Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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



Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 07:03, Monday September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:Hawkeye7/

Function overview: Supports the FAC, FAR and TFA processes. This replaces the GimmeBot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Ten per diem

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Life without bots

If FACClosed = “promoted” then

Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
Add FAC archive page to Featured Log
Add article name/link to appropriate section of WP:FA (note/link article name in edit summary) and increment total number at the top
Add bulleted article name/link plus date in the form (dd mmm) to FA section of WP:GO


Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
Add FAC archive page to Archived Nominations



Were you also planning to:

  1. Mark each day's TFA at WP:FA by adding {{FA/BeenOnMainPage| }} around the entry, and
  2. Update WP:FANMP each day to add new promotions and to remove TFAs?

It would be great if you could add this to the tasks. Other TFA-related tasks (adding the scheduled date to the {{Article history}} and notifying major contributors of the scheduling) were being handled by a bot as well, but I don't know whether you want to take these on (either now or later). BencherliteTalk 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will do the first two asap. How would the Bot know when an article is scheduled? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find the answer in the code used by the previous bothere. See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 4. BencherliteTalk 13:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, the view of the FAC coordinators at the discussion that you link was that the bot should *not* add the article to WP:FA, but should leave that to be done manually, as it was under the previous system. BencherliteTalk 11:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Working out what the old system did was the hard part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT 20:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It has been blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag. As this is a bot run by a known bot operator and carrying out previously approved tasks, which are much in demand at FAC etc, can we get an "approved for trial" (or even a "speedy approval") sooner rather than later, please? Thanks. BencherliteTalk 13:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/FrescoBot_12

FrescoBot 12

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

Time filed: 05:21, Tuesday September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: improving the link specificity

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Improving the link specificity

Edit period(s): monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 50k?

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

Hi! There are around many wikilinks with a low level of specificity and lack of clarity/intuitiveness. Nevertheless I noticed that some of them can be improved safely with a bot. Some real examples:

  • canton of [[Canton of Bern|Bern]] --> [[canton of Bern]]
  • attack on [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor]] --> [[attack on Pearl Harbor]]
  • the [[The Exodus|Exodus]] --> [[the Exodus]] (in this kind of cases I will capitalize the article) (I will keep the original capitalization)
  • [[Boeing]] [[Boeing 737|737]] --> [[Boeing 737]]
  • [[Bible]] [[Bible translation|translation]]s --> [[Bible translation]]s
  • [[golf]] [[Golf club (equipment)|club]] --> [[golf club (equipment)|golf club]]
  • [[Atlas Mountains|Atlas]] mountains --> [[Atlas Mountains|Atlas mountains]] (I will assume that the capitalization of the article's title is correct) (I will keep the original capitalization)
  • [[brown trout|brown]] [[trout]] --> [[brown trout]]
  • [[Hesychius of Alexandria|Hesychius]] of [[Alexandria]] --> [[Hesychius of Alexandria]]
  • [[open architecture|open]] [[computer architecture|architecture]] --> [[open architecture]]
  • [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] [[CIA World Factbook|World Factbook]] --> [[CIA World Factbook]]
  • [[weak base|weak]] [[basic (chemistry)|base]] --> [[weak base]]
  • [[Bristol Aeroplane Company|Bristol]] [[Bristol Blenheim|Blenheim]] --> [[Bristol Blenheim]]
  • [[Lake County, Ohio|Lake County]] [[Lake County Courthouse (Ohio)|Courthouse]] --> [[Lake County Courthouse (Ohio)|Lake County Courthouse]]
  • other similar substitutions

I'm just enforcing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Link specificity, clarity and intuitiveness in piped links and as you can see in this discussion there is a good consensus. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Symbol merge vote.svg Needs wider discussion, probably on WP:VPR. You need more consensus than just three people on a MOS subpage, especially when two of those people are MOS regulars who are well-known for being involved in conflicts related to the MOS. In particular, I could see people complaining that you're replacing general+specific pairs with only the specific link. You should also be more specific as to how your bot is going to automatically decide when to preserve or not preserve the capitalization of the target title (why "Atlas Mountains" and "The Exodus" but not "Attack on Pearl Harbor"?). Anomie 10:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right, with a wider and deeper discussion we will be more confident. I opened a new discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Improving the link specificity. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: City and state is another common link pair, such as:

  • [[Newark, New Jersey|Newark]], [[New Jersey]] --> [[Newark, New Jersey]]

GoingBatty (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This case is already included! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/MoohanBOT_7

MoohanBOT 7

Operator: Jamesmcmahon0 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 10:48, Monday September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available:

Function overview: Stub sorting British people stubs

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Periodically

Estimated number of pages affected: Could be a few hundred in first run then most likely significantly less than one hundred on subsequent runs

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will run through pages in Category:People stubs, Category:European people stubs and Category:British people stubs. It will check the page for the phrase ... is/was a British/English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish ... if it finds it it and the page also contains a less specific biographic stub tag it will replace the tag with {{UK-bio-stub}}, {{England-bio-stub}}, {{Wales-bio-stub}}, {{Scotland-bio-stub}} or {{NorthernIreland-bio-stub}} respectively. The bot will also perform general fixes and auto-tagging along with the main edit.

I have done some edits manually using the same find-replace settings on my account:[1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]


Jamesmcmahon0I notified Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board so that we get some feedback. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jamesmcmahon0: Just curious why you're only sorting British people stubs, and not Americans, Germans, French, etc. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, just British (for now) I started to do it manually then came up with some find/replaces to do it, I was surprised at there being no false positives on the edits I performed so thought it could be farmed out to my bot. I would appreciate any suggestions for avoiding false positives however as my regex is rather basic at the moment. If the task has community approval and the bot proves itself capable of not making mistakes it should be trivial to expand it to other geographic biography categories. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jamesmcmahon0: What would your bot do for " a British-American..."? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In it's current form it would change the more general stub tag to {{UK-bio-stub}} whilst this isn't completely correct (it should probably have the applicable American tag as well) it will not have damaged the article and it will have improved its stub categorisation. If the bot was later expanded to other countries then these types would have to be dealt with as special cases. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jamesmcmahon0: Just passing through but what logic is used to stub Westminster politicians. David Cameron is from a Scottish family and has no influence in the UK? Should he have a UK stub or a Scottish stub? David Lloyd George, the well known Welsh speaking, Welshman who was born in Chorlton-on-Medlock,Manchester? Then there is Gideon Osbourne 18th Baron Osbourne to be, who is Anglo-Irish born in Paddington? Then Neil Kinnock born in Tredegar Wales- but a UK prime minister.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To answer your queries one at a time;
  • David Cameron would not have anything changed as the article doesn't contain the key phrase
  • David LLoyd George would have {{UK-bio-stub}} added as the phrase ... was a British ... apears
  • Gideon Osbourse, it would depend on the article author(s)
  • Neil Kinnock would have {{UK-bio-stub}} added for the same reason as above.
However none of the above pages would actually have anything changed as they my bot will only look at pages with the broad stub tags of {{bio-stub}}, {{europe-bio-stub}} or {{UK-bio-stub}} and change this to UK/England/Wales/NI/Scottish if it thinks that would be better i.e. it finds a phrase like ... is an English ...
  • Oppose for {{bio-stub}}. I and others work on this category to sort people to more specific stubs. If they are moved out as {{UK-bio-stub}} they won't get that further sorting as they will be mixed with people where someone has looked, considered, and given that tag as the only suitable bio-stub tag. Category:People stubs ought to be empty, but this is not a good way to do it. PamD 07:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the input PamD. I just preparsed the task and there are 17 pages that would be affected after the sorting of {{bio-stub}}s is removed. This obviously doesn't leave much for a bot to do! Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This has been a useful discussion as it's prompted me to look at Category:European people stubs, Category:British people stubs and Category:English people stubs. There are a whole raft of stubs which were very badly sorted by one particular editor (no longer apparently active) a few months ago, and I've started to rescue some of them (he managed to label a Canadian singer as {{US-bio-stub}}, a Filipino volleyball player as {{Asia-stub}}, etc). The "European people stubs" are an interesting batch, as some of them are historical personages from no-longer-existent entities in Europe. PamD 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bots in a trial period

edit WP:BRFA/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)


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 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)
  • 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)
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)
Updating here after I did a closer review of the code. I submitted a pull request with some changes, it's mostly Unicode strings to not trigger any Unicode errors, and proposes a few other changes. Apart from those the code looked good to go. With regards to the research it sounds like you'll have a test run with the PIs, so that should give some indication of how things go. I'm still supportive of this project and hope someone from BAG can stop by and comment soon so things can get moving. Regards, Nettrom (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate your help with improving my code. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I have not followed the discussion of this one. You take over here :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@I.yeckehzaare: is the bot able to run now? Is the bot ready for a trial? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about our bot. As Nettrom mentioned "the code looked good to go." The only thing we need is the permission to be able to run the bot, and start the trial. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@I.yeckehzaare: is there going to be a limit of emails sent per day? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No. We are going to send many emails, because previous studies showed that as most researchers are too busy, response rate is very low, or no response in many cases. The bot will submit the response on the corresponding Talk page as soon as receiving it, however because of low response rate and the fact that we are gathering email addresses gradually, I don't think if the bot will send more than 50 responses per day. It's noteworthy to mention that over the trial period, we are not going to send emails to study subjects, but we will test the bot only on the Professors and researchers in our own team.

((BotTrial|days=4)) @I.yeckehzaare: OK. I give 4 days to demonstrate how this things works. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis I really appreciate your help with giving us 4 days of trial period. However, I was not able to test the bot before having the trial permission. As soon as receiving the permission, I tried to incorporate the bot in the rest of the project, and deploy it on Google App Engines. Unfortunately I was not able to install PyWikibot on Google App Engine. Then I spent two nights to migrate the whole project to Django framework and deploy it on Heroku or AWS, but I definitely need more time to migrate the whole project, install PyWikibot and other required packages and test everything. Then, as planned, I will ask the professors in our team to test the program. I will really appreciate it if you give me more trial time to fix all the problems and test the bot in action. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I.yeckehzaare tell me when you are ready to start demonstration and I ll give permission to start. After the trial period we will need some statistics from you. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Magioladitis thank you so much. I will really appreciate it if you give me permission to test the bot on a sample talk page to make sure everything works before asking professors to start using the trial version, and post comments on real talk pages. I tested the bot on my own talk page, and it works, but as I am meticulous about any possibility of bug in my probgram or the bot, I will really appreciate it if you let me test it on a sample talk page, not a user talk page, to test it in different conditions, to make sure everything is OK before the trial test. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I.yeckehzaare Permission granted. Please notify me about the results. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Magioladitis This is a great help. I really appreciate it. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT 08:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/EranBot


Operator: ערן (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search) Was developed based on the request of User:Jmh649 among others.

Time filed: 01:24, Friday August 22, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic edits but not to main space

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: source in github

Function overview: This bot submits newly added text to medical articles to the iThenticate API which determines if other sources are similar to it. This information is than placed on this page Wikipedia:MED/Copyright for human followup. The bot run on period basis.

  • Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): An entire project surrounds the creation of this bot with many subpages. This can be seen here Wikipedia:Turnitin. A memorandum of understanding has been signed with Turnitin. User:Ocaasi can send it to anyone who wishes it

Edit period(s): A few times per day

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): N/A

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No (using autopatrolled for trial)

Function details: Bot only changes one page and that is Wikipedia:MED/Copyright


As this bot does not edit mainspace and their is no plan for it to ever edit mainspace the discussion at Wikimania was that it does not need official approval to run but should get it eventually. Happy to provide more details and to be corrected if this was a misunderstanding. Would appreciate the help of those who know the bot approval process better than I in correcting any malformed answers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

All bot edits are ultimately the responsibility of the operator, but the updates are being done by others.— xaosflux Talk 03:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not the policy here at enwiki, Doc James. WP:BOTPOL excludes only edits to the bot's own userspace or the operator's own userspace; edits to other non-mainspace pages do require approval. Anomie 03:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not think anyone cares were exactly the edits go. We can move this to the bot's userspace. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What is your criteria to determine if an article is a "medical article"? — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It is tagged with the WP:MED tag on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide the current, approximate, count of these ? — xaosflux Talk 15:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume that means talk pages which transclude {{WikiProject Medicine}}. There are over 25 thousand transclusions of that template.Wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you plan on only look at current articles in whole, certain diffs, or every diff (even ones already reverted?) — xaosflux Talk 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Certain new diffs over a certain size. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you plan to notify editors that you are creating reports about their edits? — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Only if their are concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently done manually by Jmh649 or other patrollers of the report page. However, the bot may add [in future] signature (~~~~) to its edits and then editors will be notified using the notification system ("someone mentioned you..."). Eran (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking for additional community feedback on this, conducting automated investigations of editors without involving them may be problematic. — xaosflux Talk 12:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(If this aspect has already had a community discussion, please provide a link to it here). — xaosflux Talk 15:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You will notice that this tool is in the pilot phase. We need to determine how accurate it is before we consider having it provide feedback directly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

((BotTrial|edits=100|days=10|userspace=yes)) Initial approval for user-space technical trial, there are some community-interaction components that need further exploration, but a trial is a good way to gather the type of output that is expected. — xaosflux Talk 12:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The bot is picking up true positives. The number of false positives is still a bit high and will need further tweaking but this was to be expected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus from WP:MED for this bot is [6]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 did you finish bot trial? Is anything to be done to reduce false positives? Du you want one more trial? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Efforts to reduce false positives are coming along nicely. We now have a blacklist that is machine readable. As this list is improved false positives will decrease. Other improvements are listed here [7] A 50/50 rate of false positives to true positives I deem to be a huge success.
Plans are not to have the bot do anything other than create a list of possible concerning edits. There is no discussion of having automated warnings or editing. That would be years out if at all.
At this point I hope the bot could be approved to operate on medical articles going forwards ( and expanded to pharmacology and anatomy articles ). I would want proof of a community willing to follow up on concerns if it was to expand to other topic areas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The trial has been underway at two locations:

I suggest that the next step should be to approve for an extended trial at Wikipedia:MED/Copyright, and merge User:EranBot/Copyright into that page. I learned of this trial from reading The Signpost here, so that high-profile notice should draw more attention to this trial. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that would be excellent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (100 edits or 10 days)Userspace only.Approved for extended trial. Please next time post a BotTrialCompleted after bot trial is done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Doc James when bot trial ends please notify using {{BotTrialComplete}} and provide diffs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Provide diffs of what exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Whichever edits (or other log entries) the bot made as part of its trial. In this case, you could probably just link to Special:Contributions/EranBot with appropriate offset and limit URL parameters since the bot hasn't made any edits other than for this trial, or maybe to the history of User:EranBot/Copyright with appropriate offset and limit. Anomie 11:26, 16 September 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...)


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)

@Mdann52: I see no traffic in the commons botreq. Any developments on this one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I am awaiting approval over there before proceeding too far with trials etc. I have done some of the trial on my main and bot accounts (unfortunately, as I am unable to view my deleted edits, I am unable to give exact numbers until I get hold of the logs), but from the edits I have made so far, I am yet to encounter any major issues, either here (which is just adding {{nowcommons}}, or over at Commons. Unfortunately, it is the latter which has slowed down, but I'll ping a crat over there and see what I can do. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Ping me when bot trial is done or bot request in commons is approved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 14 September 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:

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.


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)
  • APerson, I see the bot recently placed a couple of notifications on editor pages. I assume you're still testing and probably don't need me to tell you this. However, the latest I've seen is getting it right, but still missing something. When there is more than one editor (creator) that needs to be notified, it only notifies one. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

APerson Is the trial complete? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, it looks like APerson on August 22 put a notice on his user page that he'd be on a Wikibreak "...a pretty long time." Do we have an alternative solution to getting this bot done? DYK approved this bot January 2014. The request for the bot was made on Feb 23, 2014 and picked up by user Ceradon on March 1, 2014. However, as far as we know, Ceradon never took any action on that, and has not edited on Wikipedia since April 1, 2014. A new request was made for this bot on June 1, 2014. DYK has waited for several months now, with two different people volunteering to do the bot. As far as I can tell, his last testing on this bot was through APersonBot on August 31, 2014. That test showed the bot was not yet perfected, as by my message above. Please let us know our alternatives. — Maile (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
(editing from bot account) Maile66, due to unusual circumstances I will be unable to access my main account until around 7 November. I can vouch for the bot's readiness, although you should hold off on approving it until then. This will be the only non-bot edit I'll make with this account. APersonBot (talk!) 21:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Magioladitis, the date of Nov 7 is only 6 weeks away. I can wait if you can give APerson time to resume his work. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. We can wait 6 weeks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Bots that have completed the trial period

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/removing all type of tags that AWB Autotagger does

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Adminbot (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: The following tasks will be performed by the bot: (Updated): Adding/removing all type of tags that AWB does by Autotagger. It will skip if no tags changed and restrict orphan tag to linkless pages.


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)

@Xaosflux: this bot will make a (AWB) list of random articles if it encounter any article with less than the required incoming links it will tag {{Orphan}} by tagger. The functions will be same as done by Yobot of Magioladitis. (Note: addbot is no more active). Jim Carter 10:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
General fixes is obviously the part done in addition to the other parts. Orphan/dead end tagging is done by Yobot operated by myself. Multiple issues is done by BattyBot operated by GoingBatty. Persondata is done by Rjwilmsi and their bot.
Do you really think we need another do for this tasks? Searching for pages to tag with a random way won't bring much. The tracking categories I think are well-covered right now. I need some time to think if we need an additional bot. Waiting for opinions too! -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Magioladitis I have already discussed it on Xaosflux's talk page. I may also apply for approval of additional tasks after the bot start working. And another bot will do no harm instead it will help the project. Jim Carter 13:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My comment is that no large tasks need to be dependent on only one specific bot, so long as they can operate in harmony. Concerns here are related to the selection method of automation tied with random page editing. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Then I have some more options like running the bot against the category of Biography periodically every month?? It will add {{Orphan}} tags to articles that doesn't meet the required incoming tags. Or it may also run against the list of New pages. I need some suggestions, since Yobot already do this job so I will ask Magioladitis to suggest the category used by Yobot. Thanks, Jim Carter 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Magioladitis: Some clarification on BattyBot:
  • I try to run Part 5 on a daily basis - BattyBot task 3
  • I try to run Part 3 on a daily basis for the current month & last month (since those tags are visible), and prior months occasionally - BattyBot task 2
  • BattyBot does NOT perform Part 6 as a primary task
@Jim Cartar: Like Xaosflux, I would like to see some details from you showing how you will make your lists in AWB. For example, how will you generate the lists of articles to process to see which don't have the required incoming tags so AWB can add {{Orphan}}? If you use the list of New pages, I'm concerned that some people will think that the bot is adding the tags too early in the article's life - which is why BattyBot does not add maintenance tags as a primary task. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Some other remarks:

  • AWB does not provide any nice way to get random articles because it's a very expensive query and mediawiki programmers said we should avoid it. Maximum of pages loaded this way is 20.
  • I created a list of 500 random articles and ran Yobot to check how many are fixed this way. The result was 3. Very very few.
  • Orphan tagging via AWB allows: Tagging if page has 0 incoming links and untagging if page has 3 incoming links. AWB does not provide any built-in function for untagging pages with 1 or 2 incoming links.
  • Dead end pages has not serious backlog. Less than 500 pages there and usually the editors who add the links remove the tag too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Xaosflux, Magioladitis, GoingBatty:, tagging {{Orphan}} and {{Dead end}} will not going to be the primary task. It will add tags only if it encounter any article that doesn't have any Wikilinks or have 0 incoming links. The primary tasks are:
  1. Removing {{Orphan}}, the same way Battybot does.
  2. Removing {{Dead end}}, the same way Yobot does.
  3. Adding {{Persondata}} to biographical articles.
  4. Doing general fixings.
  5. Adding {{Multiple issues}} to articles in the new page list.
Very simple but helpful tasks. I hope this will clarify the concerns. Thanks, Jim Carter 16:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Cartar: Will these tasks run all together or separately? What logic will you use to skip articles when these specific changes are not made? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It may or may not run separately. For example: It will run against Category:Orphaned articles and Category:All dead-end pages separately but while de-orphaning an article if it encounter an article which doesn't have any wikilink, it will add {{Dead end}} tag. Will perform skip if no changes were made, page doesn't exist, only cosmetic changes were made and only casing changes. It will perform general fixings when ever it encounters. Jim Carter 04:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Cartar: there is an option "Skip if no auto tag changes" which suits the task better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Magioladitis I missed that one. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, GoingBatty:, So, as far as I understand is that there will be no special settings loaded nor script, no F&R rules. In fact the proposal is that the bot will run general fixes on lists with some skip options activated. In general, this is not a bad idea since we are already doing it by other bots. My concerns are the following:

  1. From the discussion I am not convinced that Jim Cartar is experienced enough to perform this task (yet). Me or someone else could provide of course the correct skip options to run the task and fix the request above. For instance, AWB's autotagger does not provide must flexibility and Persondata is not part of autotagger. So at first glance, the tasks should be changed to:
  1. Adding/removing tags via AWB
  2. Additionally, doing general fixings including Persondata/Multiple issues addition
  1. There is still the problem in which categories the bot will run.
But I an not satisfied with the fact that Jim Cartar does not seem to have used AWB a lot.
  1. The tagging tasks at this level are not that backloged. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Cartar: do you have a compiler and can compile your own AWB versions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I have used AWB alot with more than 100 edits/day and have more than 1200 edits. Please don't doubt my experience, I can operate the bot without blowing up anything. I can assure you that the bot will do no harm. Since this is my first request for Bot approval, I'm a bit confused. As Magioladitis already mentioned the tasks so I'm not going to say it again. The tasks mentioned by him is what the bot will do. No, I don't have a compiler but I have a de-compiler. And I will also ask for approval of additional tasks once I start operating a bot who does simple tasks. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Persondata and Multiple issues


Notes mainly for myself; For Orphan: There is also Category:All orphaned articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I know about that category. I have been a former member of WP:ORPHAN. See WT:ORPHAN, I along with Kvng have also organised a de-orphange BLD few months ago. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Jim Carter - Public: It's very challenging for me to try to follow your thought process on these different bot tasks. I suggest you narrow this request to one task, and update the function details with how you will make the list and how you will set the skip options. Other tasks could be requested as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jimmy the Bot 2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jimmy the Bot 3, etc. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I second that. It's impossible to follow this discussion anymore. For Persondta my opinion is that the non-bot account can be used. Tagging ang MI insertion should be discussed separately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay as suggested by GoingBatty, I request for my bots approval for the following tasks.
  1. Will do general fixings.
  2. Remove {{Orphan}} by running against Category:All orphaned articles
  3. Remove {{Dead end}} by running against Category:All dead-end pages
This are the few simple tasks the bot will do for now. And I will ask for additional task approval after the bot start working as suggested by GoingBatty. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: All orphaned articles category contains 122,114. Even if running your bot once per month it won't bring more. This is what Yobot does and we do not get a lot of pages untagged lately. I think that we need some extra tool in the wmflabs to aid us. Addbot was much better in these things and was not blindly running.

I appreciate your will to help and we certainly need the extra fresh people to help us reduce our workload as xaosflux wrote above and I could not agree more. I think the best choice for now is that you wait a bit before getting a bot account. The tasks you suggest are easy but this is not always the problem here.

Important My suggestion is the following: Try to run against Category:All orphaned articles through your normal account with "Skip if no tagging" and make like 50 edits so I can check the diffs and also for your to get the feeling how slow this is going to be. (Time should not vary between bot and normal account).

Moreover, I 'll keep you in my mind in case some other easy tasks pops up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this should be split into multiple separate bot requests, this conversation is all over the place and hard to follow. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I suggested the same thing three days ago (see above). GoingBatty (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Addshore, GoingBatty:. The request has 3 parts. Tagging, Persondata, Multiple issues. In fact we now discuss only the first part (tagging). -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Magioladitis: I'm out of town. That means, I don't have access to computer hence I can't run AWB for now. I will be back before 8-9-2014. Thanks for your understanding. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Task 1: Tagging

Ping @Xaosflux, GoingBatty, Magioladitis, Addshore:;

As suggested by Magioladitis, I have done the tagging task from my original account assuming it to be a trial run. I have run against a total of more than 1500+ articles. Firstly:

  1. Run against Category:Orphaned articles from August 2014. After running over 1000 pages, I have made 30+ contributions by adding/removing tags. I skipped if no changes are made, only whitespace changes, casing changes, auto tag changes.

I have either added or removed a tag by AWB's auto tagger followed other general fixings.

  1. Run against Category:All unreferenced BLPs. I have run over 400 pages and made 60+ edits which are either removing or adding a tag by AWB's auto tagger. Skip if contain "{{Prod"; rest are same as above.
  2. Run against Category:People stubs. I have run over 20 pages and made more than 11+ edits which are either removing or adding a tag by AWB's auto tagger. Skip system will be the same as mentioned above.

I have run against this CATs separately and have made more than 95+ edits. See those edits here. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public, Jim Cartar: If you're "taking a long wikibreak for more than 2 years", could you please help me understand why are you requesting permission to run a bot? GoingBatty (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: It is a long story. You can see the reasons on my talk page. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: as you suggested to repeat, I have done it by activating both "skip if no auto tag changes", "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages". I have run against 1900 pages and have made more than 60 edits. See them here. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Remark: Edit ratio was 60/1900 = 3.2%. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, GoingBatty, Addshore: if you think it's a good idea to give it a try, we can proceed in the trial bot phase. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I don't think we're ready for the trial bot phase.
  1. On August 24 I asked Jim Carter to update the Function details section, which has not been done.
  2. In response, Jim Carter stated the function would be to remove {{orphan}} and {{dead end}}. However, most of his edits actually added templates
  3. User talk:Jim Cartar still says he is on a two-year wikibreak and won't answer any messages. In my opinion, this should be removed before making any bot edits.
Thanks for asking! GoingBatty (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
GoingBatty I answer messages on the messagers talk page, I will remove that wikibreak notice (I forgot to remove it), as I said, now the bot function will be adding removing tags (All tags that Autotagger automatically does). I hope now you can proceed for a bot trial. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have update function details section. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Magioladitis, Xaosflux, Addshore: All Yes check.svg Done I have addressed all the issues, I'm ready for a trial run. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Addshore is in the process of slowly rewriting the code for their bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis let Addshore rewrite the code, until then please give my bot a chance for a trial run?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Extended Trial

@Jim Carter - Public: you should be reporting problems to me or to the AWB's bug page. There are some issues that are still not solved:

  • The low edit ratio due to the method used. This maybe not a big issue and live with the fact that we will end up with a bot with low edit ratio till we find a better solution.
  • Auto-tagger is not perfect. We can improve this but we need feedback and GoingBatty is right on that.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There are concerns of bad use of auto-tagger after issue was reported as fixed. User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Please_stop. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Hmm. Okay, I will report any bugs to you. That bad use was not intensional. I have addressed that issue. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Magioladitis: As I can see that rev 10469 has fixed most of the issues, should I do another trial?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Jim Carter - Public there will be a new official AWB release tomorrow evening. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Magioladitis: Thanks to you and Rjwilmsi for continuing to make AWB better! GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

((BotExtendedTrial|edits=50)) @Jim Carter - Public: please download version (make sure you use this) and start a new test round. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Trial complete. @Magioladitis, GoingBatty:. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: It appears that you didn't check your edits again. For example:
  • This edit incorrectly changed {{unreferenced|section=yes}} to {{refimprove|section=yes}}. I changed it to {{unreferenced section}} and notified the editor who added the incorrect tag.
Could you please check the rest of your bot's trial edits to see if there are any other issues? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: No, I have checked them yet. I'm a bit busy offline. I will ping you both once I complete checking. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, @GoingBatty, Magioladitis:, I have checked almost all the edits and came across some issues:
  1. Along with the edit GoingBatty noted above
  2. In this edit.
  3. This one. The bot replaced {{Unreferenced|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}} by {{refimprove|Paragraph below|date=September 2014}} The replacement was not correct. No sources were present in that paragraph so unreferenced tag was correct.
  4. In this one, the bot removed unreferenced tag and added refimprove tag and multiple issues tag. Multiple issues tag was not needed in this case as there was no other tags present other than refimprove.
I haven't found any other issues. It is possible that I might have missed something, please recheck if possible. Thanks, Jim Carter 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: Thanks for this analysis. Could you please specify what the issue is in #2? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@GoingBatty: In that edit the bot changed {{references}} to {{refimprove}} but didn't move the tag to the top. See it is still at the bottom. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: Thanks for explaining. Although Template:Refimprove#How to use directs users to put {{refimprove}} at the top of the article, I occasionally see it in the References section. It might be challenging to have AWB move the template correctly, since we've seen examples where users mean to use a section template but use a generic template instead. GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: I reverted your edit #3. Please revert your bot's edits when you notice that they are incorrect. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Refimprove means the article is lacking reliable sources. It doesn't apply to any specific section. {{Cn}}, {{dubious}} should be used instead. Feel free to revert my edits GoingBatty, I will also do it whenever I notice any incorrect tagging. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: Is anything you could do from your side (e.g. Find and replace rules or database scan) to reduce the errors reported above? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I can skip pages that contains {{Unreferenced|type=section}} but I can't do anything else from my side, really very sorry. Jim Carter 09:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: no need to skip these page since we now fix templates with parameter "type". Give me some days to think of something or ask for help in fixing the bugs. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Ping me Magioladitis when you get any idea to fix those bugs. Cheers, Jim Carter 11:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: You could try adding a find and replace rule that executes before general fixes:
  • Find: {{unreferenced|section=yes|
  • Replace: {{unreferenced section|
Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: can you please make a database scan for {{unreferenced|section=yes and {{refimprove|section=yes? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I agree doing a database scan is a good idea. Unfortunately I have never been successful in downloading a database dump, and probably won't have time this weekend to try again. GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Bgwhite did the check for us. 0 instances for the first one and 5 for the later. I fixed them all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite, Magioladitis: Thanks guys - glad there weren't too many to fix. GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Mogism left some messages at User_talk:Jim_Cartar#Sorry_to_be_blunt. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So, are the issues fixed? Magioladitis? That message was not related to General fixing (tagging), it was typo fixing. I don't do typo fixing anymore. Jim Carter 09:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: Problem 1 resolved. I can't find the page you refer to on problem 2. Problem 3 seems rare but we have to look into it or you have to suggest some skip conditions. We can't fix everything case-by-case. GoingBatty has done a wonderful job checking the edits so far but maybe we need to skip all pages with Refimprove? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public, Magioladitis: I wonder if skipping pages that contain \=+\n{{unreferenced would be appropriate for the bot task, until AWB's Tagger could be updated with something similar. GoingBatty (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, skip if contains \=+\n{{unreferenced will be fine. As I don't see much issues with {{Refimprove}} so skipping pages that contains {{Refimprove}} will not be fine. What you say Magioladitis? Jim Carter 10:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the perfect time to ask @Anomie, Xaosflux, Hellknowz: if they think this BRFA can survive and what is to be done. Another test? Reject? Approve? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that you've done plenty of trials. Does he know what he's doing well enough to use AWB in automatic mode without racking up more problems, or not? After a cursory glance I'd say "not", but you're the one who's really familiar with this request. Anomie 00:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public, Anomie, GoingBatty: As I said I can overcome the fact that the edit ratio will be low under "normal circumstances". Jimmy has tried a lot to help but I see more and more problems pop up and all the problems have been dealt by the AWB team so far. Jimmy's help was mainly on checking things but there was no help on fixing things. I think I am going to deny this bot request. Sorry Jimmy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn by operator. I tried my best to help. I thought this bot will help in maintenance work but it seems that my help is in vain. Anyway, @Magioladitis: you should have said this before then I wouldn't have wasted my time on this. Jim Carter 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: I did not know how many different issues could occur. The test runs really helped. We found many cases that needed fix. I encourage you that you keep tagging via your account, keep giving us feedback and come back after some time. It was problem of AWB's side in some cases. We did a lot of progress. I think, first of all, you understood who BRFA's work. From a very generil request we moved to a very specific and made it to the extended test runs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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.