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. |
I have contested a task of Yobot at WP:BOWN#Hard to edit Greek letters. The bot changes HTML entities such as "Α" to the equivalent Unicode character, such as "Α". The owner of Yobot, Magioladitis, suggests this is a matter for WP:MOS. I, on the other hand, believe it is a context-sensitive change because changing a single isolated Greek letter potentially makes the article hard to edit, because the editor may not be able to tell visually whether the letter is Roman or Greek. On the other hand, in a passage of text written in Greek, it will be obvious that all the letters in the passage are Greek. Bots, or at least Yobot, do not distinguish between isolated Greek letters and passages of Greek text.
I believe this is a general issue that goes beyond Yobot, and the community of bot owners should decide that changing Greek letters from HTML entities to Unicode is a context-sensitive task that should not be performed by bots. What is the correct forum to make this proposal? Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not really a context change though, it is a formatting one, so would not fit WP:CONTEXTBOT as well as say WP:COSMETICBOT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 19:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to encourage volunteers to help with the quarterly policy updates, and Hellknows has offered his summary of the April-June changes to this page at the link above. Does it reflect everyone's understanding of the changes? For instance, he includes "Unsupervised bot processes should not make context-sensitive changes", but doesn't include the new text about those bots being fine if "there is community consensus to run the task without supervision". The way I've avoided these kinds of problems in my policy summaries in the past has been just to quote the text without altering it, or just giving a link to new sections so that the readers can read the text for themselves and make their own interpretations. OTOH, if people who keep up with this page like the summary, I'm not claiming any veto power. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:BOTPOL, I am required to notify this board regarding my nomination to the Bot Approval Group which can be found here. I welcome any and all comments regarding this. Thank you. + Crashdoom Talk 06:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: Snottywong if you're interested. Thanks. —SW— communicate 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
See [1] etc. Uʔ ( talk) 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I am currently reading through all of the archived talk:Bot policy discussions, and between Archive 18 and Archive 19 is about a 1.5 year jump in time (including skipping completely over 2007), so I'm wondering if anyone has information on where discussions from that year were archived? Thank you in advance... UOJComm ( talk) 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It should say why Editors that use bots should create more than one account. Pdiddyjr ( talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings-
I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. I am looking for members of the bot community to interview regarding their experiences on Wikipedia and opinions of technical and governance issues on the site. The interview can be conducted in a manner convenient for you (via an IM client, email, Skype, telephone, or even in-person) and should take approximately 30-45 minutes.
Your participation will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors and programmers like you.
My dissertation project has been approved both by the Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.
If you would like to participate or have any questions, please contact me directly via email or by leaving a message on my talk page. Thank you in advance for your interest.
Randall Livingstone
UOJComm ( talk) 04:38, 5 January 2012 )UTC)
I reorganized and expanded the " Requests for approval" section, so that is explains and reflects the BRFA process more closely. It seemed like the section is very outdated and not on par with what BAG does during the BRFAs. Besides copyediting, I added several things to it, and since this is a policy page I feel I should mention them in case I borked something up:
The rest is just wording and organizing into paragraphs that make chronological sense (BRFA, trial, discussion, approval, speedies, testing, modification). — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 12:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a brain fart. I have w:User:LiWa3 since some months parsing 'parsed diffs' - and based on that, I was starting to think through the problem of the often occurring problems with 'cosmetic changes' - would it be an idea to have functions which:
And do a (maybe smart) diff on those? If those two are the same, the edit was, by definition, cosmetic to the code, not to the displayed outcome, and hence should not be saved. It may need some tweaking, and I see some common pitfalls ('metoo' -> 'me too' is not cosmetic, though only changes whitespace), but it may be able to help. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but I thought that there used to be a section in the bot policy regarding bots that did not require approval. I ask because my understanding was that automated tasks which do not affect content at all (say, notifying users of things, on their talk page) did not require the approval of BAG. Has that changed, or am I simply misremembering things?
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 19:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
(discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group)
I'm floating a suggestion that we stop approving interwiki bots; no new interwiki bots. Toolserver is developing a single centrally maintained and operated interwiki bot, and we seem to be having enormous difficulties finding competent operators; if interwiki links get screwed up, the problem cascades over many languages. I propose that interwiki links ought to be added manually, or in your native wiki.
Discuss. Josh Parris 12:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I've never understood why there was more than one interwiki bot. I'm surprised there haven't been more incidents of them interfering with each other. More toolserver capacity will supposedly come online pretty soon, so maybe more bots can centralize there when that happens. I actually think people shouldn't run important bots on their own equipment for all sorts of reasons. 67.119.3.53 ( talk) 16:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This part in particular
Requests for approval All bots that make any logged actions (such as editing pages, uploading files or creating accounts) must be approved for each of these tasks before they may operate.
I got the distinct impression during the approval process that this needs some improvement. Penyulap ☏ 21:39, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Can a wikilink be added to the mass-creation section please? Either linking "automated or semi-automated" to MEATBOT or shifting those words forward to the end of that sentence like "This applies whether the page creation is manual, automated or semi-automated" works.
It already makes clear large-scale creation tasks must be pre-approved with community input at least strongly encouraged, and further on clarifies it's irrelevant if semi/bot-like edits are executed manually every few seconds, be it Excel use, boilerplate templates with multiple browser tabs or whatever. So no change in policy is needed.
prev discussion links |
---|
•
WT:Bot policy/Archive 24#Proposed minor change -- March 2010 clarity addition re human |
Technically the page doesn't yet expressly use the term "meatbot" in that exact same paragraph; a user wondered if it needs amendment so really if a wikilink'll aid clarity let's add one. Thanks, 92.6.202.54 ( talk) 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC).(friendly notice left at village pump)
I've noticed that one of the logistical problems of BRFA can be when users have a bot that already has approved tasks, runs continuously, and then wants to add more tasks onto it. From there, BAG trials the bot's additional task, but because the bot's still running approved tasks, it can make it difficult for reviewing editors, BAG or not, to figure out just how well the bot's doing in its trial period for the additional task, and whether it's staying within its trial parameters.
I'm not sure what would be ideal here, but the first thing that came to mind was encouraging users who wish to add a new task to their existing bots to create a separate bot account and run trial edits from there, leaving the main bot to continue with its approved tasks. Another idea might be to use a special edit summary that's tagged by the edit filter. Alternatively, we could ask the operator to post a complete list of the edits the bot made that are directly related to the trial.
Thoughts? More ideas?
-- slakr\ talk / 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Setting minthreadsleft
to "0" makes for a very unwelcoming talk page. Perhaps that value should be changed to something else, 4 perhaps? __
meco (
talk) 07:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I raised the issue with the operator of EmausBot ( talk · contribs) about the bot reverting me, repeatedly? [2] [3] I thought bots weren't supposed to do that. The bot owner asserts this is all as it should be and that I should make an inquiry with the bot owner to sort such issues out. Is that right? __ meco ( talk) 07:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to be sure that I'm not stepping on anyone's toes here, so I want to confirm this before I start up with CHECKWIKI fixes or TypoScan. Rule #2 says don't edit so fast, but it seems subjective. I've since stopped until I can get a better answer. Previously, I've been told my speed was too high. Whether it be typos, general fixes, or assessments, I've been careful not to do any damage. My only 'oops' moment is following bad advice is assessing with the 'importance tag' on bio's, which just needed to be replaced to 'priority'. It was my mistake and I won't repeat it, and the errors were fixed right away. Should I be concerned of my edit speed alone, or should I wait 3-4 seconds between loading just to review a singular change and click 'save'. Typos are typos, updating categories (with AWB) for Birth/death is semi-automatic and fulfills a clear purpose and even then I can do 6 a minute and still be sure the changes are proper and not on some building or band.
I've also been told that anything above 3-4 a minute is a problem and with Lugnuts taking Waacstats to ANI over 'edit speed' [4] I just want to make sure not to run afoul of the 'rules'. It seems silly, but I like being efficient and forcefully lagging myself down is not very fun. One typo every 20 seconds, despite AWB loading the new page within 1-2 seconds of the last 'save'? Its 4-5x slower then what is easily possible. I'm not claiming to be super human or anything, but I can tell pretty easily if 'Mississsippi' needs to be fixed. It doesn't need 20, 10 or even 5 seconds to click 'save'. I just want to make sure this unspecified 'don't edit too fast' should apply when the changes being made aren't problematic, and usually involve the meaning of a single word or a simple change. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit and this revert, I must be missing something. What actions of either MediaWiki developers or Wikimedia sysadmins might possibly be confused for BAG actions or might be thought to be within the scope of this policy? Anomie ⚔ 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I am currently applying to be a member of BAG and input is greatly appreciated.— cyberpower Offline Happy 2013 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I am currently (self) nominated to become a member of BAG (Bot Approvals group). Any questions and input you have is invited with open arms. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD I've undone a recent addition to the bot policy: "Except for very trivial cases, an Administrator should refrain from unblocking their own bot."
I disagree with that addition (there's a related discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard) and would actually prefer the opposite language to be included: something that explicitly allows a bot operator to unblock their own bot with the caveat that by doing so they are taking responsibility for the bot's activities. 99 times out of 100, a bot operator is responsible enough to do this, and I wouldn't want to see policy geared towards the 1% who aren't. 28bytes ( talk) 19:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Too much time thinking about a corner case -- hopefully any editor that's survived an Rfa will have enough sense to know whether or not they should restart their bot without getting additional community or BAG input. NE Ent 20:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 18#Unblocking bot accounts. Anomie ⚔ 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Here you go:
How about adding something like:
I think that strikes the appropriate balance of saying there's not a problem with unblocking your bot unless you do it irresponsibly, in which case you'll get in trouble (as you should.) Thoughts? 28bytes ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Oppose per instruction creep, but if we must, suggest tightening it to:
If a bot is blocked, the bot operator may unblock the bot once the problem has been fixed, or request an administrator to unblock the bot. Unblocking one's bot without fixing the underlying problem may lead to sanctions, including revocation of bot operator privileges.
Also changing likely to may -- cause I think may is a more flexible word. NE Ent 03:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
In general, I think bot operators who are also admins should be able to unblock their own bots, it's an efficient and reasonable use of the tools. I'm okay with the explicit wording being put in policy, but, really, if your bot is blocked, it's generally because something went wrong and needs addressed. I don't think it's a problem that non-admin operators have to request an unblock for their bot. At some point you have to say, use the tools you've been granted by the community. If you're an admin, you've been granted unblock privileges. If you can't use them properly, the community should sanction you.
There is a case where a bot operator unblocked his own bot when the community consensus for the task was being discussed (Anybot). It was a bad unblock on the operator/admin's part (Smith/Martin), and he was told that he should not have done so, and another admin blocked the bot permanently. Martin ran for adminship based on his desire to be able to unblock his bots at will, and the community granted him adminship. I think this establishes some community input on the matter, although the RFA is probably very old. Having had this happen, does not, in my opinion, detract from the fact that if the bot is blocked, obviously the operator should check for why it was blocked and fix it, and, if the operator has admin privileges, there should be no need to formally request an unblock, that's just added bureaucracy, so is deciding the policy should be the same for admins versus non admins as bot operators, it's almost like taking away a community-granted higher vetted level of trust. - 64.134.221.141 ( talk) 01:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I had a few questions regarding the section "Cosmetic changes." Would WP:CHECKWIKI things fall under this category? It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Could I propose that in general, bots should not be editing pages that have un-reviewed edits under pending changes protection. The exception should of course be bots like cluebot. This edit shows why. The vandal removed part of the content including a tag, a bot then replaced the tag leaving the rest of the vandalism in place. Martin451 ( talk) 23:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
After no response to my previous message on the issue and after finally checking with an opsoid contractor that the block shouldn't cause any problems, I went ahead and softblocked 10.0.0.0/8 today under the same justification that we've long had for blocking Toolserver IP addresses: no human should be editing from this range, and any bots should be editing from a logged-in account. This will prevent the bots from accidentally editing while logged out, as does happen from time to time. Anomie ⚔ 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It might be an idea to add that bots can also play in their user's 'subpages' of Module:Sandbox without a flag as well as their userspace and the regular sandbox, since you can't experiment with Lua anywhere else. I've got a tool that needs to upload a bunch of generated Lua tables and I'm going to go ahead and be bold and interpret that as the spirit of the policy. KleptomaniacViolet ( talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that m:MassMessage is available, having bots that deliver newsletters would seem to be unnecessary. So we should decide what to do regarding approval and usage of newsletter bots. I see a few general options:
Personally, I would be in favor of option 2. Mr. Z-man 15:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BracketBot 2 is a request to permit the bot to use our new Thank feature; in filing the request, the operator has basically said "The rules don't require approval, but that means we need to update the rules, not run thank-bots freely". This makes me think of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot, in which the operator got permission for something that perhaps could have been done without approval because it's not logged and wouldn't be noticed. Can we add something saying basically "Bots need approval for non-logged actions as well"? Nyttend ( talk) 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You must support your bots; you must make a reasonable attempt to respond to support requests from editors; operators who tend to ignore unanswered queries on the bot's talk page that merit a response should expect their bot to be blocked. This is already policy; CIVIL, "applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia" and says operators must "not ignore the positions and conclusions of others" and I think a short section pointing this out is merited. Yes/No? -- Elvey ( talk) 19:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that having a common set of approved and tested genfixes for all bots and software will leverage automation efforts; every time some specific problem is fixed on a page by a bot, all the generic fixes would also be applied. The genfixes would need thorough planning and testing, and be implemented in a way that can be accessed universally. The planning and testing I'll put to one side.
Universal access basically means an interface written in C (for example, PHP can call a C interface), but as we have no parser in C that I'm aware of (I believe one's being written in C++ for Cluebot), I suggest we go with the only wikitext parser that's available: mwparserfromhell. There are mechanisms to call Python from C. So I propose a thin C wrapper around a Python core, with genfixes implemented in Python. I'd suggest a simple interface: pass a chunk of wikitext, get a chunk of genfixed wikitext back.
Perhaps as a first goal the genfixes from AWB could be implemented. Josh Parris 10:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a common objection about meaningful changes being obscured by genfixes. I don't know what to do about that. I guess making genfixes configurable (all the way down to "none of the above") might be a way around that.
There's another common objection: mixed languages are scary. Sure, if you are responsible for the genfixes part of the bot. But all the development for that will be handled by "someone else"; as an operator, all you'd do is install the bootloader version and it'd handle the rest. From that point on, you'd code in the language of your choice and the common genfixes would look after itself; it would be a true black box.
I guess alternatively, genfixes could be implemented as a webservice, where bots send their changes to the webservice, and the webservice returns genfixed changes. Again, the functionality would need oversight by BAG. Josh Parris 00:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I worked a lot on this direction by myself. There is still inconsistencies between automated tools (AWB, AutoEd, WPCleaner, etc.) which I am trying to spot, notify the programmers and get them update their code. I think that agreeing in a minimum part of changes that all bots will do in addition to a main task is possible but, I guess, it will require rewriting the same set of code in various languages to suit the various existing bots. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been nominated for BAG membership. Input is invited. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678 2.— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 14:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of a request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 06:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2RR is enough for me, I'll leave this to other editors to check in to now. For some reason Headbomb feels that multiple comments left here by IZAK cross-posting another discussion should be deleted rather then archived. We are obviously in conflict so I would welcome anyone else to decide if the archive should be restored or left deleted. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's just been yet another incident of a bot editing logged out. This problem has been happening for years, even though we have a way to fix it: mw:API:Assert. Our bot policy page currently recommends the use of Assert, but does not require it. I am proposing that all bots be required to use Assert, since it completely prevents logged-out editing and has no downside. To avoid disruption, this requirement would only apply to new bot approvals at first. Owners of existing bots would have a grace period (90 days maybe?) to add this functionality. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 05:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
While we can change the wording of the policy to say "required", enforcing it seems problematic unless we're going to punitively block the account of a bot that edits when logged out. Anomie ⚔ 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently coding a thing that you can put on your skin.js that automatically archives your talk page for a certain interval you choose using a GUI. I'm pretty sure it's a script, but just in case it's considered a bot I'm asking here. - Kuro usagi 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
COSMETICBOT currently says "Cosmetic changes (such as many of the AWB general fixes) should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time."
I believe that the word "substantial" should be changed to "substantive". I think the latter is was what was meant. "Substantial" means "of considerable size" or "large", while "substantive" means "meaningful" or "important" (i.e. not trivial).
I have changed the wording. Feel free to revert me if the original intent was that only "large" changes should be made with bots. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The last element of the list of example changes starts with "Changing HTML entities to Unicode characters whenever the Unicode character might be difficult to identify visually in edit-mode" but I believe it should read "Changing Unicode characters to HTML entities whenever the Unicode character might be difficult to identify visually in edit-mode" because other policies refer to some bare Unicode characters being indistinguishable from ASCII and therefore recommend HTML entities. Julyo ( talk) 19:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
&
to &
-- a task too minor and visually indistinguishable and so afoul of superfluous edits if done by itself. Your change/example would also work the other way for other characters, but the former is way more commonly seen and proposed for bot tasks than the latter, so that's the example. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 20:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there any bots running with the ability to delete an article without direct human intervention? Are there any bots running with the ability to delete an article, without placing a deletion tag or it and having it run the ordinary deletion process? In this connection, I point out that though administratorsdo havethe power to delete single=handed, they normally use this only for obvious vandalism or copyvio or straightforward technical deletions. it is very rare nowadays that any admin would themselves delte under most deletion reasons. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that the Python code sample for bot exclusion given at
Template:Bots is inaccurate: in the presence of {{bots|deny=foo}}
, a robot named bar
would be denied access, because of the last return False
statement. I have
changed this line to return True
, but I would be glad to have a confirmation by a more experienced editor. (This problem had already been
spotted by another editor.) −
Pintoch (
talk) 21:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I have offered to help with the WP:BRFA backlog as a bot approver. This procedural notification is to make the community aware that a formal request is open for your consideration. Your input is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: MusikAnimal. Regards — MusikAnimal talk 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone. I am currently requesting to join BAG, and notification on this page is required. Feel free to comment here if you would like to ask questions or discuss the request. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bot approvals group member reconfirmation discussion is now open at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis 2. Please feel free to review and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose we adopt an activity requirement for approved bots on the English Wikipedia. Rare bots are expected to be read-only, but some have only on-demand tasks. As such, tying in operator activity may be accounted for. The proposed policy addition is:
This puts the policy more in line with the practice of retiring dormant bot accounts. Unsupervised bot accounts present a moderate security risk, should they be compromised high speed editing or slow-speed but less visible editing could take place. Additionally, community policies and practices evolve over time and formerly approved bot tasks may no longer be appropriate. See recent BOWN discussions:
Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
A new BRFA for what: reactivation, reactivated tasks, all tasks (BRFA for each or all), does this include manual/supervised? — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 22:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I purpose we change "many AWB genfixes" to "some". Unless we give specific examples of map them all. Also it's a question why to choose AWB since there are many tools that do various things in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably it's time to open an RfC for this. -- Magioladitis ( talk)
I purpose we change "many AWB genfixes" to "some" based on WP:AWB/GF. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:BAG#Bot unblocking policy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Would someone please add a section here (or at WP:B if that's more relevant) explaining the exclusion-compliant process? This comes out of the WP:Exclusion compliant RFD (the current target is {{ Bots}}), which was started because there's no page other than that template's documentation that explains the process at all. I'm not comfortable writing up an explanation, because I'm not a bot operator and don't hugely understand the process; I think the idea is that an exclusion-compliant bot is one that is instructed to refrain from its normal actions in specific situations (e.g. {{bots|deny=your bot's name}}), but I'm not familiar enough that I should be trusted in writing an informative piece on the topic. Nyttend ( talk) 04:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I always found the guidance on dealing with issues to be deficient on this page, and the cause of some confusion in the community on exactly what should be done when dealing with problem bots. I've taken the liberty of revamping that section, mostly with common sense / common practice advice. See diff for the exact changes.
I don't believe these to be controversial changes in need of a formal RFC, but if people think it would be best, we can have one. Feedback and improved wordings are of course, welcomed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and/or the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects.Why change it from "and" to "and/or"? In the past, people have complained that consensus for such things was only determined on some WikiProject's page without wider community input.
For instance, a bot approved to archive discussions on a certain WikiProject's page does not need another BRFA to archive another project's page, so long as the WikiProject consents to have its discussions archived by that bot.seems like a poor example. It reminds me of a case where a bot was approved to create around 600 articles and the operator and associated WikiProject decided that meant they could create 15000 more without further approval, which turned into a big mess.
I think the bit on admins unblocking their own bot does need an RfC - it is contentious in the community (many believe that admins should not be unblocking their own accounts for any reason) and this behaviour by some admins is currently part of the discussion of the Magio arbitration case. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then let's draft this on the talk page instead, and we can bundle this in the RFC for the proposed update of COSMETICBOT that'll happen eventually
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
In my (limited) experience there are six reasons why a bot is blocked, any when unblocking is acceptable depends on which it is - my opinions are below:
In all cases, if the owner unblocks the bot before the issue has been fixed and disruption continues or reoccurrs then the bot may be blocked again. Repeated instances of a bot needing to be reblocked will lead to bot approval being withdrawn and/or desysopping. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Similar to Anomie's concerns of a block instead of a task shut-off. The same problem goes with AWB bots. Stopping the bot is always suffice. Blocks are unnecessary. I think the general concept of blocking a bot for malfunctioning it's outdated and only necessary for bots not allowing other options to be stopped. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Slakr, I think your proposal is overly complex and would invite abuse. I think we'd be better off remaining with the current policy, namely that unblocking one's own account is almost never acceptable, unless an administrator blocked their own bot account themselves - just use an unblock tag or ask the original blocking admin, as other users do. Either way, this needs to go to a proper RfC. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
My point of view is that: If we end up to block an admin's bot and we don't trust the admin to unblock it after they claim it was fixed then we re doomed in a bureaucratic process anyway. The block for malfunctioning is not the same to a block due to bot running unapproved tasks or due to the task losing consensus. I the past, we removed approval to interwiki bots after the task became outdated. The block for malfunctioning is just a measure to prevent bot for further editing and give time to the bot owner to fix its malfunction. In a community that each one trusts each other any kind of bot stop would be suffice. If the bot provides an emergency shut off button we should be OK with that. I recall that my second bot's block was exactly because due to a malfunction the stop procedure via leaving a message in the bot's talk page was not working. So, the blocking admin correctly used the block button. In case the bot task creates more controversy the community has ways to handle this situation. PS Sorry that I have not read the entire discussion above yet. I am doing right now. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how we can add that if a bot had a shutdown button or provides other ways to stop it, they should be preferred over blocking. For instance, if the bot was human we would not block without a final warning etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2017 (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. |
I have contested a task of Yobot at WP:BOWN#Hard to edit Greek letters. The bot changes HTML entities such as "Α" to the equivalent Unicode character, such as "Α". The owner of Yobot, Magioladitis, suggests this is a matter for WP:MOS. I, on the other hand, believe it is a context-sensitive change because changing a single isolated Greek letter potentially makes the article hard to edit, because the editor may not be able to tell visually whether the letter is Roman or Greek. On the other hand, in a passage of text written in Greek, it will be obvious that all the letters in the passage are Greek. Bots, or at least Yobot, do not distinguish between isolated Greek letters and passages of Greek text.
I believe this is a general issue that goes beyond Yobot, and the community of bot owners should decide that changing Greek letters from HTML entities to Unicode is a context-sensitive task that should not be performed by bots. What is the correct forum to make this proposal? Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not really a context change though, it is a formatting one, so would not fit WP:CONTEXTBOT as well as say WP:COSMETICBOT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 19:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to encourage volunteers to help with the quarterly policy updates, and Hellknows has offered his summary of the April-June changes to this page at the link above. Does it reflect everyone's understanding of the changes? For instance, he includes "Unsupervised bot processes should not make context-sensitive changes", but doesn't include the new text about those bots being fine if "there is community consensus to run the task without supervision". The way I've avoided these kinds of problems in my policy summaries in the past has been just to quote the text without altering it, or just giving a link to new sections so that the readers can read the text for themselves and make their own interpretations. OTOH, if people who keep up with this page like the summary, I'm not claiming any veto power. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:BOTPOL, I am required to notify this board regarding my nomination to the Bot Approval Group which can be found here. I welcome any and all comments regarding this. Thank you. + Crashdoom Talk 06:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: Snottywong if you're interested. Thanks. —SW— communicate 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
See [1] etc. Uʔ ( talk) 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I am currently reading through all of the archived talk:Bot policy discussions, and between Archive 18 and Archive 19 is about a 1.5 year jump in time (including skipping completely over 2007), so I'm wondering if anyone has information on where discussions from that year were archived? Thank you in advance... UOJComm ( talk) 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It should say why Editors that use bots should create more than one account. Pdiddyjr ( talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings-
I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. I am looking for members of the bot community to interview regarding their experiences on Wikipedia and opinions of technical and governance issues on the site. The interview can be conducted in a manner convenient for you (via an IM client, email, Skype, telephone, or even in-person) and should take approximately 30-45 minutes.
Your participation will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors and programmers like you.
My dissertation project has been approved both by the Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.
If you would like to participate or have any questions, please contact me directly via email or by leaving a message on my talk page. Thank you in advance for your interest.
Randall Livingstone
UOJComm ( talk) 04:38, 5 January 2012 )UTC)
I reorganized and expanded the " Requests for approval" section, so that is explains and reflects the BRFA process more closely. It seemed like the section is very outdated and not on par with what BAG does during the BRFAs. Besides copyediting, I added several things to it, and since this is a policy page I feel I should mention them in case I borked something up:
The rest is just wording and organizing into paragraphs that make chronological sense (BRFA, trial, discussion, approval, speedies, testing, modification). — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 12:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a brain fart. I have w:User:LiWa3 since some months parsing 'parsed diffs' - and based on that, I was starting to think through the problem of the often occurring problems with 'cosmetic changes' - would it be an idea to have functions which:
And do a (maybe smart) diff on those? If those two are the same, the edit was, by definition, cosmetic to the code, not to the displayed outcome, and hence should not be saved. It may need some tweaking, and I see some common pitfalls ('metoo' -> 'me too' is not cosmetic, though only changes whitespace), but it may be able to help. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but I thought that there used to be a section in the bot policy regarding bots that did not require approval. I ask because my understanding was that automated tasks which do not affect content at all (say, notifying users of things, on their talk page) did not require the approval of BAG. Has that changed, or am I simply misremembering things?
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 19:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
(discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group)
I'm floating a suggestion that we stop approving interwiki bots; no new interwiki bots. Toolserver is developing a single centrally maintained and operated interwiki bot, and we seem to be having enormous difficulties finding competent operators; if interwiki links get screwed up, the problem cascades over many languages. I propose that interwiki links ought to be added manually, or in your native wiki.
Discuss. Josh Parris 12:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I've never understood why there was more than one interwiki bot. I'm surprised there haven't been more incidents of them interfering with each other. More toolserver capacity will supposedly come online pretty soon, so maybe more bots can centralize there when that happens. I actually think people shouldn't run important bots on their own equipment for all sorts of reasons. 67.119.3.53 ( talk) 16:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This part in particular
Requests for approval All bots that make any logged actions (such as editing pages, uploading files or creating accounts) must be approved for each of these tasks before they may operate.
I got the distinct impression during the approval process that this needs some improvement. Penyulap ☏ 21:39, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Can a wikilink be added to the mass-creation section please? Either linking "automated or semi-automated" to MEATBOT or shifting those words forward to the end of that sentence like "This applies whether the page creation is manual, automated or semi-automated" works.
It already makes clear large-scale creation tasks must be pre-approved with community input at least strongly encouraged, and further on clarifies it's irrelevant if semi/bot-like edits are executed manually every few seconds, be it Excel use, boilerplate templates with multiple browser tabs or whatever. So no change in policy is needed.
prev discussion links |
---|
•
WT:Bot policy/Archive 24#Proposed minor change -- March 2010 clarity addition re human |
Technically the page doesn't yet expressly use the term "meatbot" in that exact same paragraph; a user wondered if it needs amendment so really if a wikilink'll aid clarity let's add one. Thanks, 92.6.202.54 ( talk) 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC).(friendly notice left at village pump)
I've noticed that one of the logistical problems of BRFA can be when users have a bot that already has approved tasks, runs continuously, and then wants to add more tasks onto it. From there, BAG trials the bot's additional task, but because the bot's still running approved tasks, it can make it difficult for reviewing editors, BAG or not, to figure out just how well the bot's doing in its trial period for the additional task, and whether it's staying within its trial parameters.
I'm not sure what would be ideal here, but the first thing that came to mind was encouraging users who wish to add a new task to their existing bots to create a separate bot account and run trial edits from there, leaving the main bot to continue with its approved tasks. Another idea might be to use a special edit summary that's tagged by the edit filter. Alternatively, we could ask the operator to post a complete list of the edits the bot made that are directly related to the trial.
Thoughts? More ideas?
-- slakr\ talk / 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Setting minthreadsleft
to "0" makes for a very unwelcoming talk page. Perhaps that value should be changed to something else, 4 perhaps? __
meco (
talk) 07:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I raised the issue with the operator of EmausBot ( talk · contribs) about the bot reverting me, repeatedly? [2] [3] I thought bots weren't supposed to do that. The bot owner asserts this is all as it should be and that I should make an inquiry with the bot owner to sort such issues out. Is that right? __ meco ( talk) 07:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to be sure that I'm not stepping on anyone's toes here, so I want to confirm this before I start up with CHECKWIKI fixes or TypoScan. Rule #2 says don't edit so fast, but it seems subjective. I've since stopped until I can get a better answer. Previously, I've been told my speed was too high. Whether it be typos, general fixes, or assessments, I've been careful not to do any damage. My only 'oops' moment is following bad advice is assessing with the 'importance tag' on bio's, which just needed to be replaced to 'priority'. It was my mistake and I won't repeat it, and the errors were fixed right away. Should I be concerned of my edit speed alone, or should I wait 3-4 seconds between loading just to review a singular change and click 'save'. Typos are typos, updating categories (with AWB) for Birth/death is semi-automatic and fulfills a clear purpose and even then I can do 6 a minute and still be sure the changes are proper and not on some building or band.
I've also been told that anything above 3-4 a minute is a problem and with Lugnuts taking Waacstats to ANI over 'edit speed' [4] I just want to make sure not to run afoul of the 'rules'. It seems silly, but I like being efficient and forcefully lagging myself down is not very fun. One typo every 20 seconds, despite AWB loading the new page within 1-2 seconds of the last 'save'? Its 4-5x slower then what is easily possible. I'm not claiming to be super human or anything, but I can tell pretty easily if 'Mississsippi' needs to be fixed. It doesn't need 20, 10 or even 5 seconds to click 'save'. I just want to make sure this unspecified 'don't edit too fast' should apply when the changes being made aren't problematic, and usually involve the meaning of a single word or a simple change. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit and this revert, I must be missing something. What actions of either MediaWiki developers or Wikimedia sysadmins might possibly be confused for BAG actions or might be thought to be within the scope of this policy? Anomie ⚔ 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I am currently applying to be a member of BAG and input is greatly appreciated.— cyberpower Offline Happy 2013 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I am currently (self) nominated to become a member of BAG (Bot Approvals group). Any questions and input you have is invited with open arms. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD I've undone a recent addition to the bot policy: "Except for very trivial cases, an Administrator should refrain from unblocking their own bot."
I disagree with that addition (there's a related discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard) and would actually prefer the opposite language to be included: something that explicitly allows a bot operator to unblock their own bot with the caveat that by doing so they are taking responsibility for the bot's activities. 99 times out of 100, a bot operator is responsible enough to do this, and I wouldn't want to see policy geared towards the 1% who aren't. 28bytes ( talk) 19:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Too much time thinking about a corner case -- hopefully any editor that's survived an Rfa will have enough sense to know whether or not they should restart their bot without getting additional community or BAG input. NE Ent 20:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 18#Unblocking bot accounts. Anomie ⚔ 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Here you go:
How about adding something like:
I think that strikes the appropriate balance of saying there's not a problem with unblocking your bot unless you do it irresponsibly, in which case you'll get in trouble (as you should.) Thoughts? 28bytes ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Oppose per instruction creep, but if we must, suggest tightening it to:
If a bot is blocked, the bot operator may unblock the bot once the problem has been fixed, or request an administrator to unblock the bot. Unblocking one's bot without fixing the underlying problem may lead to sanctions, including revocation of bot operator privileges.
Also changing likely to may -- cause I think may is a more flexible word. NE Ent 03:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
In general, I think bot operators who are also admins should be able to unblock their own bots, it's an efficient and reasonable use of the tools. I'm okay with the explicit wording being put in policy, but, really, if your bot is blocked, it's generally because something went wrong and needs addressed. I don't think it's a problem that non-admin operators have to request an unblock for their bot. At some point you have to say, use the tools you've been granted by the community. If you're an admin, you've been granted unblock privileges. If you can't use them properly, the community should sanction you.
There is a case where a bot operator unblocked his own bot when the community consensus for the task was being discussed (Anybot). It was a bad unblock on the operator/admin's part (Smith/Martin), and he was told that he should not have done so, and another admin blocked the bot permanently. Martin ran for adminship based on his desire to be able to unblock his bots at will, and the community granted him adminship. I think this establishes some community input on the matter, although the RFA is probably very old. Having had this happen, does not, in my opinion, detract from the fact that if the bot is blocked, obviously the operator should check for why it was blocked and fix it, and, if the operator has admin privileges, there should be no need to formally request an unblock, that's just added bureaucracy, so is deciding the policy should be the same for admins versus non admins as bot operators, it's almost like taking away a community-granted higher vetted level of trust. - 64.134.221.141 ( talk) 01:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I had a few questions regarding the section "Cosmetic changes." Would WP:CHECKWIKI things fall under this category? It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Could I propose that in general, bots should not be editing pages that have un-reviewed edits under pending changes protection. The exception should of course be bots like cluebot. This edit shows why. The vandal removed part of the content including a tag, a bot then replaced the tag leaving the rest of the vandalism in place. Martin451 ( talk) 23:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
After no response to my previous message on the issue and after finally checking with an opsoid contractor that the block shouldn't cause any problems, I went ahead and softblocked 10.0.0.0/8 today under the same justification that we've long had for blocking Toolserver IP addresses: no human should be editing from this range, and any bots should be editing from a logged-in account. This will prevent the bots from accidentally editing while logged out, as does happen from time to time. Anomie ⚔ 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It might be an idea to add that bots can also play in their user's 'subpages' of Module:Sandbox without a flag as well as their userspace and the regular sandbox, since you can't experiment with Lua anywhere else. I've got a tool that needs to upload a bunch of generated Lua tables and I'm going to go ahead and be bold and interpret that as the spirit of the policy. KleptomaniacViolet ( talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that m:MassMessage is available, having bots that deliver newsletters would seem to be unnecessary. So we should decide what to do regarding approval and usage of newsletter bots. I see a few general options:
Personally, I would be in favor of option 2. Mr. Z-man 15:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BracketBot 2 is a request to permit the bot to use our new Thank feature; in filing the request, the operator has basically said "The rules don't require approval, but that means we need to update the rules, not run thank-bots freely". This makes me think of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot, in which the operator got permission for something that perhaps could have been done without approval because it's not logged and wouldn't be noticed. Can we add something saying basically "Bots need approval for non-logged actions as well"? Nyttend ( talk) 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You must support your bots; you must make a reasonable attempt to respond to support requests from editors; operators who tend to ignore unanswered queries on the bot's talk page that merit a response should expect their bot to be blocked. This is already policy; CIVIL, "applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia" and says operators must "not ignore the positions and conclusions of others" and I think a short section pointing this out is merited. Yes/No? -- Elvey ( talk) 19:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that having a common set of approved and tested genfixes for all bots and software will leverage automation efforts; every time some specific problem is fixed on a page by a bot, all the generic fixes would also be applied. The genfixes would need thorough planning and testing, and be implemented in a way that can be accessed universally. The planning and testing I'll put to one side.
Universal access basically means an interface written in C (for example, PHP can call a C interface), but as we have no parser in C that I'm aware of (I believe one's being written in C++ for Cluebot), I suggest we go with the only wikitext parser that's available: mwparserfromhell. There are mechanisms to call Python from C. So I propose a thin C wrapper around a Python core, with genfixes implemented in Python. I'd suggest a simple interface: pass a chunk of wikitext, get a chunk of genfixed wikitext back.
Perhaps as a first goal the genfixes from AWB could be implemented. Josh Parris 10:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a common objection about meaningful changes being obscured by genfixes. I don't know what to do about that. I guess making genfixes configurable (all the way down to "none of the above") might be a way around that.
There's another common objection: mixed languages are scary. Sure, if you are responsible for the genfixes part of the bot. But all the development for that will be handled by "someone else"; as an operator, all you'd do is install the bootloader version and it'd handle the rest. From that point on, you'd code in the language of your choice and the common genfixes would look after itself; it would be a true black box.
I guess alternatively, genfixes could be implemented as a webservice, where bots send their changes to the webservice, and the webservice returns genfixed changes. Again, the functionality would need oversight by BAG. Josh Parris 00:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I worked a lot on this direction by myself. There is still inconsistencies between automated tools (AWB, AutoEd, WPCleaner, etc.) which I am trying to spot, notify the programmers and get them update their code. I think that agreeing in a minimum part of changes that all bots will do in addition to a main task is possible but, I guess, it will require rewriting the same set of code in various languages to suit the various existing bots. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been nominated for BAG membership. Input is invited. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678 2.— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 14:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of a request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 06:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2RR is enough for me, I'll leave this to other editors to check in to now. For some reason Headbomb feels that multiple comments left here by IZAK cross-posting another discussion should be deleted rather then archived. We are obviously in conflict so I would welcome anyone else to decide if the archive should be restored or left deleted. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's just been yet another incident of a bot editing logged out. This problem has been happening for years, even though we have a way to fix it: mw:API:Assert. Our bot policy page currently recommends the use of Assert, but does not require it. I am proposing that all bots be required to use Assert, since it completely prevents logged-out editing and has no downside. To avoid disruption, this requirement would only apply to new bot approvals at first. Owners of existing bots would have a grace period (90 days maybe?) to add this functionality. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 05:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
While we can change the wording of the policy to say "required", enforcing it seems problematic unless we're going to punitively block the account of a bot that edits when logged out. Anomie ⚔ 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently coding a thing that you can put on your skin.js that automatically archives your talk page for a certain interval you choose using a GUI. I'm pretty sure it's a script, but just in case it's considered a bot I'm asking here. - Kuro usagi 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
COSMETICBOT currently says "Cosmetic changes (such as many of the AWB general fixes) should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time."
I believe that the word "substantial" should be changed to "substantive". I think the latter is was what was meant. "Substantial" means "of considerable size" or "large", while "substantive" means "meaningful" or "important" (i.e. not trivial).
I have changed the wording. Feel free to revert me if the original intent was that only "large" changes should be made with bots. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The last element of the list of example changes starts with "Changing HTML entities to Unicode characters whenever the Unicode character might be difficult to identify visually in edit-mode" but I believe it should read "Changing Unicode characters to HTML entities whenever the Unicode character might be difficult to identify visually in edit-mode" because other policies refer to some bare Unicode characters being indistinguishable from ASCII and therefore recommend HTML entities. Julyo ( talk) 19:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
&
to &
-- a task too minor and visually indistinguishable and so afoul of superfluous edits if done by itself. Your change/example would also work the other way for other characters, but the former is way more commonly seen and proposed for bot tasks than the latter, so that's the example. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 20:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there any bots running with the ability to delete an article without direct human intervention? Are there any bots running with the ability to delete an article, without placing a deletion tag or it and having it run the ordinary deletion process? In this connection, I point out that though administratorsdo havethe power to delete single=handed, they normally use this only for obvious vandalism or copyvio or straightforward technical deletions. it is very rare nowadays that any admin would themselves delte under most deletion reasons. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that the Python code sample for bot exclusion given at
Template:Bots is inaccurate: in the presence of {{bots|deny=foo}}
, a robot named bar
would be denied access, because of the last return False
statement. I have
changed this line to return True
, but I would be glad to have a confirmation by a more experienced editor. (This problem had already been
spotted by another editor.) −
Pintoch (
talk) 21:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I have offered to help with the WP:BRFA backlog as a bot approver. This procedural notification is to make the community aware that a formal request is open for your consideration. Your input is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: MusikAnimal. Regards — MusikAnimal talk 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone. I am currently requesting to join BAG, and notification on this page is required. Feel free to comment here if you would like to ask questions or discuss the request. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bot approvals group member reconfirmation discussion is now open at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis 2. Please feel free to review and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose we adopt an activity requirement for approved bots on the English Wikipedia. Rare bots are expected to be read-only, but some have only on-demand tasks. As such, tying in operator activity may be accounted for. The proposed policy addition is:
This puts the policy more in line with the practice of retiring dormant bot accounts. Unsupervised bot accounts present a moderate security risk, should they be compromised high speed editing or slow-speed but less visible editing could take place. Additionally, community policies and practices evolve over time and formerly approved bot tasks may no longer be appropriate. See recent BOWN discussions:
Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
A new BRFA for what: reactivation, reactivated tasks, all tasks (BRFA for each or all), does this include manual/supervised? — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 22:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I purpose we change "many AWB genfixes" to "some". Unless we give specific examples of map them all. Also it's a question why to choose AWB since there are many tools that do various things in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably it's time to open an RfC for this. -- Magioladitis ( talk)
I purpose we change "many AWB genfixes" to "some" based on WP:AWB/GF. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:BAG#Bot unblocking policy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Would someone please add a section here (or at WP:B if that's more relevant) explaining the exclusion-compliant process? This comes out of the WP:Exclusion compliant RFD (the current target is {{ Bots}}), which was started because there's no page other than that template's documentation that explains the process at all. I'm not comfortable writing up an explanation, because I'm not a bot operator and don't hugely understand the process; I think the idea is that an exclusion-compliant bot is one that is instructed to refrain from its normal actions in specific situations (e.g. {{bots|deny=your bot's name}}), but I'm not familiar enough that I should be trusted in writing an informative piece on the topic. Nyttend ( talk) 04:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I always found the guidance on dealing with issues to be deficient on this page, and the cause of some confusion in the community on exactly what should be done when dealing with problem bots. I've taken the liberty of revamping that section, mostly with common sense / common practice advice. See diff for the exact changes.
I don't believe these to be controversial changes in need of a formal RFC, but if people think it would be best, we can have one. Feedback and improved wordings are of course, welcomed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and/or the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects.Why change it from "and" to "and/or"? In the past, people have complained that consensus for such things was only determined on some WikiProject's page without wider community input.
For instance, a bot approved to archive discussions on a certain WikiProject's page does not need another BRFA to archive another project's page, so long as the WikiProject consents to have its discussions archived by that bot.seems like a poor example. It reminds me of a case where a bot was approved to create around 600 articles and the operator and associated WikiProject decided that meant they could create 15000 more without further approval, which turned into a big mess.
I think the bit on admins unblocking their own bot does need an RfC - it is contentious in the community (many believe that admins should not be unblocking their own accounts for any reason) and this behaviour by some admins is currently part of the discussion of the Magio arbitration case. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then let's draft this on the talk page instead, and we can bundle this in the RFC for the proposed update of COSMETICBOT that'll happen eventually
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
In my (limited) experience there are six reasons why a bot is blocked, any when unblocking is acceptable depends on which it is - my opinions are below:
In all cases, if the owner unblocks the bot before the issue has been fixed and disruption continues or reoccurrs then the bot may be blocked again. Repeated instances of a bot needing to be reblocked will lead to bot approval being withdrawn and/or desysopping. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Similar to Anomie's concerns of a block instead of a task shut-off. The same problem goes with AWB bots. Stopping the bot is always suffice. Blocks are unnecessary. I think the general concept of blocking a bot for malfunctioning it's outdated and only necessary for bots not allowing other options to be stopped. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Slakr, I think your proposal is overly complex and would invite abuse. I think we'd be better off remaining with the current policy, namely that unblocking one's own account is almost never acceptable, unless an administrator blocked their own bot account themselves - just use an unblock tag or ask the original blocking admin, as other users do. Either way, this needs to go to a proper RfC. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
My point of view is that: If we end up to block an admin's bot and we don't trust the admin to unblock it after they claim it was fixed then we re doomed in a bureaucratic process anyway. The block for malfunctioning is not the same to a block due to bot running unapproved tasks or due to the task losing consensus. I the past, we removed approval to interwiki bots after the task became outdated. The block for malfunctioning is just a measure to prevent bot for further editing and give time to the bot owner to fix its malfunction. In a community that each one trusts each other any kind of bot stop would be suffice. If the bot provides an emergency shut off button we should be OK with that. I recall that my second bot's block was exactly because due to a malfunction the stop procedure via leaving a message in the bot's talk page was not working. So, the blocking admin correctly used the block button. In case the bot task creates more controversy the community has ways to handle this situation. PS Sorry that I have not read the entire discussion above yet. I am doing right now. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how we can add that if a bot had a shutdown button or provides other ways to stop it, they should be preferred over blocking. For instance, if the bot was human we would not block without a final warning etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)