Wikipedia:Bot policy

This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Parts of this policy have been recently reworked and rewritten. Those parts may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Automated or partially automated editing processes, known as "bots", must be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts and be operated responsibly.

Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work.

It also covers the work of the Bot Approval Group, which supervises and approves all bot-related activity from a technical and quality-control perspective on behalf of the English Wikipedia community.

Overview

Bots (short for "robots") are generally programs or scripts that make automated edits without the necessity of human decision-making. Assisted editing covers specifically lower-speed tools and scripts that can assist users to make decisions but leave the actual decision up to the user (see Assisted editing guidelines below). Scripts are personalized scripts (typically, but not exclusively, written in javascript) that may automate processes, or may merely improve and enhance the existing MediaWiki interface. The Bot Approval Group ("BAG") is a group of users with appropriate technical skills and wiki-experience, whose members are approved by the community to oversee and make decisions on bot activity and operation on-wiki for the community.

Because bots are potentially capable of editing far faster than humans can, have a lower level of scrutiny on each edit than a human editor, may cause severe disruption if they malfunction or are misused, and are held to a high standard by the community, high standards are expected before a bot is approved for use on designated tasks. Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the bot account and possible sanctions for the operator.

The bot approval group also determine the classification as bot or assisted editing, in ambiguous cases. Formal work by MediaWiki Developers is outside the scope of this policy.

Bot usage

Note that higher speed or semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases. If in doubt, check.

Bot accounts

Contributors should create a separate user account in order to operate a bot. The account's name should identify the operator or bot function, and make the nature of the account clear by incorporating the word "bot". Tools not considered to be bots do not require a separate account, but some users do choose to make separate accounts for non-bot but high-speed editing.

The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, who must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator for the purposes of the user account policy.

Bot accounts should not be used for contributions that do not fall within the scope of the bot's designated tasks. In particular, bot operators should not use a bot account to respond to messages related to the bot. Bot operators may wish to redirect a bot account's discussion page to their own.

The 'bot' flag

Bot accounts will be marked by a bureaucrat upon bot approval group request as being in the "bot" user-group within MediaWiki. This is a flag on their account that indicates the account is used by a bot, and reduces some of the technical limits usually imposed by the Mediawiki software. Edits by such accounts are hidden by default within recent changes.

Historically, being flagged as a bot account was distinct from the approval process; not all approved bots had that property.

Bot requirements

In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:

is harmless
is useful
does not consume resources unnecessarily
performs only tasks for which there is consensus
carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines
uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users
- provides a method of opting out of messages on user talk pages

The bot account's user page should identify the bot as such using the {{bot}} tag. The following information should be provided on, or linked from, both the bot account's userpage and the approval request:

Details of the bot's task (or tasks)
Whether the bot is manually assisted or runs automatically
When it operates (continuously, intermittently, or at specified intervals), and at what rate
The language and/or program that it is running

While performance is not generally an issue, bot operators should recognize that a bot making many requests or editing at a high speed has a much greater effect than the average contributor. Operators should be careful not to make unnecessary Web requests, and be conservative in their editing speed. Developers will inform the community if performance issues of any significance do arise, and in such situations, their directives must be followed.

Bots in trial periods, and approved bots performing all but the most trivial or urgent tasks, should be run at a rate that permits review of their edits when necessary.
Unflagged bots should edit more slowly than flagged bots, as their edits are visible in user watchlists.
The urgency of a task should always be considered; tasks that do not need to be completed quickly (for example, renaming categories) can and should be accomplished at a slower rate than those that do (for example, reverting vandalism).
Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every four seconds.
Bots editing at a high speed should operate more slowly during peak hours (1200 – 0400 UTC), and days (middle of the week, especially Wednesdays and Thursdays) than during the quietest times (weekends). Traffic statistics are available.
Bots' editing speed may also be adjusted based on slave database server lag; this allows bots to edit more quickly during quiet periods while slowing down considerably when server load is high. This can be achieved by appending an extra parameter to the query string of each requested URL; see mw:Manual:Maxlag parameter for more details.

Bots that download substantial portions of Wikipedia's content by requesting many individual pages are not permitted. When such content is required, download database dumps instead. Bots that require access to run queries on Wikipedia databases may be run on the toolserver; such processes are outside the scope of this policy.

Good communication

Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general. At a minimum, the operator should ensure that other users will be willing and able to address any messages left in this way if they cannot be sure to do so themselves.

Configuration tips

Bot operators may wish to implement the following features, depending on the nature of the bot's tasks:

Providing some mechanism which allows contributors other than the bot's operator to control the bot's operation is useful in some circumstances – the bot can be enabled or disabled without resorting to blocks, and could also be configured in other ways. For example, the bot could check the contents of a particular page and act upon the value it finds there. If desired, such a page could then be protected or semi-protected to prevent abuse. Bot operators doing this should bear in mind that they retain all responsibility for their bot account's edits.
To avoid unnecessary blocks, the bot may detect whether its account is logged in, and cease editing if not. One way to do this is to check the value of wgUserName in any retrieved wiki pages.
Bots which edit many pages, but may need to be prevented from editing particular pages, can do so by interpreting Template:Bots; see the template page for an explanation of how this works.

Authors of bot processes are encouraged, but not required, to publish the source code of their bot.

Restrictions on specific tasks

Categorization of people

Assignment of person categories should not be made using a bot. Before adding sensitive categories to articles by bot, the input should be manually checked article by article, rather than uploaded from an existing list in Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

Spell-checking

Bot processes may not fix spelling mistakes in an unattended fashion, as accounting for all possible false positives is unfeasible. Assisted spell-checking is acceptable, and may or may not be considered a bot process depending on the editing rate. Such processes must not convert words from one regional variation of English to another.

Interwiki links: See also: Wikipedia:Interlanguage links, Interwiki bot FAQ, m:Interwiki bot, m:Interwiki sorting order

Operators of interwiki linking bots, unless involved only with the development of said bots, must be reasonably familiar with the languages that they are linking from and to, in order to confirm that interwiki linkings between the two projects are done correctly.

Bot operators using the pywikipedia framework should ensure that they use the latest version of the framework and update this daily.

Tools with significant misuse capability

Bots and assistance tools that have an above-average capability for misuse, are often well-advised to be restricted in access to some "trusted user" list. This especially applies to tools used for fixing wide ranges of vandalism or more general purpose tools with editing and user notice capabilities. In some cases the creator of such tools has operated their own application process or criteria for these, or has declined to make the code fully available outside the requirements of approval.

Approval process

Approval

Bots must be approved before they may operate. Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox. Such test edits may be made from any user account. In addition, any bot or automated editing process that only affects only the operators' user and talk pages (or subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval.

Bot approval requests should be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Requests should state precisely what the bot will do, as well as any other information that may be relevant to its operation. The request will then be open for some time during which the community or members of the bot approvals group may comment or ask questions. Eventually, a member of the bot approvals group may approve a short trial during which the bot is monitored to ensure that it operates correctly. The decision to approve a request should take into account the requirements above, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request.

In cases where the function of the bot is not one that already holds general widespread acceptance, or at the discretion of BAG members when greater community feedback is desired, the request may first move to an extended trial of approximately one month. During the extended trial the bot must have a link in edit summaries to the BRFA and a prominent notice on its user and user talk pages. Following this extended trial, consensus for the bot will be reconsidered, any issues should be resolved, and the bot can then be approved.

Approval may be conditional on the bot account remaining in a "trial period" in order that its operation be reviewed. The terms and extent of such a trial period may be determined by the approval group. Automated processes should be supervised during trial periods so that any problems may be addressed quickly. The need for an account to be added to the "bot" user group may also be determined by the approval group; should this be required, it may be carried out by any bureaucrat.

In addition, prospective bot operators should be editors in good standing, and with demonstrated experience with the tasks the bot proposes to do.

Should a bot operator wish to modify or extend the operation of a bot, they should ensure that they do so in compliance with this policy. Small changes, for example to fix problems or improve the operation of a particular task, are unlikely to be an issue, but larger changes should not be implemented without some discussion. Completely new tasks usually require a separate approval request.

Accounts performing automated tasks without prior approval may be summarily blocked by any administrator.

Appeals and reexamination of approvals

Any editor may request that the Bots Approval Group reexamine a previously granted or denied bot approval (although it only makes sense for the bot operator themselves to appeal a denied request). Comments will be sought from the community at large, and the BAG members will make a final decision by simple majority voting. BAG members may also, at their discretion, initiate this examination proceeding during the approval process when wider consensus appears needed to reach a decision, or once a bot operates if there appears to be problems.

This process with take place on a subpage of Bots/Requests for Approval/Bot Name. Once a member of BAG has reviewed the discussion and made a decision, they may cast their vote. Voting ends either one week after the first vote, or 24 hours after one side has more than 50% of the "active" BAG members. These decisions may be binding or may be a strong recommendation.

The result of such an examination can result in:

Granting or revoking approval for a bot task;
Removing or placing the account into the bot user group; or
Imposing further operational conditions on the bot to maintain approval status.

In particular, the BAG has no authority on operator behavior, or on the operators themselves. Dispute resolution is the proper venue for that.

Other bot-related matters

Bot Approvals Group

Members of the BAG are elected a consensus evaluated by the Wikipedia bureaucrats in a process similar to the Request for Adminship.

This process will take place in the same way as Requests for Adminship, as a subpage. The community may ask questions of the candidate and express their views in the voting sections. A 2/3 majority is expected after a one week period to promote the user. A 2/3 majority is also required to, through the same process, remove a member. Both types of request should be closed by a bureaucrat, who has discretion to weigh arguments and determine consensus in close votes or in extreme circumstances.

The current membership of the Bots Approval Group can be found here.

In order to allow a smooth transition, currently active members of the BAG at the time this process was put in place (9 April 2008) are grandfathered as members of the BAG for a period of six months. Upon termination of this period, if they have not already been re-approved, they must present themselves before the new system or be removed from the BAG.

Dealing with issues

If you have noticed a problem with a bot, or have a complaint or suggestion to make, you should contact the bot operator. If the bot is causing a significant problem, and you feel that more urgent discussion is necessary, you may also wish to leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, indicating where you have notified the bot operator.

Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval (for example, by editing too quickly). A block may also be issued if a bot process operates without being logged in to an account, or is logged in to an account other than its own.

Bots operated by multiple users

Accounts used for approved bots that can make edits of a specific designated type, at the direction of more than one person, are not likely to be a problem, provided:

operator disclosure - the Wikipedia user directing any given edit will always be identifiable, typically by being linked in the edit summary, and
operator verification - users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit, in some manner not readily faked and unique to that user that cannot readily be bypassed or avoided (eg non-trivial password, restricted IP, wiki login, irc hostname), so that the user directing any given edit and identified above, may be considered verified.
operator trust - if anyone other than the bot creator is likely to operate the bot, then there must be outline measures to reassure bot approval group members that they will have the requisite skill and knowledge to operate that bot to an appropriate standard.

Assisted editing guidelines

"Assisted editing" covers the use of tools which assist with repetitive tasks, but do not alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. Examples of this include correcting typographical errors, fixing links to disambiguation pages, reverting vandalism and stub sorting.

While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request; see Approval above. In such cases, the bot approval group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, may be more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes.

Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired. They may wish to create a separate user account in order to do so; such accounts should adhere to the policy on multiple accounts. Contributors using assisted editing tools may wish to indicate this, if it is not already clear, in edit summaries and/or on the user page or user discussion page of the account making the contributions.

Authors of assisted editing tools are permitted to create their own approval mechanism for that tool; if bot approval is required for use of the tool, this is in addition to, not instead of, the normal approval request process. AutoWikiBrowser is an example of a tool with such a mechanism. Release of the source code for assisted editing tools is, as with bots, encouraged but not required.

User scripts

The majority of user scripts are intended to merely improve, enhance, or personalize the existing MediaWiki interface, or to simplify access to commonly used functions for editors. Scripts of this kind do not normally require BAG approval.

External links

Wikibot auto links 'wikitagged' words in Joomla contents with Wikipedia.