is operated by , who on 23 April 2021. This brings up the question as to whether or not the bot should still be running. Editors are responsible for edits made by their bots, and if they are not about to oversee the bot's editing, they can't be responsible, can they?

As I see it, there are two options here, either allow the bot to run as long as it isn't disrupting things, or another editor creates "HotArticlesBot2" to replace HotArticlesBot, which can then be blocked. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Just curious, since I don't see a clear indication on his userpage: has anyone just asked Kaldari "will you be able to maintain the bot even though you're retired?" If the answer is yes, this seems like a non-issue. We need more people who can/will maintain bots, regardless of what else they do on-wiki, and there doesn't seem any benefit to rushing to replace the capable and willing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

has not been listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. The template states that this will occur after 30 minutes of the posting. --2db (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I had a query on my talk page and figure it's worth just clearing up in policy. WP:SHAREDACCOUNT says This is in the case of a bot account being ran on a server where another individual has technical access to the credentials (perhaps because they're a sysadmin or some similar reason). I've got some of my own thoughts on this, expressed at my talk, but I would say that we don't really enforce any such policy in practice. Many bot accounts have multiple individuals with access to the underlying server (all Toolforge root users, for example, and co-maintainers). Plus I imagine it's more common than disclosed, and even in disclosed cases I'm not aware of any process to gain "consensus" for such an arrangement, or even rubber-stamping by BAG. Does this policy need to be changed to reflect actual practice? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Exceptions to this rule can be made for ... bot accounts that are maintained by more than one contributor, provided the existence of such an arrangement is made clear and has consensus.

Here is a user who is doing half-baked updates to many US city articles: . They've done this to dozens of articles.

Usually, this users' updates change the population in one table in the article. They don't remove the old population estimates (probably from 2019). They don't update other stats, like population density numbers, don't update other mentions of the population in the article, and don't update text like "as of the 2010 Census".

Problem is, AnomieBOT comes along and "rescues" the deleted reference definition that caused a visible referencing error. After that, the article has no visible referencing errors -- but is all screwed-up because of the internal inconsistencies and the half-done statistics update.

To make a correct fix, a human has to and actually remove the old estimate numbers. Then, to clean up the density problems, fix the "as of" dates, and verify a few more things before the article is good again.

Trouble is, once AuomieBOT has touched the article, it doesn't have any visible errors anymore and doesn't appear in a category like and instead has to be manually discovered. I think that user:AnomieBOT is doing more harm than good by burying problematic edits while claiming to "rescue" them.

Can AnomieBOT be stopped? Can we have it undo these changes so that the articles are added to the broken references category? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll ask you to assume good faith and make an effort to see the issue here. When your first step is to dismiss a concern raised by someone else, then you're not assuming good faith. It comes off as gatekeeping, and not conducive to constructive conversation or collaboration.
The orphaned reference is caused by an editor who (not surprisingly) doesn't understand the side-effects of the template they're editing. Since they remove the reference for the estimate but leave the estimate number, and that's what causes the reference invocation becomes orphaned. Thus, it's not I who removed content -- it was , which removed "estimate=" and "estyear=" parameters from the population history box.
I can utilize the categories in any way I'd like -- thanks, though. The reference that the bot fixes is inconsistent with the first user's intent, which was to remove the population estimate and update it with a decennial census population count.
I've repeatedly brought issues to this bot's owner, and they're also immediately notified whenever I revert the bot's edits. I don't recall that mechanism ever being effective, and don't recall ever receiving a response.
I don't know why when I explain exactly why a bot edit is not an actual issue with the bot, people assume I'm assuming bad faith; I'm not, I'm explaining why it's not a bot issue. I try to avoid superlatives and making people feel better about their concerns because quite honestly I don't like typing out more than I have to (i.e. short-and-to-the-point is my preference).

See User_talk:Bot1058#Talk:Basarabka_and_Moldovanka. The bot has been creating redirects in the talk namespace. Most are benign but just utterly useless blank pages, while several others are actually pages that have been properly deleted per WP:G8. The bot's task listing shows no tasks that would indicate that it should be creating pages. I'm loathe to pblock the bot from the talk: namespace as it actually does useful tasks there, but there's no reason why this should be creating pages, especially ones that have been G8'd. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Worst case solution: I have for some time blocked COIBot from creating pages in mainspace (which it should not do but did) until I figured out why it did that sometimes by creating an edit filter for it. That both resolves the problem ánd logs that the problem occurred while you debug/test/patch. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We have now had two posts in fairly quick succession where the original editor has not contacted the bot operator prior or even left them a note that there was a BOTN discussion open about their bot. Both of the issues likely would have been resolved at that stage and thus not needed to waste the time of those at this noticeboard who have to see a notification about (essentially) a non-issue.

Now, I am not going to fault either of these editors for doing this, because the entirety of our banner guideline regarding the issue is . While I do not think we need to go to the extremes of AN or ANI where the bot operator must be notified, I think we need to make it more clear that the bot operator should be contacted first, and we should really only get a post here if the botop is unresponsive or it's an issue that needs more immediate attention.

If you want to report an issue or bug with a specific bot, follow the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE first

If I'm in the minority here, that's fine, I just see little point to "raising alarm bells" for issues that (so far) can be easily fixed somewhere else. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC) I've been taken to this noticeboard and threatened with a block...
My fault for not checking the bot's page, as I assumed TNT's post on your thread meant that no message was left at all.* We can't necessarily require bot operators to always be responsive within 48 hours, but after that timeframe it's not unreasonable to make a post with more eyes on it.
*I'm really off my game today, I thought the bot post was made 8 Oct not 9 Oct. I think it's time for me to log off and catch my flight now... Primefac (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Last week, two bots that I check on, AdminStatsBot and BernsteinBot, both went off schedule. I checked to see if there was a lag which there wasn't. BernsteinBot started updating but irregularly and it didn't return the regular schedule it had previously maintained with no problems. I posted a note to each bot operator on their user talk pages but neither have been active here in over a month.

But I'm posting here just to see if there was some change or update that would cause both bots to stop updating. Other bots I work with such as AnomeBotIII and SDZeroBot didn't have problems so I'm not sure what is up. Thanks for any information you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know why certain edits from bot accounts show up under Special:RecentChanges when the non-bot filter is selected? Winston (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Row numbers recently went through an RfD due to its inability to display (at all) on the mobile app. I modified it to work correctly on the app again, but this needs changes made to the articles. I wrote a pywikibot script to assist with this in semi-automated fashion, putting the edited articles on the clipboard and opening Firefox at the right page to paste and review. The script works pretty well, after some initial difficulties with finding precisely when to escape equals signs. See for example edits - a couple of the first broke ref tags in a way I didn't initially spot, but after handling them specially in the script, all later edits have been correct.

However, verifying all the articles individually is slow and there are about 100 left. Would this sort of thing be acceptable to run unattended? I'll open a proper BRFA if so. The core part of the current script (which doesn't save anything) is below, based on scripts/ in pywikibot.

What non-talk page discussion pages are there besides those in the Project namespace and the Template:Did you know nominations? This is relevant for bots working on discussion pages such as IndentBot. Winston (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User space has 262 transclusions , FWIW. I don't know why. I don't see any transclusions of that template in other non-talk spaces except for one in Wikipedia space.

For example, ? How is this is "high priority" edit? Archives should usually be off limits to further editing. In this case, it's changing history even if correcting "errors" at the time. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggested substing the date because defaulting to 'now' means that 1 day from today, 10 days from today, the the link will point to a different location in Special:Contributions and that is not likely to make BAG editors happy.