Knowledge talk:Bot policy

5221:) global bots can only run on this wiki for the purpose of fixing double-redirects. I believe that is outdated, because it links to a discussion from 2008 and Meta policies have changed global bots in 2021 to allow running any task that is approved. I think this requires a change on this wiki as well, as otherwise it can be rather confusing. I propose allowing global bots to run here for any approved task, especially since en.wikipedia will be notified when anyone submits a global bot request. After all, this wiki can still instruct any bot not to run here, if required. If not, I recommend adding this wiki to the opt-out set so that global bots are completely disabled (rather than enabled for just one purpose). 2139:. 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, 5133:

projects, especially if they use proprietary code or need to use non-free components. For some projects, there are also security-related reasons to not open source code for the same reasons we have private edit filters. Finally, if there are specific bots that are truly critical and not open source, we should identify those bots and solicit for replacement bots that would be open source, or ask the WMF to write, maintain, and operate replacement bots for those functions. The current policy is well-written.

5082:

inactive all the time. Honestly maybe a proposal to require Toolforge for non-AWB bots might also be worth considering. The combination of open sourced code plus Toolforge would be the ideal situation for rescuing abandoned bots. Finally, we also had a situation recently where an operator passed away and their bot was immediately blocked and globally locked. Avoiding blocking working bots ASAP, giving time for us to properly fork and replace them, might be worth adding to BOTPOL as well. –

2045:, 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. – 206: 1912:, 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. – 21: 2210:, 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. – 174: 1304:, 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. – 4793:, I don't think you need to worry about this. MEATBOT applies to all edits that are "high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make". Even if MASSCREATE ends up on another page, or even if MASSCREATE didn't exist at all, MEATBOT would still apply to the same edits that it does now. 4098: 3501: 5197:

more important. I agree that ideally all code would be open source (keeping any necessary private configuration closed) and with a relatively uniform development and runtime environment, but practically speaking, I don't think English Knowledge can afford to limit its potential pool of developers to that degree.

4931:

Looks ok to me. I expect open source codes for bots as well. It helped with the takeover of the AdminStats task (although we ended up hunting for a copy of the codes in Toolforge itself). However, can the grandfather clause be extended into new task requests of current bots as the new tasks may still

3836:

The goal with MEATBOT is to give the community a chance to intervene. Yes, please, be bold and post some articles. But don't dump hundreds on us; trickle them in at a rate that we can actually manage – and by "manage", we mean "determine whether you're making a mess and we need to stop you". Also,

3796:

I'm also don't think that a hard limit is the way to go here. It's practically guaranteed to encourage gaming, i.e. posting pregenerated articles exactly every 28 minutes. It also doesn't address what I think Headbomb is trying to get at, which is that it's the disruptive outcome that is the problem,

3645:

Your #2 is not a !vote, it's a comment in reply to someone else's !vote. You're the one who limited it to !votes mentioning those specific numbers. AnomieBOT has several tasks that only edit once per day, and in the past had one that only edited once per month, if that can illustrate for you that bot

3466:

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

2012:

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

1907:

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,

5196:

I think the circumstances have to be taken into account. If the bot is going to be a one-time simple task, it's probably less critical to have a succession plan in place. If it's a bot that's going to underpin key workflow processes, then having a plan for ensuring that the task can be handed off is

5102:

This is a good point; as anybody who has ever tried to port anything knows, just having the source code is only half the battle. Moving things to a new operating environment can be a pain too; requiring that everything runs in Toolforge (or Cloud VPS) would be a good thing IMHO. I'm not sure where

3832:

Posting one article every 28 minutes would actually be great. We would actually prefer to have someone post one new article every 28.8 minutes round the clock than 49 articles at 12:01 a.m. and then disappear. Why? Because if the first few turn out to be really bad, we can block you before you've

3527:

You quoted part of the OP's vote in favor of his own proposal, from a sentence that said ""Large-scale" is up for discussion, but I would say anything more than 25 or 50." Every single !vote that mentioned those numbers afterwards specified that this was to be interpreted per day or in a short time

2593:

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

5115:

I think you're underestimating how successive additional requirements hinder attracting new volunteers. It's no big deal to experienced developers, but there is already a lot to navigate as a new developer. Of course, if the goal is to reduce the number of abandoned bots, discouraging new bots will

4904:

to facilitate collaboration and forking. Should an author wish to keep the source code private, they must request an exemption from BAG during the bot approval process. BAG members may decline requests solely on the basis of source code not being open source." And some kind of grandfathering clause

3491:

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

3325:

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

4912:

Some carve outs: I'm sure people can come up with edge cases where publishing code isn't desired; if those turn into actual BRFAs, I'm happy to defer the decision to BAG on whether the exception is justified or not. As a practical matter, I think it would be fine if people make changes, test their

3179:: A human (made of meat, unlike a robot) editor that makes a large amount of repetitive edits from their own account, often with semi-automated tools, much like a bot would. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant if edits are made by actual bots or by meatbots. See also WP:MEATBOT. 2485:

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

1960:

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.

5132:

I'm strongly opposed to the proposed change. The current policy encourages open source without being overly restrictive or discouraging of people submitting requests. As an open source developer, I think that's a good thing. But requiring all bots to be open source could discourage some potential

4996:

We already have agreements like that with some IP proxy detection vendors (I'm being cagey here about the vendor names only because I'm not sure of the status of these relationships). Because they are only (to the best of my knowledge) used as back-ends to some interactive tools, they don't fall

4908:

The rationale being 1) allowing people to suggest improvements for bots or point out possible bugs as a technical review step, and 2) when bots/maintainers inevitably disappear, mandate that there is a path for someone else to take over the bot without starting from scratch. I think the Wikimedia

3747:

There have been many discussions at different wp:notability pages where a common sentiment was avoiding mass creation, but it then gets said "but that is covered elsewhere", so it's important that it really is effectively "covered elsewhere". So another reason is that it's really needed to enable

3329:

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

2967:

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

1892:

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

5248:

Any change to the policy would need consensus for that change, here on the English Knowledge. That discussion could be held here, but would need to be an actual RFC or other widely-advertised and widely-participated in discussion. Personally, I'd want to see more reason to change the policy than

4630:

where they aren't already against consensus or are otherwise disruptive.Also, IMO you'd probably do better to support this, because if this goes through then "The bot policy can't regulate human behavior" and "it makes no sense for human edits to be approved through BRFA" will no longer be valid

1545:

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

1419:

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

5147:

Part of my concern is that if it's necessary to grandfather existing bots, it strongly implies that there would be a chilling effect on future proposals, for both existing and new bots. I’d prefer to start with a review of existing bots to assess their criticality and succession plans, and then

3800:

If anything, I'd go in the other direction. Instead of trying to define mass creation, identify the problems it causes, and shift the guideline to address those. So you'd say that we don't want people to create articles so fast that they overwhelm the ability of other editors to patrol them, or

5236:

Applying for local bot approval here should still be required for bots here, our community and project are huge and expect our bot operators to be engaged here. As far should we kick out all global bots that are doing the task they are already approved for, that doesn't seem to be necessary. —

5081:

I mainly pushed back against this in the above BRFA because I felt it violated current norms. But I am not opposed to it in general if we make a change to BOTPOL. There are major maintainability advantages to having bot code open sourced. Volunteers that write critical code lose interest or go

4625:

people from claiming that a policy about automated edits doesn't apply because their edits are manual boilerplate-filling or whatever by saying that if it looks automated then we can treat it as such regardless. It doesn't actually do anything to make boilerplate-driven manual edits fall under

2134:

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

3336:

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

1733:

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.

2574:

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

4992:

I'm also curious about this, but I do see that allowing for exceptions is a reasonable thing to do. Imagine if somebody came to us and said, "The company I work for has an abuse-detection system that's 10x better than what you're using now. We're willing to let you use it at no cost, but

5017:

continue, else fail" instead of whatever you should be doing with passwords and logins. Or you might be using code from someone else that you got permission to use, but didn't get permission to distribute. Or you may be using closed source code that you purchased, but don't have rights to

4203:

Approval of a bot for mass creation does not override the need for community consensus for the creation itself, nor does community consensus for a creation override the need for approval of the bot itself. Bot operators must ensure that all creations are strictly within the terms of their

3100:

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

3666:

The purpose of MEATBOT is not to prevent people from editing. It's to prevent people from editing so quickly, in such enormous volume, that the rest of us are at risk of having a huge mess to clean up later. One edit per day does not have that risk. Hundreds of edits per hour does.

3382:

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.

2785:

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

3964: 1801: 1477: 1350: 1292: 3337:

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).

4909:

movement has moved in this direction, with requiring open source licenses for bots run on Toolforge (the vast majority of our bots) and there's an abundance of places to post your code. Or in other words, open source should be the norm, private should be an exception.

3182:

Boilerplate editing is bot-like editing. Which, again, for the purpose of dispute resolution, is irrelevant, because if what you're doing is disruptive, you must stop and discuss and get consensus for what you're donig. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

1683:

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?

1387:

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?

3289:

was created specifically because we trouble with an editor trying to claim that the bot policy didn't apply to their bot-like editing because they were completely manually filling in a boilerplate with no automation at all. The intent was to cut the knot with a

3631:". The problem with high-speed editing, no matter what method is being used for it, is that someone can make a huge mess before anyone has a chance to notice. Slow and steady, no matter what method is being used for it, does not have that same risk. 3556:

Considering there were only three such !votes, two of which were opposes, I don't find that a very convincing argument. Meanwhile, a not insignificant number of the comments talk about mass creation needing review without reference to the rate of that

3865:

I agree (and I think few would disagree ) that there must be guidance on non-bot mass creation of articles. Whether we acknowledge that this section in the bot policy also applies to non-bot activity, or have a separate guideline or policy for that.

4200:

Mass page creation may require approval by the community, in addition to a BRFA if the method of that creation falls under this Bot policy. BAG may require that community approval for any mass content creation exists before considering bot approval.

3804:

That also fully detaches it from the bot policy, which I'm more and more convinced it should be. Using bots without approval is already forbidden, for anything. Why do we need to restate that it is extra forbidden for creating lots of articles?

3837:

if you want to dump hundreds in one go, then please determine whether there's consensus first. In theory, if you're going to dump hundreds of articles in one go, and we both want those topics and approve of your content, we'll approve those.

2949:

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

1908:

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

1339: 1281: 5179:

Sorry if the bold came across as harsh, I was following the format of an earlier comment. I appreciate you following up on the discussion to discuss it out in the open which will reduce the odds this is rediscussed in random future BRFAs.

4672:

I think you're trying to sneak in a wording change that tries to make your existing arguments easier to support. As I asked above, let's do this simple RFC first, then you can try to convince the community at large to accept your changes.

5021:

Like, I'll agree it's unequivocally better to have things open sourced. Hence why it should be encouraged. But volunteer coders are an extremely limited resource, so the fewer barriers to entry/participation we have, the better, IMO.

3071:

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.

4993:

unfortunately I cannot make the code available". Having that exception carve-out gives us the ability to accept or refuse that offer as we see fit at the time. Not having that carve-out forces our hand. I think that's reasonable.

4382:

I don't suggest doing this at the same time. (Also, I think it would have to be something like the first and third sentences from the first paragraph, which is a level of complexity that should probably be discussed separately.)

1404:

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.

5148:

consider improvements based on the assessment. Policy changes might be one approach, but I believe that providing encouragements that won't discourage future projects, and can be applied to all bots, would be more effective.

2697:

Even if you place your signature (everything before the timestamp is "the RFC question") after the bold-face question, that's 138 words. I'd rate that as being possible, but still being longer than the average RFC question.

5103:

you draw the line, however. Some people would insist that everything run in a Docker container. That would drive me nuts. Some people would insist that we only use phab, gitlab, and so on. That would also drive me nuts.

3056:

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.

4179:, or some other existing policy. In the interest of this not failing due to lack of consensus for where to put it, if there's not consensus for a specific destination then we'll default to "a new standalone policy page" at 4895:

It is recommended that the source code for adminbots be open, but should the operator elect to keep all or part of the code not publicly visible, they must present such code for review upon request from any BAG member or

1476:– 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 4718:

What I do think is that this is a change from the status quo - I think the language I proposed to Thryduulf would maintain the status quo, while the language I proposed to you would change it in the opposite direction.

2924:

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.

2741:

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

1487:

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

1893:

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.

1332:

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

4067: 4027: 3949: 2555: 5164:

I appreciate the feedback that people have given and will reply a bit later after digesting them, but please, can we avoid the bold votes? I would like to focus on the discussion and rationales not ... voting.

2921:

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.

2113:

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. —

4127:. Approval of a bot for mass creation does not override the need for community consensus for the creation itself, nor does community consensus for a creation override the need for approval of the bot itself. 3497: 1367:

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

4631:

objections to a proposal to strike "automated or semi-automated" from the first sentence (because it will no longer be part of the bot policy), and if you can get that through then you won't have to abuse

3298:

for the original discussion. Possibly some of the arguments in here have gotten things reversed or taken it too far (I'm not feeling up to reading through all of it in enough detail to work that out), but

1928:"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 2315: 2530:

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. –

4108:

Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches or creating the content pages as subpages of a relevant WikiProject to be individually

4946:

I don't see why we should bake 'they must be open, unless you ask for an exception, which we may deny' into policy, rather than the current 'we encourage, but don't mandate, open source bots'.

5069:

promoting the ideals of the Wikimedia movement) to security (code review) to disaster recovery (being able to continue operation of critical services should the original developer disappear).

3597:

plus several more specifically talking about "rapid" editing (e.g., "clicking "save" every 5-10 seconds"). One article per day does not involve clicking "save" every 5 or 10 seconds, even if @

3007:

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.

3801:

create articles without checking that the individual contents and formatting is correct, or create articles from a single source without a strong expectation of notability, that kind of thing.

1328:

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

2272: 1458: 4002:

Should the answer be yes, the following changes to the text of the policy will be made. The intention is to keep the current meaning as far as possible while removing the bits specific to

2097:

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. –

1239:

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

2065:

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.

4538:

no longer applies, and thus there will be no restrictions on the mass creation of articles by methods such as boilerplates, which some editors argue aren’t covered by semi-automated.

5013:

You might not want to put your code up because it's crude/inelegant. You could also be doing things that is "OK" with private code, that isn't OK with public code, like having "if

4512: 1173: 2725: 2370:

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.

3354:

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.

5116:

definitely help. I think it would be better to encourage practices like source code availability, succession plans, etc. with a dashboard, recognition, and other approaches.

3616: 3295: 3427:

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.

3330:

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.

2314:

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,

4884: 4207: 4105:) must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG, that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source. 3725:

This factor is not mentioned in MEATBOT or MASSCREATE, but I assume it would be considered by the community if someone made a proposal under either policy provision.

2682:

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.

1564:

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? –

2678:?" 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 4997:

under BAG's remit. But I could certainly imagine somebody wanting to build a BAGgy tool which uses one of those services as a back end. As much as I believe in

4521:

this passes. I ask uninvolved editors to hat any such discussions if people try to start them here, and closers to disregard any !votes calling for such changes.

4978:: Could you expand on why you don't think it should be done? (I personally don't think we need an exception, I just expected people would oppose it without one) 4916:

So temperature check: how do people feel about this? Is this a reasonable proposal? Or if you would not support something like this being formalized, why not?

4658:. These are bits specific to BOTPOL, and by removing them you ensure that the section you are removing from BOTPOL actually has applicability outside BOTPOL. 2782:

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.

2546:

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

1836:

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

3123:

is. Again, it does not matter if you use an actual bot, semi-automation, or do things fully manually, if what you are doing is disruptive, you must stop.

4900:

I would like to replace it with something like: "Authors of bot processes are expected to publish the source code of their bot in a public manner under an

1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 4031: 4843: 4790: 4720: 4690: 4659: 4587: 4556: 4542: 3446: 3414: 3384: 3036: 3008: 2954: 2639: 2371: 2343: 2276: 2241: 1894: 1777: 1670: 1610:. 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. 1584: 1551: 1516: 1406: 1374: 1240: 1202: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 2606:

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. —

2206:

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

1529:

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). –

3535:

Nobody minds if someone creates one article a day for a month. That never overwhelms review processes. That is never considered bot-like editing.

4913:

code, and then publish it shortly after. I don't think we need a hard requirement that code must be open source before you run it against Knowledge.

3332:

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.

1864:

the method they use to create these undesired stubs is irrelevant. If it's disruptive, it must stop. This should be straightforward to understand.

5287: 3532:

cause the problems that they were trying to solve (e.g., too many articles for the review processes to handle in a single day or bot-like editing).

188: 3768:

It doesn't cover mass creation that doesn't involve a bot or bot-like editing, because it's in the bot policy, and because it explicitly says so (

2342:

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.

1965:

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.

3445:

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.

4757:

removes an implication that it only applies to high-speed editing (since only rapid editing, in her view, is "bot-like") and so want it to say

3744:

Even though it's on the bot page, it's our main or only real rules regarding even non-bot mass creation. (unless I'm a real dummy in that area)

968: 959: 955: 951: 947: 4377: 3520:, that quote wasn't from the proposal. The proposal was very short: "Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require 2779:

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

1373:

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.

5198: 3162:

It does say that editing against consensus (e.g., being disruptive) is unacceptable regardless of the method used to edit against consensus.

2339:

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.

2137:

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

1645:

Yep, there's absolutely no disagreement on that point. My edit added the words "automated and semi-automated" to the section heading, and as

1515:

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?

1277:. 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. 3833:

posted any more. We'd have to clean up (e.g., delete) the handful you've already posted, but we wouldn't have to delete dozens or hundreds.

2029:

Exactly because Primefac and I opposed the change, and I've made the counterproposal in the section below to address the concerns you have.

1344:

clarify that mass-creation through repetitive editing by hand is not different for policy purposes to automated/semi-automated mass-creation

1286:

clarify that mass-creation through repetitive editing by hand is not different for policy purposes to automated/semi-automated mass-creation

1449:. It's fairly clear the community wants to consider mass creation in general, not just automated mass creation, but for historical raisins 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 964: 95: 3413:

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.

4371: 3650:

one of the people who only reads the heading and not the discussion? And I note people can also make a huge mess while editing slowly to

184: 2486:

the section is no longer in scope would be sufficient, since we're only moving accepted policy around, not significantly changing it. –

4340: 3885: 3703:

IMO it's also factored in that if editors are doing some real work on each article that they create, we don't want to discourage that,

1180: 130: 4392: 3554:

Every single !vote that mentioned those numbers afterwards specified that this was to be interpreted per day or in a short time period

4865: 4528: 4300: 3845:

of the fully automated output from its first day: the lead plus two sections amounts to 374 words, and every single fact taken from

1117: 4477: 4348:

I wonder whether moving the top half of MEATBOT should be done at the same time, both are about editing rather than bot policy. --

2946:

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.

4112:

to public facing space after each has been reviewed by human editors. While use of these alternatives does not remove the need for

3929: 2356:

Is your definition of "genuine manual creations" approximately "using completely different wording and sources in each article"?

4413: 4271: 3401:(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) 224: 5157: 4456: 4254: 3965:

Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement#Question 17: Amend WP:MASSCREATE

3224:

Nobody claims MEATBOT if you use the same format ("a boilerplate") to write a single article each day for a year, because that's

2425: 183:

on Knowledge. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review

5125: 4323: 5230: 4796:

One way of looking at this is that if this passes, you'd have two Official™ Policies that you could argue were being violated.

4609:

I disagree that this proposal changes the meaning in that way. The first sentence already maintains the existing wording about

4223: 4647:

At the moment, we have a policy that applies to manual bot-like mass creation, while your proposed change removes that aspect.

2934: 4805: 3476: 3454: 3436: 3422: 3349: 3066: 3044: 3030: 2962: 2379: 2365: 2351: 2327: 2305: 2284: 2267: 914: 910: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 136: 4737:

means that if you can squint hard enough to convince yourself that something is "bot-like" then you can expand the scope of

4506: 2311: 5218: 4019: 3146: 3114: 2201: 2180: 941: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 42: 5189: 5142: 5110: 4874:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4595: 4568: 3877: 3734: 2721:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2221: 2152: 2123: 5097: 3410:- interprets it that way, so can we please stop using that interpretation as a reason it’s problematic? It’s a straw man. 3392: 3377: 3269: 3237: 3206: 3171: 3155:

anything about boilerplates or repetitive tasks. It might be typical to interpret it that way, but it does not actually

3095: 3021:

MASSCREATE doesn't have anything to with "boilerplate articles". That's your idea. It's never been part of the policy.

3016: 2991: 2627: 2615: 2601: 2594:

just how much they want it to cover non-bot mass creations, but if others want to nitpick it to that extent too then 🤷.

2588: 2157:

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.

1974: 1955: 1902: 1633: 5243: 3858: 3816: 2249: 1923: 1695: 1678: 1592: 1575: 1559: 1540: 1524: 1431: 1414: 1399: 1382: 1315: 1248: 4772: 4728: 4710: 4698: 4680: 4667: 4642: 4550: 4085: 3982:

being bent out of shape in the arguments over what sorts of not-entirely-bot mass creations are or can be "covered" by

3688: 3676: 3661: 3640: 3568: 3544: 3511: 3310: 2707: 2689: 2665: 2647: 1714: 1076: 5256: 4969: 4541:

To prevent this proposal from changing the meaning of this section, can we insert "bot-like" into the first sentence?

3763: 3105:

issue, it still doesn't fall under that 25-50 rule, which is specifically about automated or semiautomated editing. —

5212: 5045: 4941: 4429: 3787: 2479: 2454: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 180: 5076: 5008: 4987: 3720: 2541: 2525: 2108: 2088: 1745: 1660: 5270: 5174: 2565: 2024: 2009: 1887: 1728: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 5206: 4741:

to cover clearly human actions, so you want to add "bot-like" to try to bolster that. That's no more correct than

4439:

per the three reasons given by Anomie below. The current situation always seemed like a strange compromise to me.

2497: 2056: 2036: 1827: 1503: 1468: 1222: 4367: 3963:

In the years since we've had various discussions where this has become an issue. Possibly the most prominent was

3552:

You see it as the vote. I see it as a clarification of the proposal. Not everything has to be in the headline. 🤷

3050: 1208: 4854:

should cover non-bot mass creations, by letting them argue for changing the policy to say that directly instead.

4517:

Please don't start trying to discuss any more sweeping changes here. Save those for a separate RFC you can hold

5032: 4956: 4887:, of how people feel about changing the source code requirements. Currently the language in the bot policy is: 4241: 4011: 3901: 3364: 3256: 3193: 3133: 3082: 2978: 2512: 2167: 2075: 1942: 1874: 1620: 1580: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 76: 51: 4824:

Ending the fiction that BAG approves the mass creations. Most of the time we already say "go get consensus at

4715:

I don't think you're actually trying to sneak anything in, but I was a little annoyed by you suggesting I was.

2638:

It’s a good idea. Let’s get this done, and then we can discuss other changes, such as the one proposed below.

2579:. Probably an assumption is built in because of the scope of the BOTPOL, but it would be good to spell out. — 4925: 4689:

that makes the argument harder to support. Because of that, this isn't the simple RfC that I thought it was.

3952:, the community first enacted a restriction on mass creation of articles. The resulting policy was placed in 3211: 1649:

defines bot-like editing is equivalent to automated/semi-automated editing, the meaning remains unaltered. –

391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 125: 27:

This is not the place to request a bot, request approval to run a bot, or to complain about an individual bot

1474:

It's fairly clear the community wants to consider mass creation in general, not just automated mass creation

1358:

It also failed to get a consensus against the proposal. Given that, I don't think it's appropriate to amend

4262:. The current location of this policy is causing issues and this seems like a very simple way to fix that. 4180: 4066:. While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" 2235:

sometimes you get people badgering other users for creating more than 25 articles at once manually, citing

4464:

per Anomie, tho I'm not sure I agree with the wording of the stub, however that can be wordsmithed later.

4035: 3827:

And while we get bad articles every hour of the day, we don't want hundreds more bad articles all at once.

3492:

others did not. An advantage of choosing a quote from the proposal rather than some other comment is that

2791:

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

2670:

I know you think no one will read more than the headline of anything, although why you think even "Should

2143:. :/ In light of all this, I don't quite understand the purpose of the heading change or its reversion. — 1253:

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

4652:

intention is to keep the current meaning as far as possible while removing the bits specific to WP:BOTPOL

4485:

per nom. Makes more sense. The status quo doesn't always have to stay just because it technically works.

2620:

I still think you're over-interpreting it, but I adjusted the wording slightly to try to make you happy.

2255: 116: 1800:

restricts how people can consider ways of handling mass creation? Look at the very close you linked as "

1770:

As you said yourself, you didn't get support for that interpretation when you proposed it just last year

4353: 3956:

since the impetus was mass creation using automated tooling. Even then concern was raised over whether

3326:

to prevent editors from creating more than 50 articles ever – a limit you're coming up on, by the way).

2042: 258: 60: 1150: 1144: 3846: 3294:, and "or large-scale" was specifically included to apply to "slow and steady" bot-like editing. See 2738: 1166: 4749:

is about preventing high-speed editing and nothing else; she might hypothetically say that removing

5185: 5153: 5138: 5121: 4891:

Authors of bot processes are encouraged, but not required, to publish the source code of their bot.

4883:

I would like to do a temperature check (explicitly not an RfC) as a follow-up to the discussion at

4534:

Reading this again, my concern is that the wording you use, and the removal from BOTPOL, will mean

4309: 4284: 4176: 3842: 1329: 1195: 214: 3651: 2468:. Anyone have comments before I post it somewhere? Opinions as to whether we should do it here or 5092: 5065:

Requiring bots to be open source seems like a good idea to me for reasons ranging from cultural (

3496:

that everyone should have read (even if they didn't).Also you probably shouldn't be ignoring the

1362:

to exclude that interpretation when there wasn't a consensus that it is the wrong interpretation.

4175:

Should the answer be yes, I don't much care if the destination is a new standalone policy page,

1125: 1063: 4801: 4724: 4694: 4663: 4591: 4546: 4388: 4296: 3854: 3730: 3672: 3636: 3540: 3472: 3450: 3432: 3418: 3388: 3345: 3233: 3167: 3062: 3040: 3026: 3012: 2958: 2930: 2703: 2661: 2643: 2375: 2361: 2347: 2323: 2301: 2280: 2263: 2245: 1970: 1898: 1674: 1603: 1588: 1555: 1520: 1410: 1378: 1244: 541: 192: 154: 33: 4186:

The bot policy will retain a stub referring to the new policy. The existing redirects such as

3709:. No exact minimum, but something more than a stub from a database or database-like source. 3217:

Nobody claims MEATBOT if you find and fix the same typo once a day for a year, because that's

1820:

getting bent out of shape when people like you and BilledMammal argue over non-bot creations.

5226: 4471: 4409: 3873: 3759: 3716: 3176: 3049:

Automated and semi-automated article creation does not have to use a boilerplate. (See also

2941: 4851: 4832: 4750: 4627: 4288: 4187: 4160: 4142:-content pages (such as redirects from systematic names, or maintenance categories) is not 4124: 4059: 3995: 3991: 3983: 3953: 3942: 3938: 3887: 3001: 2938: 2675: 2671: 2465: 2236: 2207: 1909: 1845: 1797: 1793: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1359: 1229: 977: 228: 80: 5001:

everywhere, I also wouldn't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot to stand on principle.

3646:

editing doesn't have to be fast. As for the section heading, are you trying to prove that

3151:

Headbomb, I quoted the relevant sentence from MEATBOT for you. MEATBOT does not actually

1510:

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

8: 5181: 5149: 5134: 5117: 4937: 4878: 4564: 4333: 4267: 4043: 3107: 2608: 2581: 2502:

I don't see what's to be gained by separating it from botpol. It's clearly bot-related.

2296:

Manual edits can be boilerplate, just like automated edits don't have to be boilerplate.

2194: 2145: 2116: 1857: 1781: 928: 106: 4016:

Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved

343: 5266: 5107: 5083: 5073: 5028: 5005: 4952: 4604: 4448: 4237: 3919: 3360: 3252: 3189: 3129: 3078: 2974: 2508: 2334: 2163: 2071: 1938: 1870: 1764: 1724: 1702: 1616: 1607: 528: 146: 121: 4280: 1719:

Agreed. If the meaning remains unaltered, then there is no reason to make the change.

1348:

make getting consensus for creation prior to mass creation per WP:MASSCREATE mandatory

1290:

make getting consensus for creation prior to mass creation per WP:MASSCREATE mandatory

5170: 4983: 4921: 4847: 4797: 4746: 4742: 4734: 4632: 4614: 4535: 4424: 4384: 4318: 4292: 4154: 4133: 4063: 4047: 3979: 3850: 3811: 3782: 3726: 3668: 3632: 3536: 3468: 3428: 3341: 3286: 3229: 3163: 3120: 3102: 3058: 3022: 2926: 2699: 2657: 2551: 2536: 2492: 2357: 2319: 2297: 2259: 2216: 2103: 2051: 2019: 1966: 1918: 1861: 1853: 1841: 1817: 1740: 1690: 1655: 1646: 1570: 1547: 1535: 1498: 1426: 1394: 1325: 1310: 1301: 1233: 1217: 1156: 102: 2953:

I’ve also split this into a seperate section, to avoid derailing Anomie’s proposal.

1324:, and the final paragraph, as the exception that proves the rule, demonstrates that 894: 5253: 5222: 5202: 5040: 4964: 4862: 4769: 4754: 4738: 4707: 4677: 4639: 4525: 4465: 4249: 4220: 4123:

Mass creation by automated means may additionally require approval as specified by

4039: 4003: 3975: 3968: 3926: 3891: 3685: 3658: 3565: 3508: 3460: 3372: 3307: 3264: 3201: 3141: 3090: 2986: 2686: 2624: 2598: 2562: 2547: 2520: 2476: 2451: 2175: 2083: 2033: 1962: 1950: 1882: 1849: 1824: 1813: 1805: 1711: 1628: 1465: 4287:– perhaps one calling ==Creating articles== that mostly contains a sentence about 3681:🤷 Well, you're free to believe whatever you want, no matter how wrong it may be. 4055: 3407: 457: 4703:

Well, you too are free to believe what you want, no matter how wrong it may be.

4291:, and then the current wording (with these minor adjustments) as a subsection. 4095:

must ensure that all creations are strictly within the terms of their approval.

3301:

It has nothing to do with the edits being "boilerplate" or repetitive in any way

2656:, I think that the RFC question may be so long that many editors won't read it. 5036: 4960: 4933: 4560: 4263: 4245: 4109: 3957: 3521: 3442: 3368: 3260: 3197: 3137: 3086: 2997: 2982: 2516: 2171: 2140: 2079: 1946: 1929: 1878: 1624: 1274: 1232:

applies to all mass creations, even when automation is not used - for example,

1054: 919: 448: 1137: 1121: 1059: 973: 924: 890: 524: 453: 339: 5281: 5262: 5238: 5104: 5070: 5024: 5002: 4975: 4948: 4835:

should apply to non-bots off of this page, which is supposed to be about the

4825: 4815: 4501: 4441: 4233: 4102: 4051: 3960:

was the right forum for this, but at the time "good enough" carried the day.

3598: 3528:

period. I think this was specified precisely because "slow and steady" does

3356: 3248: 3185: 3125: 3074: 2970: 2504: 2469: 2275:, and looking at a few of those they weren’t manual - they were boilerplate. 2159: 2067: 1934: 1866: 1773: 1720: 1640: 1612: 1492:

applies to automated edits, using words copied verbatim from that section? –

4418:

This proposal already includes a written-out version of the split policy. –

5166: 4979: 4917: 4419: 4313: 3806: 3777: 2694:

Your sandbox contains 730 words, which is more than most editors will read.

2531: 2487: 2228: 2211: 2098: 2046: 2014: 1913: 1735: 1685: 1650: 1565: 1530: 1493: 1421: 1389: 1305: 1212: 3602: 3004:

made it hard for the community to enforce and thus address the IDHT issue.

225:"Twitter has a serious bot problem, and Knowledge might have the solution" 5250: 4859: 4766: 4704: 4674: 4636: 4522: 4217: 3923: 3838: 3682: 3655: 3562: 3517: 3505: 3304: 3296:

WT:Bot policy/Archive 24#Clarification regarding high-speed human editing

2968:

made sure to edit at "X-1/time period", so MASSCREATION doesn't apply!"

2726: 2683: 2653: 2621: 2595: 2559: 2473: 2448: 2293:

between 18.44 and 18.47 is a much a higher frequency than 25-50 per day".

2030: 2003: 1821: 1708: 1462: 1141: 1273:

The (only) requirement created by this section is to seek permission at

187:

before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to

4611:

Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task

3922:. But if someone really disagrees for some reason, 🤷 revert I guess. 3119:"behaving like a human who used a boilerplate", that's exactly what a 4618: 4183:

and people can start a separate merge discussion later if they want.

3291: 3246:

what bot-like editing is. That it's happening slowly is irrelevant.

2743: 1785: 3918:

Support seems overwhelming enough that I'm not going to worry about

2550:. So some have used that as an objection, and others try to stretch 4487: 3611:

what bot-like editing is. That it's happening slowly is irrelevant.

1772:

No, I said I didn't get much discussion at all. More specifically,

1445:

This always seems to get in the way when people start arguing over

1211:

further? I don't understand what you wrote in your edit summary. –

1139: 1123: 1061: 975: 926: 892: 526: 455: 341: 4901: 4763:

large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task

3776:). This has been discussed at great length recently; see above. – 1792:

Have you read through the actual discussions, with an eye for how

1784:

refused to consider it outside the context of a full rewrite, and

1606:

applies to all mass creation of articles, both from bots and from

205: 4828:

first", and then rubber-stamp it if the bot itself passes trials.

2731: 4072:

It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that

4101:, all mass-created articles (except those not required to meet 3627:

human editing" or even "Clarification of human editing that is

2318:

for that date finds only 22, and six of those are redirects.

1550:

mass creation of content pages is required to go through BRFA.

1126: 1064: 978: 929: 895: 529: 458: 344: 179:

The project page associated with this talk page is an official

2732:

50_articles_per_day-Mass_creation_section-20240708011100": -->

2727:

50_articles_per_day-Mass_creation_section-20240708011100": -->

1127: 1065: 979: 930: 896: 530: 459: 345: 3841:

created a lot of articles with the consent of the community;

3605:

that something as small and slow as fixing one typo each day

3550:

You quoted part of the OP's vote in favor of his own proposal

3615:

Note, too, the section heading you linked above, which was "

1838:"X is a fictional small village in the Chronicles of Narnia. 1810:

I think if you guys want MASSCREATE to apply to all articles

1665:

In that case, can I propose a compromise? Title the section

173: 4998: 3824:

The articles might be bad (e.g., non-notable, even hoaxes).

2846:

While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided,

2802:

While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided,

4119:, it may garner more support from the community at large. 4283:. I lean slightly towards adding it as a new section in 3504:(with much more nuance than this proposal) was rejected. 1707:

Ugh. Please let's not make a long and confusing heading.

3463:

and an RFC, called "forming consensus on the talk page".

1667:

Mass automated, semi-automated, or meatbot page creation

1546:

exception that proves the rule, makes it clear that the

1669:. "meatbot" could perhaps be replaced with "bot-like". 1482:

human editing falls outside of the scope of bot policy

3967:, where three of the seven "oppose" bullets hinge on 2577:

Mass page creation requires approval by the community

2289:

I specifically refer to the statement that "creating

1151: 1145: 3900:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

2440:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1788:

took it on a bit of a tangent. No one else replied.

71: 49:

To report malfunctioning bots, follow the advice in

3910:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3629:

repetitive but happening at an average manual speed

2141:

we didn't do so well at figuring that out last time

1457:and so it has to be "about" bots in some manner. I 1443:

It's part of the bot policy, not the editing policy

1256:

It's part of the bot policy, not the editing policy

3592:"more than 50 articles in a short amount of time". 2774:"more than 50 articles in a short amount of time". 4088:and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. 3741:I think that two reasons for attention this are: 1480:specifically noting opposition on the basis that 5279: 5217:Hi, currently the global bots policy says that ( 4312:, per WAID, Anome, and what I've said above. – 2746:out of the 2009 RFC, there were other options: 2575:creation" and summarized it with a line saying 2558:there was concern over restricting it to bots. 2556:the original proposal that created this section 2093:BilledMammal's original suggestion was indeed " 1804:", three of the seven oppose bullets hinge on " 4559:where specifically do you propose to add it? 3913:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 3574:Considering there were only three such !votes 2443:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1174: 2996:The Lugnuts situation came from two issues; 2312:that editor's non-redirect article creations 1461:, but few were interested in discussing it. 3035:Falls under MEATBOT and/or semi-automated. 1269:any large-scale content page creation task 58:To discuss something else bot-related, see 5219:Knowledge:Global_rights_policy#Global_bots 4196:Knowledge:Mass page creation (or whatever) 3406:I don’t think anyone - who isn’t making a 1812:Personally I don't care. I'm just sick of 1181: 1167: 4513:Discussion (sever MASSCREATE from BOTPOL) 4331:as a step towards making this clearer. — 4195: 3589:"more than 50 articles in a short period" 2771:"more than 50 articles in a short period" 1932:. And that's why he's now indef banned. 4402:Now comes the hard part.....writing it. 4231:but I don't see the point, personally. 2043:consensus comes from reasoned discussion 52:Knowledge:Bot policy#Dealing with issues 5288:Knowledge pages referenced by the press 3772:large-scale automated or semi-automated 5280: 3748:evolution of wp:notability guidelines. 2188:- The problem is, some users consider 40:To request approval to run a bot, see 31:To request that a bot be created, see 4820:I see at least three points to this: 4654:, it would make more sense to remove 4144:required to go through a formal BRFA 3559:is never considered bot-like editing. 3000:, and because the lack of clarity in 2013:for it would be, which I answered. – 4150:covered by this mass creation policy 4020:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval 2768:"clicking "save" every 5-10 seconds" 2434:The following discussion is closed. 2192:fast article creation disruptive. — 200: 168: 43:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval 15: 4765:to "preserve" that interpretation. 4687:trying to sneak in a wording change 4208:Poll (sever MASSCREATE from BOTPOL) 3467:to, which is not always the case). 2417:CS LEWIS "The Chronicles of Narnia" 2256:User talk:Markussep#WP:MASSCREATION 79:for discussing improvements to the 13: 3502:Question 3 focusing on rate limits 2554:to somehow make it apply. Even in 1808:can't regulate non-bot behavior". 14: 5299: 4932:utilise the closed-source codes. 4030:, but has since been expanded to 3212:Knowledge:Bots/Dictionary#meatbot 215:mentioned by a media organization 4905:for current closed source bots. 4870:The discussion above is closed. 2717:The discussion above is closed. 223:Robert Gorwa (23 October 2017). 204: 172: 96:Click here to start a new topic. 19: 4733:You've convinced yourself that 4058:hosted on Knowledge, mainspace 4038:pages designed to be viewed by 3986:. Thus I propose the question: 3974:Personally I'm tired of seeing 3441:We do, because any substantial 3051:Knowledge:Large language models 2729:Defining mass creation as : --> 1459:suggested changing that in 2023 5271:13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 5257:12:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 5244:09:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 5231:06:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 5213:Update the global bots section 4012:Knowledge:Bot-created articles 2411: 2240:, can you give some examples? 1581:Exception that proves the rule 185:policy editing recommendations 1: 5207:23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5190:22:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5175:21:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5158:22:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5143:21:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5126:20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5111:17:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5098:16:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5077:12:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5046:19:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5009:16:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 4988:15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 4970:10:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 4942:04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 4926:03:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 4281:three practical reasons below 4028:initially applied to articles 2749:"anything more than 25 or 50" 93:Put new text under old text. 4831:Getting arguments about how 4181:Knowledge:Mass page creation 3797:not exactly how it happened. 1340:proposal to amend MASSCREATE 1282:proposal to amend MASSCREATE 7: 4656:automated or semi-automated 4086:WP:Village pump (proposals) 4032:include all "content pages" 3945:? 23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 3930:23:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3774:content page creation task 3459:There's a stage in between 1840:, you can block them under 1265:content page creation task 1263:automated or semi-automated 101:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 5304: 4193: 4009: 1207:Would you mind explaining 1077:Bot Approvals Group (talk) 213:This policy page has been 144: 61:Knowledge:Bots/Noticeboard 4806:03:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4773:02:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4729:01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4711:01:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4699:01:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4681:01:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4668:00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4596:00:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4574:Any large-scale automated 4507:22:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 4478:20:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 4457:06:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC) 4430:11:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC) 4414:20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 4393:04:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 4378:18:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4341:13:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4324:12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 4301:04:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3859:00:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3735:00:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3689:01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3677:00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3662:00:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3641:00:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3623:", not "Clarification of 2942:50_articles_per_day": --> 2939:50_articles_per_day": --> 2935:50_articles_per_day": --> 2739:50_articles_per_day": --> 2426:Kicking it out of botpol? 2254:Or even three articles: 1322:all mass-created articles 1228:My understanding is that 131:Be welcoming to newcomers 4872:Please do not modify it. 4866:23:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4643:23:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4569:23:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4551:23:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4529:23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4310:Knowledge:Editing policy 4285:Knowledge:Editing policy 4279:as I think Anomie gives 4272:23:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4255:23:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4224:23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 4159:other policies, such as 3907:Please do not modify it. 3878:13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 3843:here's a typical example 3817:11:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 3788:11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 3764:19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3721:19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3617:Clarification regarding 3579:"25-50 articles per day" 3569:23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3545:17:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3512:11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3477:02:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3455:02:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3437:02:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3423:02:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3393:02:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3378:01:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3350:01:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3311:23:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3270:18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3238:17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3207:17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3172:17:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3147:14:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3115:12:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3096:08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3067:02:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3045:02:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3031:02:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3017:01:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2992:01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2963:01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2936:01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2758:"25-50 articles per day" 2719:Please do not modify it. 2708:17:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2690:11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2666:01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2648:02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2628:23:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2616:12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2602:16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2589:14:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2566:16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2542:14:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2526:13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2498:13:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2480:13:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2455:23:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2437:Please do not modify it. 2380:05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2366:05:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2352:04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2328:04:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2306:04:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2285:03:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2268:03:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2250:02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2222:14:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2202:14:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2181:14:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2153:14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2124:14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2109:14:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2089:14:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2057:14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2037:13:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2025:13:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1975:03:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 1956:14:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1924:13:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1903:12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1888:12:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1828:11:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1802:failed to gain consensus 1746:12:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1729:12:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1715:11:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1696:11:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1679:11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1661:11:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1634:11:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1593:12:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1576:11:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1560:11:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1541:11:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1525:11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1504:11:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1469:10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1432:11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1415:11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1400:11:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1383:10:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1351:failed to gain consensus 1316:09:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1302:bot-like edits by humans 1293:failed to gain consensus 1249:09:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 1223:09:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 519:Pre-2007 archived under 3971:being the wrong place. 2464:I've drafted an RFC at 4685:At the moment, you're 4581:semi-automated content 3403: 2310:I went through all of 2273:I think you miscounted 1512: 1370: 1355: 189:keep cool when editing 126:avoid personal attacks 34:Knowledge:Bot requests 4846:from having to abuse 4745:insisting above that 3399: 2316:Special:Contributions 1508: 1478:the closing statement 1365: 1336: 1196:Mass creation section 1053:Newer discussions at 918:Newer discussions at 447:Newer discussions at 5067:supporting the goals 5015:password = sw0rdf!sh 4289:Knowledge:Notability 4190:will be retargeted. 4161:Knowledge:Bot policy 4125:Knowledge:Bot policy 2466:User:Anomie/Sandbox2 251:Bot-related archives 4902:open source license 4893:and for adminbots: 4621:, it's supposed to 4026:. This requirement 3902:request for comment 3652:fly under the radar 3494:it was the proposal 2755:"in a rapid manner" 2730:50 articles per day 965:Categorized Archive 907:Bot requests (talk) 4585:page creation task 3999: 3821:The problems are: 3561:Did I say it was? 3228:bot-like editing. 3214:is not the policy. 2447:RFC posted below. 2186:if it's disruptive 137:dispute resolution 98: 5096: 4617:is really just a 4608: 4428: 4376: 4361: 4357: 4351: 4322: 4177:WP:Editing policy 3989: 3847:a single database 3815: 3786: 3586:articles per day" 3333: 3221:bot-like editing. 2918: 2917: 2765:articles per day" 2540: 2496: 2338: 2220: 2135:mass-mistakes is 2107: 2055: 2023: 1922: 1768: 1744: 1706: 1694: 1659: 1574: 1539: 1502: 1430: 1398: 1330:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 1314: 1300:It does apply to 1221: 1191: 1190: 1153: 1147: 1057:since April 2021 971: 922:since April 2021 471:Bot policy (talk) 451:since April 2021 246: 245: 199: 198: 167: 166: 117:Assume good faith 94: 70: 69: 5295: 5241: 5090: 5088: 5044: 4968: 4879:Open source bots 4819: 4650:Considering the 4602: 4505: 4504: 4498: 4497: 4494: 4491: 4474: 4453: 4452: 4446: 4445: 4422: 4364: 4359: 4355: 4349: 4338: 4336: 4316: 4253: 4130:Note that while 4084:be solicited at 4046:. These include 4024:by the community 3994:be severed from 3941:be severed from 3909: 3809: 3780: 3612: 3585: 3576:, I count four: 3575: 3376: 3331: 3268: 3205: 3145: 3112: 3110: 3094: 2990: 2943: 2940: 2795: 2794: 2764: 2752:"rapid creation" 2740: 2733: 2728: 2674:be severed from 2613: 2611: 2586: 2584: 2534: 2524: 2490: 2439: 2418: 2415: 2332: 2232: 2214: 2199: 2197: 2179: 2150: 2148: 2121: 2119: 2101: 2087: 2049: 2017: 2007: 1954: 1916: 1886: 1839: 1762: 1738: 1700: 1688: 1653: 1644: 1632: 1568: 1533: 1496: 1424: 1392: 1308: 1270: 1261:any large-scale 1215: 1206: 1183: 1176: 1169: 1157: 1154: 1148: 1128: 1066: 980: 967: 931: 897: 531: 460: 346: 248: 247: 238: 236: 235: 208: 201: 176: 169: 157: 72: 23: 22: 16: 5303: 5302: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5278: 5277: 5239: 5215: 5084: 5023: 4947: 4881: 4876: 4875: 4813: 4762: 4515: 4500: 4495: 4492: 4489: 4488: 4486: 4472: 4450: 4449: 4443: 4442: 4334: 4332: 4232: 4210: 4205: 4198: 4173: 4171: 4168: 4164: 4157: 4151: 4148: 4137: 4128: 4118: 4115: 4094: 4091: 4083: 4080:ommunity input 4079: 4076: 4073: 4068:was not opposed 4050:, most visible 4036:broadly meaning 4025: 4022: 4014: 3947: 3932: 3905: 3895: 3625:slow and steady 3606: 3583: 3573: 3355: 3247: 3184: 3124: 3108: 3106: 3073: 2969: 2914: 2913: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2902: 2900: 2897: 2895: 2892: 2890: 2887: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2867: 2863: 2860: 2858: 2855: 2852: 2849: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2832: 2829: 2826: 2823: 2820: 2818: 2814: 2811: 2808: 2805: 2762: 2735: 2723: 2722: 2609: 2607: 2582: 2580: 2503: 2462: 2435: 2428: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2416: 2412: 2226: 2195: 2193: 2158: 2146: 2144: 2117: 2115: 2066: 2001: 1933: 1865: 1837: 1638: 1611: 1604:WP:MASSCREATION 1268: 1200: 1198: 1187: 1158: 1149: 1143: 1140: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1124: 1118:BAG Nominations 1079: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1062: 991: 983: 982: 981: 976: 944: 934: 933: 932: 927: 908: 900: 899: 898: 893: 544: 534: 533: 532: 527: 473: 463: 462: 461: 456: 357: 349: 348: 347: 342: 261: 242: 241: 233: 231: 222: 218: 163: 162: 161: 160: 153: 149: 142: 112: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5301: 5291: 5290: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5249:given so far. 5246: 5214: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5182:Daniel Quinlan 5162: 5161: 5160: 5150:Daniel Quinlan 5135:Daniel Quinlan 5130: 5129: 5128: 5118:Daniel Quinlan 5113: 5079: 5062:Strong support 5057: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5019: 4994: 4896:administrator. 4880: 4877: 4869: 4856: 4855: 4850:to argue that 4840: 4829: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4794: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4760: 4716: 4648: 4624: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4539: 4514: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4480: 4459: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4343: 4335:Rhododendrites 4326: 4303: 4274: 4257: 4226: 4209: 4206: 4194:Main article: 4192: 4169: 4166: 4158: 4153: 4149: 4143: 4131: 4122: 4116: 4113: 4099:Per a 2022 RfC 4092: 4089: 4081: 4077: 4074: 4071: 4023: 4017: 4008: 3934: 3933: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3896: 3894: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3834: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3825: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3745: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3706:and vice versa 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3613: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3590: 3587: 3580: 3533: 3525: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3464: 3411: 3404: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3334: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3222: 3215: 3180: 3160: 3109:Rhododendrites 3054: 3005: 2951: 2947: 2922: 2916: 2915: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2903: 2901: 2898: 2896: 2893: 2891: 2888: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2868: 2865: 2861: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2850: 2847: 2845: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2827: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2816: 2812: 2809: 2806: 2803: 2801: 2799: 2793: 2792: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2766: 2759: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2734: 2724: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2695: 2650: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2610:Rhododendrites 2583:Rhododendrites 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2544: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2430: 2429: 2427: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2340: 2308: 2294: 2291:three articles 2196:Rhododendrites 2147:Rhododendrites 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2118:Rhododendrites 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1926: 1782:Rhododendrites 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1698: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1513: 1485: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1371: 1363: 1356: 1334: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1278: 1271: 1257: 1237: 1236:mass creation. 1197: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1186: 1185: 1178: 1171: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1152:Wikipedia_talk 1142: 1138: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1080: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1060: 1058: 1052: 1032: 992: 989: 988: 985: 984: 974: 972: 969:(All subpages) 962: 945: 940: 939: 936: 935: 925: 923: 917: 909: 906: 905: 902: 901: 891: 889: 865: 825: 785: 745: 705: 665: 625: 585: 545: 540: 539: 536: 535: 525: 523: 518: 514: 474: 469: 468: 465: 464: 454: 452: 446: 438: 398: 358: 355: 354: 351: 350: 340: 338: 302: 262: 257: 256: 253: 252: 244: 243: 240: 239: 219: 212: 211: 209: 197: 196: 177: 165: 164: 159: 158: 150: 145: 143: 141: 140: 133: 128: 119: 113: 111: 110: 99: 90: 89: 86: 85: 84: 68: 67: 66: 65: 56: 47: 38: 24: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5300: 5289: 5286: 5285: 5283: 5272: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5255: 5252: 5247: 5245: 5242: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5228: 5224: 5220: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5195: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5172: 5168: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5151: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5140: 5136: 5131: 5127: 5123: 5119: 5114: 5112: 5109: 5106: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5094: 5089: 5087: 5086:Novem Linguae 5080: 5078: 5075: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5063: 5059: 5058: 5047: 5042: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5026: 5020: 5016: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5007: 5004: 5000: 4995: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4939: 4935: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4923: 4919: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4903: 4898: 4897: 4892: 4888: 4886: 4873: 4868: 4867: 4864: 4861: 4853: 4852:WP:MASSCREATE 4849: 4845: 4841: 4838: 4834: 4833:WP:MASSCREATE 4830: 4827: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4817: 4807: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4792: 4788: 4774: 4771: 4768: 4764: 4756: 4752: 4751:WP:MASSCREATE 4748: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4717: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4709: 4706: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4679: 4676: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4641: 4638: 4634: 4629: 4628:WP:MASSCREATE 4622: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4606: 4605:edit conflict 4601: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4586: 4584: 4583:, or bot-like 4580: 4577: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4537: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4527: 4524: 4520: 4508: 4503: 4499: 4484: 4481: 4479: 4475: 4469: 4468: 4463: 4460: 4458: 4455: 4454: 4447: 4438: 4435: 4431: 4426: 4421: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4406: 4401: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4375: 4373: 4369: 4363: 4362: 4347: 4344: 4342: 4337: 4330: 4327: 4325: 4320: 4315: 4311: 4308:moving it to 4307: 4304: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4275: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4258: 4256: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4230: 4227: 4225: 4222: 4219: 4216:As proposer. 4215: 4212: 4211: 4202: 4197: 4191: 4189: 4188:WP:MASSCREATE 4184: 4182: 4178: 4162: 4156: 4147: 4141: 4135: 4129: 4126: 4120: 4111: 4106: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4090:Bot operators 4087: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4021: 4013: 4007: 4005: 4000: 3997: 3996:WP:Bot policy 3993: 3992:WP:MASSCREATE 3987: 3985: 3984:WP:MASSCREATE 3981: 3977: 3972: 3970: 3966: 3961: 3959: 3955: 3954:WP:Bot policy 3951: 3946: 3944: 3943:WP:Bot policy 3940: 3939:WP:MASSCREATE 3931: 3928: 3925: 3921: 3914: 3911: 3908: 3903: 3898: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3888:WP:MASSCREATE 3879: 3875: 3871: 3870: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3835: 3831: 3826: 3823: 3822: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3813: 3808: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3789: 3784: 3779: 3775: 3773: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3756: 3752: 3746: 3743: 3742: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3713: 3708: 3707: 3702: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3621:human editing 3620: 3614: 3610: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3591: 3588: 3581: 3578: 3577: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3567: 3564: 3560: 3555: 3551: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3531: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3510: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3490: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3409: 3405: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3340: 3335: 3328: 3324: 3312: 3309: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3293: 3288: 3285: 3271: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3245: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3220: 3216: 3213: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3181: 3178: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3122: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3111: 3104: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3003: 3002:WP:MASSCREATE 2999: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2945: 2944: 2937: 2932: 2928: 2923: 2920: 2919: 2844: 2841: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2790: 2784: 2781: 2780: 2778: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2760: 2757: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2747: 2745: 2737: 2736: 2720: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676:WP:Bot policy 2673: 2672:WP:MASSCREATE 2669: 2668: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2612: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2585: 2578: 2573: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2543: 2538: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2494: 2489: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2478: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2456: 2453: 2450: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2441: 2438: 2432: 2431: 2414: 2410: 2407: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2336: 2335:edit conflict 2331: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237:WP:MASSCREATE 2230: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2218: 2213: 2209: 2208:WP:MASSCREATE 2205: 2204: 2203: 2198: 2191: 2187: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2149: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2125: 2120: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2105: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2064: 2063: 2058: 2053: 2048: 2044: 2041:As you know, 2040: 2039: 2038: 2035: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2016: 2011: 2005: 2000: 1999: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1925: 1920: 1915: 1911: 1910:WP:MASSCREATE 1906: 1905: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1846:WP:MASSCREATE 1843: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798:WP:Bot policy 1795: 1794:WP:MASSCREATE 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1766: 1765:edit conflict 1761: 1747: 1742: 1737: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1704: 1703:edit conflict 1699: 1697: 1692: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1657: 1652: 1648: 1642: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1572: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1537: 1532: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1500: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455:WP:Bot policy 1452: 1451:WP:MASSCREATE 1448: 1447:WP:MASSCREATE 1444: 1441: 1433: 1428: 1423: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1396: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1364: 1361: 1360:WP:MASSCREATE 1357: 1354: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1320:It also says 1319: 1318: 1317: 1312: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1276: 1272: 1266: 1264: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1230:WP:MASSCREATE 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1204: 1193: 1184: 1179: 1177: 1172: 1170: 1165: 1164: 1162: 1161: 1135: 1134: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1056: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 987: 986: 970: 966: 961: 957: 953: 949: 943: 938: 937: 921: 916: 912: 904: 903: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 543: 538: 537: 522: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 472: 467: 466: 450: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 353: 352: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 260: 255: 254: 250: 249: 230: 226: 221: 220: 216: 210: 207: 203: 202: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 175: 171: 170: 156: 152: 151: 148: 138: 134: 132: 129: 127: 123: 120: 118: 115: 114: 108: 104: 103:Learn to edit 100: 97: 92: 91: 88: 87: 82: 78: 74: 73: 63: 62: 57: 54: 53: 48: 45: 44: 39: 36: 35: 30: 29: 28: 25: 18: 17: 5216: 5085: 5066: 5061: 5060: 5014: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4899: 4894: 4890: 4889: 4882: 4871: 4857: 4844:BilledMammal 4836: 4812: 4798:WhatamIdoing 4791:BilledMammal 4758: 4743:WhatamIdoing 4721:BilledMammal 4691:BilledMammal 4686: 4660:BilledMammal 4655: 4651: 4610: 4588:BilledMammal 4582: 4578: 4575: 4573: 4557:BilledMammal 4543:BilledMammal 4518: 4516: 4482: 4466: 4461: 4440: 4436: 4404: 4403: 4399: 4385:WhatamIdoing 4365: 4360:isinterested 4352: 4345: 4328: 4305: 4293:WhatamIdoing 4276: 4259: 4228: 4213: 4199: 4185: 4174: 4145: 4139: 4138:creation of 4121: 4107: 4097: 4042:through the 4015: 4001: 3988: 3973: 3962: 3950:Back in 2009 3948: 3936: 3912: 3906: 3899: 3868: 3867: 3851:WhatamIdoing 3771: 3769: 3754: 3753: 3727:WhatamIdoing 3711: 3710: 3705: 3704: 3669:WhatamIdoing 3647: 3633:WhatamIdoing 3628: 3624: 3618: 3608: 3558: 3553: 3549: 3537:WhatamIdoing 3529: 3493: 3469:WhatamIdoing 3447:BilledMammal 3429:WhatamIdoing 3415:BilledMammal 3400: 3385:BilledMammal 3342:WhatamIdoing 3338: 3300: 3243: 3230:WhatamIdoing 3225: 3218: 3164:WhatamIdoing 3156: 3152: 3059:WhatamIdoing 3037:BilledMammal 3023:WhatamIdoing 3009:BilledMammal 2955:BilledMammal 2927:WhatamIdoing 2718: 2700:WhatamIdoing 2679: 2658:WhatamIdoing 2640:BilledMammal 2576: 2463: 2442: 2436: 2433: 2413: 2405: 2372:BilledMammal 2358:WhatamIdoing 2344:BilledMammal 2320:WhatamIdoing 2298:WhatamIdoing 2290: 2277:BilledMammal 2260:WhatamIdoing 2242:BilledMammal 2234: 2189: 2185: 2136: 2094: 1967:WhatamIdoing 1895:BilledMammal 1860:... and per 1858:WP:CONSENSUS 1809: 1789: 1778:BilledMammal 1769: 1671:BilledMammal 1666: 1585:BilledMammal 1552:BilledMammal 1517:BilledMammal 1509: 1489: 1481: 1473: 1442: 1407:BilledMammal 1375:BilledMammal 1366: 1347: 1343: 1337: 1321: 1289: 1285: 1262: 1260: 1259:It says so: 1241:BilledMammal 1203:BilledMammal 1199: 1192: 963:New format: 946:Old format: 542:Bot requests 520: 470: 232:. Retrieved 75:This is the 59: 50: 41: 32: 26: 5223:Leaderboard 5018:distribute. 4934:– robertsky 4229:Not against 4060:editnotices 3920:WP:INVOLVED 3886:RFC: Sever 1963:Dr. Blofeld 1790:is it? How? 1780:supported, 1608:WP:MEATBOTS 1209:this revert 990:BRFA (talk) 521:Bots (talk) 356:Bots (talk) 259:Noticeboard 193:don't panic 4848:WP:MEATBOT 4761:high-speed 4747:WP:MEATBOT 4735:WP:MEATBOT 4633:WP:MEATBOT 4615:WP:MEATBOT 4536:WP:MEATBOT 4204:approvals. 4165:still appl 4155:WP:MEATBOT 4146:by default 4134:WP:MEATBOT 4052:categories 4010:See also: 3980:WP:MEATBOT 3619:high-speed 3303:is wrong. 3287:WP:MEATBOT 3121:WP:MEATBOT 3103:WP:MEATBOT 2864:more than 2815:more than 2807:suggestion 2552:WP:MEATBOT 2406:References 2233:Regarding 1961:Even when 1862:WP:MEATBOT 1854:WP:DISRUPT 1842:WP:MEATBOT 1818:WP:MEATBOT 1647:WP:MEATBOT 1548:WP:MEATBOT 1490:bot policy 1326:WP:MEATBOT 1234:WP:MEATBOT 234:2017-10-23 81:Bot policy 4885:this BRFA 4842:Stopping 4755:WP:BOTPOL 4739:WP:BOTPOL 4619:duck test 4561:Thryduulf 4405:North8000 4264:Thryduulf 4044:mainspace 4004:WP:BOTPOL 3976:WP:BOTPOL 3969:WP:BOTPOL 3892:WP:BOTPOL 3869:North8000 3755:North8000 3712:North8000 3557:creation. 3461:WP:PGBOLD 3292:duck test 2813:"anything 2548:WP:BOTPOL 1850:WP:ENGAGE 1814:WP:BOTPOL 1806:WP:BOTPOL 1796:being in 1420:lying? – 1146:Knowledge 155:WT:BOTPOL 139:if needed 122:Be polite 77:talk page 5282:Category 5263:Primefac 5261:Agreed. 5240:xaosflux 5105:RoySmith 5071:RoySmith 5025:Headbomb 5003:RoySmith 4976:Headbomb 4949:Headbomb 4816:Headbomb 4635:at all. 4444:Pinguinn 4234:Headbomb 4117:approval 4093:Creators 4048:articles 3599:Headbomb 3500:, where 3498:2022 RFC 3408:WP:POINT 3357:Headbomb 3249:Headbomb 3242:That is 3186:Headbomb 3126:Headbomb 3075:Headbomb 2971:Headbomb 2909:approval 2869:articles 2786:______". 2505:Headbomb 2160:Headbomb 2068:Headbomb 2010:reverted 1935:Headbomb 1867:Headbomb 1774:xaosflux 1721:Primefac 1641:Headbomb 1613:Headbomb 1368:minutes. 147:Shortcut 107:get help 5167:Legoktm 4980:Legoktm 4918:Legoktm 4839:policy. 4483:Support 4462:Support 4437:Support 4400:Support 4356:ctively 4346:Support 4329:Support 4306:Support 4277:Support 4260:Support 4214:Support 4064:portals 4040:readers 3990:Should 3958:WP:BRFA 3937:Should 3935:|text= 3609:exactly 3443:WP:BOLD 3244:exactly 3177:Meatbot 2998:WP:IDHT 2848:editors 2834:opposed 2680:exactly 2229:Joe Roe 2008:You've 1930:WP:IDHT 1338:A 2022 1280:A 2022 1275:WP:BRFA 1055:WP:BOTN 920:WP:BOTN 449:WP:BOTN 5251:Anomie 5199:isaacl 5108:(talk) 5074:(talk) 5006:(talk) 4860:Anomie 4826:WP:VPR 4767:Anomie 4705:Anomie 4675:Anomie 4637:Anomie 4613:.Also 4523:Anomie 4218:Anomie 4114:a BRFA 4103:WP:GNG 4062:, and 3924:Anomie 3839:Rambot 3683:Anomie 3656:Anomie 3648:you're 3582:"25–50 3563:Anomie 3518:Anomie 3506:Anomie 3305:Anomie 2950:limit. 2899:obtain 2894:should 2889:period 2862:create 2761:"25–50 2684:Anomie 2654:Anomie 2622:Anomie 2596:Anomie 2560:Anomie 2474:Anomie 2470:WP:VPP 2449:Anomie 2031:Anomie 2004:Anomie 1822:Anomie 1709:Anomie 1463:Anomie 1453:is in 1267:, not 229:Quartz 191:, and 181:policy 4858:HTH. 4753:from 4519:after 4467:Sohom 4136:-like 4110:moved 4056:files 3890:from 3603:above 3601:says 3159:that. 2904:prior 1333:BRFA. 135:Seek 83:page. 5267:talk 5227:talk 5203:talk 5186:talk 5171:talk 5154:talk 5139:talk 5122:talk 5093:talk 4999:FOSS 4984:talk 4938:talk 4922:talk 4802:talk 4759:Any 4725:talk 4695:talk 4664:talk 4623:stop 4592:talk 4565:talk 4547:talk 4473:talk 4425:talk 4410:talk 4389:talk 4319:talk 4297:talk 4268:talk 4132:the 3978:and 3874:talk 3855:talk 3812:talk 3783:talk 3770:Any 3760:talk 3731:talk 3717:talk 3673:talk 3637:talk 3541:talk 3522:BRFA 3473:talk 3451:talk 3433:talk 3419:talk 3389:talk 3346:talk 3234:talk 3168:talk 3063:talk 3041:talk 3027:talk 3013:talk 2959:talk 2931:talk 2884:hour 2854:want 2744:Xeno 2704:talk 2662:talk 2644:talk 2537:talk 2493:talk 2376:talk 2362:talk 2348:talk 2324:talk 2302:talk 2281:talk 2264:talk 2246:talk 2217:talk 2104:talk 2095:Mass 2052:talk 2020:talk 1971:talk 1919:talk 1899:talk 1816:and 1786:jc37 1776:and 1767:× 2) 1741:talk 1725:talk 1691:talk 1675:talk 1656:talk 1589:talk 1571:talk 1556:talk 1536:talk 1521:talk 1499:talk 1427:talk 1411:talk 1395:talk 1379:talk 1346:and 1311:talk 1288:and 1245:talk 1218:talk 942:BRFA 124:and 4837:bot 4420:Joe 4370:» ° 4350:LCU 4339:\\ 4314:Joe 4170:ies 4140:non 4082:may 4018:at 3807:Joe 3778:Joe 3654:. 3607:is 3530:not 3226:not 3219:not 3157:say 3153:say 3113:\\ 2875:any 2851:who 2831:not 2828:was 2825:50" 2614:\\ 2587:\\ 2532:Joe 2488:Joe 2212:Joe 2200:\\ 2190:any 2151:\\ 2122:\\ 2099:Joe 2047:Joe 2015:Joe 1914:Joe 1736:Joe 1686:Joe 1651:Joe 1566:Joe 1531:Joe 1494:Joe 1422:Joe 1390:Joe 1342:to 1306:Joe 1284:to 1213:Joe 5284:: 5269:) 5229:) 5205:) 5188:) 5173:) 5156:) 5141:) 5124:) 5039:· 5035:· 5031:· 4986:) 4963:· 4959:· 4955:· 4940:) 4924:) 4804:) 4727:) 4697:) 4666:) 4594:) 4579:or 4567:) 4549:) 4502:💬 4476:) 4451:🐧 4412:) 4391:) 4372:∆t 4299:) 4270:) 4248:· 4244:· 4240:· 4152:, 4070:. 4054:, 4034:, 4006:: 3904:. 3876:) 3857:) 3849:. 3805:– 3762:) 3733:) 3719:) 3675:) 3639:) 3543:) 3524:". 3475:) 3453:) 3435:) 3421:) 3391:) 3371:· 3367:· 3363:· 3348:) 3263:· 3259:· 3255:· 3236:) 3200:· 3196:· 3192:· 3170:) 3140:· 3136:· 3132:· 3089:· 3085:· 3081:· 3065:) 3053:.) 3043:) 3029:) 3015:) 2985:· 2981:· 2977:· 2961:) 2933:) 2912:. 2878:24 2872:in 2866:50 2857:to 2822:or 2817:25 2810:of 2706:) 2664:) 2646:) 2519:· 2515:· 2511:· 2472:? 2378:) 2364:) 2350:) 2326:) 2304:) 2283:) 2266:) 2258:. 2248:) 2174:· 2170:· 2166:· 2082:· 2078:· 2074:· 1973:) 1949:· 1945:· 1941:· 1901:) 1881:· 1877:· 1873:· 1856:, 1852:, 1848:, 1844:, 1734:– 1727:) 1684:– 1677:) 1627:· 1623:· 1619:· 1591:) 1583:. 1558:) 1523:) 1413:) 1388:– 1381:) 1247:) 1112:, 1108:, 1104:, 1100:, 1096:, 1092:, 1088:, 1084:, 1050:15 1048:, 1046:14 1044:, 1042:13 1040:, 1038:12 1036:, 1034:11 1030:10 1028:, 1024:, 1020:, 1016:, 1012:, 1008:, 1004:, 1000:, 996:, 958:, 954:, 950:, 913:, 887:86 885:, 883:85 881:, 879:84 877:, 875:83 873:, 871:82 869:, 867:81 863:80 861:, 859:79 857:, 855:78 853:, 851:77 849:, 847:76 845:, 843:75 841:, 839:74 837:, 835:73 833:, 831:72 829:, 827:71 823:70 821:, 819:69 817:, 815:68 813:, 811:67 809:, 807:66 805:, 803:65 801:, 799:64 797:, 795:63 793:, 791:62 789:, 787:61 783:60 781:, 779:59 777:, 775:58 773:, 771:57 769:, 767:56 765:, 763:55 761:, 759:54 757:, 755:53 753:, 751:52 749:, 747:51 743:50 741:, 739:49 737:, 735:48 733:, 731:47 729:, 727:46 725:, 723:45 721:, 719:44 717:, 715:43 713:, 711:42 709:, 707:41 703:40 701:, 699:39 697:, 695:38 693:, 691:37 689:, 687:36 685:, 683:35 681:, 679:34 677:, 675:33 673:, 671:32 669:, 667:31 663:30 661:, 659:29 657:, 655:28 653:, 651:27 649:, 647:26 645:, 643:25 641:, 639:24 637:, 635:23 633:, 631:22 629:, 627:21 623:20 621:, 619:19 617:, 615:18 613:, 611:17 609:, 607:16 605:, 603:15 601:, 599:14 597:, 595:13 593:, 591:12 589:, 587:11 583:10 581:, 577:, 573:, 569:, 565:, 561:, 557:, 553:, 549:, 516:29 512:28 510:, 508:27 506:, 504:26 502:, 500:25 498:, 496:24 494:, 492:23 490:, 488:22 486:, 484:21 482:, 480:20 478:, 476:19 444:22 442:, 440:21 436:20 434:, 432:19 430:, 428:18 426:, 424:17 422:, 420:16 418:, 416:15 414:, 412:14 410:, 408:13 406:, 404:12 402:, 400:11 396:10 394:, 390:, 386:, 382:, 378:, 374:, 370:, 366:, 362:, 336:19 334:, 332:18 330:, 328:17 326:, 324:16 322:, 320:15 318:, 316:14 314:, 312:13 310:, 308:12 306:, 304:11 300:10 298:, 294:, 290:, 286:, 282:, 278:, 274:, 270:, 266:, 227:. 105:; 5265:( 5254:⚔ 5225:( 5201:( 5184:( 5169:( 5152:( 5137:( 5120:( 5095:) 5091:( 5043:} 5041:b 5037:p 5033:c 5029:t 5027:{ 4982:( 4974:@ 4967:} 4965:b 4961:p 4957:c 4953:t 4951:{ 4936:( 4920:( 4863:⚔ 4818:: 4814:@ 4800:( 4789:@ 4770:⚔ 4723:( 4708:⚔ 4693:( 4678:⚔ 4662:( 4640:⚔ 4607:) 4603:( 4590:( 4576:, 4563:( 4555:@ 4545:( 4526:⚔ 4496:A 4493:F 4490:C 4470:( 4427:) 4423:( 4408:( 4387:( 4374:° 4368:@ 4366:« 4358:D 4354:A 4321:) 4317:( 4295:( 4266:( 4252:} 4250:b 4246:p 4242:c 4238:t 4236:{ 4221:⚔ 4172:. 4167:y 4163:, 4078:C 4075:c 3998:? 3927:⚔ 3872:( 3853:( 3814:) 3810:( 3785:) 3781:( 3758:( 3729:( 3715:( 3686:⚔ 3671:( 3659:⚔ 3635:( 3584:+ 3566:⚔ 3539:( 3516:@ 3509:⚔ 3471:( 3449:( 3431:( 3417:( 3387:( 3375:} 3373:b 3369:p 3365:c 3361:t 3359:{ 3344:( 3339:. 3308:⚔ 3267:} 3265:b 3261:p 3257:c 3253:t 3251:{ 3232:( 3204:} 3202:b 3198:p 3194:c 3190:t 3188:{ 3166:( 3144:} 3142:b 3138:p 3134:c 3130:t 3128:{ 3093:} 3091:b 3087:p 3083:c 3079:t 3077:{ 3061:( 3039:( 3025:( 3011:( 2989:} 2987:b 2983:p 2979:c 2975:t 2973:{ 2957:( 2929:( 2881:- 2842:+ 2837:. 2804:a 2798:− 2763:+ 2742:@ 2702:( 2687:⚔ 2660:( 2652:@ 2642:( 2625:⚔ 2599:⚔ 2563:⚔ 2539:) 2535:( 2523:} 2521:b 2517:p 2513:c 2509:t 2507:{ 2495:) 2491:( 2477:⚔ 2452:⚔ 2374:( 2360:( 2346:( 2337:) 2333:( 2322:( 2300:( 2279:( 2262:( 2244:( 2231:: 2227:@ 2219:) 2215:( 2178:} 2176:b 2172:p 2168:c 2164:t 2162:{ 2106:) 2102:( 2086:} 2084:b 2080:p 2076:c 2072:t 2070:{ 2054:) 2050:( 2034:⚔ 2022:) 2018:( 2006:: 2002:@ 1969:( 1953:} 1951:b 1947:p 1943:c 1939:t 1937:{ 1921:) 1917:( 1897:( 1885:} 1883:b 1879:p 1875:c 1871:t 1869:{ 1825:⚔ 1763:( 1743:) 1739:( 1723:( 1712:⚔ 1705:) 1701:( 1693:) 1689:( 1673:( 1658:) 1654:( 1643:: 1639:@ 1631:} 1629:b 1625:p 1621:c 1617:t 1615:{ 1587:( 1573:) 1569:( 1554:( 1538:) 1534:( 1519:( 1501:) 1497:( 1484:. 1466:⚔ 1429:) 1425:( 1409:( 1397:) 1393:( 1377:( 1353:. 1313:) 1309:( 1295:. 1243:( 1220:) 1216:( 1205:: 1201:@ 1182:e 1175:t 1168:v 1114:9 1110:8 1106:7 1102:6 1098:5 1094:4 1090:3 1086:2 1082:1 1026:9 1022:8 1018:7 1014:6 1010:5 1006:4 1002:3 998:2 994:1 960:4 956:3 952:2 948:1 915:2 911:1 579:9 575:8 571:7 567:6 563:5 559:4 555:3 551:2 547:1 392:9 388:8 384:7 380:6 376:5 372:4 368:3 364:2 360:1 296:9 292:8 288:7 284:6 280:5 276:4 272:3 268:2 264:1 237:. 217:: 195:. 109:. 64:. 55:. 46:. 37:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Bot policy - Knowledge

Index