Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval
(Redirected from Wikipedia:B/RFA)
 | All editors are encouraged to participate in the requests below – your comments are appreciated more than you may think! |
New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!
- Approval process – How these discussions work
- Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
- Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon
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.
| Instructions for bot operators | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
| Bot-related archives |
|---|
| Bot Name | Status | Created | Last editor | Date/Time | Last BAG editor | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MacaroniPizzaHotDog Bot (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-10-28, 20:59:48 | Primefac | 2024-10-30, 15:46:04 | Primefac | 2024-10-30, 15:46:04 |
| BunnysBot (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2024-10-24, 15:12:05 | Bunnypranav | 2024-11-01, 09:15:23 | Primefac | 2024-10-30, 14:06:32 |
| KiranBOT 12 (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2024-09-24, 15:59:32 | GreenC | 2024-10-31, 04:19:08 | The Earwig | 2024-10-05, 16:10:12 |
| RustyBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2024-09-15, 15:17:54 | Primefac | 2024-10-20, 11:42:26 | Primefac | 2024-10-20, 11:42:26 |
| PonoRoboT 2 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-07-20, 23:38:17 | Primefac | 2024-08-04, 23:49:03 | Primefac | 2024-08-04, 23:49:03 |
| Platybot (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-07-08, 08:52:05 | Primefac | 2024-10-20, 11:46:49 | Primefac | 2024-10-20, 11:46:49 |
| KiranBOT 10 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-09-07, 13:04:48 | Usernamekiran | 2024-10-06, 18:19:02 | The Earwig | 2024-10-05, 15:28:58 |
| SodiumBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-07-16, 20:03:26 | Novem Linguae | 2024-08-08, 07:10:31 | Primefac | 2024-08-04, 23:51:27 |
| DannyS712 bot III 74 (T|C|B|F) | In trial: User response needed! | 2024-05-09, 00:02:12 | DreamRimmer | 2024-10-06, 07:43:48 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-09-29, 10:59:04 |
| AussieBot 1 (T|C|B|F) | Extended trial: User response needed! | 2023-03-22, 01:57:36 | Hawkeye7 | 2024-10-02, 03:25:29 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-09-29, 10:54:10 |
| FrostlySnowman 10 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2023-03-02, 02:55:00 | DreamRimmer | 2024-10-15, 14:17:23 | SD0001 | 2024-09-18, 17:52:59 |
Current requests for approval
Operator: MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 20:59, Monday, October 28, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: Performs sentiment analysis on pending AfC submissions, leaves AfC comments where appropriate.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: No
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 250
Namespace(s): Draft
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Function details: Detects non-neutral language (i.e., overly positive, negative, or subjective) in pending AfC submissions (retrieved by querying the MediaWiki API) using TextBlob. Adds AfC comments with mwclient where appropriate.
Discussion
Has this idea been discussed somewhere before?? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This seems like it would be a WP:CONTEXTBOT problem. What if someone were writing a draft article about Michael Jordan that contained text like
Jordan is often referred to as the greatest basketball player of all time
, with references to multiple reliable sources? Would that draft be tagged in some way? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)- Yes, that is a good point. I can make it so it checks sentence by sentence, and looks at the references. The real problem is finding out if those references actually say that, and if they are reliable. MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk • contributions) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Or I could eliminate the polarity check and focus entirely on objectivity. MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a good point. I can make it so it checks sentence by sentence, and looks at the references. The real problem is finding out if those references actually say that, and if they are reliable. MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk • contributions) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Needs wider discussion. At the very least, make sure WT:AFC actually wants this. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
On hold. until this is done. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Bunnypranav (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:12, Thursday, October 24, 2024 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: AWB is open source
Function overview: CheckWiki error fixing bot operated using AWB
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Check Wiki error fixing AWB Bot for CW Error #3, though it does not have many comments. This is anyways an uncontroversial maintenance task
Edit period(s): Manual runs whenever new CheckWiki error dumps are posted
Estimated number of pages affected: ~1000 for each dump
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Fix Check Wiki errors on the affected pages. For now, I consider focusing only the high priority and non-cosmetic errors, as GenFixes are turned on, it will also do the general cleanup of that page. Skip options in AWB, Page is in use, No changes made, Only cosmetic changes are made, will be turned on.
I intend to keep Auto Tagging and RegexTypoFixing on, but OK with turning it off if there is any opposition. With reference to this discussion, any page containing {{disambiguation}} after changes, will be skipped to avoid any misfires.
Basically, a clone of other Check Wiki error fixing bots (Yobot, MenoBot). For the confusion about the RefList error 3, a majority of my AWB edits were fixing this error, and I did not find a single wrong suggestion by AWB.
Discussion
- not exactly opposing, but that reflist task should not be performed unsupervised with AWB, making it a not a good idea for fully automated AWB bot. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran Thanks for the comment. Till date, I have performed about 150-200 of that task mannualy using my main account. I only had to skip about 5-10 edits, that too because they did not change anything, and I did not enable the safer skip options in AWB (ones that I will enable if this gets approved).
- Therefore I believe that the task can be performed manually, though please give your thoughts. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am currently not on Windows, so I do not have access to AWB. But given that the CW Error #3 doesnt have a green tick for AWB, we should err on the safer side. Yobot's relevant BRFA is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16. They were cautious about the reflist issue. Also to be noted, Yobot's operator was one of the developers of AWB itself. Regarding Menobot's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MenoBot 4, it was basically a clone of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BG19bot 7, and both of them didnt handle reflist issue. I am not opposing the task forever, but I think it should be automated after a few hundreds of edits. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for any possible misunderstanding. I have done nearly 200 edits (if my memory is not wrong), and each one of them was completely and correctly done by AWB. I do not have enough experience to evaluate every single possible occurrence, but from my experience, a green tick can be put on the CW article. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran Besides, the list which states error 3 to be Partially fixable by AWB was last edited in 2017, and both AWB and CW have been upgraded from that time. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am currently not on Windows, so I do not have access to AWB. But given that the CW Error #3 doesnt have a green tick for AWB, we should err on the safer side. Yobot's relevant BRFA is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16. They were cautious about the reflist issue. Also to be noted, Yobot's operator was one of the developers of AWB itself. Regarding Menobot's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MenoBot 4, it was basically a clone of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BG19bot 7, and both of them didnt handle reflist issue. I am not opposing the task forever, but I think it should be automated after a few hundreds of edits. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}}- Six days since request, no reply from a BAG member. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Six days is nothing; I haven't even looked at BRFA in a week. It will get looked at when it gets looked at, which will hopefully be this weekend. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, agreed. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Six days is nothing; I haven't even looked at BRFA in a week. It will get looked at when it gets looked at, which will hopefully be this weekend. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the BRFA to extend to all non-cosmetic CW errors, hope it does not cause any confusion. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Usernamekiran (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:59, Tuesday, September 24, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: update Accelerated Mobile Pages/AMP links to normal links
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): pywikibot
Source code available: github repo
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): requested at BOTREQ around 1.5 years ago: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 84#Accelerated Mobile Pages link eradicator needed, and village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_202#Accelerated_Mobile_Pages_links, recently requested at BOTREQ a few days ago: special:permalink/1247505851.
Edit period(s): either weekly or monthly
Requested edit rate: 1 edit per 50 seconds.
Estimated number of pages affected: around 8,000 for now, but the estimation is high, around thousands of pages. later as they come in.
Namespace(s): main/article
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes (for now), if required, that can be changed later
Function details: with usage of extensive regex patters, the bot looks for AMP links. It avoids false matching with general "amp" words in the domains eg yamaha-amplifiers.com. After finding, and updating the a link, the bot checks if the new/updated link is working, if it gets a 200 response code, the bot updates the link in article. Otherwise, the bot adds that article title, and (non-updated) link to a log file (this can be saved to a log page as well). —usernamekiran (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- addendum: I should have included this already, but I forgot. In the BOTREQ, and other discussions, an open source "amputatorbot" github was discussed. This bot has a lot of irrelevant functions for wikipedia. The only relevant feature is to remove AMP links. But for this, the amputatorbot utilises a database for storing a list of
~400k~200k AMP links, and another list of canonical links of these AMP links. Maintaining this database, and the never-ending list of links for Wikipedia is not feasible. The program I created utilises comprehensive regex patterns. It also handles the archived links gracefully. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
Maintaining this database, and the never-ending list of links for Wikipedia is not feasible
But you wouldn't have to maintain this database right, if the authors of that GitHub repo already do, or have made it available?The program I created utilises comprehensive regex patterns. It also handles the archived links gracefully.
Would you mind providing those patterns here for evaluation?
Aside from that, happy for this to go to trial. @GreenC: any comments on this, and does this fall into the scope of your bot? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I will soon post the link to github, and reasoning for avoiding the database method. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Hi. Yes, the author at github has made it available, but I think the database has not been updated in 4 years, I am not sure though. I also could not find the database itself. If we utilise the database, the bot would not process the "unknown" amp links that are not in the database. In that case we will have to use the method that we are currently using. Also, the general process would be more resource intensive I think, ie: "1: search for the amp links in articles 2: if amp link is found in article, look for it in the database 3: find the corresponding canonical link 4: replace in the article. Even if the database is being maintained, we will have to keep it updated, and we will have to add our new findings to the database. I think this simpler approach would be better. KiranBOT at github, AmputatorBot readme at github. Kindly let me know what you think. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- PS: I notified GreenC on their talkpage. Also, in the script, I added more comments than I usually do, and the script was created over the days/in parts, so the commenting might feel a little odd. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like a good idea. I ran into AMP URLs with the Times of India domains, and made many conversions. It seemed site specific. Like m.timesofindia.com became timesofindia.indiatimes.com and "(amp_articleshow|amp_videoshow|amp_etphotostory|amp_ottmoviereview|amp_etc..)" had the "amp_" part removed. Anyway, I'll watchlist this page and feel free to ping me for input once test edits are made. -- GreenC 23:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: if there are no further questions/doubts, is a trial in order? I am sure about one issue related to https, but I think we should discuss it after the trial. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} —usernamekiran (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewing the code, you're applying a set of rules (
amp.domain.tld→www.domain.tld,/amp/→/,?amp=true&...→?...) and then checking the URL responds with 200 to a HEAD request. That seems good for most cases, but there are going to be some instances where the site uses an unusual AMP URL mapping and responds with 200 to all/most/some invalid requests, especially considering we are following redirects (but not updating the URL to the followed redirect). It also will not work for the example edit from the BOTREQ? I don't know how to solve this issue without some way of checking the redirected page actually contains some of the content we are looking for, or access to a database of checked mappings. Maybe the frequency of mistakes will be low enough for this to not be a problem? I am unsure. Any thoughts from others? — The Earwig (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)- These are good points. Soft-404s and soft-redirects are the biggest (but not only) issues with URL changes. With soft-404s, you first process the links without committing changes, log redirect URLs, see which redirect URLs are repeating, manually inspect them to see if they are a soft-404; then process the links again with a trap added to treat the identified soft-404s as a dead link. Not all repeating redirects are soft-404s but many will be, you have to do the discovery work. For soft-redirects, it requires foreknowledge based on manual inspections, like the Times of India example above. URL changes are difficult for these reasons, and others mentioned in WP:LINKROT#Glossary. -- GreenC 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GreenC any suggestions on logic/algorithm? I will try to implement them. I dont mind further work to perfect the program
—usernamekiran (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GreenC any suggestions on logic/algorithm? I will try to implement them. I dont mind further work to perfect the program
- These are good points. Soft-404s and soft-redirects are the biggest (but not only) issues with URL changes. With soft-404s, you first process the links without committing changes, log redirect URLs, see which redirect URLs are repeating, manually inspect them to see if they are a soft-404; then process the links again with a trap added to treat the identified soft-404s as a dead link. Not all repeating redirects are soft-404s but many will be, you have to do the discovery work. For soft-redirects, it requires foreknowledge based on manual inspections, like the Times of India example above. URL changes are difficult for these reasons, and others mentioned in WP:LINKROT#Glossary. -- GreenC 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewing the code, you're applying a set of rules (
- @GreenC, ProcrastinatingReader, and The Earwig: I updated the code, and tested it on a few types of links (that I could think of), as listed in this version of the page, diff of the fix. Kindly suggest me more types/formats of AMP links, and any suggestions/updates to the code. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see you log failed cases. If not already, also log successes (old url -> new url), in case you need to reverse some later (new url -> old url).
- One way to avoid the problems noted by The Earwig is simply skip URLs with 301/302 headers. Most soft-404s are redirect URLs. With the exception of http->https, those are OK. You can always go back and revisit them later. One way to do this is log the URL "sink" (the final URL in the redirect chain), then script the logs to see if any sinks are repeating.
- -- GreenC 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Rusty Cat (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:17, Sunday, September 15, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: Categorize and create redirects to year pages (AD and BC).
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot)
Source code available: Will provide if needed
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Articles about years: redirects and categories
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: about 1000-2000 year pages, so assuming we have to create 3 redirects for each, maximum 6000
Namespace(s): Main
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: For each number 1-2000, the bot will operate on the pages "AD number" and "number BC".
On AD pages, the bot will append Category:Years AD to the page if it does not already have it.- The bot will create redirects "ADyear", "year AD", and "yearAD" to AD pages, and "BCyear", "BC year", and "yearBC" to the BC pages.
Discussion
- Support as requester. Note that the AD year articles are, in the main, currently not categorised other than by number (e.g. Category:98 for AD 98). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I just checked and realized that the number categories are subcats of the Category:Years category. Does that mean that the bot does not need to put the page into the AD Years category? Rusty 🐈 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I'd missed that. I guess so. I'll start a separate discussion about subdividing Category:Years into BC and AD sub-cats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was suggested to use categories like Category:Years of the 19th century instead, so I'm applying those now, using Cat-a-lot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I'd missed that. I guess so. I'll start a separate discussion about subdividing Category:Years into BC and AD sub-cats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I just checked and realized that the number categories are subcats of the Category:Years category. Does that mean that the bot does not need to put the page into the AD Years category? Rusty 🐈 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Which "R from" templates, if any, will be placed on the new redirects? I'm seeing one on AD 812 and a different one on 79 AD. Is there a systematic way of using them? – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that {{R from year}} is what should be used here, as it states "This is a redirect from a formatted year title to the related year article."
- And "AD" isn't a disambiguator in the parenthesis sense. Rusty 🐈 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Separate question: I am seeing both AD 128 and 152 as year pages, but the task description says that the bot will operate only on "AD pages", or, in a separate specification, "AD number" pages. How will the bot task know the correct target for its redirects? Is there a systematic numbering method of these pages? – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95:
- I didn't know about the existence of 152 previously, so thanks for bringing that to my attention.
- I believe it will not be as straightforward to find all the year pages only beginning with a number; assuming the year pages are correctly categorized, the bot should check for a subcat of Category:Years on the page, and if so, assume it is a year page.
- If the "AD number" page exists and it is not a redirect, we assume that page is the year page for that year. Otherwise, it is assumed that the year page is just the number. Rusty 🐈 13:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus for this task? If there is a lack of standardisation in the naming of pages, that should be taken care of first, followed by a consensus on which redirects to have (I note that 2/3 of each example given in the BOTREQ thread were redlinks). Primefac (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Ponor (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:36, Saturday, July 20, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: WP:MASSCREATE the remaining 3200 out of 6700 Croatian naseljes (settlements), which are the third level division of the country. The bot can create stubs like Dubrava, Split-Dalmatia County. Update the existing articles with ZIP codes (new official source), and historical population data graphs (where possible, under full supervision).
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic creation. Supervised or manual updates.
Programming language(s): Python @ PAWS
Source code available: possible
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia/Archive 5#Croatian settlement articles mass creation
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 3200 (+2500 or so)
Namespace(s): Articles
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): irrelevant
Function details:
- Create some 3200 articles from the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/To Do List/Missing settlements, link them with Wikidata.
- Update existing Croatian settlement articles with ZIP codes and historical population data graphs, where possible (time permitting). The same job has been completed on hrwiki for all 6700 settlements.
Discussion
Needs wider discussion. The discussion you link was between you and only one other person. Please seek consensus at WP:Village pump (proposals) or a similar venue where we can be sure many people have seen it. Anomie⚔ 01:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hm... Thanks, though I'm not sure I wanna go through anything like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 207 again. I thought the 2000+ existing Croatian settlement stubs would prove the current consensus. A few hundred stubs created by the two users I mentioned in the linked WikiProject:Croatia discussion definitely contain less information than my bot can add, and were all kept. Let me ping @Joy to see if he can help push this through... somewhere. I don't have time for endless opinionated discussions myself, I'm afraid. Ponor (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- You linked to a failed proposal to tighten the notability guideline, but it has little relevance to this proposal, because if all these new articles look like Dubrava, Split-Dalmatia County there's no way anyone's going to propose their deletion. These are not gas pumps masquerading as villages.
- Even if we wanted to upmerge that information into list articles, those historical population graphs would just seem to be unwieldy, it would be pointless shoehorning.
- @Primefac had previously allowed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PonoRoboT and I don't remember seeing any problems, it seemed to be a nice, straightforward improvement to the encyclopedia.
- @Anomie, is there a real difference here? IOW why would this change to these 3k settlement articles need more discussion when the previous change to analogous 3k settlement articles didn't?
- The fact that one group of 3k Croatian places has articles while another group of them doesn't is a historical fluke. If we need a discussion on making this situation consistent, the previously existing group needs to be discussed as well. But we already know they all qualify under WP:5P1 etc, so I don't quite see why this would be frowned upon according to standard processes (WP:BOLD, WP:NOTBURO). --Joy (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was only reminding everyone what our notability discussions end up looking like. Since there were recent MEAT creations of these stubs, I'm thinking creating them by hand would be a waste of anyone's precious time if I can do the same thing, or better, by my bot.
- I see that, for example, Serbia has all of their 3rd level two-sentence geo stubs created since 2010 or so. That says WP:EDITCON is there, no? Ponor (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real difference between Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PonoRoboT and this is that this is about creations, and the community has for many years now wanted to vet bot creations of articles before they happen. And that's regardless of whether the proposed creations would pass WP:N (part of it is that the community wants independent evaluation of that before the creations happen) or whether other articles on the topic or related topics already exist.If you want to refer to policy, WP:MASSCREATION says (emphasis added)
It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects.
Unless you can get another BAGger to proceed without, this is me requiring. Anomie⚔ 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)- I concur with Anomie on this one; we have an editor who, while other factors were involved, wanted to do a similar thing for 300 pages and is restricted to only making one per month. Creating ten times as many one-paragraph sub-stubs in a fraction of the time will need consensus. Yes, they aren't just gas stations, but other than "Town X has a population Y" there appears to be no more information readily available, so I would like to see a reasonable consensus to create these (and not just two editors agreeing it would be a good idea). As Anomie said, your first approved task was updating information, not creating new pages. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a clerical difference, it's just because some editor mass-created tens of thousands of these two decades ago and happened to miss half of the Croatian settlements. But okay, let's go through the motions, I'll file a proposal when I have the time (and if no one beats me to it). --Joy (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ponor the best way to substantiate this proposal would be to make sure we show some external references on e.g. the Bureau of Statistics doing proper work (documenting existing human habitation as opposed to something weird), and illustrate the body of scholarly and other work out there on the topic of these settlements. If you have something to this effect already, please share. --Joy (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll help with everything I know, but can't take the burden of convincing everyone on the project alone atm. I'd start with the first four refs in Dubrava, Split-Dalmatia County: there are laws, one agency takes care of the division(s), the bureau uses their data. Every town and municipality have their web page listing these settlements. Most settlements have a church, school, etc. Let's continue at WikiProject Croatia, huh? Ponor (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ponor the best way to substantiate this proposal would be to make sure we show some external references on e.g. the Bureau of Statistics doing proper work (documenting existing human habitation as opposed to something weird), and illustrate the body of scholarly and other work out there on the topic of these settlements. If you have something to this effect already, please share. --Joy (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a clerical difference, it's just because some editor mass-created tens of thousands of these two decades ago and happened to miss half of the Croatian settlements. But okay, let's go through the motions, I'll file a proposal when I have the time (and if no one beats me to it). --Joy (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with Anomie on this one; we have an editor who, while other factors were involved, wanted to do a similar thing for 300 pages and is restricted to only making one per month. Creating ten times as many one-paragraph sub-stubs in a fraction of the time will need consensus. Yes, they aren't just gas stations, but other than "Town X has a population Y" there appears to be no more information readily available, so I would like to see a reasonable consensus to create these (and not just two editors agreeing it would be a good idea). As Anomie said, your first approved task was updating information, not creating new pages. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real difference between Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PonoRoboT and this is that this is about creations, and the community has for many years now wanted to vet bot creations of articles before they happen. And that's regardless of whether the proposed creations would pass WP:N (part of it is that the community wants independent evaluation of that before the creations happen) or whether other articles on the topic or related topics already exist.If you want to refer to policy, WP:MASSCREATION says (emphasis added)
- I'd oppose the bot creating any more pages until Module:Croatian population data graph is translated into English and more pages become uneditable by editors unfamiliar with the language. Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- On hold. Please feel free to disable the {{BotOnHold}} template when consensus about the appropriateness of this task has been demonstrated. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Bots in a trial period
Operator: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 08:51, Monday, July 8, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: Adjusts templates based on provided JSON configuration files. This request is limited to Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web, and is primarily intended to correct issues where the work or publisher is linked to the wrong target.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Not currently
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Initially, irregular one-off runs, with each held after significant expansions to the configuration file. Once most citations have been fixed I will open a request for continuous operation in a maintenance mode.
Estimated number of pages affected: Varies considerably based on configuration. This configuration, which applies to ten sources, will edit approximately 23,000. This configuration, which goes beyond correcting wrong links and also always inserts the correct link when one is missing, will edit approximately 450,000.
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Adjusts parameters of Cite news and Cite web based on a configuration file. This configuration can be applied to any parameter, but the intent of this request is to apply it to the following:
- work
- publisher
- publication-place
- department
- agency
- url-access
It determines which change to apply based on current parameter field values. Any field or combination of fields can be used, but the intent of this request is to use the "url" field.
Adjustments can be specified as "always", "onEdit", or "never". When "always" is specified, if a change is identified as being desired for a parameter the article will be edited to implement it. When "onEdit" is specified, desirable changes are only implemented if we are already editing the page. This reduces the impact on watchlists by skipping articles that don't have high priority issues.
Configuration schema
|
|---|
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"includes": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"key": {
"type": "string",
"example": "url"
},
"value": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["www.bbc.com", "www.bbc.co.uk"]
}
}
}
},
"description": "Lists conditions required to be met for this configuration to be applied to the template."
},
"excludes": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"key": {
"type": "string",
"example": "url"
},
"value": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["www.bbc.com/sport", "www.bbc.co.uk/sport"]
}
}
},
"description": "Lists conditions that must not be met for this configuration to be applied to the template."
}
},
"patternProperties": {
"^[a-zA-Z0-9-]+$": {
"oneOf": [
{
"type": "array",
"description": "Named for the parameter, and defines what will be done with it. Used when there are multiple possible configurations for the parameter.",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/parameter-config"
}
},
{
"type": "object",
"description": "Named for the parameter, and defines what will be done with it. Used when there is only one possible configuration for the parameter.",
"$ref": "#/definitions/parameter-config"
}
]
}
}
},
"definitions": {
"parameter-config": {
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"$id": "parameter-config",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"includes": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"key": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["url"]
},
"value": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["www.bbc.com", "www.bbc.co.uk"]
}
}
}
},
"description": "Lists conditions required to be met for this configuration to be applied to the parameter."
},
"excludes": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"key": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["url"]
},
"value": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["www.bbc.com/sport", "www.bbc.co.uk/sport"]
}
}
}
},
"description": "Lists conditions that must not be met for this configuration to be applied to the parameter."
},
"link": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Where the parameter should normally link to",
"example": ["ABC News (Australia)"]
},
"wikitext": {
"type": "string",
"description": "What the wikitext of the parameter should normally be",
"example": ["ABC News"]
},
"blacklist": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["ABC News (United States)", "ABC News"]
},
"description": "Links that will always be removed"
},
"greylist": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["Australian Broadcasting Corporation"]
},
"description": "Links that will only be removed when already editing the page. Used to prevent edits that would only fix issues we consider minor."
},
"whitelist": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": ["The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)"]
},
"description": "Links that will never be removed. Used when we believe editors may have deliberately provided a non-standard value that we wish to respect."
},
"fixRedirects": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["always", "onEdit", "never"],
"default": "onEdit",
"description": "Specifies when we will replace redirects to the provided link with the provided link."
},
"fixDisplay": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["always", "onEdit", "never"],
"default": "onEdit",
"description": "Specifies when we will replace the currently displayed text with the displayed version of the provided Wikitext."
},
"fixOthers": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["always", "onEdit", "never"],
"default": "always",
"description": "Specifies when we will replace links to pages that are neither redirects to the link nor on the provided lists."
},
"fixMissing": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["always", "onEdit", "never"],
"default": "onEdit",
"description": "Specifies when we will add a missing value"
},
"priority": {
"type": "integer",
"default": 5,
"description": "Provides a tie-breaker when multiple array objects meet the inclusion or exclusion criteria. Higher value is preferred. It is unspecified which configuration object is used when both have the same priority level.",
"minimum": 1
}
}
}
}
}
}
|
What it does to these parameters depends on the configuration. For example:
"work":
{
"link": "ABC News (Australia)",
"wikitext": "ABC News",
"blacklist": ["ABC News (United States)", "ABC News"],
"greylist": ["Australian Broadcasting Corporation"],
"fixMissing": "onEdit",
"fixRedirects": "onEdit",
"fixOthers": "always"
}
Will ensure that the "work" parameter only links to ABC News (Australia). When it finds a link to a source other than ABC News (Australia), its redirects, or Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it will edit the article to correct that link.
When it encounters a redirect, or Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or a missing value, it will only correct those if it is already editing the article.
If we change "fixMissing" to "always", it would edit the article to insert the value.
"agency":
{
"includes":
[
{
"key": "agency",
"value": ["Reuters"]
}
],
"remove": "onEdit"
}
Will remove the agency field when it contains "Reuters". This is used to correct when the field has been incorrectly filled with the name of the publisher or work.
"department":
[
{
"includes":
[
{
"key": "url",
"value": ["reuters.com/world/"]
}
],
"wikitext": "World"
},
{
"includes":
[
{
"key": "url",
"value": ["reuters.com/world/reuters-next/"]
}
],
"wikitext": "Reuters Next",
"priority": 6
},
{
"includes":
[
{
"key": "url",
"value": ["reuters.com/business/"]
}
],
"wikitext": "Business"
}
]
This fills in the department field based on the source url. If none of these are met then the department field is not filled.
The current configuration file will do the following:
- ABC News (Australia)
- Set "work" to ABC News
- Set "publisher" to Australian Broadcasting Corporation
- Remove "publication-place"
- Remove "agency" when incorrect
- The Daily Telegraph
- Set "work" to The Daily Telegraph
- Set "publisher" to Telegraph Media Group
- Set "publication-place" to "London, United Kingdom"
- Set "department" when it can be determined
- Reuters
- Set "work" to Reuters
- Set "publisher" to Thomson Reuters
- Set "publication-place" to "London, United Kingdom"
- Set "department" when it can be determined
- Remove "agency" when incorrect
- The New York Times
- Set "work" to The New York Times
- Set "url-access" to "limited"
- Remove "publisher"
- Remove "publication-place"
- BBC News
- Set "work" to BBC News
- Remove "publisher"
- Remove "publication-place"
- Set "department" when it can be determined
- BBC Sport
- Set "work" to BBC Sport
- Remove "publisher"
- Remove "publication-place"
- The Guardian
- Set "work" to The Guardian
- Remove "publisher"
- Set "publication-place" to "London, United Kingdom"
- Set "department" when it can be determined
- The Guardian (Swan Hill)
- Set "work" to The Guardian
- The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
- Set "work" to The Daily Telegraph
- Set "publisher" to News Corp Australia
- Remove "publication-place"
- ABC News (United States)
- Set "work" to ABC News
- Set "publisher" to American Broadcasting Company
- Remove "publication-place"
The intent is that the community will expand the configuration file, increasing the number of citations it can fix.
Example of template replacements
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
When editing a template, to improve readability it will also apply a consistent format and naming convention. This involves converting parameters away from aliases to their primary values, and placing the parameters into the following order:
Order
|
|---|
|
Discussion
- I'd prefer if this bot (and every bot) stopped short of reordering template parameters. Doing a full reorganisation on any template edited will make it much more difficult to tell what changes have been made when reviewing diffs. Folly Mox (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can trust our bots that much, I'd say. And it shouldn't be much of a problem if you compare the diffs in visual diff mode, try here. In my experience, it's much easier for a bot (program) to reassemble a template in some predefined order. Having data in the order of final appearance does help with readability (BilledMammal: that'd be url?, author(s) data, date, title…).Ponor (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ponor: Currently, author(s) data, date, title, url - the full order can be seen in the final collapsed box. However, that is easy to change.
- It wouldn't be difficult to put it back in the original order (although it would result in new fields being dumped at the end), but personally I believe it is better to reorganize it, as while it makes it harder for editors using non-visual viewer to identify the changes, it easier for editors to parse the template going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I support putting the params in some canonical order, my only question is which one it should be. VisualEditor (TemplateData), IAbot, maybe even reFill, probaly use the same one ("Full parameter set in horizontal format" from {{Cite web}}?), which is what I'd use as well. Up to you, though. Ponor (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I started with the full parameter set from Template:Cite news, but quickly found that "full parameter set" doesn’t actually mean "full parameter set".
- I see the two templates differ in where to put the URL; I think Cite news' method is better, as the URL is difficult to read so better to put that at the end. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The order is probably from the order used by TemplateData as that is where ProveIt takes its order from. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support putting the params in some canonical order, my only question is which one it should be. VisualEditor (TemplateData), IAbot, maybe even reFill, probaly use the same one ("Full parameter set in horizontal format" from {{Cite web}}?), which is what I'd use as well. Up to you, though. Ponor (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can trust our bots that much, I'd say. And it shouldn't be much of a problem if you compare the diffs in visual diff mode, try here. In my experience, it's much easier for a bot (program) to reassemble a template in some predefined order. Having data in the order of final appearance does help with readability (BilledMammal: that'd be url?, author(s) data, date, title…).Ponor (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think consensus would need to be established for this at other venues. The part of the proposal regarding adding links where none exist has the potential to conflict with WP:WHENINROME. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That aspect doesn’t need to be enabled; exactly how this functions depends entirely on the configuration file.
- However, that aspect isn’t covered by WP:WHENINROME, which says
If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data.
- Emphasis mine. BilledMammal (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring to the part of WHENINROME that states:
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change.
For example, if an article has proper citation formatting, but none of the publication titles are wikilinked, or only the first instance is, running this bot to add wikilinks to each publication parameter would run afoul of WHENINROME. In any event, given that we have a reasonable disagreement on this point, I think consensus would be needed to implement that part of the bot. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- Ah, I misunderstood. The configuration file can be updated to not replace unlinked, but otherwise correct, source names, if such behaviour is desirable.
- With that said, I’m not sure whether the decision to Wikilink or not falls under WP:WHENINROME, as such a decision appears to go beyond referencing style and instead fall under MOS:LINK, specifically MOS:UL, which says
Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers
- which would include virtually all source names, as few have worldwide recognition - should be linked. BilledMammal (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- I broadly construe WHENINROME to avoid referencing conflicts since the MOS is a contentious topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily have an issue with the rest of what the bot would do. Also, I would like to see a process for establishing consensus for what parameters should be included for each ref. For example, why doesn't The Guardian (Swan Hill) have a publication-place parameter? Why use publisher instead of publication-place for The Daily Telegraph(s)? These are things that might need to be worked out. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The omissions for Swan Hill Guardian are primarily because I wanted an example of a minimally completed source, to demonstrate the tools range.
- (The Daily Telegraph actually uses both)
- The process I was planning was standard WP:CONSENSUS, with the requirement that consensus be obtained prior to changing the primary configuration file. Or do you think something more involved is needed? BilledMammal (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring to the part of WHENINROME that states:
I think even a rough consensus would be fine for the contents of the configuration file. I'd like to see it advertised at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and potentially other venues before this bot goes active. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea; I think WP:VPR would also be a good location, although I’ll wait till BAG gives preliminary approval before taking it to the wider community. BilledMammal (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, have been meaning to tag this with
Needs wider discussion. but have had other things to deal with; I would like to see a rough consensus that this is a desired bot task. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion at the Village Pump. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Link expanded to include section, no other change made. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC) discussion archived, link updated. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I do note a very weak consensus at the Pump that this will be a reasonable bot trial. For the sake of getting more eyes on this, please do not mark these edits as minor. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion at the Village Pump. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Link expanded to include section, no other change made. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC) discussion archived, link updated. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, have been meaning to tag this with
Operator: Usernamekiran (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 13:04, Saturday, September 7, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: go through Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata, add the coordinates from wikidata to enwiki article, and remove the {{coord missing}} template
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): pywikibot
Source code available: not yet, soon on github, pywikibot script
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): requested at WP:BOTREQ, permalink
Edit period(s): once a month
Estimated number of pages affected: around 19,000 in the first run, then as they come in
Namespace(s): mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no
Function details: the bot goes through Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata, for each article: it reads the coordinates from the wikidata QID of that particular article. adds it to the infobox with | coordinates = parameter. If infobox is not present, then it adds to the bottom on the appropriate location, using {{coord}} template. If the coordinates are added successfully, then the bot removes {{coords_missing}} template. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- this seems to be borderline cosmetic bot, if that's the case would it be possible to run the bot with lower edit rates like one edit per minute, or 1edit/5minutes? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think this would not fall under cosmetic bot because of the third point in WP:COSMETICBOT: [.. Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as...]
the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs (e.g. changing
—usernamekiran (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC){{citation needed}}to{{citation needed|date=September 2016}})
- I think this would not fall under cosmetic bot because of the third point in WP:COSMETICBOT: [.. Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as...]
- {{BAG assistance needed}} —usernamekiran (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — The Earwig (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The Earwig: Hello. I made around 10 edits, but there were two technical, and another issue. I accidentally ran an older version of the script, which had problem of duplicate entries for coordinates, this has already been fixed. The second issue was of the format of coordinates. The third, non-technical issue is that this task currently does not have a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. But I think this was discussed in the past, and not recently. First I will fix the formatting issue, and then initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Till then, I think this BRFA should be put on On hold.. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The Earwig: Hello. I made around 10 edits, but there were two technical, and another issue. I accidentally ran an older version of the script, which had problem of duplicate entries for coordinates, this has already been fixed. The second issue was of the format of coordinates. The third, non-technical issue is that this task currently does not have a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. But I think this was discussed in the past, and not recently. First I will fix the formatting issue, and then initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Till then, I think this BRFA should be put on
Operator: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 20:03, Tuesday, July 16, 2024 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: https://github.com/sohomdatta1/npp-notifier-bot
Function overview: Notify previous reviewers of a article at AFD about the nomination
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Initial discussions on NPP Discord + previous BRFAs surrounding AFD notifications
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 1-2 per day (guessimate?)
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, on enwiki, yes, for other wikis on other tasks
Function details:
- Use the eventstream API to listen for new AfDs
- Extract page name by parsing the AfD wikitext
- Identify previous reviewers of page at AFD
- Notify said reviewers on their talk pages with a customised version of the existing AfD notification message
Discussion
- I like this concept in general. I tried to make a user script that does this (User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/WatchlistAFD.js#L-89--L-105), but it doesn't work (I probably need to rewrite it to use MutationObserver). Would this bot be automatic for everyone, or opt in? Opt in may be better and easier to move forward in a BRFA. If not opt in, may want to start a poll somewhere to make sure there's some support for "on by default". –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to be on by default with the option for reviewers to disable. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes. "Opt out" might be a good way to describe this third option. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to be on by default with the option for reviewers to disable. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - seems like a good idea. I've reviewed several articles that I've tagged for notability or other concerns, only to just happen to notice them by chance a few days later get AfD'ed by someone else. A bot seems like a good idea, and I can't see a downside. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the sort of thing that would be really good for some people (e.g., new/infrequent reviewers) and really frustrating for others (e.g., people who have reviewed tens of thousands of articles). If it does end up being opt-out, each message needs to have very clear instructions on how to opt out. It would also be worth thinking about a time limit: most people aren't going to get any value out of hearing about an article they reviewed a decade ago. Maybe a year or two would be a good threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- The PREVIOUS_NOTIF regex should also account for notifications left via page curation tool ("Deletion discussion about xxx"). The notification also needs to be skipped if the previous reviewer themself is nominating. In addition, I would suggest adding a delay of at least several minutes instead of acting immediately on AfD creation – as it can lead to race conditions where Twinkle/PageTriage and this bot simultaneously deliver notifications to the same user. – SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Operator assistance needed}} Thoughts on the above comments/suggestions? Also, do you have the notice ready to go or is that still in the works? If it's ready, please link to it (or copy it here if it's hard-coded elsewhere). Primefac (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac I've implemented a few of the suggestions, I've reworked the code to exclude pages containing
{{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}}, which should serve as a opt out mechanism :) I've also reworked the code to include SD0001's suggestion of adding a significant delay by making the bot wait at least a hour and also added modified the regex to account for the messages sent by PageTriage. - Wrt to Extraordinary Writ's suggestions, I have restricted the lookup to the last 3 years as well and created a draft User:SodiumBot/ReviewerAfdNotification which has instructions on how to opt out. Sohom (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll leave this open for a few days for comment before going to trial. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please make sure this BRFA is linked in the edit summary. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll leave this open for a few days for comment before going to trial. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac I've implemented a few of the suggestions, I've reworked the code to exclude pages containing
- I ran across Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 6 today, which is a very similar task, and uses an "opt out" strategy. This suggests that the community may be OK with having AFD notifications be on by default for a bot task like this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 00:02, Thursday, May 9, 2024 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): JavaScript
Source code available: TBD
Function overview: Automatically mark redirects created by Wikipedia:Page movers as part of a page move as "patrolled" in the new page patrol / page curation system
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 51#Idea to reduce redirect backlog
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: Lots
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The code will be added to my current redirect patrolling bot rules (see User:DannyS712 bot III/rules for the current rules) once I write it. You can see the implementation I intend to use is to patrol all redirects based on the query below.
If possible, I'd like to request speedy approval and/or a time-based trial, so that I don't need to add a whole bunch of logic to the bot to count how many redirects have already been patrolled in the trial.
Query to run
|
|---|
SELECT page_id AS 'pageid', page_title AS 'title', ptrpt_value AS 'target', actor_name AS 'creator' FROM page JOIN pagetriage_page ON page_id = ptrp_page_id JOIN pagetriage_page_tags ON ptrp_page_id = ptrpt_page_id JOIN revision rv ON page_latest = rev_id JOIN actor ON rev_actor = actor_id JOIN user_groups ON actor_user = ug_user WHERE ptrp_reviewed = 0 AND ptrpt_tag_id = 9 # Snippet AND page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 1 AND EXISTS ( # Only 1 revision based on rev_count page triage tag SELECT 1 FROM pagetriage_page_tags tags2 WHERE tags2.ptrpt_page_id = page_id AND tags2.ptrpt_tag_id = 7 AND tags2.ptrpt_value = 1 ) AND EXISTS ( # Move log from the same time by the same person SELECT 1 FROM logging_logindex lgl2 WHERE log_namespace = page_namespace AND log_title = page_title AND log_timestamp = rev_timestamp AND log_actor = rev_actor AND log_type = 'move' AND log_action = 'move' ) AND ug_group = 'extendedmover' LIMIT 100; |
Discussion
Approved for trial (100 edits or 14 days, whichever happens first). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC) count updated. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader the bot reports to User:DannyS712 bot III/Redirects.json every 15 minutes with the redirects that it patrols and why - a 14 day trial will be 1344 entries to scan through, and I would expect that almost all of the relevant entries would be on the first run (for any existing backlog) - would a shorter trial be okay? Like a day (or even less)? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- (
Peanut gallery comment) I am BOLDly adding {{BAG assistance needed}}: {{BAG assistance needed}} HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the trial numbers. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a reason that a single day trial (as requested by Danny) would be a Bad Thing? Of course, I am not a bot op, so there might be something I am unaware of :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also wondering that - also the "whichever happens first" means I would still need to add some logic to count how many redirects have been patrolled in the trial already --DannyS712 (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{bag assistance needed}} (apologies for using this a lot as of late...) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Though I cannot speak on his behalf, I imagine a concern that @Primefac: may have had would be that the bot might be done within a day. What are your thoughts, Primefac? Provided that it won't actually complete within a day, I don't see an issue with a 1 day trial. cc @DannyS712: --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had no concerns; I thought I was giving the botop what they wanted. They said 14 days was too long and there would be too many actions to look at. I threw out 100 as our standard number (which does happen to be "about a day's worth" when you do the maths) because on these "not sure how many per day" requests it might be only a few dozen over 14 days. Danny is a trusted botop and while it needs to go through a trial to make sure everything is working, we are not going to begrudge a handful of edits on either side of 100 if the task can be shown to be operating within expected parameters. So sure, run it for a day and see where you end up. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, HouseBlaster, using the assistance template twice in ten days is a bit excessive. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: did you see the above? TheSandDoctor Talk 22:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, I was out of town for a while but am back and will do bot stuff again soon --DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: did you see the above? TheSandDoctor Talk 22:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Though I cannot speak on his behalf, I imagine a concern that @Primefac: may have had would be that the bot might be done within a day. What are your thoughts, Primefac? Provided that it won't actually complete within a day, I don't see an issue with a 1 day trial. cc @DannyS712: --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a reason that a single day trial (as requested by Danny) would be a Bad Thing? Of course, I am not a bot op, so there might be something I am unaware of :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the trial numbers. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) @DannyS712: is there still interest in pursuing this task? or are you happy to mark this as withdrawn for the time being? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DannyS712 seems to be away at the moment. I think we can safely mark this as inactive until they return or if the stand-in botop is willing to take over this item. pinging @DreamRimmer for attention. – robertsky (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Out of 414 page movers, about 300 are either listed for redirect autopatrol or already have autopatrolled rights. Since this query shows no backlog, I think if we see a backlog of 100 or more, I will go ahead and add this functionality. For now, let's wait a little longer for Danny. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @DannyS712 seems to be away at the moment. I think we can safely mark this as inactive until they return or if the stand-in botop is willing to take over this item. pinging @DreamRimmer for attention. – robertsky (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 01:57, Wednesday, March 22, 2023 (UTC)
Function overview: Mark unassessed stub articles as stubs
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Source code available: Not yet
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 84#Stub assessments with ORES
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: < 100 per day
Namespace(s): Talk
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Go through Category:Unassessed articles (only deals with articles already tagged as belonging to a project). If an unassessed article is rated as a stub by ORES, tag the article as a stub. Example
Discussion
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⚡ 00:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- ^. Also, may potentially be a CONTEXTBOT; see Wikipedia:Stub:
There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub.
EpicPupper (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)- The Bot run only affects unassessed articles rated as stubs by mw:ORES.
The ORES ratings for stubs are very reliable (some false negatives – which wouldn't be touched under this proposal – but no false positives)
. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Bot run only affects unassessed articles rated as stubs by mw:ORES.
- ^. Also, may potentially be a CONTEXTBOT; see Wikipedia:Stub:
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Sounds reasonable as ORES is usually good for assessing stub articles as such. – SD0001 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Bot run with 50 edits. No problems reported. Diffs: [1]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Some behavior I found interesting is that the bot is reverting start-class classifications already assigned by a human editor, and overriding those with stub-class. [2] and [3] EggRoll97 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- This should not be happening. Frostly (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- The question is: what should be happening? The article were flagged because some of the projects were not assessed. Should the Bot (1) assess the unassessed ones as stubs and ignore the assessed ones or (2) align the unassessed ones with the ones that are assessed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per recent consensus assessments should be for an entire article, not per WikiProject. The bot should amend the template to use the article wide code. If several projects have different assessments for an article it should leave it alone. Frostly (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Courtesy ping, I've manually fixed up the edits where the bot replaced an assessment by a human editor. 6 edits total to be fixed out of 52 total edits. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Bot has been amended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Courtesy ping, I've manually fixed up the edits where the bot replaced an assessment by a human editor. 6 edits total to be fixed out of 52 total edits. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per recent consensus assessments should be for an entire article, not per WikiProject. The bot should amend the template to use the article wide code. If several projects have different assessments for an article it should leave it alone. Frostly (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- The question is: what should be happening? The article were flagged because some of the projects were not assessed. Should the Bot (1) assess the unassessed ones as stubs and ignore the assessed ones or (2) align the unassessed ones with the ones that are assessed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- This should not be happening. Frostly (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} This has been waiting for over 2 months since the end of the trial, and over 4 months since the creation of the request. Given the concerns expressed that the bot operator has since fixed, an extended trial may be a good idea here. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies. I have been very busy. Should I run the new Bot again with a few more edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies. I have been very busy. Should I run the new Bot again with a few more edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I wrote the bot using my C# API, and due to a necessary upgrade here, my dotnet environment got ahead of the one on the grid. I could neither build locally and run on the grid nor on build on the grid. (I could have run the trial locally but would not have been able to deploy to production.) There is currently a push to move bots onto Kubernetes containers, but there was no dotnet build pack available. The heroes on Toolforge have now provided one for dotnet, and I will be testing it when I return from vacation next week. If all goes well I will finally be able to deploy the bot and run the trial at last. See phab:T311466 for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Primefac (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Work was done in January and some changes made on Toolforge. Will resume the trial run when I get a chance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: any update on this? If it's a bit of a medium-term item and not actively worked on, are you happy to mark this BRFA as withdrawn for the time being? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- My technical problems have been resolved. A new trial run will be conducted this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Frostly (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:55, Thursday, March 2, 2023 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Source code available:
Function overview: Replace AMP links in citations
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): BOTREQ, Village Pump
Edit period(s): Weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown, estimated to be in the range of hundreds of thousands
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Using the AmputatorBot API, replaces AMP links with canonical equivalents. This task runs on all pages with citation templates which have URL parameters (e.g. {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, etc).
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just noting that I'm working on this but it may take some time. EpicPupper (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Been a bit busy IRL, but will get to this soon. Frostly (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- soon — Frostly (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Been a bit busy IRL, but will get to this soon. Frostly (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac, my apologies, this flew off my radar. I'll work on setting up the bot on Toolforge this month and should have the results soon. — Frostly (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've made progress on uploading to Toolforge; just fixing a few bugs. — Frostly (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- There's been a few issues with the API that have been difficult to tackle; I think pivoting to self-hosting the API backend on Toolforge is a good solution (working on that this month). — Frostly (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Finishing up final revisions to the code! — Frostly (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- about time! Hehe —usernamekiran (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly that is awesome! I actually was about to start this process (Wikipedia:Bot_requests#de-AMP_bot) and I am glad you already did. And it seems you are almost done. Is there a way I can find the source code or what any lingering issues there might be? Also, did you end up using the AmputatorBot API, another API, or your own implementation? Osalbahr (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Finishing up final revisions to the code! — Frostly (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's been a few issues with the API that have been difficult to tackle; I think pivoting to self-hosting the API backend on Toolforge is a good solution (working on that this month). — Frostly (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've made progress on uploading to Toolforge; just fixing a few bugs. — Frostly (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Frostly, it has been over a year since this request was filed. Are you still working on this? – Ammarpad (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- This BRFA was originally filed for DoggoBot but looks like the account has been renamed to FrostlySnowman. The new username violates WP:BOTACC. Please get the account renamed to something which clearly identifies it as a bot. – SD0001 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting that a new bot task for the same functionality as this task has been filed at Wikipedia: Bots/Requests for approval/KiranBOT 12 by usernamekiran. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2024 (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.
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 16:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 17:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Approved 11:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Monkbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 20) Approved 11:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 17:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 31) Approved 17:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Leaderbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 22:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC) (bot to run unflagged)
- DreamRimmer bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 11:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 15:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Protection Helper Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Platybot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 12:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- HooptyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 00:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) (bot to run unflagged)
- ChristieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 23:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- C1MM-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- HBC AIV helperbot14 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- The Sky Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 10:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- IznoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 12:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AdminStatsBot 2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 12:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Mdann52 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Approved 12:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- The Sky Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 16:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- RustyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Mdann52 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 30) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 45) Approved 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Numberguy6Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
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.
- MdWikiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Arjunaraocbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 07:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- UrbanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 14:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Aesthetic Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 19:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: V) Bot denied 11:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- UrbanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- pumi (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- DYKToolsAdminBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 07:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- PuggleBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: IV) Bot denied 13:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- CapsuleBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: III) Bot denied 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dneo bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
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 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.
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Withdrawn by operator 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- CapsuleBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Expired 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- StradBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 22:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 39) Withdrawn by operator 12:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 81) Withdrawn by operator 15:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: VII) Expired 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: VIII) Expired 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- PearBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Expired 00:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- PearBOT II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Expired 07:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- VulpesBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Expired 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- DYKNomCheck (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 19:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 78) Expired 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- VulpesBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Expired 12:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- LemonadeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Expired 09:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another TfD implementor bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)