots? I don't remember reading anything on them, and i'm curious based on some of the bots using the automated spam sources outside wikipedia. Thanks! TheFearow 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
80.168.225.159 is making an average of 2.7 edits per minute ( edit counter)( Contributions). All the edits are all {{ coor title dm}} templates being added to articles. I cant tell if this is a bot running annon or a user who has been making similar edits for 2 and a half hours with no edits before today. If this is a bot, what would one do? Thanks, Urdna 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If the only edit a bot makes is to its own user pages/pages does it still need approval? My example being a bot which lists all of the dead links on a page and then whacks them into a table on its user page for its operator to fix. There's no explicit policy on this as far as I can tell. It makes at least one edit without human interaction - but surely one edit to a page few are likley to see can't count as a server hog? PeteMarsh 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
According to User:Gracenotes who is currently running for admin, he is allowed to use his robotic script with no need for a special account or Talk page. He seems to be generating hundreds of simple robotic edits per hour, for many hours, all from a regular human account. Is this all acceptable, as he says (see A7), according to WP:BOT? Crum375 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Can i create a manually assisted bot which uses AWB. It would do small tasks round my pages and some others? Thanks AC Best My Contributions Autograph Book 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) PLEASE LEAVE REPLIES TO THIS ON MY TALK PAGE AT User talk:ACBest. THANKS!
An automated script run by a user has caused a lot of disagreement (see here and here). The issue was discussed at WP:AN/I, but did not result in any action. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Bot delinking dates)
I would like to propose the following guideline for discussion:
“ | Automated processes should only be used for edits everyone can agree on. They should not be used in cases where there is a content dispute. | ” |
-- Petri Krohn 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably everybody and their neighbor already know. But pywikipedia bots are now selflimiting:
Changing page [[en:Curt Schilling]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Curt Schilling]] Changing page [[en:Dale Murphy]] Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] Changing page [[en:Dick Groat]] Changing page [[en:Don Kessinger]]
and that's even specifying -putthrottle argument. So, the old chant about "bots at high speed will destroy the server" is now, at least for pywikipedia based bots, invalid, as the server itself throttles the bot when there's a heavy load. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
maxlag = None
in user-config.py
disables this behavior and reverts to internal throttle. This may be useful in cases when the bot simply must do several consecutive edits at a quick rate, ignoring the lag.
Миша
13 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)User:BetacommandBot is getting a lot of complaints, but the owner is not responding. -- Apoc2400 10:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This bot seems to be out of control with falsely adding perfectly fine images non fair-use speedy deletion tags. カ ラ ム 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, please see their talk page at User talk:BetacommandBot. ( Mind meal 10:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
BetacommandBot seems to be out of control, altering huge swaths of pages (whitespace edits, perhaps?). This has been brought up on its talk-page, but its owner hasn't replied yet; until (s)he fixes it, I think the bot should probably be temporarily blocked. — Ruakh TALK 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Tagged a public domain image BetacommandBot has tagged 100+ talk pages using an image ( Image:Coast guard flag.gif) with a Public Domain template. Although the specific PD template used on the image at the time was obsolete, it was nonetheless an assertion that the image was in the public domain, an assertion easily confirmed. Yet the Bot confusingly and incorrectly tagged all articles using the image as needing a fair use justification, when all it needed was a slightly different PD template change. Betacommand asserts nothing was wrong with this, while I disagree. Further, I feel it would be consist ant with WP:B for Betacommand to repair the damage and remove all the 'fair use rationale required' templates from all the articles using Image:Coast guard flag.gif. Thank you. -- Pesco 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I run User:polbot, which has a bot flag and has been approved for 2 different functions. I'm working on code that will collect information from a few hundred different pages and summarize that in a textfile on my computer. I will then paste the contents of that textfile into a subpage of my userpage. Does this sort of process require bot approval, or can I just run it without getting authorization? – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I recently made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Gathering data on DEFAULTSORT, listas and Category pipe-sorting in biographical articles, and was told that here might be a better place to ask. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, either here or there. I think the original place was the right place to ask, but I was told to ask here, so I am doing so! :-) Carcharoth 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I would just like to say first that I am not "reporting", this bot as such, merely asking some questions, as I may also like to create a bot in the future. If you look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OsamaKBOT it says it's an interwiki bot, yet its contributions are to fix double redirects, see also this. I was wondering :
Thanks if anyone can answer these questions, and sorry if maybe I should have asked about this at the help desk. Jackaranga 08:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be an increasing number of individually created and maintained bots now that run with hourly, daily, or weekly periodicity. It seems to me that the more we do this, the more we rely on the continued good will of the users who run these bots. I started a (never completed) list of periodic maintenance activities various folks run nearly a year ago, at Wikipedia:Maintenance/tasklist. This whole approach strikes me as tremendously ad hoc. I think a better approach might be to put hourly, daily, and weekly bot tasks on a protected page someplace, to be run be a centralized bot. The centralized bot could either be run by some volunteer, or on toolserver (by anyone with a toolserver account - assuming you can run at jobs on toolserver), or on some other wikimedia server assuming we could convince the development team this is a good idea. Anyone think this might be worth pursuing? -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Backing up a bit, my idea is to have a jointly managed tasklist (meaning actual executable scripts, not just descriptions), on one or more pages so that
I'm not sure any of the existing bot frameworks are exactly suitable for this. I've recently started running a pywikipedia bot but created my own custom version of replace.py that replaces an entire file with an input file so I could connect a bunch of previously written shell/awk scripts to it. I think for this to work, the control file for the bot would have to be highly scriptable perhaps more like at a shell level than perl (or python or whatever). Maybe the simplest way to explain this would be for me to set up an example. I run a daily job now. I'll put the shell script I use in a (protected) file someplace and have my "bot" retrieve it and execute it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, I still live... just work has buried me, and I've crawled out of my hole to post for a bit. I think this is a great idea, and I'd be willing to assist. I had a few ideas but I don't know whether they'd work now... A generic bot for this purpose that one could subclass from would be useful. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Does a sysop or an admin or even an editor know if the functionality of HagermanBot is going to be supported or is HagermanBot going to be fixed? I am under the impression it is no longer running. It was very useful. Thanks! -- akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I noticed a bot running without a flag, which seems to be violating WP:OWN by constantly reverting a users page to their preferred version. See the following:
I know this is against policy, both bot policy (no approval) and that of WP:OWN
Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added "There is, of course, no reason that help cannot be asked for or offered." to this. While we all feel responsibility for our bots, the bottom line is responsibility for the encyclopedia. I would certainly wish to help out a bot owner in difficulties, rather than just say "your problem - you fix it". Rich Farmbrough 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
When the source code for a bot is made, and published on Meta-Wiki, and the bot listed at approval requests, do you need to submit the source code in someway, or is there nothing left to do? Cool Blue talk to me 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything on this policy page about bots' behavior regarding User pages. Twice this month bots have added interwiki links to my User page here at en:, to link it to my user pages at other wikis (i.e., in other languages). Thing is, I don't want my User page linked to any other wikis; if I did, I would have done it myself. I think this policy page should at least mention that many users don't want their user pages changed by others, and especially not by bots. I don't expect an all-out ban on bot-editing of User pages, but I think it should be discouraged. - dcljr ( talk) 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I made this infobox - Template:Infobox Bot, obviously for bots. What does everybody think of it? I myself think its pretty useful. Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I added "author" and "shutoff" as parameters. Sebi [ talk 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it, but First, I should stat that I now fully understand the intent of BetacommandBot. I'm not arguing its intent. I'm making claims against it's implementation. The burden of proof section states that the bot must be harmless. I would argue that in many cases, it is doing harm. I specifically reference: [2] I have attempted to contact the creator of the bot, but he insists that there's nothing wrong. He says that I should just subst my templates rather than transclude them, but that eliminates most of the point of the template. He has even suggested that some changes be made to the template in order to bring it in compliance with policy. Existence as a transcluded template facilitates easier change. Also, I shouldn't have to change my behaviors because of a bot. Wouldn't that be a "harm"? What, if anything, should be done? McKay 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I left a message on the bot's talk page. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I am considering getting a bot, but haven't filed my request yet. Can a bot be programmed in Hypertext Markup Language, or HTML? Also, what is a botnet and what does the Wikipedia Community think of them? I noticed Bonaparte was banned for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet". ionas68224| talk| contribs| email 10:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Auto-revert ( talk · contribs)
I don't know if this actually is a bot or not, the page claims that it is an "Automated service to revert vandalism". Is reverting all edits made by user Nate1481, when they aren't vandalism. Several complaints left on talk page, seems to be malicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thedarxide ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this already exists and I'm just blind, but is there a way to get an idea of the likelihood of a bot being approved in principle before going ahead and actually writing the bot? It's my understanding that Requests for approval should only be used after the bot is written--which may result in a lot of wasted work if the request is ultimately denied. So if there isn't already, perhaps there should be a place where someone can seek input on whether or not a bot for a certain purpose is acceptable in principle before he goes ahead and writes the bot and tries to get his particular implementation accepted. Kurt Weber 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am watching some pages with a huge number of interwiki links, like Amsterdam and Netherlands. Every time one of the interwiki bots adds an interwiki link, it seems to randomly rearrange some of the links. Sometimes into alphabetical order, sometimes breaking the existing right order. For example: diff 1 (misplacing pam) diff 2 (misplacing be-x-old and lt). Also note this diff, where a bot makes an edit only rearranging interwiki links.
My proposal would be the following:
Another problem with these bots making errors is that the authors can often only be contacted off the en wiki.
-- User:Krator ( t c) 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. Polbot is an approved bot that reads information from the IUCN and creates new stubs on plant and animal species. There is currently a request for opinions here regarding the linking of biologists' names. Any comments on that page would be welcome. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded Image:Second Ave Subway CGI station.jpg today with a rationale during its intial upload. Half an hour later, OrphanBot tagged the image as not having a rationale, despite it had one. An hour later, the bot tagged the same image a second time, leaving two identical tags on the page. I removed the tags and send Carnildo (bot's operator) a message about the issue. Then less than half an hour later, the bot tags the image for a third time, and I'm pretty sure it will do it again. If the bot has tagged my image incorrectly three times, I'm sure it has also done so to other images as well. – Dream out loud ( talk) 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This page and other related talk about policies regarding bots, not about the technical details abouts bots, so excuse me if I ask a nonsense.
From what I have seen, despite working in other ways, a bot would be, from a strict technical point of view, a user like any other else. User page, user talk page, contributions, logs, etc; all the things a user has, a bot also has. Even more, there are some things of the kind of using a bot as a regular account (like answering to other users) that are not encouraged, but by not being so means they are possible to be done. But then, by logic, the opposite would also apply: if bots and users are technically the same, and a bot can be used as a main user account, then a main user account could be also used as a bot.
I guess that nobody would support an administrator employing bot techniques to tag all articles in a huge category for deletion, or to close a huge number of deletion discussions with a predefined result, or to delete all such articles in a row. But is there a way, other than the stadistic fact of more than 800 edits and 100 deletions in less than 10 hours, to prove that a regular account was being used as a bot?
Note: This topic is not for reporting the actions mentioned. That would be done somewhere else, at it's proper way. This topic is merely for the technical question, about if it's possible to recognize actions done by software or by human checking Perón 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that a bot it an automated program to read and edit wikipedia, but i was wondering if the following counts as a bot: Something that simply reads wikipedia and maintains its own log of issues to be manualy edited or if the bot is simply after statistics.
This wouldnt cause the problem of potentialy dangerous editing but it would download a lot of data from th server and i wondered whether wikipedia objects to such programs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3.14 etc ( talk • contribs) 23:29, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
“ | Bots that download substantial portions of the page database are prohibited. Instead, download the database dumps. See also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. | ” |
I have 2 queries :
Bot 1 - I would like to make a PHP script. What this would do is allow me to enter the name of a user and then the script reads the Special:Contributions/User pages ( All pages) and the script calculates brief statistics on their usage including total number of edits, number of new articles started, top 5 most edited articles and so on. I don't think that this qualifies as a bot but may be prohibited under mirror laws.
Bot 2 - This would be run approx once per month i think. It would collect a list of dissambiguation pages from Catagory:disambiguation, at each run it would collect a set number then stop. Then the program would cycle through it's previous list ( stored in a text file) and for each one read the Special:Whatlinkshere page for that page and read the list of articles and store them in a seperate text file.
After it's run i can manualy look at the output file and for each one investigate whether it would be better for the link to be to the correct article ( if there is one) rather than the disambiguation page.
For example there are currently numerous pages with links to the LA disambiguation page and i am sure that a great deal of them should realy be pointed at Los Angeles
I think that this second bot would almost certainly need approval as it would look at enough pages, perhaps 1000 per run, however i don't know if it is a bot as it doesnt edit manualy and it would be close to impossible for it to do so. ( Pi 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
Also, is it prohibited to run a bot simply as a means of testing the bot code, on the condition that the only page edited is the user's own sandbox? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3.14 etc ( talk • contribs) 18:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Is there a bot available that can take a newly created template with many links and systematically add the template to the bottom of each article the template links to? The only problem might be getting it to add the template in the right location. Richard001 09:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been noticing some trouble with the way ImageRemovalBot handles the deletion of gallery images. Many of the images that ImageRemovalBot removes are music-related. Some of these images are album covers that have been placed in galleries on artist's pages. When ImageRemovalBot removes the image, it also removes the name, record label, release date, and chart information along with the image. In some cases, it has removed several or all albums released by a band. Here are some examples:
I had a spirited discussion with the bot's owner, Carnildo, about fixing the problem. I suggested either modifying the bot to change images in galleries to some sort of default "no image" image, or simply stopping removing redlinked images from galleries (better to log them and remove by hand than have the bot removing content along with them).
Carnildo and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, so I am posting here because I think this bot is no longer harmless per WP:BOT. Chubbles 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a better way to encourage formatting of discographies as galleries could be to create a warning tag - say, {{ baddiscography}} or something - which says "this discography should be reformatted according to Wikipedia policy" or something. After all, ImageRemovalBot's way of doing things isn't helping keep galleries of discography pages; people who notice the images getting deleted usually re-upload the images and add them back to the galleries (seen this happening already, as I clean up after IMB's mess). Chubbles 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This bot is broken and needs to be stopped until it's fixed. I noticed the same issue on Trail of Dead - 81.178.126.124 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Following this thread, I have decided to start here a more general discussion on whether bots should be allowed to keep doing controversial or even against-consensus edits. In my opinion, it's quite obvious that bots should not engage in edit warring with humans (apart from the cases of vandalism). I therefore propose to add something to this effect to the policy. At this moment, I don't see any exception other than reversion of vandalism, but I am sure there must be other ones. My suggestion is that bot should not revert humans unless explicitely authorized to do so. Tizio 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone able to help me write a bot that will revert obscene image vandalism with edit summaries such as: Example: (BOTNAME: Reverted edits by UserName to last version by OtherUser - obscene image removed)
If anyone knows anything about how to do such a thing in Python, I'd appreciate the help! -- SunStar Net talk 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
People watching this page might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Rise_of_the_bots. Also, does anyone here want to have a go at updating Wikipedia:Types of bots and Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots, which could be interesting if they were updated. Carcharoth 04:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots (protected) suggests users might be looking for Wikipedia:Bot policy. The main page for bots is not now Wikipedia:Bot policy but Wikipedia:Bot. Please can this be changed. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the process please for trying to build a consensus for change of policy on this point? It seems unecessarily harsh. I believe that automated spell bots should be permitted. The only quoted reason for not allowing them currently is "It is not technically possible to create such a bot that would not make mistakes". I do not see this as a good enough reason for not allowing automated spell checking bots, on the basis that the same rule does not apply to other types of bots - AntiVandalBot, for instance, frequently makes false positive matches, yet is allowed to operate. Even if the policy was changed to allow spellbots, each individual bot would still have to go through the rigorous bot request for approval process and satisfy the bot approval group that it operated in a satisfactory manner. I would like to get a consensus to change this policy. - PocklingtonDan 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't foget thaty spellling mistaks sometimes need to be kept. [sics] Such as on talk pages. They can demonstrate a contributor's grasp of spelling. Also, sometimes people are discussing and quoting spelling mistakes. Even in articles. Maybe we need a way to label deliberate spelling mistakes in articles. Please don't correct spelling mistakes on talk pages. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a redirect link there? {Slash -|- Talk} 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been numerous complaints on User_talk:OrphanBot, but the bot is still running. What should we do? Kirils 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like a couple of more eyes to review Shadowbot's behavior. My comment is here. -- Dystopos 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I just added a new section on Repairing damage. — Steve Summit ( talk) 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about bots, so I'm posting here with a concern. 6w3 seems to be acting like a bot, but it has no info on it's user page so I don't know who the operator is. It's going around tagging all images that have copyright info in a non-standard format as being unlicensed. Macduff 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have confirmed with the developers via the wikitech-l mailing list that there are no technical issues with bots editing faster than the six edits a minute currently allowed by Wikipedia:Bot Policy. Would anyone have any objections to changing the policy to allow editing at rates of 15 edits/minute? That would leave four seconds between edits, enough time to stop a malfunctioning bot before it makes too many bad edits. This would not affect the recent changes, as bot edits are hidden by default, and if a bot hit a large portion of your watchlist you can hide bot edits by simply clicking the "Hide bot edits" link. — METS501 ( talk) 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, it seems like there's consensus here and on the mailing list. I've updated the relevant policy accordingly. — METS501 ( talk) 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What would be nice is a meta tag or something that will direct a bots of a name or all bots to avoid a page (maybe even a section). Something that all bots should try to respect. I would like to use something like this a on a few pages that bots love to chomp (my user page for one). ZacBowling talk 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Four different internationalization bots have mistakenly tried to link Gaff rig to it:Gaffe in the past couple of weeks. While "gaffe" may very well be the Italian word for "gaff," the meaning of it:Gaffe is "gaffe" as in "faux pas," not "gaff" as in "four-sided sailing rig." Complaining to the individual bots in question won't really solve the problem; what's needed is a way to prevent future i14n bots from edit warring on this point. I turned off bots altogether with \{\{nobots\}\}, but that's a rather blunt instrument, and specifying individual bots to allow or deny doesn't help, either, because the next internationalization bot to come along will repeat the same mistake. Some sort of categorization of bots, with the ability to lock out a particular category of bots, would be awfully helpful here. Susan Davis 18:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is another internationalization bot that makes erroneous links. Several have been pointed out in User talk:Thijs!bot but the operator makes a point of not checking his English talk page. Instead he refers editors to his Dutch talk page, which is incomprehensible to most people. IMHO he should not be using bots to edit pages unless he monitors talk pages in all the languages his bot is making edits in. -- Harumphy 11:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can bots be written in PHP or VisualBasic? ~ Step trip 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Bots don't trigger "you have new messages", right? -- TeckWiz Parlate Contribs @ 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
More than one bot has added it:Veneto Fronte Skinheads to the Rock Against Communism article as if it is an Italian version of the same article. A quick look shows that they are not about the same topic. I left a message on one of the bot's talk page awhile ago, but I can't find that message again. Clearly it is a problem with the bot itself, so that should be corrected. Spylab 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The featured.py bot make this [1] kinds of mistakes, can someone see what's wrong? - Warddr 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Due to the recent issues with Betacommand and more specifically the bot issues surrounding the ArbCom case, I want to try to update the bot policy to be clearer. First, I would like to add information on the treatment of admin bots. We have unwritten policy, but it should be added for clarity. Secondly and more importantly, we need to clarify the types of bots and what their levels of oversight are. For example, we differentiate in the approvals process between "Unsupervised Automatic", "Supervised Automatic", and "Manually-Assisted". The term "semi-automatic" is not really defined, but is being floated around. None of those terms are defined on the policy page. The first two always require approvals and the last may or may not. The last issue I'd like to cover is what role bot policy and the approvals process should play in development of "semi-automated" scripts. Betacommand believed that running his script was ok because he manually confirmed everything, because frankly that's what policy says. However, he was running too fast and as such ran afoul of policy. That said, what if he ran it slow, at say, 2 edits per minute? Do our policies apply in that case? The script is still making automatic decisions that could be run improperly, so does such a script require approval or not? -- RM 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposed: No sysop shall operate a bot that uses any of their privileged functions without explict permission from the Bot Approvals Group and consensus from the community. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Disucssion moved to WP:BOWN. — xaosflux Talk 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:B could also be looking for Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. I'm not sure if I should add it to the template yet. If fact, I'm not sure how. Chrishy man 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Both bots in the Wikipedia bootcamp room are missing. Real96 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be wise to specify a specific maximum edit rate a user may edit at. There is a concern raised at Betacommand's Arbitration case about this, I'm not sure how related to the case it is, but it should be something of common sense. Any fast editing of more then say 10 edits per minute over a period of 5-10 minutes can be considered botlike activity and a bot account should be used. The exact numbers is not a major concern, its the idea.
So this is what I propose, adding a new line to Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Assisted_bots that says something to the effect of editing faster then XX edits per minute for a duration of YY minutes can be considered something that needs its own account. X and Y can be whatever, I suggest 5-6 edits averaged over 5-10 minutes. Just tossing the general idea out from the arbcom case. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I'm just throwing this idea out there to generate discussion. I haven't decided whether I support it yet. To reduce the overhead on BAG, to prevent WP:CREEP, to avoid allegations of shrubbery, and to advance the project might it be a good idea to have some trusted bot users ( Cyde and Rich Farmbrough are possibilities) who can take actions that are not likely to be controversial without further approval? I think BAG is important, and I think some sense that administrators can't make up rules for themselves is important, but perhaps we can find a way to make everyone happy without being inconsistent. -- Selket Talk 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the edit rate section of the policy is unnecessarily wordy. It also needs to be updated to reflect recent opinion of the devs (up to 60ppm for large, important tasks) and the new maxlag parameter. In particular, bots which implement maxlag (without being too aggressive in the setting) need not have a specified maximum edit rate at all. -- kingboyk 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading through the MfD of BAG I have gathered some observations and thoughts regarding a rewrite of our bot policy. Here's some points I believe we should change. First the BAG:
Now on to issues of bot operation and "approval":
Since this is just a rough sketch, additional input is welcome (in case I missed something and you spot a gaping hole in this system). Миша 13 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, here are a few gaping holes:
There is no control in that, it's anarchy, and anarchy doesn't work. ST47 Talk 12:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd question whether or not the proposal would have any chance of success when under community-wide scrutiny. Weakening the system for theoretical benefit is not something that *most* people want. A major policy change could take months to hammer out if it is similar to some of the other official policies that have changed. That effort could be spent on actually solving the real problems facing approvals.
You have some good ideas, but in general your suggestion is to change the process so that approvals are totally optional at the discretion of the operator. You also want to rename BAG which won't help anything. Is this a "control the language, win the argument" type of thing? -- RM 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) -- RM 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this proposal doesn't reflect the way the wind is blowing on the MFD at all. Please see the section above for a more pressing proposal based on recent dev feedback. I'll try and get something written later if nobody beats me to it. -- kingboyk 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I support this as long as it's not a permanent block. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason we are conservative with bots is because we want humans to do the work. We want humans to do the work, because we want humans to think. If we didn't want people to think, we'd use bots.
In some situations, you really don't care whether someone is actually thinking, or thinking is unimportant. In those cases, using bots is fine.
Some people are misrepresenting policy as thinking that people haven't allowed bots because bots are dangerous. I don't think anyone much cared about that at all.
-- Kim Bruning 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked this bot for 24 hours so that the repeated reversion of valid links on 7th Armored Division (United States) can be fixed. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Discussion is here. DES (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is somewhat relevant to the recent MFD on the Bot Approvals Group, so I'll post some information here. I have recently closed the BAG MFD as "reform", as that is generally what the community has called for. Some of the main concerns raised were:
Of course, some people also expressed the sentiment that it isn't broken, and doesn't need to be fixed. I wish the community and BAG luck to whatever you plan on doing. This is a cross post to multiple venues. Sean William 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
One is permitted to run an untagged, unrecognised, undeclared, unapproved bot, provided it does not edit at a rate fater than one edit per two minutes. Is this still an entirely correct interpretation of the guidelines on this day?
If not, why was this changed?
-- Kim Bruning 16:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think saying they need "manual approval" is referring to how they are operated - the operator is supposed to verify each edit individually, rather than let the bot run without supervision. The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted bots, which says an assisted bot does not necessarily need approval, referring to the BAG process. Any script editing at a reasonable pace, with specific supervision that replies promptly to questions, is pretty much indistinguishable from any other editor. Gimmetrow 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, when I said "manually approved", I was referring to the edits, not the bots. Gracenotes T § 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The admin that closed that MfD noted the cautionary shot that was fired over the bow of BAG; if action is not taken, action will be taken for them.
Reading Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Rewrite_proposal, a number of points are raised. I'd like to refocus on one particular point. As it stands, BAG is not open to membership. One must pass an election process to get in. The arguments in favor of this arrangement have focused on the desire to not add additional work to the bureaucrats, thus taking the responsibility of determining consensus on bot approvals from the bureaucrats and placing it with the BAG.
There's a number of inherent problems in this, not least of which is that to get on the BAG, you have to be voted in by the current members of the BAG. This was derided in the MfD by a number of people.
I propose that BAG be reformed such consensus making decisions are made by bureaucrats, and not by an elected BAG person. We're not talking about a huge amount of traffic here. Looking at the log, we've been averaging about 23 flaggings per month. If RfA is any measure, about 1/10th of these are ones that might be marginal. This isn't an onerous amount of work.
This proposal removes
-- Durin 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We can continue the discussion above, but I need to clarify some points that are confusing. BAG is responsible for two things:
Perhaps we can discuss each issue individually? -- RM 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My observations:
Regarding your recent addition to policy, I don't think there is consensus on this either. There has been no consensus within the ArbCom for this ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed decision#Admin bots), let alone in the community at large (ArbCom works by voting, not by consensus). Tizio 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
When using the add action of Category.py is there a way of getting the categories to be added to the end of the articles rather then at the top? / Lokal _ Profil 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I hope this is the right location for such a query. I am looking for a bot operator who can help me replace over 400 {{WikiProject Palestine}} with the new {{WikiProject Palestine}}. It is a simple search and replace that is limited to the set of pages that link directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine, for example this list of pages. Is this something that a bot operator can help me with? If anyone can help and has the time to help, please reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine. Thanks for your time. -- 70.51.232.124 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Children_of_Curpsbot regarding the secret use of adminbots. Dragons flight 06:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, What are the policies on Read Only bots? I don't remember reading anything on them, and i'm curious based on some of the bots using the automated spam sources outside wikipedia. Thanks! TheFearow 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
80.168.225.159 is making an average of 2.7 edits per minute ( edit counter)( Contributions). All the edits are all {{ coor title dm}} templates being added to articles. I cant tell if this is a bot running annon or a user who has been making similar edits for 2 and a half hours with no edits before today. If this is a bot, what would one do? Thanks, Urdna 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If the only edit a bot makes is to its own user pages/pages does it still need approval? My example being a bot which lists all of the dead links on a page and then whacks them into a table on its user page for its operator to fix. There's no explicit policy on this as far as I can tell. It makes at least one edit without human interaction - but surely one edit to a page few are likley to see can't count as a server hog? PeteMarsh 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
According to User:Gracenotes who is currently running for admin, he is allowed to use his robotic script with no need for a special account or Talk page. He seems to be generating hundreds of simple robotic edits per hour, for many hours, all from a regular human account. Is this all acceptable, as he says (see A7), according to WP:BOT? Crum375 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Can i create a manually assisted bot which uses AWB. It would do small tasks round my pages and some others? Thanks AC Best My Contributions Autograph Book 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) PLEASE LEAVE REPLIES TO THIS ON MY TALK PAGE AT User talk:ACBest. THANKS!
An automated script run by a user has caused a lot of disagreement (see here and here). The issue was discussed at WP:AN/I, but did not result in any action. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Bot delinking dates)
I would like to propose the following guideline for discussion:
“ | Automated processes should only be used for edits everyone can agree on. They should not be used in cases where there is a content dispute. | ” |
-- Petri Krohn 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably everybody and their neighbor already know. But pywikipedia bots are now selflimiting:
Changing page [[en:Curt Schilling]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Curt Schilling]] Changing page [[en:Dale Murphy]] Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] # Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag. Changing page [[en:Danny Graves]] Changing page [[en:Dick Groat]] Changing page [[en:Don Kessinger]]
and that's even specifying -putthrottle argument. So, the old chant about "bots at high speed will destroy the server" is now, at least for pywikipedia based bots, invalid, as the server itself throttles the bot when there's a heavy load. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
maxlag = None
in user-config.py
disables this behavior and reverts to internal throttle. This may be useful in cases when the bot simply must do several consecutive edits at a quick rate, ignoring the lag.
Миша
13 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)User:BetacommandBot is getting a lot of complaints, but the owner is not responding. -- Apoc2400 10:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This bot seems to be out of control with falsely adding perfectly fine images non fair-use speedy deletion tags. カ ラ ム 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, please see their talk page at User talk:BetacommandBot. ( Mind meal 10:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
BetacommandBot seems to be out of control, altering huge swaths of pages (whitespace edits, perhaps?). This has been brought up on its talk-page, but its owner hasn't replied yet; until (s)he fixes it, I think the bot should probably be temporarily blocked. — Ruakh TALK 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Tagged a public domain image BetacommandBot has tagged 100+ talk pages using an image ( Image:Coast guard flag.gif) with a Public Domain template. Although the specific PD template used on the image at the time was obsolete, it was nonetheless an assertion that the image was in the public domain, an assertion easily confirmed. Yet the Bot confusingly and incorrectly tagged all articles using the image as needing a fair use justification, when all it needed was a slightly different PD template change. Betacommand asserts nothing was wrong with this, while I disagree. Further, I feel it would be consist ant with WP:B for Betacommand to repair the damage and remove all the 'fair use rationale required' templates from all the articles using Image:Coast guard flag.gif. Thank you. -- Pesco 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I run User:polbot, which has a bot flag and has been approved for 2 different functions. I'm working on code that will collect information from a few hundred different pages and summarize that in a textfile on my computer. I will then paste the contents of that textfile into a subpage of my userpage. Does this sort of process require bot approval, or can I just run it without getting authorization? – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I recently made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Gathering data on DEFAULTSORT, listas and Category pipe-sorting in biographical articles, and was told that here might be a better place to ask. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, either here or there. I think the original place was the right place to ask, but I was told to ask here, so I am doing so! :-) Carcharoth 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I would just like to say first that I am not "reporting", this bot as such, merely asking some questions, as I may also like to create a bot in the future. If you look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OsamaKBOT it says it's an interwiki bot, yet its contributions are to fix double redirects, see also this. I was wondering :
Thanks if anyone can answer these questions, and sorry if maybe I should have asked about this at the help desk. Jackaranga 08:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be an increasing number of individually created and maintained bots now that run with hourly, daily, or weekly periodicity. It seems to me that the more we do this, the more we rely on the continued good will of the users who run these bots. I started a (never completed) list of periodic maintenance activities various folks run nearly a year ago, at Wikipedia:Maintenance/tasklist. This whole approach strikes me as tremendously ad hoc. I think a better approach might be to put hourly, daily, and weekly bot tasks on a protected page someplace, to be run be a centralized bot. The centralized bot could either be run by some volunteer, or on toolserver (by anyone with a toolserver account - assuming you can run at jobs on toolserver), or on some other wikimedia server assuming we could convince the development team this is a good idea. Anyone think this might be worth pursuing? -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Backing up a bit, my idea is to have a jointly managed tasklist (meaning actual executable scripts, not just descriptions), on one or more pages so that
I'm not sure any of the existing bot frameworks are exactly suitable for this. I've recently started running a pywikipedia bot but created my own custom version of replace.py that replaces an entire file with an input file so I could connect a bunch of previously written shell/awk scripts to it. I think for this to work, the control file for the bot would have to be highly scriptable perhaps more like at a shell level than perl (or python or whatever). Maybe the simplest way to explain this would be for me to set up an example. I run a daily job now. I'll put the shell script I use in a (protected) file someplace and have my "bot" retrieve it and execute it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, I still live... just work has buried me, and I've crawled out of my hole to post for a bit. I think this is a great idea, and I'd be willing to assist. I had a few ideas but I don't know whether they'd work now... A generic bot for this purpose that one could subclass from would be useful. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Does a sysop or an admin or even an editor know if the functionality of HagermanBot is going to be supported or is HagermanBot going to be fixed? I am under the impression it is no longer running. It was very useful. Thanks! -- akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I noticed a bot running without a flag, which seems to be violating WP:OWN by constantly reverting a users page to their preferred version. See the following:
I know this is against policy, both bot policy (no approval) and that of WP:OWN
Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added "There is, of course, no reason that help cannot be asked for or offered." to this. While we all feel responsibility for our bots, the bottom line is responsibility for the encyclopedia. I would certainly wish to help out a bot owner in difficulties, rather than just say "your problem - you fix it". Rich Farmbrough 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
When the source code for a bot is made, and published on Meta-Wiki, and the bot listed at approval requests, do you need to submit the source code in someway, or is there nothing left to do? Cool Blue talk to me 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything on this policy page about bots' behavior regarding User pages. Twice this month bots have added interwiki links to my User page here at en:, to link it to my user pages at other wikis (i.e., in other languages). Thing is, I don't want my User page linked to any other wikis; if I did, I would have done it myself. I think this policy page should at least mention that many users don't want their user pages changed by others, and especially not by bots. I don't expect an all-out ban on bot-editing of User pages, but I think it should be discouraged. - dcljr ( talk) 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I made this infobox - Template:Infobox Bot, obviously for bots. What does everybody think of it? I myself think its pretty useful. Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I added "author" and "shutoff" as parameters. Sebi [ talk 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it, but First, I should stat that I now fully understand the intent of BetacommandBot. I'm not arguing its intent. I'm making claims against it's implementation. The burden of proof section states that the bot must be harmless. I would argue that in many cases, it is doing harm. I specifically reference: [2] I have attempted to contact the creator of the bot, but he insists that there's nothing wrong. He says that I should just subst my templates rather than transclude them, but that eliminates most of the point of the template. He has even suggested that some changes be made to the template in order to bring it in compliance with policy. Existence as a transcluded template facilitates easier change. Also, I shouldn't have to change my behaviors because of a bot. Wouldn't that be a "harm"? What, if anything, should be done? McKay 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I left a message on the bot's talk page. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I am considering getting a bot, but haven't filed my request yet. Can a bot be programmed in Hypertext Markup Language, or HTML? Also, what is a botnet and what does the Wikipedia Community think of them? I noticed Bonaparte was banned for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet". ionas68224| talk| contribs| email 10:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Auto-revert ( talk · contribs)
I don't know if this actually is a bot or not, the page claims that it is an "Automated service to revert vandalism". Is reverting all edits made by user Nate1481, when they aren't vandalism. Several complaints left on talk page, seems to be malicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thedarxide ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this already exists and I'm just blind, but is there a way to get an idea of the likelihood of a bot being approved in principle before going ahead and actually writing the bot? It's my understanding that Requests for approval should only be used after the bot is written--which may result in a lot of wasted work if the request is ultimately denied. So if there isn't already, perhaps there should be a place where someone can seek input on whether or not a bot for a certain purpose is acceptable in principle before he goes ahead and writes the bot and tries to get his particular implementation accepted. Kurt Weber 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am watching some pages with a huge number of interwiki links, like Amsterdam and Netherlands. Every time one of the interwiki bots adds an interwiki link, it seems to randomly rearrange some of the links. Sometimes into alphabetical order, sometimes breaking the existing right order. For example: diff 1 (misplacing pam) diff 2 (misplacing be-x-old and lt). Also note this diff, where a bot makes an edit only rearranging interwiki links.
My proposal would be the following:
Another problem with these bots making errors is that the authors can often only be contacted off the en wiki.
-- User:Krator ( t c) 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. Polbot is an approved bot that reads information from the IUCN and creates new stubs on plant and animal species. There is currently a request for opinions here regarding the linking of biologists' names. Any comments on that page would be welcome. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded Image:Second Ave Subway CGI station.jpg today with a rationale during its intial upload. Half an hour later, OrphanBot tagged the image as not having a rationale, despite it had one. An hour later, the bot tagged the same image a second time, leaving two identical tags on the page. I removed the tags and send Carnildo (bot's operator) a message about the issue. Then less than half an hour later, the bot tags the image for a third time, and I'm pretty sure it will do it again. If the bot has tagged my image incorrectly three times, I'm sure it has also done so to other images as well. – Dream out loud ( talk) 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This page and other related talk about policies regarding bots, not about the technical details abouts bots, so excuse me if I ask a nonsense.
From what I have seen, despite working in other ways, a bot would be, from a strict technical point of view, a user like any other else. User page, user talk page, contributions, logs, etc; all the things a user has, a bot also has. Even more, there are some things of the kind of using a bot as a regular account (like answering to other users) that are not encouraged, but by not being so means they are possible to be done. But then, by logic, the opposite would also apply: if bots and users are technically the same, and a bot can be used as a main user account, then a main user account could be also used as a bot.
I guess that nobody would support an administrator employing bot techniques to tag all articles in a huge category for deletion, or to close a huge number of deletion discussions with a predefined result, or to delete all such articles in a row. But is there a way, other than the stadistic fact of more than 800 edits and 100 deletions in less than 10 hours, to prove that a regular account was being used as a bot?
Note: This topic is not for reporting the actions mentioned. That would be done somewhere else, at it's proper way. This topic is merely for the technical question, about if it's possible to recognize actions done by software or by human checking Perón 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that a bot it an automated program to read and edit wikipedia, but i was wondering if the following counts as a bot: Something that simply reads wikipedia and maintains its own log of issues to be manualy edited or if the bot is simply after statistics.
This wouldnt cause the problem of potentialy dangerous editing but it would download a lot of data from th server and i wondered whether wikipedia objects to such programs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3.14 etc ( talk • contribs) 23:29, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
“ | Bots that download substantial portions of the page database are prohibited. Instead, download the database dumps. See also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. | ” |
I have 2 queries :
Bot 1 - I would like to make a PHP script. What this would do is allow me to enter the name of a user and then the script reads the Special:Contributions/User pages ( All pages) and the script calculates brief statistics on their usage including total number of edits, number of new articles started, top 5 most edited articles and so on. I don't think that this qualifies as a bot but may be prohibited under mirror laws.
Bot 2 - This would be run approx once per month i think. It would collect a list of dissambiguation pages from Catagory:disambiguation, at each run it would collect a set number then stop. Then the program would cycle through it's previous list ( stored in a text file) and for each one read the Special:Whatlinkshere page for that page and read the list of articles and store them in a seperate text file.
After it's run i can manualy look at the output file and for each one investigate whether it would be better for the link to be to the correct article ( if there is one) rather than the disambiguation page.
For example there are currently numerous pages with links to the LA disambiguation page and i am sure that a great deal of them should realy be pointed at Los Angeles
I think that this second bot would almost certainly need approval as it would look at enough pages, perhaps 1000 per run, however i don't know if it is a bot as it doesnt edit manualy and it would be close to impossible for it to do so. ( Pi 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
Also, is it prohibited to run a bot simply as a means of testing the bot code, on the condition that the only page edited is the user's own sandbox? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3.14 etc ( talk • contribs) 18:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Is there a bot available that can take a newly created template with many links and systematically add the template to the bottom of each article the template links to? The only problem might be getting it to add the template in the right location. Richard001 09:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been noticing some trouble with the way ImageRemovalBot handles the deletion of gallery images. Many of the images that ImageRemovalBot removes are music-related. Some of these images are album covers that have been placed in galleries on artist's pages. When ImageRemovalBot removes the image, it also removes the name, record label, release date, and chart information along with the image. In some cases, it has removed several or all albums released by a band. Here are some examples:
I had a spirited discussion with the bot's owner, Carnildo, about fixing the problem. I suggested either modifying the bot to change images in galleries to some sort of default "no image" image, or simply stopping removing redlinked images from galleries (better to log them and remove by hand than have the bot removing content along with them).
Carnildo and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, so I am posting here because I think this bot is no longer harmless per WP:BOT. Chubbles 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a better way to encourage formatting of discographies as galleries could be to create a warning tag - say, {{ baddiscography}} or something - which says "this discography should be reformatted according to Wikipedia policy" or something. After all, ImageRemovalBot's way of doing things isn't helping keep galleries of discography pages; people who notice the images getting deleted usually re-upload the images and add them back to the galleries (seen this happening already, as I clean up after IMB's mess). Chubbles 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This bot is broken and needs to be stopped until it's fixed. I noticed the same issue on Trail of Dead - 81.178.126.124 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Following this thread, I have decided to start here a more general discussion on whether bots should be allowed to keep doing controversial or even against-consensus edits. In my opinion, it's quite obvious that bots should not engage in edit warring with humans (apart from the cases of vandalism). I therefore propose to add something to this effect to the policy. At this moment, I don't see any exception other than reversion of vandalism, but I am sure there must be other ones. My suggestion is that bot should not revert humans unless explicitely authorized to do so. Tizio 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)