To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.
If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.
II
Filing the application
easy-brfa.js can be used for quickly filing BRFAs. It checks for a bunch of filing mistakes automatically! It's recommended for experienced bot operators, but the script can be used by anyone.
Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.
Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
III
During the approvals process
During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IV
After the approvals process
After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Function details: Replace 265–420 (and other variations of the dash) with 266–420. Generally speaking these will be in redirect links to Jin dynasty (265–420) or non-linked times given in prose.
Discussion
Is there a substantive reason to retarget these redirects without making other changes to the page? Some people object to cosmetic edits by bots. It looks like at least some of the articles, like Murong Wei, have the affected text only in a wikilink with a label. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess redirects came in because I did an insource: search. Even without changing those redirects, there are over 600 pages that specifically list the incorrect information, which is more than I'd like to do manually. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. With the cat issue sorted, there are only about a dozen places where the text even occurs, and most of them are piped links to the redirect. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Function overview: Remove dead URL's and associated {{Dead link}} tagging from CS1 templates if there is a free alternative available via an identifier.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):WP:BOTREQ#Remove dead links from book and journal citation templates with identifiers - It was agreed to proceed only where there is free access indicated. There may be further discussions to be had regarding other access levels and situations. These would have to be the subject of a further BRFA.
Edit period(s): one time run, with possible ad hoc repeats
Estimated number of pages affected: 111 pages for WikiProject Medicine, c. 1000 pages overall
Each {{Deadlink}} present will be processed, and processing only proceeds if there is a value of 'yes' in the fix-attempted parameter.
Using mwparserfromhell the deadlink template's ancestor elements are examined to find a tag or other element likely to contain the affected citation.
The affected citation is the sibling template element that precedes the deadlink tag within the identified ancestor. This and the preceding step have details that depend closely on the mwparserfromhell parse tree, and have been refined by scanning large samples of pages. e.g. if there is a plain external link after the preceding template, then the dead link being tagged is that external link, and not a link to any preceding template, so no fix is possible.
The candidate template is checked for a value in the url parameter. Processing only proceeds if there is a url. Editors sometimes mark a broken doi etc with {{Deadlink}}, rather than using the doi-broken-date parameter.
The candidate template is checked for a value in the archive-url parameter. Processing only proceeds if there is not an archive-url. Presence of an archive-url should indicate that the link is fixed.
A check is made to see if there are identifier parameters present that indicate free access. For details see WP:CS1#Access indicator for named identifiers. Under the scope of this request, processing will only proceed if free access is indicated and the access is unaffected by presence of a doi-broken-date or a pmc-embargo-date.
If all the conditions are fulfilled, the url parameter is removed from the template along with any access-date parameter, and the {{Deadlink}} tagging is removed.
Apply a general fix to remove template redirects using the rules at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. (I thought I could apply this fix prior to the above processing to simplify it, but some of the fixed templates were then removed, making the edit summary misleading.)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.Primefac (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. I have checked the edits made, and the free sources indicated by the reference template parameters are indeed available in all fifty cases, which was my main worry. Edits here.
This bot is very helpful since tracking down these articles and making these edits manually would be quite time consuming. It's more limited in scope than I personally prefer but that's understandable since it's new. Maybe its scope can be broadened over time. In any case, thank you for making this bot. Velayinosu (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
In this TfD the community overwhelmingly decided to merge the banners into the WikiProject banner stuff. Although that was only to apply to the {{WPUS50}} template, I think the sentiment in that discussion was against having it in a separate banner. Example new usage. In line with that, I'm wondering how your task would add these templates? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I think we may insert the templates into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Maybe BabbaQ have good idea? By the way, I think using the expression |WPUS50= will cause difficulties of related templates if we want to add/remove them later. The problem triggered when I run the task Normalize Multiple issues in zhwiki or jawiki, they allow both {{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}} and {{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}. So I need to check them both. If the challenge templates are merged to different meta-templates as parameters, the situation will be more complicated. In my opinion, {{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}} is better than {{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}, for it is easy to search for both humans and bots. Kanashimi (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other templates in that category have been nominated for deletion/merging with their parent WikiProject banners. I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion first. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given my involvement in the TFD (which I believe is sufficient enough to make me involved in this situation) I will refrain from commenting on this from a BAG perspective, but if the TFD closed with no action taken then I see no reason why the templates shouldn't be used in the appropriate locations. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (70 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. There are 7 templates in the category, so please do 10 edits per template (if possible). Primefac (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Request Expired.
Function details: I recently modified {{Redirect category shell}} to automatically detect Wikidata links and apply the template {{Wikidata redirect}} if they exist. This was previously already done with protection levels, and there is no reason that {{Wikidata redirect}} should not also be applied.
There are currently 100,000 redirects in the category Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, which is applied by the software. There are currently 30,000 redirects in the category Category:Wikidata redirects. Nearly all of these were put into that category by applying {{Wikidata redirect}} manually, meaning they will need the tag removed (as it will be a duplicate).
The edits will be carried out with AWB running as an automated bot. There is very low risk of disruption in this task, though the number of edits is significant. Using AWB, this bot can also carry out other generic fixes to redirects, though this is not a significant part of its functions.
A somewhat similar failed request was Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TomBot, but that that request was for a bot that would edit ~30-60x more pages, with less benefit overall. This is a much more narrow and useful request.
Discussion
Any prior discussions on doing this that you're aware of, which establish broader consensus for this task?
Will this BRFA cause Template:Wikidata redirect to become redundant? If I understand correctly, this task will orphan all of its transclusions? If so, and especially if there's no prior discussion, I suggest sending that template to TfD (and then this bot task can be technically implementing that TfD). That would be one way to test the wider consensus for this task, too.
There are no discussions I know of establishing consensus around this particular task. {{Wikidata redirect}} will not become redundant for two reasons. {{redirect category shell}} transcludes it. However, this usage could be subst, of course. The other usage is in cross-Wiki (such as to Wiktionary) and category redirects, the "soft" usage. The "hard" usage could be deprecated from the template, however (they are implemented slightly differently, with an automatic switch). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, I'd say stylistically this presentation is inferior. See eg here. The one on the top (caused by the edit) doesn't look as good as the manual one & looks slightly out of place with the plaintext.
So the idea is that {{RCAT shell}} should add the Wikidata box by checking for the connected item. Manually adding the template wouldn't be necessary then because the software can already detect if a page is connected to a Wikidata item. Is that correct? --PhiH (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PhiH: pretty much. The shell will automatically detect a link to Wikidata, and if found, transclude the template. Therefore, this bot will remove the redundant manual transclusions of the template, and add the shell to automatically transclude on any redirect linked to Wikidata. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it need to be categorised into misc redirects? Having a Wikidata item connected/existing isn't really an explanation of why there's a redirect on enwiki. Surely the redirect still needs to be categorised? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(though, a tracking category for uncategorized redirects that can be applied by a bot would probably be useful. I don't feel like gaining consensus for that, though, as that would likely be much more contentious than this proposal) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point is easier to demonstrate with an example, or I’m mistaken about exactly what is proposed here. Can you make 5 edits as a demonstration, either with the bot or by hand if you don’t have the bot coded yet? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about manual categorisation. We are discussing whether the category should be added by the RCAT shell when the redirect is connected to a Wikidata item. --PhiH (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To editor ProcrastinatingReader: as long as there is at least one rcat template within the Rcat shell, such as the "Wikidata redirect" template, then the redirect would not be sorted to Category:Miscellaneous redirects. As the proposer suggests, that would not be a problem. The proposer appears to know that a bot should not add an empty Rcat shell to redirects, which would bloat the Misc. redirects category. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are multiple cases we have to discuss, feel free to comment below.
Redirects that already use the RCAT shell
This should be uncontroversial: Where {{Wikidata redirect}} is used it gets removed and the template is transcluded by the RCAT shell.
Redirects without the RCAT shell…
…that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
The template gets removed and the RCAT shell is added. Should the RCAT shell be programmed to add these pages to Category:Miscellaneous redirects?
…that don't use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
The RCAT shell is added. Same question as above arises.
…that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are not connected to a Wikidata item
The template gets removed. Adding the RCAT shell would cause them to be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects. Currently these pages are tracked in Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects. Before this bot task begins someone should work through this list and add the pages on Wikidata if necessary.
If I understand correctly, this bot will add the Rcat shell along with an internal {{Wikidata redirect}} tag when it senses any redirect that is already itemized on Wikidata. If that is what happens, then the redirect will not be sorted to the Misc. redirects category. I also sense a possible challenge where the {{NASTRO comment}} template is applied. One of many examples is at 3866 Langley. Would this bot do anything to those many redirects? I actually like the idea of more Rcat shell transclusions. I wonder if the bot will continue checking for new redirects that become connected to a Wikidata item? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bot won't touch the {{NASTRO comment}} redirects, since it has no need to.
NASTRO comment applies the Rcat shell and so would auto-apply the Wikidata redirect template. There will then be two renditions of Wikidata redirect. Won't one of them have to be removed? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the point of this bot is that these edits wouldn't be necessary anymore. Here you said If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary) --PhiH (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A weekly run would handle any new redirects that have been created. Editors LOVE to create new redirects; however, they generally leave it up to bots and Wikignomes to categorize their new redirects. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also curious as to why AWB is used? Don't get me wrong; I love AWB. However it's not known for its speed or lack of clunkiness. According to the manual, ...any edit to the bot's talk page will halt the bot. Before restarting the bot, the bot operator must log in to the bot account and visit the bot's talk page, so that the "new messages" notification is cancelled. So why not make a non-AWB bot to do the task? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because I know AWB and regex better than I know any other frameworks to interface with Wikipedia. I could write custom code, if that would be preferred. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious, so it would be up to you, of course. I just know how it drives me crazy sometimes when I have to stop in the middle of something, log out of AWB, log in to Wikipedia just to check notifications, log back out and into AWB to commence. That happens with non-bot-auto work as well. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um... you don't have to log out of AWB to reset the counter. Also, technically you don't have to log out of Wikipedia either if you log in to the bot account in private mode. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So just to clarify what I'm waiting on: An actual edit or two of each case would be preferable, as that's the least confusing way to see what is actually proposed. After that, it'll be more clear to have the discussion on which edits are good and which need further discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac and ProcrastinatingReader: thanks for the ping. I've actually expanded the scope of what I'm intending to do here a bit (see User:Elli/rcat standardization) - and planning on getting consensus for the changes elsewhere first, before going through with this, so if I could put this request on hold or something that would be ideal (sorry, I'm not sure exactly how this type of situation works, but getting approval for the narrow task of shelling and removing one rcat doesn't really make sense given my goal to deal with ~20 of them). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This very productive discussion probably should have happened somewhere else prior to the BRFA being filed. Maybe this BRFA should be withdrawn pending a full discussion and manual demonstration of various test cases, and then resubmitted with a link to that discussion and a better explanation of the task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Bots in a trial period
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Function details: Almost the exact same as described in BRFA TolBot 1, except it uses a whitelist of countries (only African countries) instead of a blacklist of non-countries (like continents and income groups).
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.Primefac (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAG assistance needed}} The trial completed more than two weeks ago; could someone please reply on this task's status? (On another note, I apparently forgot to disable its crontab entry, so its trial is longer than intended; I've turned it off now.) Thanks, Tol | talk | contribs22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This update removed countries from this list. Is there a reason to remove countries, even if there is no sourced data available? Also, it would be helpful to maintain the alphabetical order of countries so that it is easy to parse the diffs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is removing countries from the list and re-sorting them out of alphabetical order, which makes the diffs very challenging to inspect. Please fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: It only outputs data for countries which have data from OWID. It cannot add countries for which no data is available. I can, however, get it to output the countries in alphabetical order. By the way, your reversion broke the bot (it relies on the HTML comments "<!-- PASTE UPDATED DATA BELOW THIS LINE -->" and "<!-- UPDATED DATA ABOVE THIS LINE -->" to tell where the data starts and ends). Tol | talk | contribs18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better! It appears to be missing Gabon, even though there is data at the source (assuming you are using the OWID site) for that country. Burundi, Eritrea, and Tanzania are missing from the OWID site, so they can be omitted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. As per usual, any minor changes due to missing or improper functionality can be made without further consensus, but any major changes need to be requested on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Function details: Requesting bot flag as to not clutter RC. The bot account will need AWB access. All edits will be marked as "minor". Tested once with my own account here (with JWB, as I was on my Mac, but the bot will probably run AWB). "Unicodify" function will be enabled.
Discussion
I support this task, and request that you add more regexes so that pages do not have to be revisited by multiple bots. On the page linked above in the sample diff, there were multiple easily fixable font tags, along with missing italics at the end of Template:RM bottom, that could be fixed with simple regexes while the bot is visiting each page. There are many such regexes listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot, although the operator reports that they resulted in some false positives. I have some more limited regexes at User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/doi.js, in the sections marked "font wrapping links - move inside link and convert to span tag", "replace font tag in user and user talk links with span tag", and "replace all deprecated font color tags enclosing untagged text". I have never seen a false positive with those regexes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Thank you for mentioning these. I'll take a look at those pages (and the related discussions linked at the BRFA) and try to pick up all the regexes that seem to have no false positives. I prefer to stay on the safe side and only add the non-false positive regexes. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, looking at WP:HTML5, there seem to be many other easy replaces (eg strike tags with s tags), which hopefully can be incorporated into this request. Compiling a full list later. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are planning to run this bot without supervision, I recommend removing the sections entitled "Links in links", "Fix linter problems", "Fix linter missing or extra end tags", "div-span-flip error", "small tag or template wrapping multiple lines", and "replace deprecated tt tags" (both sections). Certain regexes in those sections can create new errors or recommend inappropriate changes. I always use my script in a supervised mode, inspecting each preview before I save it, so that I can avoid those inappropriate changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fix various errors" is too broad. The specific scope of this bot should be documented here. Please note, I just denied BRFA Task#2. — xaosfluxTalk00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there and sorry for the extremely late reply. The regex search I put together timed out, so I'll need to split it into chunks of three. I'll finish this today. 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: hey there, it seems like the wikitext CheckPage is not working. Please add my bot to the JSON CheckPage, thanks. I get a permission error in AWB when trying to run the bot. 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who posted the BOTREQ before I had a bot account more than a year ago. I have since got my own bot (MalnadachBot) to do this and gone through a dozen BRFAs to fix Lint errors. The scope of User:MalnadachBot/Task 12 covers every type of Lint error, so this task will be a duplicate. For the last 5 months MalnadachBot has been clearing 35-40k errors per day. Of course there is still a large backlog so another bot can work on this too.For the record, I oppose unicodifying non-mainspace pages like this. Unescaped | and some other symbols breaks templates, so editors deliberately choose hexadecimal characters in their signatures. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update, @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. I'm going to mark this request as Withdrawn by operator. I feel that your bot can tackle this task in the most efficent way possible :) I'd recommend taking a look at the replacements and adding any applicable to your workflow. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk)16:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Function details: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.
Discussion
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the results of the run limited to 25 edits:
In 2, the bot converted the original template's date February 2008 to 00:00:00 01 February 2008 (UTC). Could this be avoided? Maybe always put the date as the date of last edit rather than read from PR template?
Approved for extended trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed the problem with the revid (caused by fiddling with the dates to fix a problem with the first set). have re-run against each of the problematic edits (offline, without updating). Will run off another batch. Hawkeye7(discuss)04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Function overview: Replacement of outdated OTRS templates to generic templates per consensus of OTRS to Znuny LTS migration project team, see: phab:T280392, c:Commons:Bots/Requests/VRTS Migration Bot. Mentions of "OTRS" shall be replaced per advice from the WMF legal team per discretion of the migration team.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):phab:T280392
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: Not yet known, suspect around 1k or 10k.
Namespace(s): Mostly file and article talk, perhaps all namespaces in small amount.
Exclusion compliant(Yes/No): Could be done if any need arises, but per nature of the task should likely be not done without special need.
Adminbot(Yes/No): Not from the start, but perhaps template editor or similar could be required later.
Function details: See c:Special:Contributions/VRTS Migration Bot. More details available on request, program code for enwiki is not complete and is to be continuously developed.
(Additional templates may be affected later after separate discussion and approval.)
Discussion
A little background can found here here. I thought this request might be corporate legal gold-plating, but given the recent events it seems prudent. William Avery (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing the template as requested here is ok. But I note that replacing references in free text would likely be WP:CONTEXTBOT, and I would not include that in an approval here at this time. Anomie⚔11:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption reading the request and skimming the contribs at Commons was that it just replaces templates. After I approved the trial the bot made this edit on Commons which also replaces "OTRS" in text. To be clear, whereas CONTEXTBOT might be a possible concern indeed, I also think bot replacement of OTRS or similar in actual text needs wider community consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Text content changes on Commons include removal of the wort OTRS only, which though sometime requires rewording of the surrounding sentence, like: c:Special:Diff/559798533 or c:Special:Diff/559786216. Such changes are not intended on enwiki, and are not part of this bot request. Should there arise any need for such edits, I think they will be of small amount and can be made manually. --Krd13:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no objection after a week in the started discussions. I tried to make more test edits today but am now run stuck in the rate limit. --Krd07:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was already approved for trial above. With regards to rate limits, a bot flag shouldn't be necessary to edit at the speeds described in WP:BOTPERF (1 edit every 5-10 secs). I would also suggest moving the two pages to the new title (by RM or otherwise), because that'd be necessary anyway, and also would better serve as the consensus for the change. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. All looks good. For clarity, this approval is for the scope of changing the name used to call the template in wikitext. I'd recommend linking to this BRFA as approval for the task in addition to the phab ticket. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Function details: The bot will periodically update data of a specific edit filter. There's discussion on the edit filter mailing list if any BAG members have access, also happy to discuss on IRC.
The bot account will need to be flagged with EFM. I've done a test without submitting on my own account. Worth noting that since there are no API endpoints to update edit filters programmatically, the bot makes normal web requests for this purpose. It has checks for roughly expected data and saves a record of the request for safekeeping.
Discussion
In principle, I think this is fine. I would prefer if it runs under an isolated account due to the inherit risk of the EFM role and to make auditing easier. I wish there was more we could say to explain to users about what it's trying to do, but I understand the BEANS risks. Suffusion of Yellow, I checked recent hits of the filter and while I see plenty of unconstructive edits being stopped (and some constructive ones as well), I don't see much of the actual thing it's trying to target. How often do you expect it to hit? Also, would it be at least OK to give the filter number, so users with EFH/EFM/sysop permissions can understand what's going on, without needing to dig through the mailing list? — The Earwig (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, once the bot's running, it will have to be public at Special:Log/abusefilter that it's editing 1122 (hist·log). And we can say that this is what the bot will be doing. Yes, the LTA(s) have "gone dark" right now. I was tempted to disable the filter, before I saw this request. But then we'd be back here in a few months when one of the LTAs returns. So, ProcrastinatingReader, will the bot leave the filter's actions unchanged? What I'd like to do is switch it to log-only (probably a good idea while bot's in testing anyway), but be able to switch it back to disallow again as soon the problem returns. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (not much!), I also feel that bot tasks with 'advanced' rights should run under an isolated account. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly convinced it improves security, especially in the case of this task, but I also don't mind maintaining a second account. I created User:ProcBot II but it'll need to be temp flagged with bot as well if this goes to trial (due to same issue as ProcBot I; captchas and IP blocks). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW agree that a second account doesn't really improve security as long as your other bot tasks are running out of a BotPassword configuration that doesn't have access to EFM rights. But since it's an advanced right, it might help to enable 2FA for its web-login. – SD0001 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't view it as a security issue, I view it as more of a transparency/clarity issue. If MyBot1 is a "normal" bot and MyBot2 has TPE and MyBot3 is an adminbot, if I see them in the contribs I immediately (assuming I know the bot functions) have a better idea of what "type" of edits the bot is making (in other words, it's easier to quickly check if it is functioning properly). Primefac (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. The trial should be conducted with the filter in log-only mode, as SoY suggested above, unless the problem returns and we need to switch it to disallow. I will leave the flagging to Primefac. — The Earwig (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{BotOnHold}} Popping on hold for a while. Both scripts work (and a few bot edits were made), but I can't seem to get it to run in Toolforge cron. Something weird going on. Had one of the sysadmins take a look but will need to file a phab ticket I think, and can't get around to that for a few weeks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Denied.
I'm working on a function that verifies if a tag replacement is a redlink and it will then skip over that so it can be done manually by people who may have a better idea of what to do than an automated system. BJackJStalk
Okay. Send me a ping once that's done and I'll be happy to send this for trial :). I don't think it's worth cycling through trials without that function, like in the previous BRFA, as in this edge case making those edits doesn't really solve the problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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⚡16:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Function details: It is often enough that I want to perform TfD implementation using a bot that I think this is warranted. There is no acute need for another bot of this nature with PrimeBOT 24SporkBot and BsherrAWBBOT 2, but it would reduce the wait time for these projects at times. The template that prompted this request was {{R from historic name}} where {{R printworthy}} has to be added to the 5000ish uses which doesn't have it separately, but if I had the bot last month I would probably have done {{Friendly search suggestions}} as well and {{WPUS50}} looks like a likely future candidate for the task.
ProcrastinatingReader I have one other TfD task now, PearBOT 4. If I ever want to do something even as close to the technical or implementation complexity of PearBOT 1 that will go through another BRFA since a lot of testing and a second pair of eyes will be needed. As I said in the function details, the first usage would be {{R from historic name}} with {{WPUS50}} likely to follow. I've implemented tons of TfDs, often using AWB, over the past few years. --Trialpears (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think for the Rcat template it can just be replaced with a template call of the target template name, and use AnomieBot to subst it all. But the same can be said for many TfD merges. I suppose they're different tools, and depending on the case one approach can be slightly (or substantially) easier than the other.
The problem with using AnomieBOT for {{R from historic name}} is that there is a significant number where {{R printworthy}} already is present which would result in duplicate templates. Anyway, I've done 25 edits with {{R from historic name}} (1, 2, 3-25). Everything went as expected, except me forgetting to turn of the other currently running task at first which would have made the edits interspersed with each other and put the bot over the recommended max edit rate. Would it be possibly to go ahead with the specific templates I've already had a trial for or do I have to complete all 3 templates first? I don't think there's a third appropriate template for a bot in the holding cell right now and it would be a shame to artificially delay the others. --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the relevant discussions the main difference between them is that historic name tags redirects as printworthy while former name does not. As stated in the latest TfD "It's best to just tag relevant "historic" names as printworthy". --Trialpears (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another template trial done for {{WPUS50}}: Contribs. First edit got the wrong edit summary because AWB was being weird and unselecting my custom summary. Other than that this was a very uneventful trial. --Trialpears (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented a version to deal with block formatted templates (none of the ones that appeared in the trial were block formatted though), but didn't deal with the spacing. I could make a specific regex for it. I don't know about the AddParameter functions but if such things exist that would be awesome. I know there is the template parameter renamer and I suppose the template dater module has to have some sort of parameter adder. Could you give me a pointer to this thing? --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've implemented a module using this. It appears that it only deals with spacing around the equals sign though so I've added some regex to deal with whitespace around the pipe as well. I've done about 25 preview tests with this and it works well. Do you want another 25 edits or can I start the run? --Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go! It makes the parameter spacing consistent with the first parameter. Some of the templates in the trial already had inconsistent spacing which it of course doesn't fix. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. That's fine. With a task like this that requires operator adjustment for each run it's mostly a question of whether the operator is competent to realise and handle such issues as they arise. It's often a good idea to plan ahead for edge cases before runs (as much as possible), and test on a couple dozen edits before starting a full run to make sure all is going as expected. But I'm fairly happy with the above trial results and your history at TfD, so I foresee no issues here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Function overview:peerr removes the template {{Peer review}} from talk pages where no longer needed. ie. the template was added more than 7 days ago indicating the peer review processes has stalled or was not properly initiated.
Function details: Long description: As part of the peer review process, {{Peer review}} are added to article talk pages, but sometimes the process is not done correctly or stalls. A tracking cat was created to catch these (Category:Peer review requests not opened), but still requires manual removal of the template after waiting some time. It is safe to say if the template has been in place for more than 7 days without indication the rest of the processes has been done, the template can be removed. To automate: once a day, the bot retrieves the list of page names in the tracking category, along with today's date ("added date"), and adds it to a text file. If the page name is already in the text file don't add it again, rather check if it has been more than 7 days since the added date. If so, verify there is a corresponding peer review page called Wikipedia:Peer review/PAGENAME/archiveX and if not then remove the Peer review template, and remove the text file entry. Likewise if the page name is in the text file but not in the tracking category then remove the page name from the file.
Thank you for helping us out at WP:PR with this bot. There are a few tasks at peer review that could be automated and this is one of them that I am thankful for.Tom (LT) (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. To make the edits more obvious please do not mark the edits as minor so that the change ends up on all watchlists. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is running. Nothing will happen for at least 7 days. The 25 edits might take weeks or months. Feel free to ping me anytime for a list of existing edits. -- GreenC21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These were test edits to ensure that when I am not looking (such as sleeping or working) when it begins editing automatically 7+ days from now it doesn't destroy a page. And Nightengale College the template qualifies to be removed, if you want to revert the page to this edit as the first trial edit, though it is kind of cheating; better to wait 7 days when it will do it again automatically which is what the trial is testing. -- GreenC03:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd just prefer that you not make six edits on a live talk page of an article for testing purposes, or at least that you make it clear that you are running a test on that talk page. I very nearly just shut off the bot because you were just repeatedly reverting it without explaining why, even by edit summary. So, consider this a gentle reminder that bots are here to help the rest of us, and mucking around article talk pages without explaining yourself isn't helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} It's been 7 weeks since the trial started. The bot edited 8 pages. Of these, three were a mistake due to the wrong namespace Example. That is fixed, it now only runs if a Talk page (regex "^Talk:"). So 5 legit edits in 7 weeks, which it does correctly. At this pace, it could take another 8 months to get to 25. Would it make sense to lower the trial target? -- GreenC04:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the question becomes this: if there are so few, is there a need for a bot to do this? This is a legit question, for what it's worth, as "making one edit per week" is something that a human can do just as easily as a bot. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There might be dozens in the tracking cat and you'll need to know which ones, and when, to remove it. Meaning you'll have to go through each one, rechecking them continually for a change in status, then deciding if enough time is gone by, then make the edit. A single edit might take 15 minutes or more (or 15 minutes and no edit). I didn't make up this bot idea, I was approached by Tom (LT) who does this work manually. -- GreenC01:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Truth is, the bus factor at peer review is often one, so this kind of thing often lingers for months to years before it's fixed and what's more, is often forgotten about and has to be rediscovered as an error. It's true that this not a particularly critical error, but having a bot look after this sort of automated task frees up volunteer time and headspace to work on other goals. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the bot doesn't edit often doesn't seem like a problem to me if it's doing useful work. I'm inclined to approve now provided we haven't seen any issues in the existing behavior. — The Earwig (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits to Talk:Jitin Puthenchery are interesting. There are four instances of the peer review template, all duplicates. It thus takes 4 cycles to delete them - delete one, wait 7 days, delete the next, wait, etc.. it works, but takes multiple edits and about 30 days. Alternatively it could delete all instances when they are duplicates. -- GreenC06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. No issues. The volume of edits is very low, but clearly the bot task is worth having as it is very tedious for a human to keep track of when the template should be removed. – SD0001 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Function details: It's all discussed at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". TLDR: There's a consensus that "Wikimedia list article" and "Wikipedia list article" are undesirable short descriptions and that no short description is necessary for most lists and a bot is the way to implement it. This bot is about as simple as they get and a trial would be a bit silly, but I can do it if so desired.
Discussion
@Trialpears: You are a trusted bot op, but let's have a brief trial to sanity check ourselves. Could you please confirm whether this bot has any impact on Wikidata entities relating to these articles? Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --TheSandDoctorTalk01:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A list article affected by the trial is on my watchlist: I wouldn't mind this bot getting the prize of this year's most useless bot operation. For clarity oppose this bot. What would it do other than creating watchlist clutter? What would its actual benefit be? Edit-warring with bots or editors importing short descriptions from Wikidata? Really, this is the kind of bot operations we can miss big time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken I'm trying my best to get the underlying concern of removing tens of thousands of useless descriptions. I brought up the watchlist spam concern at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". It won't edit war with people since there will only be one run and it will use {{short description|none}} which prevents shortdesc helper from importing the description and hopefully it won't suggest it at all even when it isn't present soon. Could you go to the above discussion and express your opinion there? I will put the bot on hold for a bit. --Trialpears (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Example diff. How is "none" more useful than "Wikimedia list article"? You are replacing a relatively useless description by something that's absolutely useless. I oppose this task to make bad descriptions even worse. --mfb (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so critical to suppress two specific short descriptions then the template could do that, as proposed. The title of that article is a good description on its own I think, but not all list titles are that verbose. --mfb (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a benefit if we can make sure no future import will give these two or similar general short descriptions, but that would need to be done first. --mfb (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article"shows no consensus whatsoever for the proposed bot operation (that is even before I added my opinion there). Can't you people read a discussion and see that it goes in all sorts of directions without the least bit of consensus? That is not a basis for a bot task as if there was some sort of approval for the idea behind the task; there is no such approval. The task should never have been proposed. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My read on that discussion is that is that first there's broad agreement that Wikimedia/Wikipedia list article doesn't contribute anything as a short description. I propose that we edit {{Short description}} to ignore the descriptions and threat them like none. When I implement this after waiting a reasonable time for objections or counter proposals to be raised some editors say that they would rather see a bot replace the descriptions. MichaelMaggs starts a subsection about how the description should be removed whether by bot or template edits is preferred. A few people, me included are neutral on how it's implemented since there are pros and cons with both and the rest prefer a bot. A week after the discussion started I decide to file this BRFA to move the project forward and since noone actually objected to a bot that was the favored outcome by the participants. Given that the talk page is quite highly trafficked for an implementation discussion (many template edits get no input at all) I considered that suitable and since the trial was approved the bot approval group agreed. It is however great to hear your opinions at this stage and not when we've had a bot doing thousands of edits, but rather just 10. We will just have to wait and see where the consensus takes us. Could also put an RfC tag on the WT:SHORTDESC discussion if you want to get a 30 day discussion and a proper close at the end. --Trialpears (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... messy discussion... no consensus... anyone can read in it what they want... no actual conclusion. As a minimum (even if no formal RfC had been initiated) it should have been listed at WP:ANRFC, so that someone uninvolved could have assessed the discussion for what, if anything, could be concluded from it. Note also the new subsection which I initiated in that discussion: I think you all started more or less from the deluded assumption that meaningful short descriptions for list articles are out of reach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'm not done with this project of getting rid of useless descriptions, but I will probably not do so in the coming month. I'll just withdraw this and start a new one if and when this become relevant again. --Trialpears (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
In 2018, Qbugbot created 18,000 taxa stubs on insects and other arthropods. 1234qwer1234qwer4 noticed a systemic error in the bot-generated lists of synonyms in the taxoboxes, which were based on data from ITIS. In many cases, the bot alphabetized the list of synonym names, but did not reorder the corresponding author names, leaving them mismatched. Here is an example of this being fixed. The correct authors can be checked against ITIS as well as other sources like GBIF which reference the original literature.
This bot task operates as follows:
Examine each page created by Qbugbot
Parse the taxobox for the list of synonyms and authors
Pull the correct synonym-to-author mapping from ITIS (obtained via database download)
If the authors in the article do not match ITIS, but match after reordering in the same manner Qbugbot used to order the synonyms, fix the order and save the page
Any exceptional cases (if the article contains synonyms not listed in ITIS, or the author names do not match ITIS after reordering) are left for manual review
Example edits the bot would make, saved manually: 1, 2, 3
Of the 18,000 pages created by Qbugbot, about 500 have this synonym issue, and EarwigBot can fix about 425 of them using the logic above. For the other 50–100 pages, editors have made a partial attempt to fix this issue, changed authors to diverge from ITIS, or the data in ITIS has changed; these cases will be reviewed manually.
Discussion
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Should be straight-forward, but let's make sure the wheels don't fall off. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking on this task! Your rules for what cases to leave for manual review seem very rational to me (though allowing the reordered author list to be a subset of the ITIS one in rule #4 and adding the synonyms missing in the article as part of the bot task would have been okay as well IMO). ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 1234qwer1234qwer4, my description may have been a bit imprecise. The bot will still fix pages if ITIS contains additional synonyms that are not in the article, as long as every synonym in the article is in ITIS (i.e. article ⊆ ITIS is OK but not ITIS ⊆ article). For this bot I only want to correct existing data, so I wasn't planning to add new synonyms from ITIS. — The Earwig (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, at the end of the run I'll make a list of all the pages that need manual review, including those with extra synonyms in ITIS. — The Earwig (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Function details: This is basically the ListeriaBot for database replicas. Instructions for usage are at User:SDZeroBot/Database report. When that template is transcluded to a page (user/WP namespaces), SDZeroBot will run the provided SQL query and update the page (once immediately and then every 24h).
Why we want this in addition to Quarry? Wikilinks! Page titles & usernames can be made clickable, unlike in Quarry results. For articles and draft pages, the bot can include excerpts; also not possible in Quarry.
There are some sane checks to prevent abuse of resources (10 min enforced timeout implemented using MariaDB's max_statement_time parameter, limited usage of concurrent db connections, and won’t save to mainspace if someone transcludes the template there).
Approved. Trial looks fine to me. I've only skimmed the code but that looks fine too. I'd note that it doesn't appear to be sanitising the user input, but SQL accounts are limited to select queries anyway. Probably best to keep pages of database reports managed by this bot under either bot userspace, subpages of Wikipedia:Database reports, or userspace in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
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.
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.
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 any time. 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.
Withdrawn by operator.
Approved.
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete. I have checked the edits made, and the free sources indicated by the reference template parameters are indeed available in all fifty cases, which was my main worry. Edits here.
Approved. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Request Expired.
Request Expired. Marking as expired since it's been about 15 months, but feel free to reopen if you intend to continue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Still doing..., I've had some trouble with making the search query for AWB but hopefully I've got it now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 04:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Done for trial purposes. What's the status of this? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
On hold.. Ping me when ready to continue. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Approved for extended trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete. Log. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Denied.
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⚡ 16:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
