Wikipedia talk:Bots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Guidance on disruptive use of semi-automated tools?[edit]

Do we have anything on this already? We're contemplating adding a footnote to WP:Manual of Style about not using AWB, etc., to "enforce" the "rules" of MoS across a zillion pages (see WT:Manual of Style#Proposed footnote to discourage mass changes – the actual proposal, not the joke thread under it, though you may find that amusing on the side). While we've identified a relevant ArbCom ruling, it seems like something that should be in the behavioral or editing guidelines somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: See WP:CONSENSUS,WP:DE, WP:AWB#Rules, WP:MEATBOT. However, there is nothing wrong with using AWB to enforce the majority of MOS recommendations. The efforts should be on identifying where AWB is applying unwanted fixes, and boot those out of WP:GENFIXES (or demote them to minor genfixes). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I already checked CONSENSUS, and EDITING policies, and at DE; they don't cover it that I can see. I'm searching the pages for key strings like "mass", "multi", "automat", "many", "a lot", "large number", etc. You'll probably want to see that WT:MOS discussion and suggest any needed wording changes so that it's clear that the kind of stuff GENFIXES does isn't snared. I think I have that covered now in latest draft. It should be tied to changes of one acceptable option to another being unproductive, per MOS:RETAIN. Integrated material from BOTPOL and AWB rules.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

In fact we need the rules to encourage editors and bot owners to enforce rule of MoS. Not enforcing rules is allowing custom styles over Wikipedia. I would be glad to participate in a discussion where bots will run daily to enforce rules. In an ideal situation editors using VE or any other editor get a heads up of how to comply with MoS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that we leave massive messages to AWB editors to tunr general fixes on to help enforce MoS rules. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

MoS is not a rule it's a Guideline. According to WP:GUIDES it is a "best practice" and "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Not everyone agrees with the MoS on every point, in every case, nor should it be enforced by a bot/AWB that can't exercise common sense and/or exceptions. Indeed the MoS is widely ignored in some cases (even in FA) and enforcing it for the sake of it is a recipe for conflict. Finally the consensus behind many MoS guidelines are weak or non-existent. -- GreenC 16:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
GreenC yes this is true. But in order to form a stronger consensus we should try to apply it. Then we can see whether the MoS rule have to change. AWB does not implement every single rule and it is not the only tool that tries to implement MoS rules. Some years ago there were even conflict between semi-automated tools and scripts and there might be some conflicts till nowadays. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
If that's the intention start a WP:BOTREQ like everyone else using automated tools to achieve some result they believe is important. There isn't preexisting consensus to use automated tools to test the strength of MoS consensus. -- GreenC 17:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I've done similar requests in the past. I think a wider opinion may be needed. I am ot the one who started this discussion anyway. I am just typing my opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)