Talk:Bot policy

Before 2009

Bot authorisation

Representing a widely shared point of view, I ask for explicitly telling in the policy that a bot must have a bot flag for doing regular work in a wikipedia. Smaller wikipedias often have their Recent Changes page messed because of bot owners, who regard smaller domains as unimportant or so. Slavik IVANOV 02:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are active sysops, they can block the bots. It would be simpler leave some flexibility and let the communities to decide upon this issue. Some wikis wish to see trial edits before granting bot flags, for example. Hillgentleman 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

presence at IRC

Halló! It would be a good idea to request presence of the bot operator at IRC preferable at the freenode.net #pywikipediabot channel. This would facilitate and speed up contacts. Once a consensus is reached the channel should be listed at IRC channels. Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of automatic approval

If the local bot policy allows automatic approval of interwiki bots but there is a local bureaucrat, what is the best way to apply for a bot flag? Case in point: I was going to resort to automatic approval in the Farsi Wikipedia (not realizing at first that there was a local bureaucrat), but ended up submitting a regular request. Well, now the standard bot policy has been abandoned in the Farsi Wikipedia, so perhaps the real problem in this case was a lack of consensus on the local policy... --Silvonen 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See below (revisited in 2011) -- either way is acceptable. If one does not work you may try the other; in case you try both and the outcomes differ, the local outcome would have the last word. –SJ · talk | translate (noting this page needs to be archived) 13:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted adds

What do you mean with «times specific to Western world»? UTC times can be converted, but servers are busy at the same time in all the world. The link is not broken. Why do you say that it is redundant? I don't see anything about urgency and edit rate in trial periods. --Nemo 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You added that the most busy hours are 12:00–04:00 UTC, which is based on the busy times in North America and Europe. People are asleep at that time in many other timezones, including some wikis where it is implemented. Times specified would need to take into account which wiki the user is interested in, and which server it is located on. For example, the busy hours for the yaseo server (in South Korea) seem to occur during the quiet hours of the pmtpa server (in the United States).

The link was broken at the time it was added, but works now. However, it would be more appropriate to the 'see also' section than to the policy text.

Much of the text is redundant with what is already said. For example, the text gives specific rate limits, then later vaguely repeats that they "should be run at a rate that permits review of their edits when necessary" and that "unflagged bots should edit more slowly than flagged bots". Furthermore, several of the additions contradict server administrators who have publicly stated that performance should not be a concern during editing, and that the software itself will prevent overload.

Furthermore, crosswiki policy development is different from local policy. Such significant changes to the policy will require notification and re-approval on every wiki where it is implemented. As such, they should be discussed before simply changing the policy from what was approved. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:54:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy specifies the limits that you can never exceed, but also under that limits, although there are not specific rules, common sense is needed.

Many operations should be done where most people sleeps, and servers are not busy; obviously we can specify that in the graph everyone should consider only the server cluster which he actually uses (pmtpa, knams, or yaseo).

The «rate that permits review of their edits when necessary» is not influenced by performance, anyway performance is a problem, in fact we italians are experiencing some performance problems (example), so we don't need draconian regulation, but bot operators should be made aware of their responsibilities. --Nemo 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be an extra bonus if your explanation on busy hours, server dependent and the pmtpa server busy time, was also written in the policy text as a 1 or 2 sentences example. rursus 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects

Fixing double redirects is now done automatically in the job queue, so bots are no longer required for this task - there is no need for such bots, so I suggest removing that task from the list.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, double-redirects are only corrected for new page moves. This leaves many existing double-redirects on various wikis, so it's still a valid bot task (I even came across one a few minutes ago). It's also possible to disable the feature on the move form, so I suspect there will be a slow accumulation of unfixed double-redirects over time. Since it's still a valid bot task and it's uncontroversial, I don't think we should reject requests for bot flags to do it. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:49:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of that limitation... /me backreads in wikitech-l  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the config change alluded to? I don't believe it's done automatically in any case. —Giggy 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying 'regular' edits

This line should be changed to read something like this:

• the bot must edit regularly without a bot flag for at least a week or make 100 edits on the applicable wikis for demonstration purposes;

One edit one or two weeks ago shouldn't qualify. -- sj | help translate |+ 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, that is indeed the intended meaning. —Pathoschild 20:37:10, 06 March 2009 (UTC)

Making this policy opt-out or strengthening opt-in

I am quite concerned about the precedent that leaving an english-language message for a week on a village pump that native-language authors do not use, on wikis where there are active editors (and sometimes active admins) constitutes any kind of 'due notice'. we should not pretend that this informs any local editors, and should find better ways to do so. This is only done, as far as I can tell, for bot requests and recently 'requests to implement global bot policy' -- a request that is almost universally made, ignored, and implemented as though a week's silence were consent.

Since it makes sense for bots to stop clogging up RC's on those wikis, let's clarify bot policy here on meta, and either get consensus that this should be an opt-out policy, or define a better way to request that small wikis implement it.

1. If it were opt-out, the memo left on newly formed wikis' public pages could say something like "This wiki is now recognizing bots by default according to the global bot policy. To opt out of this policy and review bot requests locally, read on." --- and we should make a point of asking localizers to translate this as one of the core messages for a new wiki. Since "show bots" on RC is translated as a core message, anyone confused about where edits are coming from can readily figure out how to toggle that flag on to review all bot changes and potentially ask for a bot to be deflagged or blocked.

2. If it remains opt-in, we should define 'opt in' in terms of #s of local editors (not just bot maintainers) commenting on the proposal, and in terms of the activity level of the wiki. If noone has commented but the wiki has active editors, that's clearly not approval. If there are no non-bot editors, what's really going on? Some wikis just have slooower time scales -- maybe 2 months is better for some of them.

-- sj | help translate |+ 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sj. I don't think your proposal makes sense. To avoid implementing the policy on wikis without local discussion, we should implement them on all wikis without even proposing it locally, then demand a consensus to unimplement it? This is less open than the current process.

Implementation is not a grave issue; if a community member comes along three months later and objects, global bots will be disabled on that wiki. Out of the 217 wikis that have implemented it, this has never happened that I can recall. Before implementing a proposal, I ensure these proposals are on or linked from community discussion pages, and delay implementation longer on wikis with active users. Users have plenty of time to comment or request a translation.

I'm not strongly opposed to an opt-out process, but I think it is less open than the current opt-in process. —Pathoschild 04:15:29, 06 April 2009 (UTC)

You are currently effectively demanding a consensus to unimplement it, on any wiki where the local editors do not use their village pump or don't read policy pages every week. I am suggesting being more transparent about the effect this has, rather than claiming that silence = adoption. Since there are many people who want to see bot policy implemented on tiny wikis where noone knows what it is or how to comment on this idea, we should be up front about the fact that it is actually an opt-out policy for those wikis -- once they get large enough to have an opinoin about the policy, they should be able to discover that they have a choice and take control of bot approvals directly.

I agree implementation isn't the issue. Setting a precedent that silence on small wikis equals acceptance of a proposed change, or that hyper-active wikis can determine what is a reasonable amount of time to leave notices up on smaller ones, is what concerns me.

Communities new enough not to know how to accept bot policy or monitor their Village Pumps certainly won't know that they had a choice or that they /could/ complain even if they wanted to.

I would prefer opt-in, all else being equal. But people are not waiting for local acceptance, and there is some logic in not wanting bots to clog up recent changes for small wikis that don't yet know what bots are or how to review new bot editors. -- sj | help translate |+

Strictly speaking, robots should not be operating on these wikis in the first place. Certainly not en mass in any case. Hillgentleman 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, incorrect interwiki links are harder to fix if some wikis are out of the reach of global bots. A newer look at the interlanguage link would be a better solution, but it doesn't seem to be progressing very fast... --Silvonen 06:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Robots are double-edged. The interwiki-mess became a problem because the interwiki.py was so easy to use that people use it carelessly. It would only get better if the links are not added blindly. This is a very likely scenario - think of a new wiki who starts to write an article on the concept of "money" and happens to point it to en:currency. With the bots running around you will have a hard time fixing it. I have often times added a nobot-template just to make sure that interwiki bots don't screw up again. In four words, 寧缺毌濫 (better lack than excess). Hillgentleman 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It happens a lot that a new article has wrong interwiki's. What do you think of the example that an article about the year 1988 point to en:1989. All the autonomous bots will add that wrong link. Until someone manual fixes it. The mess bots makes can sometimes only be solved by bot's with good operators and a lot of flags. The right to run as a global bot is one you have earn and you need to be skillfull. Carsrac 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The opt-out option needs to be more public, because sometimes a wiki will accept the global bot policy only if you can step out of easily. Carsrac 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Global bots

global bot sets

Global bots have permission only "bot"(be treated as automated process). How about granting "apihighlimit" (can use more api) And I request for renaming wikiset "Standard bot policy" to be "Global bot". This set includes wikis don't use standard bot policy, so current name make me confused.--Kwj2772 06:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 09:23:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Global bots and user pages

Hi. Should global bots operators create user pages for their interwiki bot on every project where it runs as a global bot? Thank you. --Ginosal 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, though the bot needs its own userpages on all wikis where it runs, not the operator's userpages. --Kanjy 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Kwj2772 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Many global bot don't do it. It's very hard to find the owner, and the bot must generaly be blocked to have a contact. --Hercule 07:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Global bots vs. cosmetic changes.py

Hey folks, I've been running a global bot for about 11 months and I've recently noticed that the other global bot owners make the cosmetic changes together with the interwiki linking. That's why I started making these changes as well. Everything had been fine until yesterday when my bot was blocked on the Italian Wikiquote and all its edits were reverted (although there was nothing wrong with them). The admin who had blocked my bot just ignored my message and when I tried reverting the edits back, I got blocked for vandalism from him. By now, our small dispute is already over and we came to a conclusion that I will have to ask the locals for cosmetic changes approval. However, I would like to know the Wikimedia community's opinion on global bots making cosmetic changes. The bot policy does not allow them but it seems that the bot owners don't respect this policy. Thoughts? Ideas? --Mercy 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The script is called cosmetic_changes.py for good reason. I see no reason additional permission should be needed for such trivial changes. I do also take issue with how this case in particular was handled, but you say the dispute is resolved, so I won't comment further on that.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes isn't just cosmetic. At least with no.wikipedia, it does changes that are against policy. (among other things changing – to –, when we have a policy about writing it in HTML, so that people don't misread it from -). Laaknor 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the script has changed since I last used it :(

I should have pointed out initially, that the requests of the wiki are paramount - if the itwikiquote users, or nowiki, want it to not be used, then don't use it. Are such problems commonplace? They certainly weren't when I was operating my bot.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The global bot flag must be used only for tasks specifically approved by the policy or local community. Communities enable the global bot flag on the assumption that there is no need to review their edits because they're not doing anything unexpected. If you'd like to perform any task aside from those specifically approved, you must first ask the local community whether they object.

If you see other bot operators performing unapproved tasks, please ask them to stop or let me know. —Pathoschild 23:25:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We had this on enwiki a month or so back. No biggie but it is worth looking out for. The source code I believe mentions that it is not welcome on de.wiki. Rich Farmbrough 04:44 9 December 2009 (GMT).

Global bot fail

Someone mistakenly allowed global bots on iswiki last year on meta (despite it being explicitly against local policy). It's now sorted out but for the people that care about this:

Before I started blocking the global bots 70% of all edits on recentchanges were being made by bots. Clearly this extravagant.

It's crazy that there are so many fully automated bots tripping over each other rushing to add a single link to some obscure language. It can wait a week, or two.

It would be very nice if the people forming this policy would devise some facility to reign in these bots. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Global bots should identify themselves as such

It would be nice if it was required by the global bots policies that all global bots create a user page on any wiki they operate in stating:

• The owners name (with a link to their preferred talk page)
• That they are a global bot, with a link to http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AGlobalUsers&username=<USERNAME_OF_BOT>&group=Global_bot&limit=1 as proof
• brief description of what its function is. (although then again almost every global bot is interwiki)

All this needn't even be in english or language of the local wiki (Although that'd be nice). Just having links to the global bot membership page and the maintainer's userpage would be enough for me to figure out whats happening. It annoys me to no end that people use their bots on projects without even creating a user page. Bawolff 16:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Automatic approval

How fast the bot may run during a trial for automatic approval?

I have a question upon automatic approval process. While the bot is running for a week or making 100 edits as a trial period, how fast the bot may run? At intervals of over 1 minute, or at the speed of its full-scale operation? Regards. --Kanjy 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Trial edits are considered as unflagged bot edit. Should have intervals of over 60 seconds.--Kwj2772 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatic approval requirments

Hello, could someone enlighten me what exactly do 100 edits mean ? Does it mean bot has to have made 100 edits on any of the wikis that have this policy or it has to have made 100 edits on one each particular wiki it is asking to be flagged on ? The thing is that on Latvian Wikipedia we have consensus that unflagged bots are not wanted as they clog recent changes page and our local policy is that any unflagged bots can be blocked - is this in contradiction with global policy ? ~~Xil...(talk) 11:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Double redirects

Note that on en.wiki "global bot" only allows to interwiki, not to fix double redirects. Rich Farmbrough 04:44 9 December 2009 (GMT).

Pulling data of incremental changes

Would it be acceptable to, after downloading the data dump, set up a bot to hit enwiki about twice a second, just to get copies of the latest edits in order to keep a mirror up to date? See w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Real-time_updates_of_Wikipedia_mirror. I am not proposing a live mirror that would hit enwiki every time someone views a page on the mirror, but rather something that would hit Wikipedia at a frequency that would depend on how many edits are being made. Tisane 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Inactive global bots should lose their global bot status

I would like to propose that global bots who are inactive (or nearly inactive) for some time (for example: for six months) lose their global bot status (with the possibility to re-apply for global bot status, of course).

Just one example: User:EivindBot is a global bot (proof) but was last active in 2008 (proof). The more (inactive) global bots around, the higher is the possibility that one day the password of a global bot is cracked, with the possibility of vandalism, linkspam etc. that will probably not be noticed immediately – thus, I think it would be safer to remove the global bot flag from inactive accounts (or nearly inactive accounts that just have a handful of edits). --UV 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• good idea Seb az86556 12:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, please. -- Quentinv57 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Makes sense to me. In fact, policy for global bot access requires that the bot be active. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dferg, thank you for discovering that the current bot policy already allows removing the bot flag from inactive global bots: When a bot is not (any more) "active on several wikis", it does not meet the requirements for the global bot flag (any more) and thus the global bot flag can be removed.

Is there any hope for a (toolserver) query that tells us the number of edits (and their distribution over individual wikis, in order to be able to spot global bots who are only active on a small number of wikis) of the global bots over the last six or twelve months? Whom could we possibly contact about implementing/running such a query? --UV 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment : this tool could be useful before implementing a query specific to global bots. -- Quentinv57 07:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now made 23 requests for removal of global bot status at Steward requests/Bot status. --UV 23:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working out that list. It is nice to see how many bot owners have been reminded to return their bots to activity - every one helping improve the projects. –SJ · talk | translate 13:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is helpful that more bot activity takes place, and I am happy that some bot owners have expressed their intention to resume interwiki bot activity. Still, the current system of interlanguage links is suboptimal (which was already recognized in 2005), so I would in fact prefer a system that eliminates the need for interwiki bots altogether (although I am not able to specify the details of how an optimal solution to the problem could look like). And another limiting factor to the usefulness of some interwiki bots: Interwiki bots that cover many languages are far more efficient than interwiki bots that just cover a relatively small number of languages. --UV 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Some removals complete of what look like clear-cut cases. I'm waiting at least a week for any fallout before moving-on to less clear cases. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

More done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 13:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

All done for now – of the 23 bots that I listed for removal of global bot status, 6 resumed activity or will probably resume activity, and 17 bot flags were removed. --UV 20:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Automatic approval in the wiki where local bureaucrats are active

Is automatic approval process allowed in wikis where local bureaucrats are active. As far as I know, according to stewards policy, promoting users on project with active bureaucrat is prohibited. I wonder whether automatic approval is allowed on project with active bureaucrats. Thank you. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In my mind it should not be allowed, because of the steward policy. But it seem to be considered as a valid exception (see User_talk:Hercule#Automatic_approval_of_interwiki_bots) --Hercule 21:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It was specifically added to the bot policy so that we could promote bots instead of bureaucrats. Laaknor 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the request is rejected locally, decision should not be overriden by automatic approval. Am I right? – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, automatic approval is not an 'override' or a veto of local votes. Conversely, a local community (via a bureaucrat) can decide at any time to remove the bot flag from a bot they do not want, even if approval has been given here at some point. –SJ · talk | translate 13:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

bolded part

I've made the part about operators being available to answer comments bold. Too many people start running the bot on "smaller" wikis and don't even bother to put at least some redirect onto the bots talk page. Seb az86556 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I also consider the mention of contact information on any wiki where a bot operate as essential, but I'm not sure that putting this text in bot will help the operators to understand that.

You should maybe add a note explaining that point.

Regards

--Hercule 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Global bots

Please see the list of Global bots. Links to the next n pages are not working there.--Vssun 02:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it; I filed a bug report. —Pathoschild 02:59:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about automatic approval, a proposal

One of the requirements about automatic approval say the bot must edit regularly without a bot flag for at least a week or make 100 edits on the applicable wikis for demonstration purposes, which making things complex in long run. As auto approval does not require to put a local bot flag request, most of the times local community is unaware of it. But it is most likely that the local community member can find out if the bot is messing up or not. So, stewards are granting flags from here without a chance of checking the edits (stewards can only check if it is running regularly or on and that is all needed per current policy).

In this procedure they are getting bot flags on wikis without local bureaucrat or community, afterward they use these flags as a key behind their global bot request. It does not harm, but many of these enthusiastic bot operators lost their enthusiasm after operating the bots for few months and eventually the bots become inactive. Stewards can remove the global flag, but the local flags (which were also granted by stewards from Meta) still exist but those need to be removed as well (same reason: inactivity). I do not think anybody will complain to that removal.

In order to fix this, I propose the following changes in the global bot policy.

• Auto approval should also require a local bot flag request which will be open for at least 7 days (test edits will also be a mandatory)
• Global bots will get their global bot flag removed it they are inactive for a certain period of time (lets say 6 months?)
• If global flag gets removed due to inactivity. the local flags which were granted per auto approval can also be removed by stewards

I think in this way we can clean up the bot list of every wiki (specially small wikis without any bureaucrat). Bot owners usually request global flags after getting 100 or 150+ local bot flags, and most of them are being granted from Meta under auto approval policy. Please share your thoughts, thank you! — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 15:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The current discussion will continue on Requests for comment/Stewards' question: How to make your Wikimedian life easier? -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)