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

Inactive bots (August 2025)

User:WebCiteBOT - last edited 2015, operator last edited 2023.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Operator notified a week ago. Time to remove the flag now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Does this bot need a request/approval?

A fairly new user appears to me to be using an unauthorized bot to perform semi-automated edits. Their responses at their UTP are cooperative and responsive. I am uncertain of the precise requirements for use of bots, other than that generally, they need approval. Could someone here please review the discussion I raised at User talk:GrinningIodize#Use of unauthorized bot? and chime in there as needed? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd see this as approximately the same as a personal user Javascript or WP:AWB. One of those doesn't require permission from anyone. The other does. There is a slightly larger issue in that many of these edits miss on WP:COSMETIC aspects and as they are semi-automated the user should stop doing them on that dimension. Izno (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

If this requires approval, where would I file to obtain the necessary privileges? On the note of double-space fixes, I am sorry about that and will no longer do it. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRFA. I have some doubt a grammar-fixing semi-auto bot without a full list a priori of what you were intending to fix would be approved, but maybe you know literally everything you're interested in correcting...

Personally I think this is pretty close to WP:AWB, which has its own request area at WP:PERM/AWB.... IDK where that leaves you. Izno (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I know exactly what types of grammatical errors I wish to correct, in their exact format, but I cannot make guarantees on the exact articles scanned and corrected. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

No guarantees about where is fine. Izno (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

What this user is doing falls under unapproved bot use. It should be clear to all users whether an edit is made using a semi-automated tool, manually, or fully automated. Since they are running it directly from their local machine, there is no way to know whether it is semi-automated or automated with a fixed delay. They should not do that. There are some tools like PAWS where minimal semi-automated editing is allowed using Python scripts, but the way they are doing it is not. – DreamRimmer ■ 18:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The difference is obvious, because a fixed delay is fixed and the review time of a person is not. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I just realized something: the latency of submitting an edit renders that point moot. Nevermind. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Then if the script that they are using is available to others for review, that would be acceptable? Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't help, because it doesn't prove what code I'm actually using myself. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Same could be said for AWB, you can modify the code and compile it yourself and no one would really know if its the same version as the published version without being able to check your local machine. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The transparency argument is foundationally absurd. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I don't really understand that argument myself I suppose. WP:AGF is relevant at BRFA as elsewhere, and if someone should say they'll be semi-auto, they're probably going to be semi-auto (and we can usually sort out when it is clearly not). It is nice to get the source in general as we like being able to see it ourselves and also recreate it if the bot is implementing a workflow, but I expect typo fixing wouldn't be necessary on the latter point. Izno (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You can see the source code here. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi: No, what I meant is that using semi-automated tools always applies relevant tags to edits, so it is easy for others to know that an edit was made using semi-automation. On the other hand, edits made using semi-automated scripts from the local machine, even if they ask for user confirmation after every edit, do not apply tags, so we actually do not know what type of semi-automation process they are using. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any issue if the same semi-automation script that asks for user confirmation after every edit is used on PAWS, because that would apply a tag and we would know it was made using a script. People may complain if the edits they make are not in line with the guidelines, but here I am only talking about the process. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll second that general statement - the script is being named in the edit summary, the rate of editing is not obscene (i.e. no one has complained) and while we do have to assume good faith that the following statement is true, the edits are being verified by a human before being made. Summary: no BRFA necessary (and based on the nature of the task/script, I think there would be CONTEXT issues preventing a fully-automated bot anyway). Primefac (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The policy doesn't (and shouldn't) distinguish edits made on local machine vs PAWS. All of that's required is that edit summary or tags should indicate if the edit is semi-automated. I see all the edits have a "WikiClicky" prefix, which is reasonable, although making it a link that people can click to learn more about the nature of the tool would be preferred. TL;DR I don't see any violations of the bot policy here. – SD0001 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to use a hashtag in the editsummary, if you don't have a WP:TAG. https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/ Polygnotus (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I see little about "hashtags" that are any different from the existing prefix (only that there's a tool indexing them). Overall a wikilink is probably better than either, as it can lead people to an explanation page about the tool. Anomie⚔ 13:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The main point is that the process should be transparent so that everyone can easily see when an edit is semi-automated. If there is no information about WikiClicky, we will not know what it is. That is why I feel edits from local machines are a problem because they do not apply tags and the user does not give any indication in the edit summary that it is semi-automated. On PAWS, even if the user does not mention it, the applied tag shows that the edit is not manual. – DreamRimmer ■ 05:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I am not talking about bots that run on local machines, as it is obvious from their bot suffix that they are automated or semi-automated. I am talking about normal accounts using APIs on a local machine. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: Your insistence on "local machines" is confusing or misleading. A program running on a "local machine" can use OAuth (and so get a tag for the OAuth consumer) just as well as one on any other machine. And program running on another machine could just as easily use BotPasswords, or deprecated main-account action=login, or correctly or hackily using action=clientlogin (and so get no automatic tag) as one on a local machine. About the only real difference is that an in-browser user script is a harder to run from somewhere other than a "local machine", as you'd likely need to run it through some sort of remote desktop software. Anomie⚔ 13:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I know that OAuth can be used and gets a tag for the OAuth consumer, but I explained it poorly earlier as I was on mobile, so I missed the part where GrinningIodize mentioned that they have registered an OAuth token. I was looking at the edits they made and did not find any indication that they were made semi-automatically. From what I have seen, people generally use OAuth for Toolforge tools and bots, and I have not seen anyone register a dedicated OAuth for running a script from a main account on a local machine terminal. I was reading it as if a user was using BotPasswords. If anything I said was confusing, it is because I did not explain it properly, and I apologise for that. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a large amount of text here. Can someone please summarize the consensus for me? GrinningIodize (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@GrinningIodize Well I have made many thousands of edits that were automated to the point I only needed to accept or reject the proposal made by the software. I always doublecheck my work and I do everything in my power to filter out as many potential pitfalls as possible. If you do the same everything will be fine. Polygnotus (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think a guideline- or policy-based summary is what would be called for in this case. Mathglot (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot Perhaps. What would you propose? Polygnotus (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

See Primefac's comment above. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I can resume using WikiClicky as long as I do the following, right?

• Remove the double-space correction feature and discontinue all usage of it
• Provide accurate edit summaries
• Produce documentation of WikiClicky and link to it in its edit summaries
• Manually review each proposed edit (already in place)

GrinningIodize (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

For the record I do not think anyone is saying you cannot use the script at current, but I would highly encourage you to take the steps you have listed here, if only to avoid another discussion about its appropriateness. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I really want to make sure that the consensus isn't that I need to apply for approval first, because if a second discussion does come up, I won't have a very good defense for myself. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes you would, namely that there isn't a strong consensus either way, although perhaps a tilt towards being conservative about it, and your comments here clearly show good faith and an earnest desire to comply with whatever consensus might turn out to be. I think you have dotted the i's and needn't worry either about getting a definitive statement, or about a second discussion. Absent a clear consensus, there isn't a Higher Authority you need to appeal to, or worry about. Just one of the realities of an all-volunteer project; sometimes things may not be as crystal clear as we might like. Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I see. I shall resume my usage of WikiClicky with some slight adjustments. I apologize if I appear to be overthinking this; this is my first time that I've needed to handle the Wikipedia's regulatory structure (excluding AfDs and other small events). GrinningIodize (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think if your adjustments include the bullets above and you keep a throttle going as you did before so it doesn't hit too many articles too fast, or too many at one stretch to avoid flooding watchlists, you are probably fine, unless you hear an objection here. If you make other more than minor adjustments later, it's probably worth listing them here and/or linking to an updated doc page. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the help @Mathglot @Primefac @Izno et al! GrinningIodize (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: cross-posted at WP:Help desk#Clarification on bot/semi-automated edit policy?. Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Note-note: Said discussion got archived for already being discıssed here. 85.98.23.90 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User:DumbBOT

I'm not exactly sure what is going on here but there is a message that User:DumbBOT has been disabled. It's an integral part of our Proposed deletion process and I'm not sure how we will easily handle processing them without its regularly updated report, User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. It's useful both for admins handling deletions and editors who want to review articles and files that have been tagged for Proposed deletion and judge whether or not they should be untagged.

It's unclear to me exactly what is happening but I contacted the bot operator, User talk:Tizio and I don't know what to make of their message. I'm posting a note here to make sure we don't have an interruption in our PROD reports. Thank you to for anyone familiar with bot operations who can assess whether or not this is a temporary or permanent problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No one can force a bot operator to make their bot run. If the bot is experiencing issues and the operator cannot fix them, then the bot goes down. If you are concerned about workflow, you should post at WP:BOTREQ and see if anyone is willing to take over that task. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz The error message does not make any sense, that block ID does not appear to exist. The more probable reason the bot went down is because of the recent aggressive enforcement of Wikimedia's user-agent policy, but I (or anyone who shows up on the noticeboard) doesn't have any more visibility into what is causing this issue any more than you. The code of the bot is also not open-source besides the rather vague description It is a bash script using sed, awk, grep, and curl., if the code was open-source in some way, a willing technical volunteer could run it on their own machine and try to figure out what was wrong. Sohom (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The account DumbBOT was blocked on Commons with that block reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that would explain it? Sohom (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't that block is from 2013 Sohom (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If the current bot operator does not wish to run their bot, I am willing to take over the Prod summary table task. Since AnomieBOT already manages category and subpage creation tasks, I am checking if Anomie would be willing to take over the prod category creation tasks this bot was performing. I am also happy to handle the protection templates removal task. I will make the source code public so others can use it in my absence. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

We already have MusikBot doing protection template removal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was searching for that one, but I thought DumbBOT was the only bot doing this. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I can if it's needed. I'm inclined to wait a little to see if Tizio tries adding a user agent and that fixes it though. I'd probably also propose to WT:RFD the possibility of setting things up with a page like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions and such too.

I also note DumbBOT seems to also be creating User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD and User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedCopyvio, which AFAICT are listings of pages (over a month old?) in Category:Articles for deletion and Category:Possible copyright violations. If that's right, except for the "over a month 2 weeks old" part (which I could add easily enough), those could probably be redone using User:AnomieBOT/CategoryLister/Categories. Anomie⚔ 13:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't too hard: User:AnomieBOT/C/Articles for deletion and User:AnomieBOT/C/Possible copyright violations exist now. Anomie⚔ 14:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My guess is that DumbBOT has been bashing its head into a wall (figuratively) trying to make edits on Commons despite the block since 2013, and when the bot operator was investigating they noticed the (unrelated) error message about the Commons block and assumed it was the source of the problem when it wasn't. Given the various comments about rate limits and such they're made in the past few days I suspect you're right that user-agent enforcement is the source of the problem (curl requests were briefly blocked entirely and are now rate limited to 1 request per second). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully Tizio will explain what is actually happening, and/or publish the source code of their bot, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Backup src: User:DreamRimmer bot II/prodsummary.py – DreamRimmer ■ 05:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, thanks to all of you, I didn't expect such a prompt response and it's been educational. The fact that some of you are willing to step in so that our habitual practices don't fall apart is truly wonderful and appreciated. Tizio replied to me rather promptly so hopefully we'll hear from them soon with more information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

SDZeroBot maintains a similar listing at WP:PRODSORT. – SD0001 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am unable to fix the bot in the time I have. The bot will not resume operation. Please take over its functions. Tizio 15:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tizio, Can you publish the source-code of the bot somewhere so that the community can adopt it's functions? Sohom (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tizio: I see the bot has been editing since you posted that it will not resume operation. Is that supposed to be happening? Anomie⚔ 02:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Task takeover

OK, so let's do this. List of bot tasks, per the user page:

1. Create daily subcategories and subpages (User:DumbBOT/CatCreate)

   It looks like User:Hazard-Bot has picked up the slack here - I guess both bots were approved to do that for all of these years. I wouldn't be confident in Hazard-Bot lasting forever, though, since it's operator has also been relatively inactive (albeit not as inactive as Tizio). The one thing DumbBOT did that Hazard-Bot doesn't is create the "gallery version" links in Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 3 September 2025, but I'm inclined to let that die unless someone complains.

2. List incomplete AfD nominations at User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD

   This task had already been defunct since 2011.

3. Complete nominations when the AfD subpage exists but is not listed.

   This task also appears to have been defunct for a long time. These days User:Cyberbot I does this instead.

4. Creates a summary of the articles tagged WP:PROD at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary

   Now handled by User:DreamRimmer bot II/ProdSummary, and also SDZeroBot's backup report

5. List articles that are tagged {{copyvio}} but not listed

   This task seems to have been defunct for a long time already; presumably people are now doing this manually

6. Maintain User:DumbBOT/RfArSummary and User:DumbBOT/UsernameChange

   Defunct since 2007 and 2008 respectively

7. Removes protection templates from non-protected pages

   Now being handled by User:MusikBot II

8. (Not listed on the bot's user page) Create subpages of WP:Redirects for discussion and add them to the base page

It looks like only the last one still needs someone to pick it up; ArthananWarcraft and Thepharoah17 have been doing it manually, which works I guess, but is unideal. Vanderwaalforces, feel like adding this last one to VWF bot? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm also going to add. Thank you, Tizio, for running the bot for all of these years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I had some free time, so I wrote code for the RfD subpage task and published it at User:DreamRimmer/rfdsubpage.py. Whoever takes over the task is welcome to use it. – DreamRimmer ■ 17:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer alright, noted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I made the same thing Task 5 did as a report at User:TenshiBot/Unlisted copyright problems, though I didn't know that DumbBOT had done this at the time. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery Okay, I would do that. It’s pretty sad to see DumbBot dying though :( Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The list above seems to be missing User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD and User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedCopyvio, which I've already replaced with an existing AnomieBOT task. The other such "TimeSorted" pages seem to be defunct. Anomie⚔ 14:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I posted at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#DumbBOT is shutting down. Would you like AnomieBOT? to ask if RFD regulars would like AnomieBOT to take over clerking for that process. I'd rather have a basic consensus first than developing the code for it on spec. Anomie⚔ 14:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Archiving of WP:Bot requests

We have a confusing situation on the page:

• Bot archiving is done by User:ClueBot III, configured to archive things after 60 days or when {{archive now}} or {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} are used.
• We also have User:Lowercase sigmabot III configured to archive things after 90 days, which is useless except for the next bullet point.
• Every once in a while, some human will go on a spree of using WP:OneClickArchiver because they think things aren't being archived fast enough.

The use of multiple methods means that we sometimes miss User:ClueBot III's features of keeping a detailed index (e.g. User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 87) or fixing of incoming section links to point to the archive.

Personally I like the incoming-link-fixing, so I'd be inclined to remove the Lowercase sigmabot config, add Category:Pages that should not be manually archived to stop OneClickArchiver, and possibly adjust the ClueBot config if people are really bothered by unanswered requests sticking around for two months. Anomie⚔ 14:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I see the comment at the top of the page mentions having ClueBot archive-now for {{BOTREQ|done}}, even though that was removed just a few days after it was added; that should be fixed too. Anomie⚔ 14:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Re that, I posted User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2025/August#Feature idea: "archivesoon" to suggest a feature for a middle ground between "immediately" and "full 60 days". Anomie⚔ 14:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No opposition here. Don't really remember that removal but it seems to have been made with some intention. Primefac (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Support picking one of the two archive bots and stopping the other one. Having two working on the same page doesn't sound like a good idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

VWF bot

The bot isn't working. [1] It probably needs to be shut off. I notified its operator here but they haven’t responded yet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

While generally I think we can be pretty liberal about blocking a malfunctioning bot, it does appear like that edit is a one off, so I'm not sure what the value is in blocking. Judging by the edits to User:VWF bot/RfDlog, it looks like its run about 25 times, since that edit, and hasn't mangled anything else yet. Vanderwaalforces looks to be a reasonable active editor, and it's been less than 24 hours since you posted on their talkpage, so maybe lets just wait and see, for them to read your message and reply.

(Of course if I've tempted fate by making this comment, and the bot does start running amok we should just block it) --Chris 13:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh actually, I should have just read further up this page before commenting lol. It's a new bot in trial. Looking at the source code, it just subst {{RfD subpage starter}} without any of the extra template arguments, so that's why the page looks weird. I imagine the same thing will happen tomorrow when the bot runs again, and creates future log pages. I think we still wait and give Vanderwaalforces a chance to fix, but if they don't reply after tomorrows run, probably block --Chris 13:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It was my mistake. I thought substituting this way would work, but that is not the case. I have fixed the code now. @Vanderwaalforces, please update your code. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all, I am working on the code now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

getting a response from the bot owner?

Hello,

Where do I ask what to do when a bot owner is very infrequently active on Wikipedia and doesn't answer your bot-related question? (for whatever reason, could be as simple as just overlooking your talk post) My issue is not urgent, but it would still be nice to get some response. Waiting a month or twelve for their next visit seems... inadequate.

In general, who takes responsibility when owners of active bots aren't responding? Is there someplace you can ask questions where bot "experts" try to step in for the owner? I am aware bot owners aren't more compelled to answer questions than any other user, but that still leaves the question whom to get an answer from. The people involved in the bot's task approval maybe? (Assuming they're still around)

And not to ignore the possibility of Captain Obvious; maybe this is where I need to ask?

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOTCOMM does require that there's someone handling communication on-wiki, although "on other SUL-connected wikis" is ok and it doesn't necessarily have to be the operator. If there's no one replying at the bot's or operator's talk pages or other designated on-wiki location, coming here to raise the communication issue is appropriate.

If the question in question is User talk:Basilicofresco#FrescoBot link related, you might try replying there with a direct ping first. Bot operators who don't frequently check the wiki directly should probably have email notifications set up, but the original post might have been missed.

P.S. The edit you linked there appears related to "link syntax", specifically Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 2#Useless piping. Whether the specific cosmetic edits in that edit should continue to be done on their own, or should only be done in combination with more substantive edits, could be a legitimate matter for discussion (a lot has changed since February 2010 when that BRFA was approved), but it might be worthwhile to try to avoid starting that discussion in a spirit of conflict and to keep in mind some of the history involved that may make people touchy about it. Anomie⚔ 13:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind, if the bot operator is unresponsive - but the bot is running, mostly all we can do is block the bot. That is usually reserved for bots that are malfunctioning, or otherwise making "bad" contributions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to be specific. The best answer to this question will probably involve taking a look at what bot and what bot owner, what communication has been tried, the bot's task, how long the bot has been out of service, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all! After learning this goes all the way back to 2010 I choose to leave the starting of the "should cosmetic edits continue to be done on their own?" discussion to others. Let me just state for the record that having a bot go around changing every instance of ''[[foo|foo]]" to ''[[foo]]" comes across as obnoxiously pedantic. We have several recommendations relating to keeping piping intact, and just because various editing might happen to result in an "useless" state does not mean the unconditional removal of the piping is welcome. This task appears to only consider ''[[foo|foo]]" to be the result of a newbie mistake, which would have been much more reasonable in 2010 than today. But I realize the first step would be to discuss the policy and not the bot. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing the piping is probably welcome, but not in an edit on its own. I'm surprised the bot task was approved in the first place. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The task does have more to it than cosmetic pipe removal, starting from [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" and ranging up to fixing some things that produce redlinks. Plus 15 years ago was before some of the high-profile incidents that changed many people's attitudes towards some of these sorts of bots. If it were a new bot being proposed today, I think it'd still wind up approved, but there'd be more attention on the possibility of cosmetic edits and it might have wound up having to ensure at least one non-cosmetic change was in each edit. As things are, I see as yet no grounds for BAG to do anything about this bot that has been running for 15 years without obvious controversy.

If someone wants the bot's behavior changed, I'd suggest their first step should be to politely (not confrontationally) ask the bot op. Should that fail and they really want to push it, they should have a Village pump discussion to establish whether consensus has changed. Anomie⚔ 21:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I have to say no to that. Having to first ask a bot owner if he or she will willingly spend time makes the process weirdly personal, especially if this is made "out of courtesy". I have mulled this over, and this this would set a very bad precedent, User:Anomie. If Wikipedia agrees some bot's work no longer serves the project, the bot owner should have no greater say than any other consensus-building participant. Anything else would mean "start a bot, that way you get to entrench your edits and force any criticism to become personal!" Remember, this isn't a discussion about fine-tuning or tweaking a bot's behavior, this is about the cases where we want a bot to no longer do what it previously did, a case where Wikipedia previously considered your bot's edits to be useful, but this is no longer the case. This message should be sent to a bot owner on behalf of the project; the burden should not lie on an individual editor. Compare a deletion discussion - they are closed by an uninvolved editor, and nobody thinks that editor is responsible or driving the change. More absurdly argued, if you can't revoke bot task permissions without first having to discuss it with the specific editor who manages the bot, I should not be permitted from ever changing (or removing) your general Wikipedia edits without first discussing them with you. (To make myself needlessly clear, this is patently absurd and not something I actually suggest). If this discussion doesn't go any further, and the reason why even whiffs of being a reluctance to critique a specific editor's efforts, as opposed to "I think edits that consist only of [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" are genuinely useful in the year 2025 and having a bot do them is good", then that mindset really needs to change: you don't own your edits. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Being polite isn't "weirdly personal". Telling someone that edits from their approved bot task is "needless and unwelcome nitpickery" sounds like a good way to not get a response. I wouldn't blame the botop for not engaging. – SD0001 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's making it personal for no reason. Please assume good faith and do not assume I am out to insult anyone unless you have actual reason to believe so. I am not talking about my earlier issue. I haven't engaged the botop past a single message; and I have clearly stated I have left the particular discussion to others.

This is about the general case. Courtesy pinging bot owners that a discussion about a bot they created is being held? Yes, that's welcome and polite. Not allowing editors to question the tasks of bots without first personally involving the bot owner, waiting for them to respond? Or, as Anomie said it, If someone wants the bot's behavior changed, I'd suggest their first step should be to politely (not confrontationally) ask the bot op. I respectfully but strongly object to this. It's as if you SD0001 shouldn't be able to "mercilessly" edit my, CapnZapp's, Wikipedia contributions without first discussing with me. CapnZapp (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You're right that all that's needed is to have a consensus-determining discussion at someplace with enough visibility for the issue, which often means an appropriate Village pump page. But just because you can jump into an accusatory consensus discussion doesn't mean it's a good idea, when there's the possibility that if you just ask the botop they might agree with you and make the change without having to have a big RFC to establish community consensus. That's my point, not whatever nonsense you seem to have read into it. Anomie⚔ 12:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course, if you "just ask" the botop and they agree, that's the best option. And as you recall, the first thing I did was just that: ask the botop if I had missed anything (in regards to [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" edits, which, if done manually, comes off as petty wikignomery, and as a bot seems obnoxious on an industrial scale). But "whatever nonsense" I read into it was nothing more than reading a requirement into your suggestion, that editors ought to first await the botop's opinion before being able to proceed elsewhere. Remember, in my case we were dealing with a botop that did not respond (for whatever reason, likely simply missing my query), and (based on contribution history) might not log back in for many months. My very first question in this talk section was and is: Where do I ask what to do when a bot owner is very infrequently active on Wikipedia and doesn't answer your bot-related question?. This should have told you I was never trying for a "accusatory consensus discussion" (at a Village pump, say) as a first step. But you went ahead and ignored the premise (having asked the botop already) anyway. Either way, I think I get the thinking around these processes, and again, had I wanted to pursue I now know how. I have no further questions at this time. CapnZapp (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

[[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" is not something that should be done on its own per WP:COSMETICBOT, but it's a helpful edit in general. You will have an uphill battle getting that sort of thing removed from WP:GENFIXES.

I will note that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/FrescoBot_2 is fairly old, and predates a lot of clarity related to WP:COSMETICBOT. And even in the BRFA there are concerns about this type of edit.

However, the rationale was that human systematically go through these CHECKWIKI categories to clean them up anyway, and that a bot doing that cleanup is less disruptive than humans doing it. I find myself agreeing with this, and see no basis to revoke approval or change the bot behaviour at this point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" does not fall under the specific text of WP:COSMETICBOT, even though you'd have to look closely to see the rendered difference between "Foo" and "Foo" (although I don't know what screen readers might do with those). OTOH, the diff asked about in User talk:Basilicofresco#FrescoBot link related wasn't that, it was the actually cosmetic [[Foo|Foo]]→[[Foo]] (plus cosmetic removal of some end-of-line whitespace). Anomie⚔ 14:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Without putting too fine a point on it, What's the point of an edit such as [15]? To me edits such as this come across as needless and unwelcome nitpickery. ... is perhaps not the best way to start. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III archiving unclosed requests

Hello. As I was reading the archives of arbcom, I saw a few discussions without a closure template, archived and forgotten. I saw this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive357. So I raised some questions in the talk page. But after stumbling to the same issue at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive355, I decided this may be a better forum. Diffs show that these were archived by the titular sigmabot. I hope this didn’t hurt any editors and justice, as I saw that one of the editors, whose case was subject to this bug? never edit again. Why did such issues occur? 85.98.23.90 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The bot seems to be working as configured. Questions about why it's configured that way probably belong on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Anomie⚔ 17:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

When I was a newer editor, I thought that all WP:AE requests received a formal closure, unlike WP:ANI. But I figured out later that this is not true, and that the page's bot is configured to archive old threads even without a closure. To propose to change that practice, as Anomie says, you'd want to post on the AE talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

i posted there, thank you for your kind words to lead me to the right page. 85.98.23.90 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Moved to}} is usually for when you cut and paste or copy paste all comments in a section to a new page. I went ahead and deleted the template since it wasn't a cut/copy/paste. But I am happy to leave a link to the page to help readers here find your new section: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lowercase sigmabot III archiving unclosed requests (moved per Anomie’s advice). Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 31.143.34.251 (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)