Talk:Bot policy/Archives/2018

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Expand global bot scope to also maintain broken redirects

I'd like to propose to expand the scope of the global bot flag to also include the maintenance of broken redirects. Not sure why they got excluded in the past but it does not make much sense to me to be honest. So I propose to change the policy to:

Where it says... ... I suggest to chage it to
the bot must only maintain interlanguage links or fix double-redirects the bot must only maintain interlanguage links or fix double or broken redirects

(bolden text is the change)

The is a pretty stable script and works fine and adding this task would help enhace the maintenance of wikis. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the last discussion got archived, likely because no one got around to writing an RfC - but if we're going to I'd rather try to take care of as many parts that can be in one RfC instead of doing these over and over again. Some bigger wins may include "null edit" actions and scriptable high priority Special:LintErrors? — xaosflux Talk 03:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I won't object adding those to the list as well. I started with a narrow scope so it was easier to discuss and approve :-) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Any objections? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

New wikis to automatically use this policy

Hello. In the last year I've been proposing this policy to all newly created wikis with successful results. I propose that starting from January 2018 the global bot policy's automatic approval and global bot allowance be enabled by default on all newly created projects instead of having to propose it one by one. Once a wiki is created it can take some time to develop their own policies and while this bot policy --some parts-- apply to all projects, it'll really speed-up the process of getting bots approved on those newly created wikis. Opting-out to automatic approval, global bots or both will continue to be a possibility of course. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe limit it to content wikis? --Rschen7754 19:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes. Mainly because new noncontent wikis are either chapter wikis or private wikis or fishbowl ones. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday 6 new wikis were created, 4 of them content wikis. I have proposed the implementation to them. Do we need something else to make this proposal go live. Any objections? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Bump. --Rschen7754 23:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Overhaul the whole BPI process

I'm starting this thread vaguely, but the process to propose and implement this policy is quite of a burden. After approved, the steward taking care should put texts on the wiki, create redirects... Those pages can change and the local wikis mostly don't know what those texts and redirects are for to be honest. Does anyone have ideas how to make the implementation and maintenance of this more straightforward and easy. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the whole scope of the policy should be revisited. It was written several years ago before many developments (notably, Wikidata). --Rschen7754 18:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)