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

Bots in a trial period


Joe's Null Bot 10

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

Time filed: 04:35, Tuesday July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PERL

Source code available: Yep, on request

Function overview: Purge WP:PERM 1/hour

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:Joe_Decker#New_Purge_Bot_task

Edit period(s): 1/hr

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes.

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

Function details: Purge WP:PERM 1x/hour to force an updated transclusion of its ten or so child pages.

Underlying detail: Like task 2, but unlike most of the other tasks for this bot, the current delay appears to be a job queue delay rather than a deeper bug., I've seen delays into the small number of hours there. Trivial change to existing code, so relatively low risk, and I'm more than happy to add it.


  • Approved for trial (7 days). — Please post any issues or results here after the trial. xaosflux Talk 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: I requested this task, so will want another BAG member to review the trial for final approval. — xaosflux Talk 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)



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

Time filed: 16:05, Tuesday July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): python

Source code available: it's based on pywikibot

Function overview: Fixing broken section link or redirect

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): monthly or once in every two months

Estimated number of pages affected: about several thousands articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes as pywikibot does it by default

Adminbot (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes in here and lots of Wikis

Function details: It makes a list of broken section link or redirect and goes though them and fixes anything that can be done (e.g. name of the section has changed and the bot fixes it) I have ran this in Persian Wikipedia and now and I did 50 edits for test (to get the approval) in Italian Wikipedia as you can see them in here


Best :)Ladsgroupبحث 16:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladsgroup Do you know if this is similar to what User:FrescoBot does? Have you written the script? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis I don't think it works the way that the bot works because It checks if the section link (or redirect to section) is valid and if it goes to a changed section, e.g. someone changed name of the section. It fixes it. I wrote that script :)Ladsgroupبحث 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ladsgroup, first off, cool program. I like it. I'm not sure about fixes like this. The link works before the fix. I'm just not sure what policy says about italics/bold. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite yes this is one of the first things I observed too. I wonder if bot becomes too sensitive in vandalism or improper MoS changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite and Magioladitis: I already fixed link issues and references in sections but I didn't notice the "'" character in section, I fixed it now. Thank you for notifying. I haven't started it yet because the databse is really huge and my bot is still readng the dump. :)Ladsgroupبحث 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Basilicofresco what do you think of this bot? I would like your comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting approach, it will fix a lot of links that Frescobot is not able to repair. I just try to guess the new section name using a large set of plausible variations (so I fix also mispellings), but Dexbot will be (hopefully) able to fix all the broken links due section renaming. It's definitely worth a try. Just start slowly and check if everything is going well. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

52 edits are done. :)Ladsgroupبحث 13:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Trial complete. Ladsgroup please provide link to diffs, comment your edits and report any errors you think were done during the process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is list of edits done by bot [1] and I checked some of them and there weren't any issues that I can detect. Usually because it's already fixed during past runs in other wikis :)Ladsgroupبحث 14:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

GoingBatty I would also like your opinion on this bot. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Conceptually, I like the idea of fixing links that are broken. Technically, I'm curious how Ladsgroup can detect which links are broken and what the correct fix should be.
In the only edit I checked, the bot made three changes:
  1. The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter#Film adaptationThe Heart Is a Lonely Hunter#Adaptations
  2. The Little Drummer Girl#Film adaptationThe Little Drummer Girl#Adaptations
  3. Dinner With Friends#Film adaptation → 'Dinner With Friends#Adaptations
Although change #1 is correct, changes #2 and #3 are incorrect. I have reverted the bad edit so Ladsgroup can tweak the bot and try again. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty:Talking technically, It goes through history to find out when was the last time that the invalid section had been seen before it was changed, so it gets two revisions, the last one with the invalid section and the revision after that, and analyzes the differences between them to see what happened and fixes the link if the new section still exists (my next step of development will be tracking down section title changes through history to fix more broken links) and about the edit, that was a stupid mistake in the code, I replaced "#oldsection" with "#newsection" so it changed all of them, and as my bot can't work on page.title() because of redirects but I will find a solution for it :)Ladsgroupبحث 21:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

fixed :)Ladsgroupبحث 01:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Thanks for fixing that edit. Next issues:
  • this edit, where adding the italics broke the link.
  • this edit, where guessing the new section header was "See also" was incorrect.
  • this edit was also incorrect.
That's four incorrect edits out of six. Could you please check each of your edits and make the appropriate fixes to the bot?
@Magioladitis: Would it be appropriate to ask Ladsgroup to do another 50 edits, once the bot has been fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Except the second error, all of them had been fixed before you mentioned them in here. :)Ladsgroupبحث 03:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: For each of the four bot edits I mentioned, I reverted the bot edit so you can try again. I hope your fix means that you have fixed your bot code and are ready to try again. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I checked the second edit. the issue happened because of this edit I can't say what fix would be the best solution, any comments is welcome :)Ladsgroupبحث 21:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: as I write before. This show sensitiveness to vandalism. Let's ask for feedback. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Magioladitis I pinged you because GoingBatty pinged and asked you to give me another trial period (see above:"Would it be appropriate to ask Ladsgroup to do another 50 edits, once the bot has been fixed?") Best :)Ladsgroupبحث 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (50 edits). — xaosflux Talk 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Done, I slept and the bot made 82 edits, sorry :)Ladsgroupبحث 03:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladsgroup please provide as a link to diffs and comment your edits. Did you notice any problems? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure I'll check them :)Ladsgroupبحث 10:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladsgroup Please also tell us how many edits were reverted after the 2 bot trials, if any. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments on first run

For example I think this is inappropriate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This created a non working link. Bold/italics should not be added. In fact, bold should not be expected in headers but sometimes it is added by editors not familiar with the Manual of Style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladsgroup Anchors should not be added. -- Magioladitis (talk)

This is the most worrying. Obviously, the correct section was removed. I found one more like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladsgroup there is also something important: You should review your own edits too and revert if there are any problems. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments on second run

Now reviewing. here is the link with the diffs of this run. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for answering late, I was traveling and got stuck in other things, I reviewed some of them and they were crazy, I'm rewriting the whole code to make it precise and okay. It worked okay in lots of wikis but in here people do all sorts of crazy things :)Ladsgroupبحث 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


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)


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)



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/

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:


(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)

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.