Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ram-Man (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 16 November 2018 (→‎Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27

Control proposals

Archive policy

Archive interwiki (also some approvals for interwiki bots)

Mass page moves

I've made a bold edit. If it is controversial, it can be discussed below. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 19:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, while mass page moves are covered by WP:BOTPOL, WP:MASSCREATION does not apply to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Um, WP:BOTPOL doesn't currently say anything about mass page moves, so I don't see how "mass page moves are covered by WP:BOTPOL".
Unless you mean implicitly, but policy should be explicit, and anyway, mass page moves technically count as mass article creation if the new pages are being created with the page moves (which is all page moves for non-admin accounts).
I note in your edit summary you said "while mass page moves need a BRFA, this is not the policy section to cover that". Where would you suggest covering it? Mass page creation seems like the most appropriate section to cover it to me, since it's not covered anywhere else in the page, and it's not content heavy enough for its own section. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E to the Pi times i: It's implicitly covered by WP:BOTREQUIRE and WP:BOTAPPROVAL. Bot policy doesn't need to be explicit about every specific type of edits made. For example, we don't specifically list adding/removing/updating WikiProject banners as something needing approval, even though it's one of the most common type of bots out there. The WP:MASSCREATION restriction exists because it creates massive cleanup backlogs when things are done sloppily, including dozens if not hundreds of PRODs/AfDs if created on non-notable entries. Bad page moves are very easy to undo, without the need for admin intervention in most cases.
But more to the point, before additions should be made to the bot policy (a WP:MASSMOVE section), there has to be a need for those additions. So the following things need to be addressed (IMO) before an addition is made to the bot policy
  1. Do you have examples of problematic mass page moves, especially problematic script-assisted page moves?
  2. Does preventing mass moves at a policy level solve more problems than it creates?
  3. Is there consensus for such additional restrictions (e.g. need for a WP:VP discussion before moving pages)?
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concern comes more from a desire for personal clarity in reading the policy than from an overarching policy perspective, so my changes may be in error. I would suggest a revised version: "The restriction also applies to mass page moves when the moves create pages.", but I think your concerns may be correct when it comes to not having a consensus or need for explicitly regulating these changes in this way.
Also, I moved the anchor because it causes problems with edit summary links, as can be seen in my most recent edit summary on this page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of redirects

I recently used AWB to create about 50 uncontroversial redirects – see here. Each one was manually approved. Out of a nagging sense of paranoia, I just checked the bot policy and saw WP:MASSCREATION. Are uncontroversial redirects covered by that policy? If so, mea culpa – my apologies, and I will not do this again. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not technically considered "articles" (although they are in the "article namespace"), so you're in the clear from a literal interpretation of the policy standpoint. And more importantly that is not the kind of thing the policy was created with in mind, so I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kingpin13 – much appreciated. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna say the letter of WP:MASSCREATION is perhaps not super clear here, but I agree with Kingpin13 here about the intent of WP:MASSCREATION: it's about articles. Sufficiently large redirect creation might still fall under WP:BOTPOL, and certainly fall under WP:CONSENSUS, but that'd be like any other sort of editing out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC to ease introduction of citation templates to articles not presently using them

Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Remove the bullet point that starts "adding citation templates..."

The discussion is relevant to this policy because even though the RFC has been around for less than a day, there have been several mentions of mass changes. Naturally mass changes are a phenomenon associated with bots. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should BAG members have an activity requirement?

Following a prior discussion, I propose we institute an activity requirement for BAG members, much like Admins have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording

Version A
BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any activity on bot-related pages (e.g. WP:BOTN, WP:BOTREQ, WP:BRFA, ...) , BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG.
Version B
BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any activity on the English Wikipedia, BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG.
Version C
Status quo: No activity requirement.

!Vote

  • Version A, I feel if you want to be a part of BAG, you have to do BAG stuff. Version B is a second choice though. I'll mention it was very common to remove BAG members for inactivity in the past, so there's precedent to do that.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version A - You shouldn't keep access to groups (much like userrights) that you aren't using and that access isn't being used if the editor isn't working on BAG pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version A - Sounds reasonable. If you want to be a part of BAG, you have to do BAG stuff. The MilHistBot removes MilHist members from the active list after one year. Looking at the BAG, it seems that it could use an extra bureaucrat or two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: as one, I don't think its that important to be a 'crat at BAG - we don't flag our own approvals and there has been no significant flagging backlog in a long time. Being an administrator is a big plus here, but the most important that we need at BAG is qualified people that will be active in keeping the requests processed. — xaosflux Talk 23:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B. You can still follow bot stuff, just not actively participate. Besides, I don't think a post on some random BOTREQ page once every 2 years is any different. I mean, I agree you ought to do BAG stuff, but version A doesn't really provide any solid "participation" rules. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version A per User:Headbomb and User:Nosebagbear. SemiHypercube ✎ 21:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version C Per Mz7 below. I don't see any particular risk in someone keeping their BAG credentials, and especially not to the same level as admin tools. I see it as a net positive if an inactive member can come back from a break and contribute without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops. I think someone in BAG would have enough clue to see what's changed before diving into the deep end. I'd compromise to B as a second choice, but am very against A per Hellknowz above. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Version B, and Version A as a second choice, basically per Hellknowz. I don't really see any harm to this proposal. Automated editing can occasionally be a contentious place here, and it's a good idea for BAG members to be relatively up-to-date on relevant community discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a fan of version B here. I think there is some risk, contrary to Mz7 and Wugapodes, as an out-of-touch member would be more-likely to approve bots which are inappropriate and disapprove bots which are appropriate. The former can be problematic to amend if the bot edits many pages (as is their general intent). I have a weak preference to see a tighter timeframe (1 year--same as admins) with a larger warning period prior (1 month, same as admins). --Izno (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version C - For the life of me, I don't understand why we want to make it more and more difficult to do volunteer work on Wikipedia. Are we suffering from a spate of rouge (or clueless) bot approvers? No. This is just a solution in search of a problem, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version C – Per my comments in the discussion section below, I'm not convinced any change is necessary here. We're all volunteers here, so we should be free to take breaks at any time for whatever duration. By successfully requesting BAG membership in the past, these editors have already proved their competence in this area. Unless there has been a radical change in the way we do things here in the last few years, I see it as a net positive for old BAGs to be able to resume their contributions immediately, without having to jump through the hoops a second time. (Consider how administrators desysopped for inactivity are not necessarily required to do RfA a second time, unless they've been gone for more than five years.) I realize the list at WP:BAG#Member list is getting kind of long and bloated. Consider instead putting something like {{collapse top}} over the list of inactive members, and if one decides to come back, maybe give them a quick update on new policies, etc., and just move their name back up. Mz7 (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice Version A, second choice Version B. Would have the added benefit of encouraging more BAG members to participate (badly needed IMO) -FASTILY 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Version A. Activity on the English Wikipedia is enough; activity on "bot-related pages" is too vague and unreasonable to track. I'm also okay with no change. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that would be relatively easy to track with a bot. Did they edit a page in Category:Wikipedia bots or its subcategories in 2 years (or their talk pages)? And there's still a one week notice where they can say they're still interested in being part of the BAG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not C Weak preference for A over B. I take the concerns over changes in policy, and would add that if someone wanted help with a bot, it wouldn't help to have large numbers of editors they may contact be inactive. Bots and bot policy can be fraught and it's helpful to have active users. Two years is quite generous, so this may not be a titanic change, but a very reasonable start. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish Version B - if enacted today this would change - 1 status, with possibly 2 next year. BAG members should be up to date on current practices. It is also not very hard to "join BAG" if you are qualified and interested so if someone was removed and came back and wanted to help it shouldn't be overly burdensome. — xaosflux Talk 15:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not A. Somewhat prefer version C over version B but I see the merit to B. Maxim(talk) 16:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version C, as per Kaldari. Does my opinion not matter because I've been inactive from Wikipedia for too long? That's the implication. Yet I'm still just as qualified as I was when I wrote the bot policy 16 years ago. The logistical issues can be easily resolved by the simple changes that Mz7 suggested. More process creep won't benefit the project. -- RM 16:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Why 2 years? I always feel that these things (access, userrights etc) depreciate too slowly - particularly reasonably significant ones. Why not 1 year or 18 months? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an irony there is not always enough staff to deprecate the staff on a timely basis. -- GreenC 20:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This exactly. Ironically, the comment by Fastily is why former members, like myself, are not interesting in participating, even though it is badly needed. Options A and B both increase the amount of process overhead. This is not an attractive proposition. Threatening to remove membership will not encourage more BAG members to participate. Losing adminship due to inactivity just made me give up on Wikipedia administration completely. -- RM 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With sysop and other advanced permissions, there's a security risk involved with keeping them on dormant accounts (increases attack surface and all), and that's a big reason why we remove those permissions for inactivity. However, with BAG, there doesn't seem to be such a risk – if a BAG account is compromised, maybe it might approve a BRFA that isn't well-thought-out? If an old BAG member comes back from inactivity, it strikes me as a net benefit for them to be able to resume their contributions immediately, rather than requiring them to sign all the paperwork a second time. Maybe we could remove them from the list, but if they come back, we can just add them back without needing a second request to join BAG. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I would support a trivial re-application; maybe something like (from BAG member to applicant): "Have you reviewed the changes to the bot policy since your absence began? Do you understand those changes? If you do not, what do you not understand and why?" Or something similar. That would satisfy my standard for "has an understanding of the current bot feeling". --Izno (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno, the trivial re-application thing sounds like a good alternative to the proposals above. Mz7 (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe some language like "BAG members who are inactive for X length are "censured", meaning they cannot approve BOT tasks. They may remove this censure by answering in public the <insert questions I posed above> on the bots noticeboard. The thread must be available for 48 hours for community comment.", rather than the above proposals. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a purely editorial comment, if either proposal gains acceptance, I suggest the first sentence be reworded to avoid an idiomatic phrase, and have something like BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to be aware of the latest policies and guidelines. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and/or would like to see the admin inactivity language here (I am not sure if that is contra your suggestion). --Izno (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Headbomb: Question: How many Wikipedia policies have actually changed substantially in the past 2 years? Kaldari (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kaldari:, a great deal of them actually. The biggest change was the update of WP:COSMETICBOT, but there's been updates about adminbots and other technical stuff like new bot-related userrights. But there's been subtler changes about current practices/bot trials too. It's nothing extremely hard to relearn, and the subtler things are not likely to cause huge issues because they are pretty rare, but someone that isn't active on Wikipedia/in bots will be out of step with community expectations, or won't be able to give the most relevant advice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Bots/News/201704, Wikipedia:Bots/News/201707, Wikipedia:Bots/News/201803, Wikipedia:Bots/News/201808 detail the major changes over the last 18 months or so. There's a couple of minor things that changed since the last bot newsletter too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's PING all current BAG members on this. Don't know why I didn't do it from the start:

Current:@Anomie, BU Rob13, Cyberpower678, Headbomb, HighInBC, MBisanz, MusikAnimal, Slakr, SQL, The Earwig, Xaosflux, Addshore, Hellknowz, Jarry1250, Kingpin13, MaxSem, Maxim, Aaron Schulz, Brandon, Carnildo, Chris G, Cobi, Coren, Daniel, Gimmetrow, Jake Wartenberg, JamesR, Josh Parris, Madman, Mets501, Mr.Z-man, OverlordQ, Quadell, Reedy, Snowolf, ST47, Tawker, Tim1357, Tinucherian, and Werdna:
Former:@AllyUnion, Andrevan, Δ, Bluemoose, Dreamafter, EdoDodo, Essjay, Fran Rogers, Freakofnurture, Fritzpoll, Giggy, Harej, Hersfold, Joshbuddy, Kingboyk, Lightdarkness, Maelgwn, Magioladitis, Martinp23, Pgk, Ral315, Ram-Man, Richard0612, Robchurch, Talrias, TheFearow, X!, and Xeno:

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy&oldid=869135454"