Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

Archives

Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7 · Archive 8 · Archive 9 · Archive 10 · Archive 11 · Archive 12 · Archive 13 · Archive 14 · Archive 15 · Archive 16 · Archive 17 · Archive 18 · Archive 19 (==21) · Archive 20 · Archive 21 · Archive 22 · Archive 23 · Archive 24 · Archive 25 Control proposals Archive policy Archive interwiki (also some approvals for interwiki bots)

Clarification on updating approved bots

1. After a bot account is created and approved to automate a task, what is the protocol for running modified or completely new functions?
2. If one builds a suite of automated but unrelated tasks, can the bot perform all tasks at once, as long as all tasks have been approved?
3. Is it allowable to request approval for multiple unrelated tasks in one request, or should they be split into multiple requests?
4. Is there ever a reason why one user would need to create multiple bot accounts?--Joel amos (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Any significant modification of task, or addition of new task will require a new BRFA to be submitted.
2. It depends, using meaningful edit summaries is important - if there are multiple different kinds of changes happening in the same instantaneous edit this can get tricky.
3. It depends, mostly on how unrelated and how wide in scope. (e.g. "Replace infobox-xxx and portal link-y" in one BRFA is likely OK - "rollback vandals and convert citations to wikidata" would not be.
4. Yes, say they need different flags, or just because the operator or community thiks the edits and logs should be different. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my questions. It seems like discretion and common sense are the driving forces here, and that's what makes Wikipedia great.--Joel Amos (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletions

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)

@DGG: technically These 6 bots have deletion access. These bots are all operated by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate Python sample at Template:Bots

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)

If you really want to test your code, I while back put together a series of tests at User:AnomieBOT/nobots_tests. Anomie⚔ 02:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Activity requirements

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:

• Bot accounts that have had no logged actions or edits for two years, where the listed operator has also had no logged actions or edits for two years, will be deauthorized. Following a one week notification period on the bot owners' noticeboard, and the operator's talk page, prior task approvals will be considered expired and bot flags will be removed. Should the operator return and wish to reactivate the bot, a new request for approval must be completed.

This puts the policy more in line with the practice of retiring dormant bot accounts. Unsupervised bot accounts present a moderate security risk, should the 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:

Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Inactive_bots_with_inactive_editors_to_mark_as_retired

Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Inactive_bots_over_5_years

Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

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)

BRFA's are task-specific. This would treat a new BRFA it as a brand new request; resuming an old task would not require much scrutiny for tasks that haven't changed much - and would generally be able to enter trials speedily. I would not specifically be opposed to some kind of omnibuss BRFA (e.g. resume prior tasks 1,3,6-9) for a returning operator. I certainly understand that manual/supervised bots may go dormant for some time - which is why I also included this would only apply if the editor/operator was also dormant for years. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking about global owner edit activity or only en.wp? - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 23:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

enwiki specific, however they will be notified so will be able to maintain as desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - bots edit with a lower level of scrutiny; therefore, we need to worry about a bot account being compromized. I would also like to point out that the requirement that the operator has no activity is necessary also for Joe's Null Bot, which helps with maintaining several categories and still has 0 edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Seems reasonable -FASTILY 23:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Request for BAG membership (bot approver)

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)