Bots noticeboard

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Wikipedia (also including other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software). Although this page is frequented mainly by bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

For non-urgent issues or bugs with a bot, a message should be left on the bot operator's talk page. If discussion with the operator does not resolve the issue or the problem is urgent and widespread, the problem can be reported by following the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. This is not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. General questions about the MediaWiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.) should be asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

sboverride userright

How would I get User:GreenC bot the new sboverride userright? c.f. T36928 recently closed resolved. -- GreenC 20:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, that's a neat user right. User:AAlertBot could use it since it occasionally encounters urls users used that it cannot report and has to trim the report. I spent way too long fixing it when I first encountered this because I assumed bots would surely be exempt from this. I doubt there's any process yet for granting the right though. —  HELLKNOWZ  TALK 21:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd probably need to lobby for the permission to be added to an existing user group such as "bot", or for the creation of a new user group such as "sboverride". Any preference? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably should just get added to bot user group. Izno (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot user group is "trusted" enough to have sboverride added to it imho — this is proposed at T313107TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question is if there is a case when it would be desirable to block a bot's edit due to the blacklist? —  HELLKNOWZ  TALK 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IIRC (and I may not), if I try to fix a typo in a section that contains a blacklisted URL, I can't save the edit, even if I am not editing near the URL. If that workflow still exists, it is frustrating. If bots can add blacklisted URLs but regular editors are then unable to edit the sections that contain those URLs, that would be undesirable IMO. If I am misdescribing or misremembering the workflow, or if I am misunderstanding this conversation, let me know in a nice way and I will strike this comment.Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[...] the link filtering is based on what links existed before the edit vs. what links exist after (exist meaning interpreted as an external link by the software). Do you have any evidence that an edit that did not try to add a link was prevent by this extension? See the code - this part makes it so that if the page already existed, the links that are checked are only those that were added in the current end. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
— m:Requests for comment/Allow sysops to override the spam blacklist

So, it looks like you don't recall correctly. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that; that's twice today that you have set me straight. Maybe I'm thinking of trying to revert vandalism, section blanking, or other undesirable edits and being stopped because I would be restoring a blacklisted link. I can't think of a situation where a bot would put a human editor in such a situation, so we're probably OK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question is if there is a case when it would be desirable to block a bot's edit due to the blacklist? AnomieBOT's rescuing of orphaned references. It would probably be better if the bot didn't reinsert blacklisted links, but continue to complain on its talk page for humans to do a proper removal. Anomie 01:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could probably theoretical construct such a bot. But in general, I think whatever bots are doing, if it's an approved task, overrides those concerns.
I wouldn't let an AWB user overide the blacklist, but an AWB bot should be able to plow through. IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't we just create a dedicated sboverride group instead of speculating about whether there is some bot that might be harmed by having the right? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could theoretically create a bot that has already existed for 14 years? Anomie 17:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your wiki will be in read only soon

Trizek (WMF) (Talk) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nirmaljoshi requested the create stubs on Japanese dams here on this noticeboard and it was suggested that they refrain from creating stubs but instead create a list article. As to my count, on the 1 March they created 19 articles within less than 3 hours. I believe all were on Japanese dams. Maybe someone could explain what the conclusion of the last discussion was? There was no formal closure at the time. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- @Paradise Chronicle:This issue was already discussed. Refer here . Best regards! nirmal (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nirmaljoshi, yes, Paradise referenced that discussion, which said you should create lists, not separate articles. Izno (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Izno:No. As mentioned above, there was no conclusion. nirmal (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nirmaljoshi, if that discussion did not reach a conclusion, then that means you don't create articles. Izno (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Izno From where are you concluding that? Any reference? nirmal (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:MASSCREATION. Izno (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the linked discussion, several comments from experienced editors supported the creation of a list of dams and not a stub for each dam. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot that protects todays featured article

I was thinking that we need a bot to protect the featured article from new editors due to the vandalism that happens almost everyday. Much of the time we end up having to protect it anyways so I was thinking a bot would be a good idea for protection the article it would either semi or extended protect the article (bot owner can decide what protection is best) it would not fully protect the article or remove/change existing protections and a admin could opt a article out of auto protection if there is a reason it should not be auto protected Qwv (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Protect Today's Featured Article on the Main Page. Anomie 11:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qwv, as you can see in that link, there was a trial for pending changes protection bot for FAs but a second trial has not occurred. You will have to hunt down why. Izno (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

archival of BOTREQ

Hello. I've been meaning to ask this since quite a few weeks. There are two bots set up to archive WP:BOTREQ, and currently the settings for these bots have different archive page number. Why are there two bots? WT:BOTREQ redirects here. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I'm not sure on any specific reason for 2 archiving bots, they don't actually have different archive page numbers set up - ClueBot III will figure out via some other means which index it should be archiving at, which is advised by numberstart, but it still functions fine. The bots appear to take turns archiving the page recently (LSB3 1 2, CB 1 2). In terms of history, it appears the order goes a little like this: +MiszaBot (2007), MiszaBot -> ClueBot (2008), +OCA (2015), OCA -> LSB3 (2016). I'd imagine its safe to remove either. Aidan9382 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback requested re procedure leaving sig for a different user than the one performing the edit

A training tool within the framework of Wikipedia:Education creates discussions on Talk pages on behalf of student editors, and publishes a comment on the TP with a sig that is not the userid of the editor running the tool. I'm trying to determine if this is compliant with all relevant P&G, in particular WP:SIG, and perhaps, WP:Bot policy. This tool is an edit-assist tool that operates at human speed, so I'm not clear whether it is covered under bot policy, but my reading of the first sentence, especially the last part of it, implies that it may be. The most relevant section I can find there, is § Bots directed to edit by other users, and these tool-assisted edits are disclosure-compliant, because the user's id is inluded in the edit summary. The problem is that the talk-page sig clashes with the userid in the summary, and contains a different sig. I don't actually see anything in bot policy that prohibits this, so maybe this situation is bot-compliant. However, this is the first time I've run into such an issue, and I am not used to reading or interpreting bot policy, or even whether this situation is covered by it, as the training tool lacks many of the features of a bot. If it is relevant, your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some bots do imitate other users' signatures for the purposes of leaving messages, like the DYK (example) and GAN notifications. As long as it's done with consent I don't really see an issue. Legoktm (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Sent on behalf of <User>" is always an option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AnomieBOT, for example, does it both ways in different tasks. When TemplateSubster is substing something like {{Welcomesmall}} it will inject a generic signature for the user it thinks added the template so it doesn't seem like the bot is welcoming people. When CHUUClerk is auto-closing requests handled by opted-in renamers, it will use the user's the signature from the opt-in page with an "(autosigned by AnomieBOT)" note appended. Anomie 12:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot Simply stated, the example in that other discussion isn't really a "bot issue", as it isn't being done by bots at all. There are certainly legitimate cases where a bot may place some sort of signature of another user, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone reviewing it and they wouldn't look like those ones. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]