Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

Require tracking maxlag

The policy currently does not mandate tracking the maxlag parameter. Wouldn't it make sense to have this tracking be a explicit requirement considering that most bots will already have to follow it to be compliant with the API Etiquette ? Sohom (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesty ping Novem Linguae :) Sohom (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know this was in API etiquette. Interesting. I'm still mildly opposed, but let's let others weigh in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I will preface by saying that I don't know exactly how the backend of AWB works, but if it doesn't track maxlag then we should not mandate its tracking because any AWB bot would automatically be violating it. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that Pywikibot and AWB both already track maxlag (I might be wrong though). WP:JWB appears to not track the parameter though, maybe we can the ask the maintainer to add support for it. Sohom (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I note the reverted edit to this policy had changed "may" to "should", not "must" as implied by the paragraph here. The API Etiquette page also says "should". That stops short of a requirement, particularly if we're using plain English meanings rather than RFC 2119. Since we seldom directly review the code, and have no way to verify that the code posted is actually the code running or to check the parameters on API queries made, any actual requirement would be nearly unenforceable by us anyway.

As for "may" versus "should", again particularly since we're using plain English meanings rather than RFC 2119, I find myself without a strong opinion on the matter. "Should" seems fine to me, as long as people aren't going to try to misinterpret it as a requirement and start "attacking" bots they don't like over it. Anomie⚔ 06:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It is my view that if you put "should" in a Wikipedia policy, that folks will interpret it as a requirement. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Bot policy questions

Have two, separate, questions about the bot policy that I've come across in the last 10 days that I can't find the answers to so far.

1. If a bot (and operator) have been inactive for 10+ years, and the bot has been deflagged, is that all that needs to occur, or does the bot also need to be preventatively blocked without prejudice?

2. Can bots (approved by another language wikipedia) operate here too as is, or do they additionally need en wiki approval? If it is not a one for all situation, how would one determine if they have en wiki approval?

The reasons I'm asking are: For the first case, I've seen a few bots that were blocked so they couldn't be hacked into and become destructive, but I think those were in slightly different situations than this one. And in this case, the operator (in good standing) just never returned. And for the second (unrelated) case, bot #2 has not done anything problematic, I just haven't encountered any other cases like this and being cautious.

I'm not naming case 1 or case 2's bot at this time, but can if there's no issue in doing so, and/or is needed to better answer either case. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

1) I don't think we have a policy/guideline/norm that inactive bots need to be blocked. 2) I don't think global BRFAs are honored by enwiki, with an exception for updating interwiki links. We have some kind of opt out, so bot operators from other wikis need to go through the enwiki WP:BRFA process. I think there's more info at WP:INTERWIKIBOT and WP:GLOBALBOTS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are only needed for bots editing without authorization. Approvals on other projects don't count here - however you can point to examples of a successful task on another project when applying here. Keep in mind we require each task a bot is going to be approved, not just the account. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

1, That is what I figured, thank you both.

2. Xaosflux, Thank you. I wasn't asking from the operator point of view, as I have no bot and not planning on operating any. I had come across a bot account that had made a few edits here and was from another wiki. Their edits (here on en) have been primarily related to some articles in regard to images that were globally renamed (7 en wiki edits 2014-22), and more recently, has only been editing on two user's subpages (114 since Feb). One is the operator's, the other user I don't know their connection to the operator/bot. Those recent edits in userspace have been to create a list of various user's .js pages (one edit), and to keep and update a report list of recent en wiki draft to mainspace moves by any user (113 edits). Zinnober9 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding userspace edits, Wikipedia:Bot policy#Valid operations without approval allows for bots to edit their own or their operator's userspace without approval (as long as the edit isn't otherwise disruptive). Editing other users' userspaces isn't allowed without approval under that exception though. Anomie⚔ 21:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Approval by BRFA, or approval by the other user to edit in that user's userspace? It seems that the other user asked for the bot to generate the report. My feeling is that it would better for the bot to create the report in its own userspace, keep things neat and tidy within the userspace boundaries and then have on the other user's page a transclusion of the new page "{{BotFooReport}}" from the bot's userspace, but since I'm not sure I can satisfy their questions at this point, the discussion is here. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Approval by BRFA. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this rule is sometimes bent. See the bottom of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NovemBot 7, for example. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the linked BRFA itself as bending the rule, it's exactly the kind of thing that should happen if someone wants a bot to edit outside of their own or the bot's userspace. The speedy approval is also fine if the BAGger is confident that a trial isn't needed to expose problems with the task. OTOH, I think @Primefac erred in that case by implying that that BRFA was unnecessary. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Eh... genuinely don't remember what prompted me to type that, but you're correct. I have amended the close. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Move+ Link Correction

I've created a script, Move+, that assists with closing requested moves and moving pages. One of its functionalities is to help cleanup after moves by fixing mistargeted Wikilinks, which I believe falls under WP:ASSISTED.

However, I've recently discovered that the number of links to be fixed can sometimes be very high, and following discussion with Ahecht and SilverLocust I now believe that it is too high for WP:ASSISTED. My plan is to only allow normal users to resolve these links when the number is sufficiently small, and otherwise require that a user be a bot, but I'm not sure where to draw the line. My initial thoughts are 1000 links?

Once I've implemented the limit I intend to create User:Platybot and go through WP:BRFA. BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what's intended to be fixed here? Maybe one with only a few links to fix, and one with a multicrapton of links? And how would this not go against WP:NOTBROKEN? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, if we decided that China was no longer the primary topic, and instead moved China (disambiguation) to that title, we would need to retarget every link currently to China to China (country), because otherwise they would take readers to the dab page, rather than the intended page.

I can't give real examples because those are fixed quickly, typically by approaches requiring more editor time than Move+ requires, but a hypothetical with a multicrapton would be the China example, while a hypothetical with only a few would be if we decided George Peabody Library should be a disambiguation page. BilledMammal (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move#Fix mistargeted wikilinks. This is for moves where the old title becomes a disambiguation page, so the links have to be updated. That info page suggests WP:AWB or another semi-automated script. The other one I can think of – and the one I use – is DisamAssist. For either of those, you have to confirm each edit you make. Cf. WP:AWBRULES.

I'd suggest two reasons this feature of Move+ is automated editing rather than semi-automated: (1) the ratio between the number of buttons the user presses to the number of resulting edits is very high, and (2) the a script can keep editing for more than a couple seconds without your input.

In other words, I think 1000 would be way too high. I don't really even like rmCloser's ability to move several pages in a mass move. SilverLocust 💬 02:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

rmCloser doesn't really support moving several pages in a mass move, as it starts to fail when moving more than a few pages; its part of the reason I created Move+.

However, there are some scripts that do genuinely support mass moves, such as User:Ahecht/Scripts/massmove.js, but I am willing to add limits to Move+ for this as well? BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about the mass move scripts after my reply and seeing Headbomb's. I think Headbomb's point about giving a higher limit based on user rights is a good one. Like how mass mover is limited to page movers and admins. Though I very much don't think pagemovers should have an unlimited amount. Perhaps admins > page movers > extended confirmed > autoconfirmed (along with giving a warning about how many links it will need to change). (I had never tried moving a bunch of pages with rmCloser, given my reluctance to automate things too much [edit: without a bot, that is]. I had looked at rmCloser and didn't see any numerical limit. So I assume that's just from the time limits that it has.) SilverLocust 💬 02:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently, it only lists the number of links to update after starting. I'll put that on the todo list.

I'll definitely add limits to the number of pages permitted to be moved in one action by editors who don't have relevant advanced permissions; I'll watch the discussion to see if I should also add them, at a higher level, for page movers.

(Yep; rmCloser doesn't consider server side rate limits, and its actions start to be rejected because of that. Move+ doesn't consider it for one part of the process that has remained unchanged from rmCloser; it causes some issues, but I haven't got around to fixing it yet.) BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. Could the script check for pagemover/editconfirmed rights, or something similar (e.g. a whitelist of users, similar to AWB) and have the threshold depend on those rights? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It already checks for rights in deciding which page move options to offer, so it could easily check when considering the limit. A whitelist would be a little more work, but still simple enough to implement. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just ideas. For users with a regular trust, I wouldn't go over 250. Maybe 100. For admins, or those with advanced trust, I'd say no limits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable for regular users. For admins and extended movers (I assume that is who you mean by advanced trust), I don't object to no limit, but I'll see what other editors think, or if they believe there is a point where it should be done on a bot account. BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it would be preferable by bot account, if only because you can suppress bot from the watchlist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I've actually tried setting it as a bot edit for all users, but either I'm not calling the morebits function correctly, or accounts need to be flagged as a bot for that to work. I'm assuming the second?

Do you think a hard limit is a good idea then, or would you prefer a soft limit that recommends the use of a bot account? BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, only bots have the bot edit flag. SilverLocust 💬 03:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A real example would be Talk:Australian#Requested_move_20_October_2022, in which there were 700-1000 links to process post move. It was cleaned up within 24 hours with the help of other editors who picked the newly dabbed title up at the disambiguation wikiproject (DYK they have a report for dab pages with massive numbers of links going there?) – robertsky (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(DYK they have a report for dab pages with massive numbers of links going there?)

I did not! (Although, generally I think manual review of every link is a waste of editor time - it would be better to create a script that finds ones likely to be problematic and presents only those for manual review. It's currently on my todo list for Move+, but I'll prioritize it - I've almost got "Add support for actioning technical requests" done, and once finished I'll do it. One issue I found in the past with dabassist is that it didn't immediately present the next text to review, so I'll make sure that is addressed - if there are other useful features this function could have please let me know, either at User talk:BilledMammal/Move+ or here.) BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Mass creation section

@BilledMammal: Would you mind explaining this revert further? I don't understand what you wrote in your edit summary. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:MASSCREATE applies to all mass creations, even when automation is not used - for example, WP:MEATBOT mass creation.

I also think it is a little redundant. I can't think of any circumstances where true mass creation can occur without some level of automation - for example, the use of boilerplate text. H BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it pretty clearly does not apply to all mass creations though, for the following reasons:

• It's part of the bot policy, not the editing policy
• It says so: any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task [...], not any large-scale content page creation task [...]
• The (only) requirement created by this section is to seek permission at WP:BRFA. If I went to BRFA and said I wanted to write a series of 50 articles on a subject without automation, I think they'd tell me to move along.
• A 2022 proposal to amend MASSCREATE to clarify that mass-creation through repetitive editing by hand is not different for policy purposes to automated/semi-automated mass-creation and make getting consensus for creation prior to mass creation per WP:MASSCREATE mandatory failed to gain consensus.

It does apply to bot-like edits by humans, yes, but that is still within the limits of the bot policy. It is possible to create large numbers of articles without automation; I see editors doing it every day at NPP. For example, writing a stub on a species or location from scratch could take as little as ten minutes. So if you sit down and crank them out all day, you could break 50 and still have time for a long lunch. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It also says all mass-created articles, and the final paragraph, as the exception that proves the rule, demonstrates that WP:MEATBOT applies to the creation of content pages and that such creations are required to go through BRFA. However, I also agree that BRFA isn't the right place for various reasons, not least that per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS they shouldn't be approving mass creation. I suggest we reword the policy to direct editors first to the village pump, and clarify that once consensus has been obtained there only bot operators need to go through BRFA.

A 2022 proposal to amend MASSCREATE to clarify that mass-creation through repetitive editing by hand is not different for policy purposes to automated/semi-automated mass-creation and make getting consensus for creation prior to mass creation per WP:MASSCREATE mandatory failed to gain consensus.

It also failed to get a consensus against the proposal. Given that, I don't think it's appropriate to amend WP:MASSCREATE to exclude that interpretation when there wasn't a consensus that it is the wrong interpretation.

It is possible to create large numbers of articles without automation; I see editors doing it every day at NPP. For example, writing a stub on a species or location from scratch could take as little as ten minutes.

I might be wrong, but I believe those tend to use boilerplate text - which I consider semi-automation as the boilerplate is a primitive tool. BilledMammal (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, yes, but it's kind of beside the point. If you consider all forms of mass creation to be semi-automated, then what is the problem with amending the title of the section to read "Mass automated and semi-automated creation"? What's left out? – Joe (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's redundant, and will make it harder to enforce the policy as editors have previously claimed that their mass creations are manual, even when there is clear evidence to the contrary such as them admitting to using scripts. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant. I'm suggesting we add it anyway for clarity, because many people come here via a section link and do not realise that this section is part of the bot policy – that's all. I'm not sure I follow how that would make it harder to enforce the policy against people who are lying? – Joe (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's part of the bot policy, not the editing policy This always seems to get in the way when people start arguing over WP:MASSCREATE. It's fairly clear the community wants to consider mass creation in general, not just automated mass creation, but for historical raisins WP:MASSCREATE is in WP:Bot policy and so it has to be "about" bots in some manner. I suggested changing that in 2023, but few were interested in discussing it. Anomie⚔ 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fairly clear the community wants to consider mass creation in general, not just automated mass creation – is it? How? As you said yourself, you didn't get support for that interpretation when you proposed it just last year. And as I said, in the 2022 RfC, a proposal to change MASSCREATE to say this explicitly failed, with the closing statement specifically noting opposition on the basis that human editing falls outside of the scope of bot policy.

I think if you guys want MASSCREATE to apply to all articles you should obtain a consensus and then move it to the editing policy. In the mean time, what is wrong with clarifying in the title that a section of the bot policy applies to automated edits, using words copied verbatim from that section? – Joe (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think if you guys want MASSCREATE to apply to all articles you should obtain a consensus

Doesn't that apply equally in the opposite direction? If you don't want it to apply to manual mass creations, you should obtain a consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to change anything. You just said yourself that my edit was "redundant", i.e. it merely restates what is already there (verbatim). – Joe (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted what I am saying. I see it as redundant because I see it as a tautology. The current text acknowledges that the policy applies to manual mass creation - regardless of my personal views on whether such a thing is possible - through the final paragraph which, as the exception that proves the rule, makes it clear that the WP:MEATBOT mass creation of content pages is required to go through BRFA. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The final paragraph says that automated, semi-automated or bot-like creation of non-content pages do not need to go through BRFA. I don't see how that's relevant? – Joe (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Exception that proves the rule. BilledMammal (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MASSCREATION applies to all mass creation of articles, both from bots and from WP:MEATBOTS. If you edit in a bot-like manner, it does not matter if you are actually a bot or just a random person making articles quickly from boilerplate text. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Yep, there's absolutely no disagreement on that point. My edit added the words "automated and semi-automated" to the section heading, and as WP:MEATBOT defines bot-like editing is equivalent to automated/semi-automated editing, the meaning remains unaltered. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In that case, can I propose a compromise? Title the section Mass automated, semi-automated, or meatbot page creation. "meatbot" could perhaps be replaced with "bot-like". BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm good with that. I'd avoid 'meatbot' – it's not the most dignified piece of wikislang. Although actually, since it's getting a bit of a mouthful, do we really need the word "mass"? Nobody's using bots, silicon or flesh, to create one or two articles, right? – Joe (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ugh. Please let's not make a long and confusing heading. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If the meaning remains unaltered, then there is no reason to make the change. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason I've suggested above is that because many people come here via a section link, they don't realise that this section is part of the bot policy and so end up reading it out of context. Most other sections already have the word "bot" in their title or shortcut, which ameliorates that. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) As you said yourself, you didn't get support for that interpretation when you proposed it just last year No, I said I didn't get much discussion at all. More specifically, xaosflux and BilledMammal supported, Rhododendrites refused to consider it outside the context of a full rewrite, and jc37 took it on a bit of a tangent. No one else replied. is it? How? Have you read through the actual discussions, with an eye for how WP:MASSCREATE being in WP:Bot policy restricts how people can consider ways of handling mass creation? Look at the very close you linked as "failed to gain consensus", three of the seven oppose bullets hinge on "WP:BOTPOL can't regulate non-bot behavior". I think if you guys want MASSCREATE to apply to all articles Personally I don't care. I'm just sick of WP:BOTPOL and WP:MEATBOT getting bent out of shape when people like you and BilledMammal argue over non-bot creations. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The main issue here is that people are trying to solve a problem that isn't a problem. If you've got a idiot on a stub-creating campaign using a boilerplate "X is a fictional small village in the Chronicles of Narnia., you can block them under WP:MEATBOT, WP:MASSCREATE, WP:ENGAGE, WP:DISRUPT, WP:CONSENSUS... and per WP:MEATBOT the method they use to create these undesired stubs is irrelevant. If it's disruptive, it must stop. This should be straightforward to understand. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is enforcement. While it's clear that editors who wish to create significant numbers of nearly-identical articles are required to get approval from the community, it is difficult to determine an action when they fail to do so, and the articles they created are usually accepted as fait accompli - Lugnuts is the clearest example of this. We need a streamlined process to stop editors who are engaged in mass creation without approval, and to remove the articles created in violation of this policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you'd probably want to start by make it more obvious where and how they're supposed to get that approval. Above you infer that people falsely claim to be creating articles by hand to evade this policy. Maybe that happens sometimes. But I think there's a larger group of editors to who are say, creating stubs on similar topics by copying and pasting the last stub and changing the details, who genuinely don't think that the "bot policy" has anything relevant to them. Even if they did find their way to making a BRFA, as directed by WP:MASSCREATE, they'd certainly conclude they were in the wrong place when asked to "create an account for your bot", specify "the computer language that this bot will be written in. E.g. Python, Java, C, VB, AutoWikiBrowser", provide "a link to the source code", and so on. The cruellest thing we do on this project is punish people for doing things that we never told them were forbidden. You have to set out the process before you can expect people follow it. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"The problem is enforcement." If the problem is enforcement, fix enforcement. As for Lugnuts, he was banned in 2021 from created stubs under 500 words. And with Lugnuts, the problem never was policy, but WP:IDHT. And that's why he's now indef banned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's anything to enforce. When was the last time you saw someone creating more than 25 articles per day? It's unusual for anyone to even create 25 articles per week, and I don't think anyone has created 20–50 articles per day for any sustained, uninterrupted period of time. Even when Dr. Blofeld was creating 15,000+ articles per year, it was often 150 this day and 200 the next, but then nothing (or very little) for the next several days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Anomie: You've reverted the compromise suggested by BilledMammal. Could you please explain why? This is not an RfC – nobody is being asked to !vote support/oppose. I can see that you said "Please let's not make a long and confusing heading", which I tried to do, and Primefac asked (after I had made the edit) what the reason for it would be, which I answered. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Exactly because Primefac and I opposed the change, and I've made the counterproposal in the section below to address the concerns you have. Anomie⚔ 13:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    As you know, consensus comes from reasoned discussion, and just saying you oppose something doesn't get us any closer to that. I think your idea to split the section is a good one but we needn't wait to see whether it consensus to fix this title. Do I understand correctly that your objection to "Automated, semi-automated or bot-like page creation" is that it's too long? In which case, how about "Bot or bot-like page creation", which aligns with other sections on this page and is no longer than most of them. – Joe (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  The 'compromise' is bad and inaccurate. The issue is mass-creation, not "Automated, semi-automated or bot-like page creation" because that literally means any page creation whatsoever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  BilledMammal's original suggestion was indeed "Mass automated, semi-automated or bot-like page creation", which I'm also fine with. I dropped the "mass" to try and address Anomie's complaint that it was too wordy, but he reverted anyway. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW I'm not so sure about that addition, having read the context. Too easy to make it seem like "automated and semi-automated" includes "bot-like editing", and I don't see why the addition has any benefit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• The policy is currently that automated/semi-automated creation has to get authorization, plus a line that MEATBOT applies. MEATBOT, in turn, is almost entirely about making mistakes while editing quickly. The only clue in MEATBOT that it could extend beyond holding people accountable for their mass-mistakes is processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. That seems reasonable to me. It doesn't prohibit any manual creation (and, BM, can we just stop with this argument that you alone make that "semi-automated editing tools" extends to include things like Microsoft Word or a boilerplate stored in notepad?), but if you go really fast and hard despite urges to slow down -- and especially if you make mistakes -- you may be asked to go through the bot authorization process. The problem is we seem to have a handful of "this 100% applies to everyone making more than a couple articles" folks on the front line, so it would help to have some additional clarity as to when going fast turns into bot-like editing of the sort that needs preauthorization. Unfortunately, we didn't do so well at figuring that out last time. :/ In light of all this, I don't quite understand the purpose of the heading change or its reversion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  See the Narnia example. And if it's not clear, MEATBOT is clear. We don't care how you do it, if it's disruptive, stop. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  if it's disruptive - The problem is, some users consider any fast article creation disruptive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, that's why I changed the heading – sometimes you get people badgering other users for creating more than 25 articles at once manually, citing WP:MASSCREATE, and either missing or deliberately overlooking the fact that it's in the bot policy and therefore can only be read within the context of bot or bot-like editing. As for why it was reverted, I'm stumped too. First it was because it changed the meaning, then it was because it didn't change the meaning, then it was because it was too long, now it's because we should split it instead. I think. It's hard to keep up. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: Regarding sometimes you get people badgering other users for creating more than 25 articles at once manually, citing WP:MASSCREATE, can you give some examples? BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Or even three articles: User talk:Markussep#WP:MASSCREATION. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think you miscounted, and looking at a few of those they weren’t manual - they were boilerplate. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I specifically refer to the statement that "creating three articles between 18.44 and 18.47 is a much a higher frequency than 25-50 per day".

  Manual edits can be boilerplate, just like automated edits don't have to be boilerplate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I went through all of that editor's non-redirect article creations back to 2020. There was only one day in which that tool counts 25 articles (21 November 2022). They never exceeded that level, and rarely came close to it. However, Special:Contributions for that date finds only 22, and six of those are redirects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I think their point with that statement was that if you are creating three articles in three minutes, you're obviously not doing it manually.

  However, we're getting off topic here. Examples of editors being badgered for genuine manual creations would be helpful to see, if you have them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is your definition of "genuine manual creations" approximately "using completely different wording and sources in each article"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, but I don't think us discussing this is going to be productive, so I will step back now. If editors like Joe have examples or want to discuss further, I will happily do so. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Kicking it out of botpol?

I've drafted an RFC at User:Anomie/Sandbox2. Anyone have comments before I post it somewhere? Opinions as to whether we should do it here or WP:VPP? Anomie⚔ 13:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Even if the content doesn't change, this discussion illustrates of the difficulty of relying on a local consensus of technically-focused editors to manage a policy on article creation. I don't think you need to do an RfC, though. A consensus of editors on this page that the section is no longer in scope would be sufficient, since we're only moving accepted policy around, not significantly changing it. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's to be gained by separating it from botpol. It's clearly bot-related. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that people above are insisting that it also applies to creations that don't involve bots or bot-like edits, and therefore accurately titling it as part of the bot policy is unacceptable. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not always bot related. Various discussions have wanted to consider more manual mass creations as well, but have had to struggle against it being part of WP:BOTPOL. So some have used that as an objection, and others try to stretch WP:MEATBOT to somehow make it apply. Even in the original proposal that created this section there was concern over restricting it to bots. Anomie⚔ 16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it started. Not opposed to this in principle, but in this draft while the moved policy seems like it retains the same meaning, the summary text left behind says something different. Mainly, you've created a new page that applies to "automated and semiautomated content page creation" and summarized it with a line saying [all] Mass page creation requires approval by the community. Probably an assumption is built in because of the scope of the BOTPOL, but it would be good to spell out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The controlling policy on that is the new mass-creation page rather than botpol anyway, the point is to note the mass creation policy exists rather than to restate it in every particular. I'm wary of putting too much in here that may easily become obsolete once people have the opportunity to discuss just how much they want it to cover non-bot mass creations, but if others want to nitpick it to that extent too then 🤷. Anomie⚔ 16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, right now the summary left behind in the draft changes policy. If your intent isn't to run a such an RfC, that line would need to change. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s a good idea. Let’s get this done, and then we can discuss other changes, such as the one proposed below. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Anomie, I think that the RFC question may be so long that many editors won't read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I know you think no one will read more than the headline of anything, although why you think even "Should WP:MASSCREATE be severed from WP:Bot policy?" is too long I have no idea. That's the question, which I bolded to make it easy to pick out. The part before is background and everything after is defining what exactly that means because experience tells me that otherwise people will start arguing over how to rewrite the whole thing and we'll wind up with no consensus for anything. Anomie⚔ 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Defining mass creation as >50 articles per day

Separately, I've been wondering whether the way to address BilledMammal's (specifically his) ongoing concerns about MASSCREATE is to explain it in specific, unambiguous detail. When you picked that quotation from @Xeno out of the 2009 RFC, there were other options:

• "anything more than 25 or 50"
• "rapid creation"
• "in a rapid manner"
• "25-50 articles per day"
• "25–50+ articles per day"
• "clicking "save" every 5-10 seconds"
• "more than 50 articles in a short period"
• "more than 50 articles in a short amount of time".

Thinking back at BilledMammal's multiple attempts to get rid of articles or prevent future creations, then general themes seem (to me) to be:

• He interprets "25 to 50" as having no time limit whatsoever. If you create one article a week, a year from now, you may be guilty of "mass creating" articles.
• He is primarily concerned about very short, very similar fill-in-the-blank articles, especially if it cites the same source as all the others, and most especially if that source is a database. For example, "_____ is a British cricket player" or "_____ is a fungus in the genus ______".

I think if we replaced the quotation with a more detailed summary, that would resolve quite a lot of this.

−

While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed.

+

While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, editors who want to create more than 50 articles in any 24-hour period should obtain prior approval.

I do not expect this to make the anti-stub editors happy, but it would provide clarity about when creating a lot of articles is actually a WP:MASSCREATION matter, and when it's just creating a lot of articles.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, there have never been any actual mass creation attempts that were not automated or semi-automated. The idea that someone could manually write 50+ articles per day is not realistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

More than 50 per day would be more than 18,250 per year. For context, it was very rare for Lugnuts to exceed fifty articles per day.

This change would result in the policy endorsing mass creation, not requiring it to get community approval. You’ve also misunderstood my interpretation of this; only similar articles created using mass creation techniques count towards the limit.

I’ve also split this into a seperate section, to avoid derailing Anomie’s proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lugnut's problem was IDHT, not that MASSCREATION was unclear. And 50 a day is too high a limit. 50 in a short term is better. 25 in a short term is also OK by me. We can leave that part undefined per "you know it when you see it" because as soon as you set a precise number, someone will go "but I made sure to edit at "X-1/time period", so MASSCREATION doesn't apply!" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Lugnuts situation came from two issues; WP:IDHT, and because the lack of clarity in WP:MASSCREATE made it hard for the community to enforce and thus address the IDHT issue.

Largely agree on leaving it undefined; if an editor is creating 30 boilerplate articles a week for many months, then that’s obviously mass creation that requires community review and approval. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

MASSCREATE doesn't have anything to with "boilerplate articles". That's your idea. It's never been part of the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Falls under MEATBOT and/or semi-automated. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Automated and semi-automated article creation does not have to use a boilerplate. (See also Wikipedia:Large language models.)

MEATBOT applies to "high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make". It has nothing to do with the edits being "boilerplate" or repetitive in any way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're creating boilerplate articles, you're behaving like a bot. MASSCREATE doesn't prohibit boilerplate articles, but it does says that if you want to do that on a large scale, i.e. more than 25-50, you need consensus to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you're behaving like a human who used a boilerplate. Ditto if I take the time to write 20 totally different articles but publish them all at the same time. Even if, against the odds, you found consensus for calling the use of a boilerplate to manually create articles without errors a WP:MEATBOT issue, it still doesn't fall under that 25-50 rule, which is specifically about automated or semiautomated editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, this change would result in the policy more precisely representing what the 2009 RFC (the one that eventually resulted in its creation) actually said. I grant that this would make it more difficult for editors to make up their own claims about what it says (e.g., that it was intended to prevent editors from creating more than 50 articles ever – a limit you're coming up on, by the way).

It would be hardly surprising if Lugnuts usually complied with MASSCREATE in at least some minimal fashion, since about 90% of his article creations were after the RFC that led to the MASSCREATE rule. MASSCREATE was not about Lugnuts; it was primarily about an editor who was creating more than a thousand articles per month, and sometimes hundreds per day, with only a few seconds in between each article, and the effect that this volume had on review processes. Also, he's written more FAs than you've written articles of any kind, so please don't assume that he's a bad editor or doesn't know what he's doing.

If you want to make MASSCREATE stricter, then you could make such a proposal, but a sound basis for that future discussion would first be understanding what the long-standing rule actually says (25–50 per day, not per month/year/lifetime), what it was supposed to do (avoid overwhelming review processes and give admins a chance to stop CSD-worthy problems before there were hundreds or thousands of articles to deal with), and how it has or hasn't worked for us (e.g., it has stopped flooding review queues, but it hasn't stopped the creation of low-quality articles).. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I also highly question the need to do anything with our mass creation policy if the primary objective is to retroactively prevent an indef banned editor from IDHT behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I use Lugnuts as a convenient benchmark to determine whether a proposal is non-viable; because the community considers his creations to be mass creations, any proposal that would redefine MASSCREATE in such a way that his creations would not be covered is very likely to be rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

(e.g., that it was intended to prevent editors from creating more than 50 articles ever – a limit you're coming up on, by the way)

I don’t think anyone - who isn’t making a WP:POINT - interprets it that way, so can we please stop using that interpretation as a reason it’s problematic? It’s a straw man.

In any case, the 2009 RfC was 15 years ago. It is too late to contest that close; if you think the wording is wrong, then open a new RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need an RFC to choose a different quotation from the 2009 RFC, or to re-word it so that it accurately represents the 2009 RFC without using a direct quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We do, because any substantial WP:BOLD change to MASSCREATE is certain to be reverted - and what you propose is going to be seen by many editors as substantial, even if you disagree. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a stage in between WP:PGBOLD and an RFC, called "forming consensus on the talk page".

BTW, if you want to talk about strawman arguments, I suggest looking at the one implying that if the MASSCREATE approval process kicks in at 50 per day, then someone might actually create 50 articles per day, 365 days per year, and that the community would be helpless to stop them (assuming we wanted to, which is not always the case). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the 2009 RFC. As I read it, the "anything more than 25 or 50" suggestion was not strictly time limited, but was limited to a "task". Extremely fast creation is one problem, but "slow and steady" can also add up to a problem. Some of the replies focused on speed, while others did not. An advantage of choosing a quote from the proposal rather than some other comment is that it was the proposal that everyone should have read (even if they didn't).

Also you probably shouldn't be ignoring the 2022 RFC, where Question 3 focusing on rate limits (with much more nuance than this proposal) was rejected. Anomie⚔ 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)