Wikidata:Requests for comment/Bot policy
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Bot policy" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Bots may operate within reasonable boundaries.
- A bots scope may be general.
- There is no consensus for the creation of a Bot Approval Group.
- The last one fails.
- John F. Lewis (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The aim of this RfC is to gain consensus in order to make Wikidata:Bots a Wikidata policy. Please also review the previous discussions at:
- Wikidata_talk:Bots#Approval_process
- Wikidata_talk:Bots#Bot-flag_policy
- Wikidata_talk:Bots#Mark_as_policy
Contents
Bot accounts should not be used for contributions that do not fall within the scope of the bot's designated tasks.
Yes
[edit]Such as the RfP for SuccuBot is only maintenance of property IUCN conservation status (P141) together with qualifier IUCN taxon ID (P627), but it also create items about taxon and add description. This will be illegal if Wikidata:Bots becomes a Wikidata policy.
the operator/bot's userspace, the Wikidata sandbox, or the Wikidata item sandbox are all excluded.
Support--GZWDer (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Rschen7754 07:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No
[edit]- Oppose Too restrictive, per below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too restrictive, I hate red tape. Multichill (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. -- Bene* talk 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Operate within reasonable bounds
[edit]Bot operators should work within reasonable bounds of approval. For example, if a bot is approved to add MusicBrainz artist ID (P434), there's no reason another approval should be needed for adding MusicBrainz release group ID (P436). WD:UCS should be followed at all times.
- Support Legoktm (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Probably yes.--GZWDer (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't think the option above and this one have to be mutually exclusive. --Rschen7754 07:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As written, the one above is a strict interpretation, and my draft is a loose interpretation. I'm not very sure how they would work out together. Legoktm (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WD:UCS.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- stöder -- Lavallen (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Bene* talk 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --DangSunM (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Indeed. After all, the scope of a bot can be modified, and if the task the bot is doing is also beneficial, I see no problem for testing before filing another RfBot for the new task. — ΛΧΣ21 07:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bot's scope should not be too general
[edit]For example, Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Legobot 4 admits Legobot adding any properties. A suggestion is to list all the properties this bot can add in requests for permissions, like SamoaBot's.
- Oppose If you don't trust the operator to apply WD:UCS, don't give them the bot flag. Any edits, including a bots, can easily be undone if mistakes are made. Legoktm (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Completely unnecessary. If the task is not approved, it's not approved, simple as that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It is only an alternative choice.--GZWDer (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I see the point, but I don't see the point of legislating it. --Rschen7754 07:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too restrictive, I hate red tape. Multichill (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Bene* talk 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose WD:UCS should always apply. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above--DangSunM (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per above. There is no need to narrow the scope of the bot owner knoes their work. — ΛΧΣ21 07:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bot Approvals Group
[edit]It is a group in English Wikipedia consists of users which are experienced in writing and running bots, have programming experience, understand the role of the BAG in the BRFA process, and understand Wikidata's bot policy.
Create a Bot Approvals Group
[edit]No
[edit]- Not necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rschen7754 07:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- --by Revi레비 at 08:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please no, I hate red tape. Multichill (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unneeded bureaucracy. --Ricordisamoa 16:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose do not create so many user groups! -- Bene* talk 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it isn't a user group. See en:WP:Bot Approvals Group.--GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Yeah, don't think it's needed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- --DangSunM (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Let's leave the entire community evaluate bot tasks and requests. A BAG may become necessary in a couple of years, when this community becomes large enough that only the experienced ones should be taking the lion's share of the work. — ΛΧΣ21 07:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not now.--GZWDer (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bot-like editing
[edit]If a users use user scripts or other tool to do semi-automated editing, they needn't be approved.
If the user is flooding recent changes
[edit]Other users can ask this user to either stop, or slow down, or request flood or bot flag.
- Oppose --Rschen7754 07:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I also oppose.--GZWDer (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Use common sense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Same as Jasper Deng. --by Revi레비 at 08:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support I think it isn't so hard to request a flood flag. I also agree to Jasper Deng and think this depends on the number of edits the user will do. -- Bene* talk 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The recent changes is useless anyway. If the flooding user is making good contributions then there should be no reason to stop it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Ajraddatz. Legoktm (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Because I don't believe in double standards, and we already have a stablished practice for this. In short, if we forced Docu to create a separate account to use his script, everyone else should be put against the same sword. — ΛΧΣ21 07:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Sounds like you want to support this then. Legoktm (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is anybody here editing manually in ns:0? I'm not even sure it's technically possible. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]