Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 19

message: Anyone able to help me write a bot that will revert obscene image vandalism with edit summaries such as:
Example:
(BOTNAME: Reverted edits by UserName to last version by OtherUser - obscene image removed)
If anyone knows anything about how to do such a thing in Python, I'd appreciate the help! --SunStar Nettalk 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the large banner at the top of the page? See Wikipedia:Bot requests to request that someone write a bot to do something. . See also Wikipedia:Creating a bot Cheers - PocklingtonDan 09:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing a bot 

message: People watching this page might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Rise_of_the_bots. Also, does anyone here want to have a go at updating Wikipedia:Types of bots and Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots, which could be interesting if they were updated. Carcharoth 04:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot history 

message: Wikipedia:Bots (protected) suggests users might be looking for Wikipedia:Bot policy. The main page for bots is not now Wikipedia:Bot policy but Wikipedia:Bot. Please can this be changed. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realy don't agree with you on this.  Everything on Wikipedia:Bot is redundent to this page. I'm inclined to decline the request. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand, this relates to the link on Wikipedia:Bots that reads "This page is needed for AVB at the moment, you likely want Wikipedia:Bot policy". I believe this should be changed to "This page is needed for AVB at the moment, you likely want Wikipedia:Bot". I couldnt add this request to that talk page because it redirects to this talk age. If you've ended up at Wikipedia:Bots chances are you are looking for Wikipedia:Bot, not specifically the page just on bot policy. With me now? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misunderstand... What does Wikipedia:Bot has that Wikipedia:Bot Policy doesnt? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping this change will keep you both happy. Luna Santin 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change link please 

message: What is the process please for trying to build a consensus for change of policy on this point? It seems unecessarily harsh. I believe that automated spell bots should be permitted. The only quoted reason for not allowing them currently is "It is not technically possible to create such a bot that would not make mistakes". I do not see this as a good enough reason for not allowing automated spell checking bots, on the basis that the same rule does not apply to other types of bots - AntiVandalBot, for instance, frequently makes false positive matches, yet is allowed to operate. Even if the policy was changed to allow spellbots, each individual bot would still have to go through the rigorous bot request for approval process and satisfy the bot approval group that it operated in a satisfactory manner. I would like to get a consensus to change this policy. - PocklingtonDan 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets have a compromise IF you think you can get a bot that can Pass BRfA we could give an exception IF AND ONLY if this bot has a  zero chance of error. As with there bots like AVB the risk reward ratio and the issues of the past have forced us to create such a bot. there have been many Anti vandal bots that have come along since but have been shot down in BRfA. I propose that if you can get a solid enough bot that you go ahead and code it and see if it passes BRfA. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that sounds reasonable. I am trying to gather suggestions for rules that help rule out the possibility of erroneous edits. Once I believe I have a robust enough ruleset I will start a bot RFA. - PocklingtonDan 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... why would the bot need to be an admin? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said anything about admin - RFA=RequestForApproval. - PocklingtonDan 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tip - all this and more is being discussed at Wikipedia:bot requests, various safeguards are being considered to prevent exactly what you outline. The bot would not in any case make any edits to talk pages. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this thread just above.  Really, a spellchecking bot must be semiautomated, i.e. all its edits must be reviewed.  There are just far too many reasons why an intentionally-misspelled word might be used, and no way to protect them all from the bot, or program the bot to detect them all. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy of not allowing Spell-checking bots to be automated. How to change this? 

message: Maybe a redirect link there? {Slash-|-Talk} 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstars ([[Wikipedia:Barnstars]]) 

message: I just added a new section on Repairing damage. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section 

message: What would be nice is a meta tag or something that will direct a bots of a name or all bots to avoid a page (maybe even a section). Something that all bots should try to respect. I would like to use something like this a on a few pages that bots love to chomp (my user page for one). ZacBowlingtalk 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need this. If a bot has a bug it should be fixed instead of protecting some selected pages against it. -- memset 15:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see we already have Template:Bots. -- memset 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need an equvilant to robots.txt for bots 

message: This is another internationalization bot that makes erroneous links. Several have been pointed out in User talk:Thijs!bot but the operator makes a point of not checking his English talk page. Instead he refers editors to his Dutch talk page, which is incomprehensible to most people. IMHO he should not be using bots to edit pages unless he monitors talk pages in all the languages his bot is making edits in. -- Harumphy 11:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Thijs!bot 

message: Can bots be written in PHP or VisualBasic?   ~Steptrip 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. alphachimp 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bots can be written in any environment that can send and recieve HTTP requests – Qxz 18:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of easy availability of easy to use bot frameworks, I'd suggest as languages of preference Python, C#, Perl and (I think) PHP. Martinp23 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming a bot 

message: Bots don't trigger "you have new messages", right? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid that message all you have to do for accounts flagged as bots is mark the edit minor. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You Have New Messages 

message: More than one bot has added it:Veneto Fronte Skinheads to the Rock Against Communism article as if it is an Italian version of the same article. A quick look shows that they are not about the same topic. I left a message on one of the bot's talk page awhile ago, but I can't find that message again. Clearly it is a problem with the bot itself, so that should be corrected.Spylab 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not with the bot.  The problem is that the Italian article has an interwiki link to Rock Against Communism, and the bots are merely adding the corresponding link to the Italian article. --Carnildo 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect edits by bots in [[Rock Against Communism]] article 

message: The featured.py bot make this  kinds of mistakes, can someone see what's wrong? - Warddr 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured.py 

message: Due to the recent issues with Betacommand and more specifically the bot issues surrounding the ArbCom case, I want to try to update the bot policy to be clearer.  First, I would like to add information on the treatment of admin bots.  We have unwritten policy, but it should be added for clarity.  Secondly and more importantly, we need to clarify the types of bots and what their levels of oversight are.  For example, we differentiate in the approvals process between "Unsupervised Automatic", "Supervised Automatic", and "Manually-Assisted".  The term "semi-automatic" is not really defined, but is being floated around.  None of those terms are defined on the policy page.  The first two always require approvals and the last may or may not.  The last issue I'd like to cover is what role bot policy and the approvals process should play in development of "semi-automated" scripts.  Betacommand believed that running his script was ok because he manually confirmed everything, because frankly that's what policy says.  However, he was running too fast and as such ran afoul of policy.  That said, what if he ran it slow, at say, 2 edits per minute?  Do our policies apply in that case?  The script is still making automatic decisions that could be run improperly, so does such a script require approval or not? -- RM 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is a good idea.  On the one hand, no admin bot has ever gotten consensus from the community.  On the other, trying to do so usually leads to the desired functionality showing up in the MediaWiki software. --Carnildo 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least 3 adminbots being covertly run at this time.  This is an issue I have been planning to raise in April once I get back from my current trip.  Dragons flight 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BAG has been treating admin bots as requiring approval, and the community seems to clearly want an RfA for admin bots.  I might even modify the wording to say "consensus from the community, usually thorough an RfA". -- RM 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree that the process should be organized as an RFA.  RFAs are about trusting a person.  Bot approval is primarily a technical concern, i.e. is there a job that needs doing and can the proposal at hand accomplish it without creating other problems.  I'd encourage the whole process to occur at BRFA, but with prominent notice to the community at relevant talk pages and noticeboards.  Unlike RFA, BRFA also accomodates refinements and testing; the simple up-down vote of RFA is not well designed for the bot development process.  Many of the collateral comments at the ProtectionBot RFA, and subsequent discussion at WP:BN concerned the fact that having an RFA for a bot was inherently silly, and the need for a non-RFA approval process.  Dragons flight 13:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some lack of clarity here.  The problem lies in the fact that RfA is designed to determine whether or not we trust a user with tools.  If said user wants to use a script with those tools (as has been suggested a number of times, notably with the TorBot), this is no longer simply a matter of trust.  An RfA cannot determine whether or not  to trust the script, because it has everything to do with whether the script is safe, which a bot approvals verifies.  On the issue of trust, an admin script running with a bot flag requires more trust than an admin script running without a bot flag, so in cases where a bot flag is required, we always require both an RfA and a bot approvals.  If a bot account requested admin priveledges on RfA, they would be asked to seek permission here as well.  An RfA is always requires if it is a bot account with admin priveledges.  A bot approvals is always required if a bot flag is requested or the admin bot is running in a non-manually assisted fashion.   You argue that RfA is about trust, bot approval is about technical merit.  An admin bot or script requires both.  Silly or not, the only community approved place to receive admin bot priveledges is RfA.  What is unclear is whether or not a bot approvals is required for a manually assisted admin bot (which could be run from the main user account).  I would argue that due to the nature of such a bot that yes it should, but I would like more comments on this issue. -- RM 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case I was unclear, we should not have two approval processes.  We should work to create one unified approval process.  That is my opinion for all sorts of adminbots, and there is a substantial section of the community that agrees with that.  Even several bureaucrats have said they want to see adminbots approved without an RFA.  Someone who is already an admin is trusted.  They can do no greater damage with a second flagged account than with their first, and having the second account makes it easier to track bot actions, not harder.  Computer code can't be "trusted", it either works or it doesn't, which is a purely technical concern.  As long as we make this process so much harder than it needs to be, we are going to contniue having fully automated deletion and blocking bots being run only in secret, which is also not a good thing.  Dragons flight 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the community would see a difference between an automatic/unsupervized admin bot, and a javascript tool that admins use to streamline operations. The line is blurred when the tool is used without the operator really checking. I get the impression that some of the admin interfaces are pretty poor and could benefit from tools. A really high edit rate suggests a lack of genuine human oversight, but if an automated task is checking everything that can be mechanically checked (say for CSD, going through the history for any removed prods, checking talk page for hangon templates, generating diffs with appropriate context, and whatever else needs to be done for human oversight), then this tool should be endorsed and made available to all admins, no? Gimmetrow 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also should be careful with assuming fast editing means it's a bot, because I've clocked 40 deletions in a minute fully manually, for example deleting old images.  I might have a script load the pages, their history, and whatlinkshere, making sure each image is OK, and then have it load all of the delete pages using tabs in Firefox for all the checked images, and then press the trigger for each one (click, ctrl-tab, click, ctrl-tab, etc.) —METS501 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Change 

message: Proposed: No sysop shall operate a bot that uses any of their privileged functions without explict permission from the Bot Approvals Group and consensus from the community. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is a good idea.  On the one hand, no admin bot has ever gotten consensus from the community.  On the other, trying to do so usually leads to the desired functionality showing up in the MediaWiki software. --Carnildo 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least 3 adminbots being covertly run at this time.  This is an issue I have been planning to raise in April once I get back from my current trip.  Dragons flight 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BAG has been treating admin bots as requiring approval, and the community seems to clearly want an RfA for admin bots.  I might even modify the wording to say "consensus from the community, usually thorough an RfA". -- RM 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree that the process should be organized as an RFA.  RFAs are about trusting a person.  Bot approval is primarily a technical concern, i.e. is there a job that needs doing and can the proposal at hand accomplish it without creating other problems.  I'd encourage the whole process to occur at BRFA, but with prominent notice to the community at relevant talk pages and noticeboards.  Unlike RFA, BRFA also accomodates refinements and testing; the simple up-down vote of RFA is not well designed for the bot development process.  Many of the collateral comments at the ProtectionBot RFA, and subsequent discussion at WP:BN concerned the fact that having an RFA for a bot was inherently silly, and the need for a non-RFA approval process.  Dragons flight 13:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some lack of clarity here.  The problem lies in the fact that RfA is designed to determine whether or not we trust a user with tools.  If said user wants to use a script with those tools (as has been suggested a number of times, notably with the TorBot), this is no longer simply a matter of trust.  An RfA cannot determine whether or not  to trust the script, because it has everything to do with whether the script is safe, which a bot approvals verifies.  On the issue of trust, an admin script running with a bot flag requires more trust than an admin script running without a bot flag, so in cases where a bot flag is required, we always require both an RfA and a bot approvals.  If a bot account requested admin priveledges on RfA, they would be asked to seek permission here as well.  An RfA is always requires if it is a bot account with admin priveledges.  A bot approvals is always required if a bot flag is requested or the admin bot is running in a non-manually assisted fashion.   You argue that RfA is about trust, bot approval is about technical merit.  An admin bot or script requires both.  Silly or not, the only community approved place to receive admin bot priveledges is RfA.  What is unclear is whether or not a bot approvals is required for a manually assisted admin bot (which could be run from the main user account).  I would argue that due to the nature of such a bot that yes it should, but I would like more comments on this issue. -- RM 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case I was unclear, we should not have two approval processes.  We should work to create one unified approval process.  That is my opinion for all sorts of adminbots, and there is a substantial section of the community that agrees with that.  Even several bureaucrats have said they want to see adminbots approved without an RFA.  Someone who is already an admin is trusted.  They can do no greater damage with a second flagged account than with their first, and having the second account makes it easier to track bot actions, not harder.  Computer code can't be "trusted", it either works or it doesn't, which is a purely technical concern.  As long as we make this process so much harder than it needs to be, we are going to contniue having fully automated deletion and blocking bots being run only in secret, which is also not a good thing.  Dragons flight 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the community would see a difference between an automatic/unsupervized admin bot, and a javascript tool that admins use to streamline operations. The line is blurred when the tool is used without the operator really checking. I get the impression that some of the admin interfaces are pretty poor and could benefit from tools. A really high edit rate suggests a lack of genuine human oversight, but if an automated task is checking everything that can be mechanically checked (say for CSD, going through the history for any removed prods, checking talk page for hangon templates, generating diffs with appropriate context, and whatever else needs to be done for human oversight), then this tool should be endorsed and made available to all admins, no? Gimmetrow 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also should be careful with assuming fast editing means it's a bot, because I've clocked 40 deletions in a minute fully manually, for example deleting old images.  I might have a script load the pages, their history, and whatlinkshere, making sure each image is OK, and then have it load all of the delete pages using tabs in Firefox for all the checked images, and then press the trigger for each one (click, ctrl-tab, click, ctrl-tab, etc.) —METS501 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin Bots

message: Disucssion moved to WP:BOWN. — xaosflux Talk 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ralbot causing HTML errors 

message: WP:B could also be looking for Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. I'm not sure if I should add it to the template yet. If fact, I'm not sure how. Chrishyman 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - I'm not too sure on that one - WP:BOLD seems to be the more obvious redirect, but if there is confusion out there, then the disambiguation tagline should probably be added - I'm just not convinced :P. Martinp23 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just thought so because I actually thought WP:BOLD and WP:B linked the same. Heh, heh, I'm just lazy at typing 3 more letters. Chrishyman 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another [[WP:B]] redirect 

message: Both bots in the Wikipedia bootcamp room are missing. Real96 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think toolserv went down at some point, taking most of the bots not set to automatically restart with it (by the way, I'm guessing here, by the fact that my bots on toolserv had all left screen, having been restarted in a cron job).  Your best bet would be to contact Tawker or Tangotango.  Thanks, Martinp23 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tawkerbot and Helpmebot 

message: I think it would be wise to specify a specific maximum edit rate a user may edit at. There is a concern raised at Betacommand's Arbitration case about this, I'm not sure how related to the case it is, but it should be something of common sense. Any fast editing of more then say 10 edits per minute over a period of 5-10 minutes can be considered botlike activity and a bot account should be used. The exact numbers is not a major concern, its the idea.
So this is what I propose, adding a new line to Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Assisted_bots that says something to the effect of editing faster then XX edits per minute for a duration of YY minutes can be considered something that needs its own account. X and Y can be whatever, I suggest 5-6 edits averaged over 5-10 minutes. Just tossing the general idea out from the arbcom case. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, just thought of this, if this is not wanted, and we want to allow users to edit at any old rate then that should also be stated in the page. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy clarification 

message: I believe the edit rate section of the policy is unnecessarily wordy. It also needs to be updated to reflect recent opinion of the devs (up to 60ppm for large, important tasks) and the new maxlag parameter. In particular, bots which implement maxlag (without being too aggressive in the setting) need not have a specified maximum edit rate at all. --kingboyk 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that only looking at one factor? Even if a bot isn't a server hog, there may be other factors that play a role in an edit rate limit, such as ability to track contribs, or to limit edits should a response or block be needed. Gimmetrow 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit rate policy 

message: I have blocked this bot for 24 hours so that the repeated reversion of valid links on 7th Armored Division (United States) can be fixed. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Discussion is here. DES (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't laugh, but that's the first time I've seen a bot blocked for edit warring. I hope he got a 3RR warning first? :) --kingboyk 11:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There weas a request (which i linked to above) that the link in question be whitelisted. the problem is, the organization of past members of the 7th AZrmored has its official site on a members.aol.com address, and the bot keeps removign it as spam. This is quite frustrating for the editors involved, who asked for help on the helpdesk soem time ago. DES (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can have a rule where bots will not alter a line that has "" in it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: High thats a bad idea, if spammers learn about that and use it, it prettymuch renders shadowbot and or AVB (Martinbot) ineffective. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadowbot blocked 

message: This page is somewhat relevant to the recent MFD on the Bot Approvals Group, so I'll post some information here. I have recently closed the BAG MFD as "reform", as that is generally what the community has called for. Some of the main concerns raised were:
#The name "Approvals group" gives the impression that this process is regulatory in nature, instead of the "Advisory group" as it should be. Several users have toyed with the idea of moving to Wikipedia:Bots/Advisory group.
#Several users noted that the regulation of BAG membership has made it into a "cabal". Nobody has proposed any method to fixing that, other than moving to a more "RFC style" Bot request for approval. Concerns were expressed regarding the control of bots on Wikipedia by a select few.
#People have requested that the process become "less formal, less bureaucratic" and into something more open to the community at large.
Of course, some people also expressed the sentiment that it isn't broken, and doesn't need to be fixed. I wish the community and BAG luck to whatever you plan on doing. This is a cross post to multiple venues. Sean William 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a cross post, I would suggest discussing changes to BAG on Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group and leave discussions about specific policy changs (if any) to this page. -- RM 14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on MFD and reform 

message: We can continue the discussion above, but I need to clarify some points that are confusing.  BAG is responsible for two things:
#Technical Oversight - I've said it many times, but this has been required for years.  BAG was developed when the current admin oversight wasn't working out.  The community has determined this to be fine.  The most recent ArbCom case with Betacommand has confirmed that there is community consensus for BAG.  I'm not making it up.
#Determination of Consensus - This is the only aspect of BAG responsibility that could be questioned because it's never been explicitly stated anywhere. However, if you see my point above, either bureaucrats are already determining consensus when they perform flagging or they don't see the need for it.  In either case, what BAG does is fine and there have been no complaints.  WP:Consensus does not require that a bureaucrat determine consensus, so why should they for this process?  I could understand the reasoning behind a potential reform that put consensus determination into the hands of admins, but I'm not sure that it would pass a community "vote".  Admins are not appointed because they are trusted in consensus determinations.  There are other issues not listed here.  It could be attempted though.
Perhaps we can discuss each issue individually? -- RM 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to try to answer the question of "why should there be this process?" as opposed to some other.  I maintain that technical oversight of some form is required and that BAG satisfies that to the community's desires.  My response is based on that assumption. I'm going to address the function of consensus determination, as it applies to BAG and ask "why we can or can't just have the admins do that".  The reason is actually pretty simple.  Before consensus can be determined, a bot has to have the stamp of approval from a BAG member.  Why?  Because a bot can't be approved unless its technical oversight has approved it.  BAG serves a useful function by eliminating the need for an extra bureaucratic step by performing both the technical approval and the consensus determination in a single step.  Theoretically anyone in the community could determine consensus, but there is no opportunity, that is, no need.  Now, the only change that could be made would be to allow an admin to mark a discussion as approved pending review by a BAG member, but I don't see any advantage to this step.  In order for it to work, you'd have to change the informal structure that we have now and introduce a time component: after x amount of time, someone can close the discussion pending BAG approval.  Perhaps you could get away with not doing it, but again, I don't see its purpose.  As has been stated elsewhere, these specific tasks represent a minor portion of the approvals process.  The inherent problem here is that BAG is required to give the stamp of approval, and as a result it bottlenecks at that point.  The bureaucracy is limited to a single point, but it still exists. I'll address some of the other points above later. -- RM 23:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick note. I think that all ArbCom does is confirm what has already been determined, rather than create new policy.  I have seen numerous instances where ArbCom decisions have been used during arguments as reasons for or against some position.  In the case of admin bots, I've been arguing the position for quite some time, and ArbCom confirmed what I believed to be community consensus.  However, for the avoidance of doubt, I've reverted my change.  Disagrements don't mean there is not consensus, but some discussion can't hurt before it is added or not. -- RM 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG responsibilities 

message: When using the add action of Category.py is there a way of getting the categories to be added to the end of the articles rather then at the top? /Lokal_Profil 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't always happen but sometimes it ends up on top. /Lokal_Profil 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category.py 

message: Hi.  I hope this is the right location for such a query.  I am looking for a bot operator who can help me replace over 400  with the new .  It is a simple search and replace that is limited to the set of pages that link directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine, for example this list of pages.  Is this something that a bot operator can help me with?  If anyone can help and has the time to help, please reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine.  Thanks for your time.  --70.51.232.124 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I am adding this to Wikipedia:Bot requests.  See further discussion there.  --70.51.232.124 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for bot operator to help with template replacement 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Children_of_Curpsbot regarding the secret use of adminbots.  Dragons flight 06:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the above thread,  has been noted as running an adminbot (probably the most active presently operating one actually).  So, ignore it, accept it, denigrate it, celebrate it, whatever.  Dragons flight 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Curpsbot 

message: Hey,
What are the policies on Read Only bots? I don't remember reading anything on them, and i'm curious based on some of the bots using the automated spam sources outside wikipedia.
Thanks! TheFearow 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, it would be better to use a database dump. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read-Only 

message: 80.168.225.159 is making an average of 2.7 edits per minute (edit counter)(Contributions). All the edits are all  templates being added to articles. I cant tell if this is a bot running annon or a user who has been making similar edits for 2 and a half hours with no edits before today. If this is a bot, what would one do? Thanks, Urdna 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 80.168.225.159 an annon bot? 

message: If the only edit a bot makes is to its own user pages/pages does it still need approval? My example being a bot which lists all of the dead links on a page and then whacks them into a table on its user page for its operator to fix. There's no explicit policy on this as far as I can tell. It makes at least one edit without human interaction - but surely one edit to a page few are likley to see can't count as a server hog? PeteMarsh 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this need approval? 

message: According to User:Gracenotes who is currently running for admin, he is allowed to use his robotic script with no need for a special account or Talk page. He seems to be generating hundreds of simple robotic edits per hour, for many hours, all from a regular human account. Is this all acceptable, as he says (see A7), according to WP:BOT? Crum375 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is indeed manually approving each edit then it is not really a bot, but an automated helper tool. I have used similar tools to get past some backlogs. (H) 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it is sensible to assume that someone would sit for  5 hours non-stop and press a button over a thousand times, many times per minute, and be able to 'approve' each edit? Crum375 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about exclusion from this policy 

message: Can i create a manually assisted bot which uses AWB. It would do small tasks round my pages and some others? Thanks ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can i create? 

message: An automated script run by a user has caused a lot of disagreement (see here and here). The issue was discussed at WP:AN/I, but did not result in any action. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Bot delinking dates)
I would like to propose the following guideline for discussion:
-- Petri Krohn 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots and content disputes 

message: Probably everybody and their neighbor already know. But pywikipedia bots are now selflimiting:
Changing page en:Curt Schilling
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Curt Schilling
Changing page en:Dale Murphy
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
# Pausing 5 seconds due to excessive server lag.
Changing page en:Danny Graves
Changing page en:Dick Groat
Changing page en:Don Kessinger
and that's even specifying -putthrottle argument. So, the old chant about "bots at high speed will destroy the server" is now, at least for pywikipedia based bots, invalid, as the server itself throttles the bot when there's a heavy load. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of full transparency, maxlag = None in user-config.py disables this behavior and reverts to internal throttle. This may be useful in cases when the bot simply must do several consecutive edits at a quick rate, ignoring the lag. Миша13 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self limiting bots 

message: User:BetacommandBot is getting a lot of complaints, but the owner is not responding. --Apoc2400 10:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has been responding to complaints. What specific complaint do you think is going unanswered? (H) 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This bot is disrupting the general community and has been documented to tag images WITH a fair use provided. There is growing consensus that this bot should be shut down. Permanently. (Mind meal 10:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wrong. please give examples of where you think the bot is wrong and ill show you were you made your mistake. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  Supposedly it's been fixed.  Remember that for most bots (including BetacommandBot) any user can stop it by leaving a message on its talk page.  See also below. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed? That is quite humorous. Please see their talk page: User talk:BetacommandBot. (Mind meal 10:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BetacommandBot 

message: Greetings. I run User:polbot, which has a bot flag and has been approved for 2 different functions. I'm working on code that will collect information from a few hundred different pages and summarize that in a textfile on my computer. I will then paste the contents of that textfile into a subpage of my userpage. Does this sort of process require bot approval, or can I just run it without getting authorization? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds perfectly fine with me, but making the edit manually is a good idea (mostly to make sure that people won't yell at you). I gather about pages (using the API, usually) all the time for various tasks; the point of a bot flag is to hide and mark edits in recent changes, and more recently, to gain greater access to the API. The first doesn't apply, and the second is trivial because you're an admin anyway (and thus have that access). Of course, using maxlag (for all index.php queries) can't hurt, and maybe some throttling. Although, IANABAGM™. GracenotesT § 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be approved. 

message: I recently made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Gathering data on  DEFAULTSORT, listas and Category pipe-sorting in biographical articles, and was told that here might be a better place to ask. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, either here or there. I think the original place was the right place to ask, but I was told to ask here, so I am doing so! :-) Carcharoth 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large data-gathering request 

message: Does a sysop or an admin or even an editor know if the functionality of HagermanBot is going to be supported or is HagermanBot going to be fixed? I am under the impression it is no longer running. It was very useful. Thanks! --akc9000 (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unknown when or even if HagermanBot will be back. Attempts have been made to contact Hagerman by email and OverlordQ is currently working on a replacement. --S up? 13:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HagermanBot 

message: Hey everyone, I noticed a bot running without a flag, which seems to be violating WP:OWN by constantly reverting a users page to their preferred version. See the following:
* 
I know this is against policy, both bot policy (no approval) and that of WP:OWN
Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, it was blocked, but not showing up for me. Sorry for wasting time! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unflagged bots 

message: I have added "There is, of course, no reason that help cannot be asked for or offered." to this.  While we all feel responsibility for our bots, the bottom line is responsibility for the encyclopedia.  I would certainly wish to help out a bot owner in difficulties, rather than just say "your problem - you fix it". Rich Farmbrough 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Repairing damage" section 

message: When the source code for a bot is made, and published on Meta-Wiki, and the bot listed at approval requests, do you need to submit the source code in someway, or is there nothing left to do? Cool Bluetalk to me 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't have to submit it anywhere. Publishing it on meta is just fine. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source code 

message: I don't see anything on this policy page about bots' behavior regarding User pages. Twice this month bots have added interwiki links to my User page here at en:, to link it to my user pages at other wikis (i.e., in other languages). Thing is, I don't want my User page linked to any other wikis; if I did, I would have done it myself. I think this policy page should at least mention that many users don't want their user pages changed by others, and especially not by bots. I don't expect an all-out ban on bot-editing of User pages, but I think it should be discouraged. - dcljr (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I see there's Template:Bots, but apparently only a small number of bots honor it. - dcljr (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You could try leaving a message on the bot-runner's talk page, letting them know about Template:Bots and that you didn't want your page updated. They might be convinced to exclude user pages. (As an aside, I would personally support a rule that bots be required to be exclusion-compliant if they alter user pages.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots editing User pages 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it, but 
First, I should stat that I now fully understand the intent of BetacommandBot. I'm not arguing its intent. I'm making claims against it's implementation. The burden of proof section states that the bot must be harmless. I would argue that in many cases, it is doing harm. I specifically reference: 
I have attempted to contact the creator of the bot, but he insists that there's nothing wrong. He says that I should just subst my templates rather than transclude them, but that eliminates most of the point of the template. He has even suggested that some changes be made to the template in order to bring it in compliance with policy. Existence as a transcluded template facilitates easier change. Also, I shouldn't have to change my behaviors because of a bot. Wouldn't that be a "harm"? What, if anything, should be done? McKay 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a bot should add this deletion notice to images that have rationales, but that don't use the template. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess  is the template you are referring to. If this is the case, Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline states that  is meant to facilitate the compilation of a FU rationale, but is not obligatory. The following section even mention a possible way of providing a rationale without using the template. As far as I can see, the bot is making a mistake in this case. Tizio 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what should be done about the bot then? Also, I first noticed the aforementioned template only a few days ago. WP:NONFREE doesn't reference it. It merely says to provide the rationale. McKay 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The template is mostly discussed at WP:FURG. When we were putting that together I don't think it was ever anyone's intention that people would be required to use the template, it was only created to help people if they wanted. I'm sure it's just an oversight though :) - cohesion 00:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks to me like  is for helping to create an explanation for an image.  Because this is a notice from the contributor of the image, the phrasing should NOT later be changed by template changes.  So the template should be subst: to make the text permanent (in addition to whatever changes the contributor makes to the resulting sample).  (SEWilco 02:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that this "template" is ignored is for a good reason, its used on a very few number of images (14).  does the same thing and has a wider use. Also this encourages everyone and their kid brother to create "rationale templates" in their userspace and if this trend continues we will shortly have 100 "templates" in userspace that will make a mess of trying to enforce policy and prevent automated detection of images. (everyone will be complaining that the bot ignores their rationales) As figuring out what are rationale templates and what are licensing templates is not a very simple method. The current practice is to ignore images with the standard rationale template. Not only does this make standardization better but it also makes figuring out valid rationales easier. ∆ 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I misundersood, I was thinking you were using a manual rationale. We shouldn't have templated non substituted rationales. Obviously this would create an unmanageable situation very quickly. If betacommandbot recognizes  that's fine I guess, but I think all rationales should be substituted. Transcluded data is difficult to see from many views for bots and in database dumps. For example, when the image dump is done how will people see your rationale? If you use a transcluded standard rationale template they won't. - cohesion 20:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant [[User:BetacommandBot]] 

message: I am considering getting a bot, but haven't filed my request yet. Can a bot be programmed in Hypertext Markup Language, or HTML? Also, what is a botnet and what does the Wikipedia Community think of them? I noticed Bonaparte was banned for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet". ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 10:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HTML is a markup language for creating web pages. It's not a programming or scripting language, so making a bot using HTML doesn't make sense. Many bots may have an HTML output though, for example a bot might create a page for people to monitor something. For more information on botnets see Botnet. - cohesion 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may also want to read WP:CREATEBOT. Having said that, we kind of do things the other way around here: since a bot is supposed to serve a specific purpose, usually it's a good idea to figure out the 'why' before the 'how'.  --S up? 20:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have no previous programming experience, what is an easier language to begin with? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on what you want to do besides writing a bot. If you're interested in OOP, well, Java isn't bad for beginners and a good way to avoid a few major headaches you'd run into if you were to start with C. If you want to start small, try Javascript or really any script language (JavaScript would be my first choice in, that case, since you already have everything you need). If you're mostly interested in bots, Python isn't bad at all. Contrary to what you may have read here, real men use C or Perl though. ;) S up? 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PHP is also rather easy for beginners, though it doesn't have an established bot framework like Python does.  — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML 

message: I don't know if this actually is a bot or not, the page claims that it is an "Automated service to revert vandalism".  Is reverting all edits made by user Nate1481, when they aren't vandalism.  Several complaints left on talk page, seems to be malicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been dealt with, by the way. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-revert 

message: Perhaps this already exists and I'm just blind, but is there a way to get an idea of the likelihood of a bot being approved in principle before going ahead and actually writing the bot?  It's my understanding that Requests for approval should only be used after the bot is written--which may result in a lot of wasted work if the request is ultimately denied.  So if there isn't already, perhaps there should be a place where someone can seek input on whether or not a bot for a certain purpose is acceptable in principle before he goes ahead and writes the bot and tries to get his particular implementation accepted.  Kurt Weber 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not post on WT:BRFA, since it'd be a prelude of sorts to the BRFA, and the same people who watch BRFAs watch the talk page.  — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feasibility Studies" 

message: I am watching some pages with a huge number of interwiki links, like Amsterdam and Netherlands. Every time one of the interwiki bots adds an interwiki link, it seems to randomly rearrange some of the links. Sometimes into alphabetical order, sometimes breaking the existing right order. For example: diff 1 (misplacing pam) diff 2 (misplacing be-x-old and lt). Also note this diff, where a bot makes an edit only rearranging interwiki links.
My proposal would be the following:
*Do not allow bots make edits rearranging interwiki links, as it is utterly useless and they cannot do it right.
Another problem with these bots making errors is that the authors can often only be contacted off the en wiki.
--User:Krator (t c) 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: have you talked to the bot operator? you might ask when they last updated their pywiki code. older version of it may be causing those problems. βcommand 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contacting the bot owners of the three examples above would require me to register at the Italian, Danish and Russian Wikipedia. I'd rather edit articles than spend my time hopping around languages I don't speak. --User:Krator (t c) 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really have you tried Special:emailuser for the operator of the bot? βcommand 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the bot was doing it right.  Please read m:Interwiki sorting order#By order of alphabet, based on local language.  — madman bum and angel 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki bots rearranging interwiki links 

message: Greetings. Polbot is an approved bot that reads information from the IUCN and creates new stubs on plant and animal species. There is currently a request for opinions here regarding the linking of biologists' names. Any comments on that page would be welcome. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for opinions 

message: I uploaded :Image:Second Ave Subway CGI station.jpg today with a rationale during its intial upload.  Half an hour later, OrphanBot tagged the image as not having a rationale, despite it had one.  An hour later, the bot tagged the same image a second time, leaving two identical tags on the page.  I removed the tags and send Carnildo (bot's operator) a message about the issue.  Then less than half an hour later, the bot tags the image for a third time, and I'm pretty sure it will do it again.  If the bot has tagged my image incorrectly three times, I'm sure it has also done so to other images as well. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the message I left on Carnildo's talk page, Carnildo simply said, "I do wish people would stop coming up with new names for old templates."  The statement is completely irrelevant, and it bothers me that the user does not seem to have any concern whatsoever about the issue. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's a concise summary of what caused the problem and what I did to fix it: someone came up with a new name for the  tag, so OrphanBot didn't see the rationale, and someone else changed the name of the template that the  template inserts, so OrphanBot wasn't aware it had already tagged the image. --Carnildo 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]] tagging issues 

message: This page and other related talk about policies regarding bots, not about the technical details abouts bots, so excuse me if I ask a nonsense. 
From what I have seen, despite working in other ways, a bot would be, from a strict technical point of view, a user like any other else. User page, user talk page, contributions, logs, etc; all the things a user has, a bot also has. Even more, there are some things of the kind of using a bot as a regular account (like answering to other users) that are not encouraged, but by not being so means they are possible to be done. But then, by logic, the opposite would also apply: if bots and users are technically the same, and a bot can be used as a main user account, then a main user account could be also used as a bot.
I guess that nobody would support an administrator employing bot techniques to tag all articles in a huge category for deletion, or to close a huge number of deletion discussions with a predefined result, or to delete all such articles in a row. But is there a way, other than the stadistic fact of more than 800 edits and 100 deletions in less than 10 hours, to prove that a regular account was being used as a bot? 
Note: This topic is not for reporting the actions mentioned. That would be done somewhere else, at it's proper way. This topic is merely for the technical question, about if it's possible to recognize actions done by software or by human checking Perón 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Making 80 edits per hour, or 10 deletions an hour, is something I do manually all the time. I'm not sure how you'd prove it, since bots interact with Wikipedia the same way people do, usually. Have you tried asking the person? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: it would just take some looking into it by someone who knows how bots work to check whether or not that the style of editing is human or bot related. dont forget using some simi-automatic scripts you can edit fairly rapidly. Ive clocked myself at over 120 edits an hour with some of my tools. βcommand 21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regular accounts (without bot flag) can use scripts with manual approval of all edits, as long as the account doesn't edit "too fast", the edits have consensus, and the user stops and responds if another user questions the edits. "Too fast" in this context is debatable, but given that an "unflagged bot" is limited to 2 edits per minute, up to 120 edits per hour for a script-assisted task doesn't seem unreasonable to me. One sign of script-assisted editing is repetitive, identical or patterned edit summaries. Gimmetrow 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real user working as bot 

message: Is there a bot available that can take a newly created template with many links and systematically add the template to the bottom of each article the template links to? The only problem might be getting it to add the template in the right location. Richard001 09:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to add this question to Wikipedia:Bot requests, with more details about what template in particular and where it should be added on the given pages.  — madman bum and angel 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot for adding links 

message: I have been noticing some trouble with the way ImageRemovalBot handles the deletion of gallery images. Many of the images that ImageRemovalBot removes are music-related. Some of these images are album covers that have been placed in galleries on artist's pages. When ImageRemovalBot removes the image, it also removes the name, record label, release date, and chart information along with the image. In some cases, it has removed several or all albums released by a band. Here are some examples:
*Starsailor's entire discography was missing when I checked their page.
*So was The Velvet Teen's - with no albums listed, this article would then be a candidate for deletion!
*What good is a Replacements discography, if it doesn't even mention their first two albums?
*The Bob Schneider album listing was made into a complete mess.
I had a spirited discussion with the bot's owner, Carnildo, about fixing the problem. I suggested either modifying the bot to change images in galleries to some sort of default "no image" image, or simply stopping removing redlinked images from galleries (better to log them and remove by hand than have the bot removing content along with them).
Carnildo and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, so I am posting here because I think this bot is no longer harmless per WP:BOT. Chubbles 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there is a perfect solution -- the question is, which option is less bad? Option #1: the bot leaves missing images in galleries (or replaces with "no image"). Option #2, the bot removes them, as it does currently. Both options have pluses and minuses, but I think option #2 is the better option. I'll explain. The only reason to prefer option #1 is that the bot occasionally removes encyclopedic material that isn't anywhere else in the article. That's a legitimate problem, but the counter-arguments are strong: (1) Encyclopedic material shouldn't be only in captions. (2) This problem could apply equally well to thumbnail images, if their captions have material that isn't available elsewhere. It's more common for gallery images, but the if we leave empty images in galleries because the captions might have useful info, wouldn't we also need to leave thumbed images for the same reason? (3) Leaving a missing image (or a "no image" placeholder) practically begs newbies to put the covers back in, making the whole problem worse. (4) We should be discouraging the "format" of listing discography info in gallery captions, not working around this obviously incorrect practice. (5) Empty images (or filler images) in galleries look messy; note that the "complete mess" of the Bob Schneider article referenced above is that the empty images weren't yet removed -- that mess would be exacerbated by the change Chubbles recommends. (6) The info is still available in an HTML comment, if a person wants to manually put the information in the correct place. For all these reasons, I don't thing Chubbles' recommended change would be beneficial. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear to most editors why gallery format for discographies is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. (That's why thousands of band pages have discographies put in this format.) It is all well and good to nudge people in that direction - but not at the cost of removing important information; and the albums recorded by notable artists are arguably the most important information about them that can be provided. There is also the problem that, by removing the names of albums, some of these pages will become candidates for deletion. If you remove one album from a page of a band who has released two albums on an important label, they may appear to no longer meet the criteria for WP:MUSIC - and having spent enough time at AfD to know, it may well be that no one notices until it's too late.
I think a better way to encourage formatting of discographies as galleries could be to create a warning tag - say,  or something - which says "this discography should be reformatted according to Wikipedia policy" or something. After all, ImageRemovalBot's way of doing things isn't helping keep galleries of discography pages; people who notice the images getting deleted usually re-upload the images and add them back to the galleries (seen this happening already, as I clean up after IMB's mess). Chubbles 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ImageRemovalBot problem