Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

Bots noticeboard

Here we coordinate and discuss Wikipedia issues related to bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our bot policy and know where to post your issue. Do not post here if you came to discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at WP:BOTISSUE discuss general questions about the MediaWiki software and syntax. We have the village pump's technical section for that request approval for your new bot. Here is where you should do it request new functionality for bots. Share your ideas at the dedicated page

Various bots creating User_talk:xxxx pages (for language wikipedias I have not registered to)?

e.g. I've got notifications, just an hour apart around "Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:02:53 +0100" for following creation of user talk pages for username `Mnalis` that I use on (English and Croatian) wikipedia sites:

• https://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pembicaraan_Pengguna:Mnalis&oldid=prev&diff=24941964
• https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussioni_utente:Mnalis&oldid=prev&diff=136754188

I didn't ever create (to the best on my knowledge; I don't even speak the languages) accounts on it.wikipedia.org nor id.wikipedia.org; so I am quite puzzled why two different bots, in such a close temporal proximity, would create such user talk pages (with "welcome" messages if mechanical translator got it right?) and send me notification email to my e-mail address (which I use for English & Croatian wikipedias)? How would they even know my e-mail if I have not created account there?

Has anyone noticed that behaviour, and where should I inquire/report it if not here? (I'd like to avoid creating accounts on those it/id wikipedias just to comment on bot page). Thanks, Mnalis (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this happens when someone copies an article that you created (or maybe just contributed to) over to another language's Wikipedia. Your username is listed in the history, and somehow you are credited with a contribution, even though it doesn't show in your contributions list on that Wikipedia. Their "welcome all new contributors" bot then leaves you a note. Someone else may have more details, but I'm pretty sure it's harmless. If you don't get a response here, the editors at WP:VPT will know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope, that's about it. Izno (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like your premise above doesn't match the logs. For example, on idwiki, you have an account that was created the day before that message: w:id:special:redirect/logid/17332019. This can happen if you access any resource from that project (such as even following a link, getting some preview, etc) while you are logged in - your global account is automatically created. Then they have a welcomebot that goes off the new user log. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

See all your SUL attachments here: Special:CentralAuth/Mnalis. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I defer to Xaosflux's explanation, since mine was just a guess, and I couldn't explain the lack of entries in Contributions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems indeed to be the case. Looking at my browser history, it seems I've opened one English wikipedia page, and then tried to see it in several random languages (too see if their names made more sense than English one). And that seems to have created half a dozen accounts on random language wikipedias, and triggered several bot-welcome messages. So, mystery solved (although, I do not see why an account should be auto-created if user is only doing read-only accesses? In fact, it seems like a privacy issue, that now anybody can see which language-wikipedia users visits, without any forewarning to the user [much less confirmation] that such read-only access is going to create account and publicly visible trail) Mnalis (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mnalis that behavior has been debated for over 10 years (see phab:T21161). The CONS are sort of what you said, the PROS are that if you try to edit there you are less likely to accidently edit logged out and share your IP. This is especially useful for projects like wikidata and commonswiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mnalis: Your account was created after WP:SUL went live (May 2008). This means that you automatically have accounts at several WMF wikis, you don't need to create any of them manually. As noted above, they are listed at Special:CentralAuth/Mnalis; the "attached on" column shows when they were created, and from this you can see that fifteen were created within half an hour of you registering, others at various subsequent dates. If any WMF wiki is not listed there, the simple action of visiting any page on that wiki will normally attach your account, and in some cases, the attachment will trigger a welcome bot. There is an open task somewhere to discourage, even forbid, such welcome bots. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As an example, I visited ary: for the first time as a result of somebody's post on another page, as a result of which I became registered there (specifically, at 23:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC) or 00:55, 25 December 2023 Wiki time) and even though I made no edits at all, I was sent this user talk message about eight hours later, which is completely unintelligible to me. This has happened elsewhere too. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There's unfortunately nothing enwiki can do to stop this. There is a proposed policy at meta:Welcoming policy that would prohibit welcoming users who have never edited, but it never got off the ground. I'm not sure what the process is for a global policy RFC, but maybe it's time for one? This is an endless source of confusion. I've even seen people wonder if their account was hacked because of this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is BRFA backlogged ...

or is the normal state of things? I'm seeing requests standing for weeks on end without comment by a member of BAG. Is there a shortage of active BAG members? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh my. I've been taking a bit of a step back from Wikipedia duties recently due to real life getting in the way, and BRFA has been one of them. I think your assessment may be correct. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a very healthy-looking list at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group#Member list but I suspect more than half of them are actually inactive now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: in line with Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group#Activity requirements I have removed a bunch of inactive editors from the list of active members. Do you need a recruitment drive or do you have enough active members? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the main thing we need are people to do day-to-day work at BRFA. A bunch of us seem to be around for pings and noticeboard/talk page stuff but aren't handling BRFAs otherwise. Anomie⚔ 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If they were already inactive, it's not like you were changing the status quo. We've got a bus factor of about 2 right now, but when I and SD are unavailable the queue does tend to back up a bit. I think with Enterprisey being no longer an Arb their availability for BRFA might increase. Primefac (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Bogus fixes by User:AnomieBOT

This bot continues to place bogus referenences and call them "fixes". Is it really not possible to make it stop doing so? I've used this Noticeboard before to report about a dozen cases. Most recently, I found edit , where the bot resurrected a reference from four years ago (before the pandemic) to cite something about sentiment towards Chinese Canadians because of the pandemic. The bot just guesses about how to replace references that have gone missing, and guesses wrong often enough that it is disruptive and damaging. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mikeblas, you're trending into WP:IDHT behavior. You need to drop the stick. Izno (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Unless there is a solution, new issue, or other problem that has arisen since the previous discussion, this discussion is unlikely to produce a new outcome. Primefac (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd say he's well past WP:IDHT by this point. I've said before and I'll say again, I'll consider useful feedback and suggestions but not continued complaints from this user that the bot is generically "disruptive and damaging". Regarding the specific edit raised here, it would make sense for the bot to not rescue VE's ":0"-style refs that are too old, which I'll arbitrarily define as "the reference was removed over a year ago". Anomie⚔ 15:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

What about the feedback isn't useful, precisely? Happy to help clarify, if you can tell me what you specifically need.

But for now, I'll try again: The bot is making edits that aren't helpful, like this one. It sometimes guesses well, and sometimes doesn't. When it doesn't, the result is an irrelevant and unverified reference. Solutions include: just don't do that anymore because it isn't reliable enough. Or, tighten up the criteria: don't take references from other articles at all; take references from other articles only when it's clear content has been copy-pasted and reused without the reference definition; don't take old deleted reference from the subject article ("over a year ago" might be good enough); don't restore references that aren't finely identified (":0" or "ReferenceA", for example) and likely to collide with other material. Or tag the "rescued" reference with {{verify-inline}} so that readers know the reference wasn't reviewed by a human and might not be useful. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As I am not the bot operator I will not necessarily comment on these proposals, but I will note that if you had started with this, we would be having an entirely different conversation right now. Something to think about for the future. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

With the most sincerity possible, I don't understand what point I don't get. Why is this particular behaviour of this bot acceptable, and not worth remedy? Or are you just saying that I should go to the RFC process, as you previously suggested? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The bot is not perfect because humans are not perfect; the example you gave here (and in the previous discussion) is a result of GIGO. You want the bot to be perfect; no bot is perfect. You want the bot to stop running because it is not perfect. The BAG who have opined here and in the previous discussion reject that assertion as being unrealistic. Anomie has indicated a possibility for reducing the failure rate, but it will not "fix" what you call the problem, just make it "less bad". Primefac (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Thing is, I think you're over-stating my position. Sure, the bot isn't perfect. But it could be better, and that's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for the bot to stop working; I'm asking for the bot to stop doing this specific task (until it can be improved), or to do this task more reliably.

I have offered several suggestions at incremental improvements (both here and in the previous discussion in this noticeboard) so it's surprising to hear the feedback that I'm looking for perfection. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BOTISSUE. Specifically raise issues with Anomie Bot at User talk:AnomieBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The linked diff was to an edit made by Jut008, not by a bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty clearly just a mislick given the subsequent diff, but yeah wrong venue. Folly Mox (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Not the wrong venue necessarily; while the bot operator is usually the first port of call, Mike has raised this concern before (see here) and is thus justified in posting here. Primefac (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't have opined without knowing the full context, so struck. I also rescued the references. Not sure what the solution is here though. I see people who rely on this task to rescue named refs when they remove the defined one but leave the remainder, which is certainly bad practice. I'm also not certain what behaviour of the Visual Editor will just allow people to insert empty undefined named references, possibly artifacts of copypastes, and also thought the number one community tech wishlist proposal last year was to stop naming them these meaningless index numbers. Folly Mox (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; this is the diff I wish to draw attention to. Above, I used {{diff}} instead of {{diff2}}. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a bot operator but I have written a lot of code and understand how difficult it is to cater for the million quirks encountered in the wild. Your major problem is that AnomieBOT is one of the most useful bots here. Making a fuss about a miracle provided by a volunteer is counterproductive. If you want the bot to be shut down, start a proposal at WP:VPR. In principle, this is the right noticeboard but it is not right for something as well known as AnomieBOT which a lot of editors rely on. If you have some examples of problems, you might assemble them in a sandbox with a brief explanation for what the original problem was (why did the bot activate?), and what the bot got wrong, and what it conceivably might have done instead. Then you could post here in a manner that you think would encourage cooperation to find fixes. Otherwise, bear in mind that disruption is disruption and can lead to sanctions even for an admin. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you've written a lot of code, then you also know that you might implement ten features and only ship nine because that tenth feature just didn't work right. Sometimes, a developer has to realize that a feature is too hard implement to an acceptable quality bar, not worth the effort, has too much risk, or simply isn't ready just yet. I'm not suggesting shutting down the bot completely, and never have; I'm saying that this prolonged behaviour needs attention and that either the bot's performance should be improved or that specific task should be turned off. I think the task could be improved (and enumerated some ideas above) but others have said the problem is unavoidable so maybe the task does need to be abandoned completely.

This pattern isn't caused by any quirks. It's caused by an over-ambitious attempt to replace missing references without any ability to semantically anaylse the context of the replacement reference. In this most recent case, a reference to an overview encyclopedia article written in 2019 was used to anachronistically support a specific situational claim about something occurring a couple years later.

About a dozen other examples are at the previous discussion. There are more listed at User:Mikeblas/Robots Behaving Badly, and even more at UserTalk:AnomieBot archives. (Note that the BBB page includes issues with other bots, and issues with edits AnomieBOT made outside of the pattern I've identified here.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Expanding PearBOT II 11 to include pywikibot

I have general approval for implementing TfD discussions through removal or simple replacements using AWB per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT II 11. The reason I phrased it that way is because I did not feel comfortable with all types of TfD implementation being done using a bot without oversight and felt like this was a reasonable limitation. In my work with the archive merger I've found a case that would be quite complex to do using AWB but simple to do with pywikibot which is combining several parameters from two templates into one. This is easy with pywikibots templatesWithParams() function but would require many complex regexs to do in AWB. How should I go about getting approval for this? --Trialpears (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Trialpears, presumably if it's beyond the scope of the old BRFA, you would need to submit a new one. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Aren't BRFAs for approving tasks rather than the code and programming languages that power them? A BAG member would know best, but that's my impression. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You are correct; a task request is for a task. We ask for the language (and code) mainly so that it can be debugged during the trials, or if the bot is retired and someone else wants to use the same code to run a new bot. That being said, if the task is approved for AWB and the code is then changed for pywikibot (for example), something may break or cause unintended consequences and it might not be immediately obvious without formal review. I don't think any competent bot operator would fail to take the necessary precautions of small-scale and supervised trials before switching languages, but it would be "best practice" to at the very least discuss the matter on the BRFA itself to say something along the lines of this request, i.e. "I'm changing the language, is that okay?" (and if the request is made here, then have the BRFA updated to indicate a change of tool)

However, I would argue that a case that would be quite complex to do ... which is combining several parameters from two templates into one is not in the remit of Task 11, which is for General TfD implementation through removal or simple replacements, and I would encourage a specific BRFA for this task. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:SPECTRUM" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:SPECTRUM has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20 § Wikipedia:SPECTRUM until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

2 bots 1 BAG

If any BAG members could check out my comments at the bottom of this BRFA I would appreciate it. I tagged it with the usual template but something makes me think that it's not quite as effective as we like to think it is. Basically looking for a 2O on something. Thanks in advance. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: I could go either way on that one. It's such a big task that having multiple bots approved for it might be useful, but on the other hand Cewbot's BRFA seems to include some extra functions and is already approved. Personally I might ask the two botops what they think as far as whether having both approved would be good or not. Anomie⚔ 13:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:BAG assistance needed

So I was perusing the BRFAs today and realised that Template:BAG assistance needed doesn't really do anything. I mean, sure, it puts a nice orange "hey look at me" notice in Wikipedia:BAG/Status, but unless you're already on the BRFA page I don't really see how it has much use. On the other hand, {{Operator assistance needed}} actually drops a talk page note for the operator. Should we modify the BAG version to do something similar, either with a note here or (I suspect less desirable) on each BAG's talk page? I'm not sure we could get it quite the same as {{@Bureaucrats}} or {{@ArbCom}} but I suppose if we could get it to drop a ping that would be a little less intrusive. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

IIRC the idea is that BAGgers actively working on approvals should be looking at Wikipedia:BAG/Status (or its transclusion) frequently enough to see that. But with most BAGgers not being all that active in working on approvals, 🤷. I don't see why we couldn't get it to work like {{@Bureaucrats}} or {{@ArbCom}} if we want, those templates seem very straightforward. The main thing would be remembering to update it when necessary. Anomie⚔ 14:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think {{@BAG}} is probably the right version of that version of a template... Izno (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but then we have two templates that are meant to say "hey BAG look at this"; the pings might as well be put in the original template since that's really what it was originally designed for (bringing notice to a post). Primefac (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to include some {{hidden ping}}s to consenting BAGgers in {{BAG assistance needed}}. Count me in. – SD0001 (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Anomie, I left you off the list for the moment as I only wanted to add those listed as "Active" on the member list. If you're okay with being on the ping list, I can add you in. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I can always add myself if I decide I want to be on there. Anomie⚔ 00:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Inactive bots

The following bots appear to be eligible to lose their rights due to inactivity per User:MajavahBot/Bot status report:

Bot account	Operator(s)	Last activity (UTC)	Last operator activity (UTC)
Amalthea (bot) (deflagged)	Amalthea	05 Aug 2021	16 Nov 2020
EsquivalienceBot (deflagged)	Esquivalience	15 Jun 2017	20 Mar 2021
Luke081515Bot (deflagged)	Luke081515	14 Dec 2016	31 Mar 2021
Guanabot (deflagged)	Guanaco	12 Jul 2017	29 May 2021
SeveroBot (deflagged)	Severo	04 Sep 2012	06 Sep 2021
CactusBot (deflagged)	Cactus26	11 Jul 2016	07 Sep 2021
NihlusBOT (deflagged)	Nihlus	12 Feb 2018	12 Sep 2021
OmniBot (deflagged)	Omni Flames	20 Oct 2016	22 Sep 2021
YiFeiBot	Zhuyifei1999	28 December 2023	12 Oct 2021
Bot24 (deflagged)	Negative24	30 Dec 2015	16 Dec 2021

There's also Flow talk page manager, which hasn't edited since 2016 when mw:Extension:StructuredDiscussions was uninstalled, which IMO falls into the spirit of the inactivity policy and should be deflagged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Once the operators have been notified we can start the one-week clock, but otherwise I do not see any issue with the above report. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Possibly dumb question, but do we have a "your bot may be de-flagged" template message? Not seeing one in Category:Wikipedia bot-related templates. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I always just hand crafted something when I've done this exercise before. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Does the notification requirement serve any purpose? By definition the operator is long-gone and not likely to respond to notifications. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy, plus they may have email notifications and come back to editing. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Notices have now been left for the operators indicated above. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/YiFeiBot seems active? Legoktm (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Huh, missed that. Agreed that they should be struck from the above list, the others seem to agree with the linked bot report. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are free to unflag User:Bot24. It's unlikely I'll return to it. -24^Talk 20:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

All bots listed above (other than YiFeiBot) have been de-flagged. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You missed Flow talk page manager. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't in the table :-p Primefac (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Nonstandard cases

Some crat should probably deflag BHGbot and MalnadachBot since their operators were sitebanned. There are five other bots (FlagBot, CmdrObot, Cydebot, ProteinBoxBot, KasparBot) that are indefinitely blocked and may warrant review. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Good shout. Done. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add usernames to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots after deflagging :) Thanks to Redrose64 for adding the latest set. Legoktm (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. Learn something new every day! Primefac (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance

I recently came across a large number of automated edits (10,000+) made in October by NmWTfs85lXusaybq without a BRFA (as far as I am aware and can see). I disagree with the edits, for reasons including the ones I posted on their talk page. I don't mean to inflame the situation by posting here, but I feel that I'm somewhat out of my depths regarding knowing what the best thing to do here is, and that input from editor(s) more experienced in this area and/or the Bot Approvals Group would be beneficial, including with regards to the best next steps.

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Judging from Special:Contributions/NmWTfs85lXusaybq, these edits are ongoing. Seems like an easy case of WP:BOTBLOCK for running an unapproved bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Warning left on the initial thread. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Warning deleted, it looks like. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq can you commit to not doing these edits without a BRFA? Galobtter (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm cautious to suggest too much in this discussion, as there are other editors (who are much more experienced regarding bots than me) who may well have better ideas of what the next steps in this situation should be. However, I'd like to make an initial proposal that the edits I initially raised concerns about, defined as:

Edits (including pagemoves) made by NmWTfs85lXusaybq between 17 October 2023 and 24 October 2023 (inclusive) that are tagged with [paws 2.2] (OAuth CID: 4664)

be rolled back. This is due to the concerns I described on their talk page, and due to them being automated edits run without bot approval or consensus for the task. By my estimation, this is between 24,000-26,000 edits that would be reverted. (I would be happy to submit a BRFA to accomplish this on a bot account, using massRollback.js & a slightly modified massMoveRevert.js.)

I'd also ask if NmWTfs85lXusaybq would mind listing the automated tasks/bot runs that they have previously run on their account, so that they can be retrospectively assessed by the community & the Bot Approvals Group. If there are concerns raised with any of the other automated edits, further proposals (such as the above) can be made.

Everything I've just said, however, comes with the caveat that I am not as experienced in bot matters as other editors, so I will likely defer to members of the BAG if they have any other suggestions and/or take issue with any of what I've said.

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 16:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the idea to roll these edits back (not a vote obvi I just really don't like this), though I'm not a bot-experienced editor, there's really no reason to do this and it makes everything far more confusing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass rolling back did come to mind when I saw what was being done. I would support it too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I support this but I would limit it to the edits from October 20-24; the October 17-19 edits are useful and not worth reverting IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To expand on my view of why the Oct 17-19 edits are worth reverting; in my opinion, it’s unhelpful to mass-redirect talk pages of redirects to the talk pages of the target articles. Talk pages of redirects can be useful for discussing the redirects themselves, in addition to (for example) recording previous RfD discussion results. For this reason, I don’t support doing so generally as a blanket measure - without individual consideration as to whether the action is appropriate. (The exception to this is that I support redirecting talk pages in the case of an {{R from move}}, where someone that follows a link to the pre-move article talk page will rightly expect to end up at the current location of the article’s talk page). I also note that WP:TALKCENT says that an editor wishing to implement centralized talk pages should consider first gaining consensus for [the] proposal, which presumably would apply even more so to a mass-centralization such as this; especially when I can’t find a record that existing wider community consensus for such centralization exists. However - to be clear - if consensus is against me on the 17-19 Oct edits being reverted, it is not a problem, and I would still be happy to submit a BRFA to revert the others. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I was quite aware of WP:TALKCENT when I did this task. I will never argue that the talk pages of redirects are useless. However, my point is a talk page can't be useful if it's intentionally blanked, no matter if it's associated with a redirect or an article (that's why I moved or tagged the empty talk pages of articles as well). Any empty talk page of redirects doesn't deserve a {{tpr}} tag per Template:Talk_page_of_redirect/doc#Misuse. Moreover, the task of Oct 17-19 edits is the most thanked one without any objection before this thread. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the principle - I think a talk page of a redirect should point to the talk page of its target unless there's a good reason otherwise, but regardless the October 17-19 edits replaced blank pages with redirects - I'm completely failing to see how re-blanking them could possibly be an improvement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The abandoned talk pages are filtered by only one major edit and the messy talk pages are filtered by lack of section header from Category:Talk pages with comments before the first section. The ones created from anonymous user or inexperienced user (#edits <= 10) are generally against WP:TPG, like Talk:University of Hail. It's better to blank and redirect it to the talk page of its target, which is exactly what I have done, rather than tagging it with {{tpr}}. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Other bot runs

I looked through NmWTfs85lXusaybq's other edits tagged as using PAWS. I found:

1. Early tests from September 15-October 7, 2023 that aren't actual bot runs
2. September 17: Mass tagging a bunch of talk pages (rightly) as U2 cases. They were later deleted.
3. October 11: Creating a bunch of "foo, the" -> "the foo" redirects. These seem harmless to me, but anyone who disagrees is welcome to R3 them.
4. October 12: Various changes to rcat templates on DAB pages. I'm not an expert in this area, but these seem correct to me.
5. October 14: Tagging redirects for a RfD that was later closed as no consensus
6. October 15: Adding {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to a bunch of redirects. Some of these (i.e United States Agricultural Information Network (USAIN) aren't really unnecessary disambiguation redirects) but this is overall harmless (and small enough it could have been done easily with AWB)
7. October 17-19: Centralized empty talk page of redirect. This specific bot run replaced all talk pages of redirects that were blank with redirects to their targets, and seems useful to me despite being included in the request to revert (although I agree it deserved a BRFA)
8. October 20: A bunch of page moves. A smart kitten and others make a reasonable case to revert these, although I'm not convinced it's necessary (there may be few enough to review manually)
9. October 22 #1: Some more page moves basically identical to the October 20 moves
10. October 22 #2: For some inexplicable reason Talk:2021 Polish census was created via PAWS
11. October 22-23: ‎ Centralized abandoned talk page of redirect from anonymous user. This is the meat of the complaint and I concur these edits (which go beyond the above link) need to be mass reverted.
12. October 24: ‎ Centralized messy talk page of redirect from inexperienced user. These are a (much smaller) extension of the previous run, and should also be reverted.
13. October 26: Creation of a few redirects to clean up after a page move. Innocuous.
14. October 27 #1: A re-run of the October 17-19 bot run except applying to pages outside of mainspace.
15. October 27 #2: Replace blank talk pages of redirects with soft redirects to Commons. Seems useful.
16. October 29-30: "‎unlink language label for transliteration template in disambiguation pages". Seems useful.
17. November 5-9: Adding {{Talk page of redirect}} to talk pages of redirects. Seems useful. This run repeats sporadically through the coming months (as recently as January 4), only affecting a few pages each time
18. November 11: A re-run of "‎unlink language label for transliteration template in disambiguation pages"
19. November 13: Add reference lists to a bunch of templates. Seems useful
20. November 24: Mass PRODing of disambiguation pages
21. November 26: Mass addition of {{One other topic}} to disambiguation pages
22. December 1: Mass redirection of disambiguation pages (and later set indices) with only one entry. Most of these are useful but this is the bot run that brought us oddities like Walker Elementary School (later deleted at RfD). I'm not sure what to do here, but this could use attention. Many of these edits have been deleted because they redirected a disambiguation page at X containing only X (Y) to X (Y) and then X (Y) was moved to X.
23. December 3: Moving of template documentation subpages. Innocuous
24. December 19-20: Mass changes to WikiProject banners. These seem to consist of removing {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} from talk pages of set indices, adding {{WikiProject Anthroponymy}} to talk pages of name pages, and adding {{WikiProject Lists}} to lists
25. December 21-22: Reclassifying set-indices and lists as list-class rather than disambiguation class in WikiProject banners, and removing the class parameter entirely for articles
26. January 3: Moving several dozen articles per a RM discussion

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

So in summary, most edits look good, but you're proposing 11 and 12 be mass reverted? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing 8,9, 11, and 12 be reverted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits summarized by cleanup before move in 8 and 9 are actually different except that they are all intended to deal with the talk pages of redirect when that of the target doesn't exist. The case Special:Diff/1181304837 proposed by A smart kitten is in 9, not 8. The cases in 8 are generally uncontroversial, as the moved talk page is the only extant page among the talk pages of the target and all sources while most of them contain nothing but {{WPDAB}} and {{Tpr}}. Therefore, a similar argument may still apply: The revert of edits in 8 couldn't be an improvement unless there's a good reason to move the centralized talk page back without leaving a redirect. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I was assessing a bunch of unassessed articles earlier and I found a bunch of cases where this editor automatically added WikiProject List to articles that weren't lists. It also was out of the template shell. Unsure how many of those there were but I noticed quite a few PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The articles were only tagged with {{WikiProject List}} when they had been categorized as SIA while not tagged with any banner, or at least categorized in one list category, like "Lists of ...". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Well that's someone's problem, but probably not yours then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Flooding watchlists

Kanashimi has had a procession of editors turn up to his talk page to complain that his bot's edits are flooding their watchlists. They have all chosen to override the default setting that hides bot edits. Do people think these complaints are reasonable or unreasonable? Is there any guidance on what speed bots should edit at? Is there anything useful we can say to these people? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Umm, if you opt-out of the default "hide: bots" on your watchlist preferences, you don't really get to complain that there are bot edits all over your watchlist. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They can of course still raise other issues - such as if they think the bot is operating outside of its approval, the bot is making bad edits, etc. They also could raise a point that the task is useless and should be deauthorized. The argument of people who say this bots non-article edits are interfering with their ability to view bot changes to articles can simply select the ns:0 filter on their watchlist as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This time the bot's editing namespace is talk, so I had suggested that the talk page could be filtered out. Kanashimi (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair characterisation of the edits to the botop's usertalk, many of which are pointing out errors and helping to debug the bot, not just complaining about its activity. I didn't expand every thread, but most seem to be constructive. Folly Mox (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Kanashimi is very good about responding (positively and quickly) to feedback about the bot not operating as intended. Those who are pissed off about watchlists have already been told how to deal with it. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the constructive posts. I am just talking about the complaints that his bot's edits are flooding their watchlists — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The current wording of WP:BOTPERF suggests that non-urgent tasks should be capped at 6epm and urgent tasks capped at 12epm; if CewBot is holding to within those values, then their complaints are unreasonable. If the bot is exceeding those rates then it should be ramped down slightly. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This task is certainly not urgent, so 6epm seems reasonable. The only problem is that the task will probably take over a year to complete at that speed! Perhaps when the bot gets off the vital articles and onto the more obscure articles, it could be allowed to speed up a bit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Likely, as they are going to be less-watched pages. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is it a problem if this task takes a year to complete? All it is doing is rearranging talk page banners. It is not urgent. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is that a year here is already an unacceptable speed for you. It would probably take several times as long to get to your acceptable speed. So I think we may have to think of other ways to solve similar problems to achieve a solution that you can understand or accept. Kanashimi (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think it's particularly charitable to characterise as unreasonable complaints about watchlist flooding just because Cewbot is operating within the rate limits specified by WP:BOTPERF, which doesn't seem like it was written with the idea in mind of a single bot task making edits to n million different pages, with the activation on any given page due merely to BRFA approval, where even a conservative estimate for n would seem to place it as greater than 2.

I said at a recent ANI that I'm not having a problem ignoring Cewbot, but for people with watchlists in the thousands or tens of thousands, I could see it being a serious issue, and I sympathise with their concerns.

For clarity, I have no particular opposition to this task, although I do think that our model of content assessment is not useful enough to necessitate making so many edits. Does anyone have a good idea of the total number of pages affected? There's none listed at the BRFA, nor the PIQA RFC, nor the initial implementation discussion, and {{PAGESINNAMESPACE:1}} is disabled for performance reasons. Folly Mox (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For those who do want to hide Cewbot edits, see my post of 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC) below; or, if you don't want to work it out, put this CSS rule

/* hide edits by Cewbot */
li.mw-changeslist-bot:has(a[href="/wiki/User:Cewbot"]) {
  display: none;
}

into Special:MyPage/common.css. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Here now after Cewbot has once again ramped up these unimportant edits to unacceptable levels, filling my watchlist with hundreds of them to the point where nothing else is visible.

I have repeatedly asked on Cewbot's talk for a slowdown, only to be met with either a very temporary slowdown that is ramped up again as soon as I seem to have stopped paying attention, or demands that I stop watching Cewbot's edits. I do not want to stop watching Cewbot's edits. I do not trust bots to be so perfect that their edits can escape scrutiny. I want the edits to be at a level where I can watch them and spot-check that they remain ok.

Please shut down this antisocial bot behavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kanashimi: why is your bot editing at 40+ edits/min? Galobtter (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly I don't see any reason not to limit 6 edits/minute for vital articles and 12 edits/minute for the rest of the task which would minimize watchlist spam. Galobtter (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to follow maxlag=5 when I ran one of my tasks, and I haven't gotten it back yet. I'm sorry I may have to wait until the end of work today to get it back. The vital article part is now complete. However, my previous setting of 12 edits per minute caused this problem. The 12 edits per minute does not solve the watchlist problem. So I'm afraid we need a better solution. Kanashimi (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Has the bot done non-vital articles at 12 epm (rather than 40 epm, which is obviously going to cause complaints)? Presumably those articles are much less watchlisted so there should be less complaints with 12 epm + non-vital articles.

The problem here might be that the bot is going through the articles wikiproject by wikiproject (right now it seems to be doing {{WikiProject Anglicanism}}). So someone who has all the articles in that watchlisted is going to be really annoyed. Some back of the envelope math suggests that at 12 epm the bot will edit 12 * 60 * 24 = 17280 pages per day, and if there are if there are 4 million articles to do, that means that ~0.4% of those articles are going to be edited every day. If someone has 10000 articles watchlisted, that's an average of 40 edits per day on their watchlist, which probably wouldn't result in too much complaints. A sufficiently randomized way of picking articles to edit would probably help. Galobtter (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'll start with User:Qwerfjkl's strategy of traversing all pages. It looks like his strategy won't cause complaints even in high speed. I am curious to know if his strategy is feasible, we may be able to complete the assignment within six months. Kanashimi (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: If you don't want to hide them entirely, you can make then distinguishable at a glance so that you can skip over them. Two suggestions: (i) make the text smaller:

/* make edits by Cewbot smaller */
li.mw-changeslist-bot:has(a[href="/wiki/User:Cewbot"]) {
  font-size: 75%;
}

(ii) change the background:

/* make edits by Cewbot grey background */
li.mw-changeslist-bot:has(a[href="/wiki/User:Cewbot"]) {
  background-color: #eeeeee;
}

these CSS rules go in Special:MyPage/common.css. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Would/Should it be possible to hide/show the edits of specific bots?

The above is a concern that arises periodically, often because of mass edits by a useful but very noisy bot. Changes to Wikimedia code, HTML standards, guidelines, or policies will occasionally mean that millions of pages need to be modified. That's just a fact of life on Wikipedia. I was wondering how we might thread this Watchlist needle, allowing editors to monitor bot edits but avoid excessive noise, or hide bot edits but follow the edits of one or two bots that concern them. It occurred to me that it would be useful for editors to be able to explicitly include or exclude the edits of specific bots in their Watchlist. For example, I want to hide all bot edits, but I want to see all edits by FooBOT, or I want to see all bot edits, but exclude all edits by BarBOT and BazBOT.

Has this option been explored in any of the discussions where WMF developers solicit ideas for technical feature requests? I used to participate in those, but my niche ideas never got any traction, so I burned out on them. (Aside: I'm still hoping for a Watchlist that groups all edits by page without regard to calendar days, but that doesn't seem to bother enough people.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: looks like a combination of phab:T2470 and phab:T159192. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that second one looks like a pretty good summary of the above. It was proposed in 2016, so it should be almost ready for deployment, right? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you wish. Someone has to do the work, or otherwise the task just languished in the backlog forever, as has happened to both of those. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that was a rhetorical question :D – SD0001 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be possible to hide specific bots using CSS. Someone should document this at Wikipedia:Bots#How to hide a specific bot from your watchlist. The existing instructions are heavily outdated – it suggests a user script that hasn't been updated in a decade so it would be very surprising if it still works. Even if it does, it's only supposed to work with the no-JS watchlist. – SD0001 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: If your browser has implemented the relational pseudo-class, ':has()', you can hide the entire list entry (row) using CSS. Let's assume that you want to hide edits by Legobot and Qwerfjkl (bot), but leave all other bot edits visible: the CSS rule would be

/* hide edits by Legobot and Qwerfjkl (bot) */
li.mw-changeslist-bot:has(a[href="/wiki/User:Legobot"]),
li.mw-changeslist-bot:has(a[href="/wiki/User:Qwerfjkl_(bot)"]) {
  display: none;
}

This goes in Special:MyPage/common.css, because it works in all current skins. It operates on Special:Watchlist and Special:RecentChanges but is ignored by user contributions and page history. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't tried it, but it looks like that would hide a row that contained both a human edit and an edit by the specified bot. I don't want that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The .mw-changeslist-bot class selector makes sure that only bot edits are selected. The equivalent for non-bot edits would be .mw-changeslist-human. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also WP:HIDEBOT Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Headbomb, The existing instructions are heavily outdated – it suggests a user script that hasn't been updated in a decade so it would be very surprising if it still works. Even if it does, it's only supposed to work with the no-JS watchlist.— Qwerfjkltalk 21:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It still works. Feel free to update/supplement the instructions for the JS watchlists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Can this particular bot task (changing every talk page on the site to add the "banner shell" template) be given a new "tag", so that it can be expressly filtered out in watchlists? –jacobolus (t) 09:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WP becomes more complex daily on a linear curve with no end in sight. This is due to 1. more articles 2. longer articles 3. more template varieties. Meanwhile, the number of experienced editors remains static. As such, we need to lean more on bots. These two factors - increased complexity, more bots - means watchlists will see increasing levels of bot activity, and increasing irritation at bots. This later phenomenon will discourage bot authors, resulting in fewer bots. Meanwhile, WP becomes more complex daily.. (repeat this cycle). -- GreenC 03:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I find the large number of bots making masses of mostly unnecessary (often incorrect and/or directly contrary to human editors' preferences) edits to be one of the least pleasant parts of Wikipedia. Have you considered that the bots may be reducing the capacity of experienced editors by wasting their time on nonsense? –jacobolus (t) 09:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If a bot is making edits that are incorrect and/or directly contrary to human editors' preferences then it should be brought here for review. What you view as unnecessary, however, does not necessarily fall into that category. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A decentralized approach to solve the watchlist problem

User:Qwerfjkl and I worked together on this task, but it was only my robot that was causing the problem. Qwerfjkl's strategy was to edit the articles in alphabetical order. I observed user:Qwerfjkl (bot)'s editing, and realized that this method doesn't seem to be a problem for users, even when only maxlag is observed. I think the reason for this is the method of distributing the topics. When a specific topic is dealt with intensively, it is easy to cause disturbance to users who are concerned about the specific area. Qwerfjkl's strategy is better than mine, so I'm going to use alphabetical order for the rest of my work. I suspect that if I just follow maxlag, I might be able to complete the job in less than six months. At 12 edits per minute, it might take more than a year. So my question is, since he has demonstrated that following only maxlag doesn't seem to be a problem for users when using alphabetical order, can this strategy be continued, or do we all have to limit ourselves to 12 edits per minute? --Kanashimi (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kanashimi: I agree with the alphabetical order strategy. WP:BOTPERF states "bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds." This doesn't seem to be an urgent task. GoingBatty (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, like what I was saying above. Would it really take a year with two bots running at 12epm? (4M pages is 231 days at 12epm, half that if there are two bots running). I definitely don’t see the rush for 40epm - there’s no rush here. Galobtter (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@GalobtterI've changed it back to 12 edits per minute, please help me unblock the bot, thank you. However you can see user:Qwerfjkl (bot)'s edits. I think my bot may run in the same algorithm and the same speed. isn't it? --Kanashimi (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Galobtter Since I borrowed user:Qwerfjkl (bot)'s algorithm for alphabetical order instead, and he has proven it to be a sustainable editing speed, I will follow his editing speed. If you think this is unreasonable, please tell me again if only my bot should slow down, or if we both should follow the same rules. Also, I've structured the bot stopping mechanism so that I don't have the problem of not being able to stop the bot manually. Please let me know if you need me to stop the robot at any time, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)