Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots  (Redirected from Wikipedia:BRFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. To do so, follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming it may be a good idea to ask someone else to run a bot for you, rather than running your own.

 Instructions for bot operators


Current requests for approval

edit WP:BRFA/Jimmy the Bot

Jimmy the Bot

Operator: Jim Carter - Public (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search), Jim Cartar (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:42, Wednesday August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Function overview: Add {{Orphan}}, remove {{Orphan}}, Add {{Dead end}}, remove {{Dead end}}, add {{Multiple issues}}, add {{Persondata}}, will do general fixes.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No):

Function details: The following tasks will be performed by the bot:

  1. Will do WP:AWB/GF.
  2. Will add {{Orphan}} tags to articles less than two incoming links.
  3. Will remove {{Orphan}} tags from articles with more than two incoming links. Will run against the monthly subcategories of Category:Orphaned articles.
  4. Will add {{Dead end}} tags to articles with no wikilinks.
  5. Will remove {{dead end}} tags from articles with at least one wikilink. Run against articles in Category:All dead-end pages.
  6. Add multiple issues template to articles with more than one improvement tags.
  7. Add {{Persondata}} tags to biographical articles.

Note: The bot will only perform edits to article namespace.

Discussion

For articles that you are planning on tagging, what are you going to use to seed your target list? (e.g. articles less than two incoming links). — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/ExpertIdeasBot

ExpertIdeasBot

Operator: I.yeckehzaare (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:03, Thursday July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: ExpertIdeasBot on GitHub

Function overview: We are a group of researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. Our research aims at discovering ways to motivate academic researchers who can be considered domain experts to provide feedback about Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise. The goal of the bot is to make the process of posting comments on article talk pages easy for users who are not familiar with Wikipedia markup language. The users who have access to this bot are experts in different scientific fields such as psychology and Economics and the purpose of the comments left on the article talk pages are providing information on how the article can be improved. To avoid the abuse of the bot, the bot is not allowed to post comments more than one in 2 minutes per single user. Any attempt to abuse the bot will alert the system administrators and they will follow up on the account which has been making the attempt.

Since the messages from this bot are individual messages from real people, we do not want to skip any message even if it is related to template pages, we would like all messages to be be delivered.

Moreover, for the same reason and the fact that these edits represents the comments of a real person we would like those post *not* to be flagged as by a bot to make sure that they are not going to be filtered out of watchlists and recent changes Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous over the period of study.

Estimated number of pages affected: We are going to add new sections to at most 3000 talk pages.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No (new bot)

Function details: The bot is part of an experiment in which we are going to send emails to academic researchers who have published a number of research papers in various domains to review specific Wikipedia articles related to their domain of expertise. Once the experts provide us with their comments about the content of these articles, our ExpertIdeasBot will post these comments as new sections to the corresponding talk pages. All the new sections which are going to be created will have the following format:

Title: Professor ...'s comment on this article

Professor ... has recently published the following research publications which are related to this Wikipedia article:

Reference 1: ... , Number of Ciations: ...

Reference 2: ... , Number of Ciations: ...

Reference 3: ... , Number of Ciations: ...

...

Professor ... has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

... ... ...

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of this page accordingly.


Then the bot will add the Talk page and also the corresponding Wikipedia page to my watchlist, so we will be able to observe the active Wikipedians’ reactions to the experts’ comments, which will help us to realize:

  1. if these comments really help Wikipedians to improve the quality of these pages or not.
  2. other factors that we can add to the experts’ comments to help Wikipeidians.

I.yeckehzaare (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I changed the name of the bot as advised by xaosflux. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: This bot has edited its own BRFA page. Bot policy states that the bot account is only for edits on approved tasks or trials approved by BAG; the operator must log into their normal account to make any non-bot edits. AnomieBOT 16:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    I revised all the edits and now they are all in my own name. Thank you for your advice. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    I was wondering if there is any other problem with my application that I can solve. Thank you so much for your time and concern. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    I.yeckehzaare, would it be possible to put the code of the bot on GitHub instead of here? Due to formatting, it's very hard to read the code here. (Non-BAG member observation) APerson (talk!) 23:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    The code is moved to GitHub. Please inform me about any other suggestions or required changes. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We should mention that an earlier version of this bot had been reviewed by Wikipedians and approved for trial. Our experiment was not fully implemented at that time and we are renewing the experiment now. More information about the earlier version of this bot can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/InstructorCommentBot Rostaf (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @I.yeckehzaare, Rostaf: Is there any reason why this bot isn't using one of the Python APIs for editing? I feel like you could cut out quite a bit of code by using an API (some are listed here). APerson (talk!) 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your comments. I revised the code on GitHub. This new version only uses PyWikiBot. I will appreciate your comments and advise to improve our bot and the experiment. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I like this concept. Do you have a test plan? Also, remember that due to the small and declining number of Wikipedia editors, professors should understand that their comments may take a long time to be noticed by editors if the professors comment on low traffic articles. --Pine 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your nice comment. Yes, we have a project plan. As mentioned above, we are a group of researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. For the first step, we want to identify factors which can motivate experts to go through specific Wikipedia articles which are related to a number of their publications and provide us with their feedback about the accuracy and completeness of the content and references of the article. If we were successful in the first step, then we will try to identify ways which can help domain experts to directly edit Wikipedia pages, and how to facilitate communication between Wikipedians who are interested in a specific domain and experts in that domain. We will really appreciate your help and advise in this regard. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
  • What is your test plan for the bot software, especially prior to testing it on English Wikipedia with live researchers?
  • Having domain "experts" directly edit articles has caused problems in the past like POV-pushing, so attempting to encourage "expert" article editing on a large scale is likely to require very careful management. I would treat that as a separate project.
  • Encouraging researchers to post comments on talk pages is less risky and may be very favorably recieved if the information provided is highly relevant, brief, and well sourced to freely available docunents.
  • Are you coordinating with professional groups like the APA, and relevant Wikiprojects?
  • Proceeding gradually is important so that early problems are at small scale.
--Pine 05:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you so much for your helpful comments and suggestions.
1- According to MediaWiki guidelines, unfortunately we are not able to test the bot now, but as soon as receiving approval for a trial period, we will test the Bot on our own research team. Our research team includes 4 professors from 3 universities, and they have a number of highly cited publications. In the trial period, the program will send emails to these professors asking them to review related Wikipedia pages to their recent publications, and will post the comments to the corresponding Talk pages. In this way, we will test both the Bot and the Wikipedians' reactions to these posts, especially those Wikipedians who are active on corresponding pages, having them in their watchlists.
2- This is one of the reasons why we don't want to ask experts to directly edit Wikipedia pages at the moment. Our most recent vision is to find factors which can motivate experts to just review specific Wikipedia pages, and provide us with their feedback. Then our program sends the feedback to corresponding Talk pages, which will help active Wikipedians on those Talk pages to take advantage of those comments and edit the main articles based on their own conventions.
3- Unfortunately at the moment we cannot predict the experts' reactions to our emails. After the trial period and finalizing the tests on the functionality of the program and the Bot, we will start our "pilot study" which will be on about 1000 experts in fields of Economics, Psychology and Information Sciences. The objective of the pilot study is to identify: a) How to communicate with experts via email to receive the most number of responses from them; b) Which factors in the experts' feedback are more helpful for Wikipedians; c) How to format the study page to receive the most appropriate feedback from the experts which can be helpful for Wikipedians.
4- Two of the professors on our team, Professor Robert Kraut from Carnegie Mellon University and Professor Rosta Farzan from the University of Pittsburgh, have collaborated with the APA in their previous research on Wikipedia. We plan to continue working with APA for our project. Professor Yan Chen and Professor Qiaozhu Mei are in the process of seeking support from AEA and ACM communities.
All Wikipedia pages that our pilot program selects to propose to the experts are categorized under Economics and Psychology WikiProjects. In this way, we are trying to ask experts' feedback only on those pages which are important for members of these WikiProjects.
5- We have defined a timeline of 3 years for this research project, and we are going to spend a fair amount of time and effort in the pilot study period to investigate the most appropriate factors that we should incorporate in our main study.
Thank you so much for your concern about this project. We will really appreciate your comments and advice in this regard.
I.yeckehzaare (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


I was alerted about this BRFA from a fellow researcher, and thought I'd voice my support (as a fellow researcher and bot operator). The follow up on this discussion from I.yeckehzaare is a positive sign, and I appreciate that the code has been put on GitHub. In light of the question above about bot frameworks, I went and reviewed the code, and have a few thoughts:

  • Are we certain that the break criteria in the while-loop in the AddNewSectionToTalkPage() function does not cause an infinite loop? (meaning the bot gets stuck trying to log in)
  • What happens if the bot fails to log in correctly?
  • There is no code to handle throttle requests from the API.

The reason I bring up the latter is that I do not know what the magnitude of the scholarsList list, will it try to post a handful of comments at a time? On the order of "tens"? If it's more than that, a bot framework might be useful since at least some of them transparently handle API throttling. I use pywikibot myself, but there are others as APerson referenced. Regards, Nettrom (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments. I revised the code on GitHub. This new version only uses PyWikiBot. I will appreciate your comments and advise to improve our bot and the experiment. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/BattyBot_34

BattyBot 34

Operator: GoingBatty (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 11:56, Sunday August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Add {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} to existing talk pages for all disambiguation pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject Disambiguation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Tagging more talk pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Templates

Edit period(s): One big run, may run in the future

Estimated number of pages affected: hundreds

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No):

Function details: Add {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} only to existing talk pages for all disambiguation pages, as defined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#Templates. Per the instructions at that page, this bot will NOT create talk pages that have no discussion.

Discussion

I'm not worried about BattyBot being able to technically complete this, however I'm not yet satisfied that there is community consensus that this task should be performed. Magioladitis, as you were already involved in some of the linked discussions, please check in here. — xaosflux Talk 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Reseach note, this template appears to be transcluded heavily already, in 200,000+ pages. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
GoingBatty, xaosflux I am a member of this project since 2006. I do not really think that the project will benefit if we tag thousands of pages. We have other ways to spot which pages are in the scope of the project. But there is something more importance: Tagging should be requested by members of the project to ensure that the tagging enjoys consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Please avoid argument from authority (but if you insist: I have been working on disambiguation articles since 2003). Placing the template on talk pages informs other editors of where they can go with questions about disambiguation matters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean to do that. I am sorry if it sounded like that. I meant that I do not recall any discussion in favour of this request. If anything, the matter should be first agreed in the WikiProject's talk page and then come here. See you in London! I 'll be there in a few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Bots in a trial period

edit WP:BRFA/Mdann52 bot_6

mdann52 bot 6

Operator: Mdann52 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 13:47, Friday August 15, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised/manual (if no licence specified)

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: fixes issues thrown by {{permissionOTRS}} in the talk namespacd

'Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Errors requiring attention Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 1000, full list here

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): yes

Function details: Due to a recent change in {{permissionOTRS}}, {{confirmationOTRS}} should be used to confirm permission for text. This bot task will find pages now throwing errors, and change the template. If the template does not specify a licence, I will then manually check the ticket and insert the licence. I will also run genfixes and the Wiki project module at the same time to fix any issues in the WP templates. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

OK for swift trial, please post results following trial here

Approved for trial (50 edits). — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/Filedelinkerbot_2

Filedelinkerbot 2

Operator: Krd (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:10, Saturday August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: No

Function overview: The bot is nearly clone of Commonsdelinker. It removes file links from pages for files which got deleted at Commons. As thoses files sometimes get restored, e.g. when they get OTRS permission, the bot would like to revert his own edits by the rollback function, so addition to the rollbacker group is requested here.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): none

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 10 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes. Rollbacker flag requested.

Function details: n/a

Discussion

  • What is your expected rate of rollback requiring that tool vs just placing a normal edit? — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    I expect an average of 10 edits per day. This is not rate issue, I'd just prefer to use rollback interface, as the corresponding code is already implemented. --Krd 18:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I see you expect to have 10 page edits per day, the question is what is the expected rate of rollback use? What are you going to do with the same edit reversion if it was made by or had intervening edits by any other editor? Rollback is expected to be avoided if the edit should be made with a meaningful edit summary. — xaosflux Talk 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      The expected rollback use is 10 per day, as all edits for the new task will be rollbacks. All cases where rollback cannot be used (intermediate edits, double unlinks, etc.) shall remain for manual sorting, as they are currently, see User:Filedelinkerbot/restored files. --Krd 07:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days).. Trial approved, I added rollback to the account for the trial. Please post results back here after the trial. — xaosflux Talk 14:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
When posting results, please be sure to illustrate the ones that used the rollback function. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly I'm a bit short on test cases at the moment, so the only ones are Special:Diff/620060495 and Special:Diff/619932515 so far. Please extend trial period for 2 weeks if possible. Thank you.--Krd 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
OK Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (14 days). — xaosflux Talk 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The relevant edits are listed at User:Filedelinkerbot/restored files. Although they all look good, the number of edits is much lower than I expected. Possibly at the moment there are fewer files restored than earlier. I let it up to you to decide whether to keep this job. I think it causes no harm, but also only small benefit, as it seems. --Krd 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/Mdann52 IMG bot

Mdann52 IMG bot

Operator: Mdann52 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:42, Friday July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): uses WP:FTCG

Source code available: Yes, see WP:FTCG

Function overview: Tags files moved to Commons with {{now commons}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): when needed

Estimated number of pages affected: NA; initially a few hundred, but may escalate

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No):no

Function details: After transferring to Commons, tags the file page with {{Now commons}}. (I would delete them directly, but as I'm not an admin, I'm not allowed to run an admin bot to do this...)

Discussion

Perhaps there is already a bot moving them properly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: no, not to my knowledge. Tagging them with the now commons template may be better, as it allows another user to review the edits (FYI, I have also started a BRFA over on c:Commons:Bots/Requests/Mdann52 bot. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 I am waiting feedback from your BOTREQ at commons. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). Let's catch some attention! -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I am currently on a mobile data only connection (limited to 1 GB...), so will have to postpone this for a week when I will be back home, however this should be a (fairly quick) task to complete with only the odd human error (!) --Mdann52talk to me! 19:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please create a userpage (for this bot account). — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/APersonBot_2

APersonBot 2

Operator: APerson (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 13:37, Sunday June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://github.com/APerson241/APersonBot/blob/master/dyknotifier/dyknotifier.py

Function overview: Will notify an editor if an article they had created/expanded was nominated for DYK by someone else.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 60#Asking_for_Noting_bot

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 60 (per run)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This bot will notify an editor if an article they had created/expanded was nominated for DYK by someone else. The notifiers and creators will be detected by scanning the signatures present in the DYK nom, and User:APersonBot/DYKNotice {{DYKnom}} will be used to notify people.

Discussion

Questions from Xaosflux
  • Do you plan to send notification to everyone in the article contribution history ('persons who expanded'), if not what will be your criteria for inclusion?
xaosflux Talk 02:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion will be strictly limited to the user(s) who the nominator entered in {{NewDYKnomination}} as the author(s) using the author parameter (or one that works the same way). At the moment, the bot checks who these users are by parsing the line that appears inside <small> tags. APerson (talk!) 02:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging the WT:DYK page to see if there are any objectors still, and to bring such objections here. If no objections in a day will approve for trial — xaosflux Talk 02:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    Special:Diff/613764883xaosflux Talk 02:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment from Maile66
  • Just would like to mention that it would be good if when the notification posted on a user's talk page, it had a link to the nomination template so that the editor would be able to comment on the nomination template. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    Maile66, I believe that {{DYKNom}}, which I rewrote and expanded for the occasion, links to the nomination template if possible. APerson (talk!) 02:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK Chiltern Firehouse kicked out a notification within minutes of the nomination template being created, which is good. However, it was the nominator who got the notice on his talk page, rather than the desired creators other than the nominator. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See response below. APerson (talk!) 19:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Trial Period

Original Trial, 100 edits, 7 days Please post back the results of your trial here; include any user feedback (positive or negative). — xaosflux Talk 01:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you've hit a couple of minor bugs? (e.g. double posting to User_talk:MelanieN; posting to nominator. Have these been solved along the way? — xaosflux Talk 04:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Xaosflux, Maile66: I just fixed a bug about the bot forgetting to not notify the nominator. The double post was caused by an earlier version of {{DYKNom}} not adding a HTML comment with the name of the template when it was subst:'ed. APerson (talk!) 19:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, please reply when your trial is done, flag this with the BAGAssistanceNeeded template too. — xaosflux Talk 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Status update: I'm changing the library which the bot uses from wikitools to pywikibot, since I've found that wikitools is extremely buggy. This may take a few days. APerson (talk!) 02:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (100 edits or 14 days). Trial extended, please verify edits to each of the categories from the original trial after your code change. — xaosflux Talk 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@APerson: It's been 11 days. Please proceed to the extended bot trial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I've finished the bot (almost) and am currently trying to get it to save a page. Everything else works; the bot will probably start editing within one or two hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APerson (talkcontribs) 18:31 12 July 2014
APerson Could you please provide us with a status on this bot? — Maile (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Maile66: I've been very busy both on and off Wikipedia. Since I haven't gotten pywikibot (the library I switched to) to save, I have my pywikibot script spit out a list of people to notify and another script notify everyone on the list. The only issue I have right now is that for some inexplicable reason, the bot insists on coming up with people whose submissions have already been resolved (i.e. passed or failed) but have not yet been "officially" notified. For instance, the bot wants to notify people whose nominations have been closed but whose hooks have yet to actually appear on the Main Page. I'm not sure if this behavior is desirable, so a few more changes should fix this. APerson (talk!) 22:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Maile66, Xaosflux:, update: the bot is now alive and kicking, but (now that all the logic is properly working) I've discovered that there just aren't that many people who haven't had their submissions nominated by someone else AND that haven't participated in the nomination discussion. It'll take a while to rack up 100 edits. APerson (talk!) 22:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
APerson I see it! I don't know what you have configured to trigger the notice, but it looks to me like it scans the DYK nominations page. It seems to be going back through some older ones, so some editors may wonder why they're getting this at this point in time. I assume that once it gets through the backlog on that page, it will then just work on the newer ones as they come along. I'm so happy this is working now. Matty.007 will be, also. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw this bot was on trial (for MURDER!; call Robot Jessica Fletcher!) and purposely didn't notify the author of Parliamentary War Memorial when I nominated it. There's still no sign of a notification the editor's page, so you might like to investigate (call human Jessica Fletcher!) Belle (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Belle, I have not yet had the opportunity to start running the bot on toolserver. So, at the moment, the only time the bot runs (and notifies people) is when I double-click it on my computer. I'll look into running it on toolserver soon. APerson (talk!) 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
APerson, Did you mean labs? I thought toolserver was no more. — Maile (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I meant labs. APerson (talk!) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/RagesossBot

RagesossBot

Operator: Ragesoss (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:58, Wednesday February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot)

Source code available: I've requested space on gerrit to maintain the source code, but for now it's quite simple. I've pasted the source here: User:RagesossBot/coursesupportlinker.py.

Function overview: To replace links to course pages on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents with the helper template {{course link}}, which shows some extra contextual information about courses.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#idea:_showing_who_is_supporting_each_course

(It's not a very significant discussion, but then again it's a pretty minor task that only affects two pages.)

Edit period(s): Continuous (once I figure out how, if not immediately)

Estimated number of pages affected: 2

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details:

Discussion

(BotTrial|1 week) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The bot has been running for one week now, but it has not actually had an chance to do its job, because there have not been any links to course pages on the noticeboards. The bot performed a single edit after I added a course page link just to verify that it was on and working. Based on that, it seems to work as expected, but I'd like to keep it running for a longer trial until there are some real chances for it to do its work.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to run it as long as needed to accumulate enough edits. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
((OperatorAssistanceNeeded)) Did this ever get enough edits and can it be approved? Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
MBisanz: I still hasn't had a chance to do very many edits... it's been a surprisingly quiet term for course-specific issues on the noticeboards. But it seems to be working as intended so far.--ragesoss (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ragesoss: any updates? Snowolf How can I help? 17:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Snowolf: Not really. I've had to restart the crontab a few times, but it's been so quiet in terms of discussion of courses that use the extension that the bot hasn't had much to do. I'm comfortable with how it's working, but I'm happy to leave it as a trial until it has a chance to do more edits, if necessary.--ragesoss (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (50 edits or 30 days). (recordkeeping) Trial is extended to gather more sample edits. — xaosflux Talk 01:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ragesoss: did you start the extended bot trial? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis: Yes. I haven't shut the bot off, but the noticeboards were unusually quiet in terms of links to courses this last term -- and now typically quiet during US summer break. The bot seemed really useful last year when there were so many specific courses with issues being discussed on the noticeboards, but (hurray!) not so much recently.--ragesoss (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ragesoss, anything in the last month? MBisanz talk 20:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The bot has made a couple more edits, and there haven't been any problems. It's unlikely to make all that many more edits before September, when things start to pick up with new courses.--ragesoss (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Bots that have completed the trial period

Approved requests

Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.


Denied requests

Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.

Expired/withdrawn requests

These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at anytime. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.