Forum:SH:Bot editing userpages

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. JocastaBot (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Bot editing userpages

Under rule 9 of the User page and profile policy, users and bots are prohibited from editing userpages and user subpages without explicit permission. This rule was implemented at the February 2021 Mofference. The inability of bots to edit userpages has led to unnecessary maintenance issues, such as userpages filling up maintenance categories, including automatically populated ones. Prior to 2021, it was common for bots to edit userpages just like any other wiki page. While explicit permission can be granted, there is no standardized method for doing this and thus bot operators tend to explicitly exclude the entire user namespace when doing bot runs. In order to solve this issue, we have two alternatives:

  • Option 1 - opt-out: an invisible template named {{BotsNotWelcome}} (or similar) would be created, and bots would be barred from editing any userpage tagged with this template. This allows maintenance edits while still letting users opt out if they desire.
  • Option 2 - opt-in: this is what we currently do, but a template like {{BotsWelcome}} would be used as a standardized OK for bots. The downside of opt-in is that not everyone will be aware of the template, and users who no longer edit will obviously not be able to add this template.

Regarding practical implementation, my idea would be to create an AbuseFilter to enforce the opt-in or opt-out, but I also welcome suggestions for other solutions.

I personally favor option 1, as I believe the upsides of opt-out outweigh the downsides. Any input is welcome. 1358 (Talk) 18:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • This is much needed change, and I think that option 1 is better. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 18:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oooh, nice. Either option would be better than the current situation. I'd personally prefer Option 1. Imperators II(Talk) 18:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Let's do it. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Pro option 1. NBDani (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Full support. Also a preference for option 1. NanoLuukeCloning facility 18:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Full support. Pro option 2; although I support both. Samonic ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (Talk) 19:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. Support, preferably Option 1. VergenceScatter (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. Option 1 gang gang. Links on User pages and work benches are the biggest obstacle to page moves where new pages need the title of a redirect or another article. — YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) linkWP:Chiss (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd support either one Rsand 30 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. As a bot operator, option 1 is also easier to implement than option 2 as it only requires adding the tag under exceptions in standard pywikibot scripts. Plume Tray (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 sounds sensible to me. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I like option 1. SilverSunbird (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 definitely, since majority of users seem to find this acceptable. Will users need to specify that tenplate on their subpages as well? Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

On the back of this, is it worth having a clause for manual tasks completed by a user that COULD be done by a bot? For example, fixing redirects after a page move is a classic bot request, but sometimes there's not many pages to make it worth a bot request. A similar case could be made for correcting errors that throw pages into a maintenance category or updating templates that are missed by a bot, or in small enough numbers that a bot request isnt helpful. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • What I mean is, should this include user edits where those edits fit a specific criteria. For example, if I fix redirects or templates on user pages (both tasks that bots are often used for) without using a bot, that should also be acceptable. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Probably not, since bot edits are mostly standardised maintenance tasks that happen on mainspace pages, so a user would probably dismiss bot edits to their user pages but feel inclined to check manual edits made by other users, which may cause some trouble. If an issue isn't widespread enough to warrant a bot request, then editors can simply message one another via talk pages and Discord. Plus, the community would then have to decide on arbitrary definitions of what constitutes acceptable/unacceptable user page edits. It's best to keep things simple and restrict the edits to bots, especially if this is going to be an opt-out feature. OOM 224 22:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Option one gang here. Anything to help clean out maintenance categories gets a support from me. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 05:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for simplicity purposes. —Tomotron Revanchist Sith (Star Forge) 06:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for its simplicity. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, everyone. The CT is now live: Forum:CT:Bot edit amendment to WP:USER. 1358 (Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)