Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

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

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

 Instructions for bot operators

Current requests for approval

edit WP:BRFA/wargo32.exe


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

Time filed: 11:53, Thursday, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic (random checks if mass replacement)

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: no

Function overview: For managing external links, mass replacements or help with some user reequests

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Manual configuration and run

Estimated number of pages affected: 100-1000 per task

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No But can be changed

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

Function details: Currently updates external links if url moved. You can see my last edits with "(bot)" added to summary


@Wargo: Per WP:BOTACC, would you consider adding "Bot" to your proposed bot's username? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

^ this. The normal convention with bots is for the username to clearly indicate that it's a bot, either by using "bot" or otherwise being obvious (e.g., WikiProject Notification Service). While wargo32.exe sorta makes sense to computer nerds, keep in mind this needs to make sense (and be obvious) to people who aren't computer nerds. What's worse, seeing a random .exe on the internet, well... it looks a little suspicious to begin with—even though it's just a username. :P --slakrtalk / 03:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It is a cross-wiki bot, which allows us an additional bit of leeway; a very clear edit summary could possibly make this acceptable. I don't know how many people would find the .exe suspicious—I think it's cute. — Earwig talk 03:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Must admit, I did a double take, initially thinking it to be an attempt at trolling/humor. I can see why Slakr thinks it could be suspicious for non-programmers, who are constantly warned to avoid double-clicking anything ending with .exe. -FASTILY 03:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The function details you have provided too vague and are not sufficient for BRFA per WP:BOTAPPROVAL. You need to state exactly what tasks and changes you intend to make, and we will trail and approve each task. I also agree that the bot name should be obvious, either by function or "Bot" in name. I don't think being cross-wiki in any way precludes OP from making a different account. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/JJMC89 bot

JJMC89 bot

Operator: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 23:05, Friday, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Replace {{Lc1| with {{Lc|cfd2=y| for all transclusions of {{Lc1}}.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:Bot requests#Request for bot to replace a string of code in applicable pages (permalink)

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 3162

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Replace {{Lc1| with {{Lc|cfd2=y| for all transclusions of {{Lc1}} to facilitate {{Lc1}} being merged into {{Lc}} as requested by Steel1943.


Forgive me, but what does this really accomplish? Usually there's a WP:TFD before we merge templates. If {{lc1}} is already a convenience wrapper around {{lc}}/{{lx}}, why do we need to get rid of it? — Earwig talk 02:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: As requester. Thanks. — Earwig talk 02:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@The Earwig: Are you saying that this merge is controversial? This is my assumption, given that you brought up WP:TFD ... which is unnecessary to go through in uncontroversial cases. Steel1943 (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
And, to answer your question, the purpose is to centralize the templates so that there will not be a case where {{Lc}} would be updated when {{Lc1}} would need to be as well (unnecessary template fork). Compare this to the situation with {{About}}: A former template, now a redirect, {{Other uses-section}}, redirects to {{About}} since it's only difference from {{About}} was stating that the hatnote was placed in a "section" rather than a "page", not created via a "section=yes" parameter in {{About}}. To compare this to {{Lc}} and {{Lc1}}, the only differences are the formatting and the fact that the link to the "1=" page appears in {{Lc}} but not {{Lc1}}. Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Okay, but hold on for a moment. I'm taking a look at the transclusions of this template, and I note it's used almost entirely in CfD logs. The difference is just the monospacing (I admit I don't see the reason for that) and hiding the category name (which... I still don't see the reason for; {{cfd2}} already prepends the category name?). This all seems unnecessary. Couldn't we have {{cfd2}} use {{lc}} directly and remove the |cfd2= hack for {{lx}}? If you wanted, we could then replace {{lc1}} with {{lc}} in old transclusions and delete it, but it's not strictly necessary. I must be missing something. — Earwig talk 08:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@The Earwig: About the formatting of the text ... you and I are on the same page there. I don't see the need for it either, but added it to the "cfd2=" parameter since it "was" there, so whoever implemented it originally in {{Lx1}} (now merged into {{Lx}}) may have seen a need for it. But yes, from what I saw, every transclusion of {{Lc1}} that exists was created by substitutions of {{Cfd2}} (thus why I named the parameter "cfd2".) However, the parameter could not just be removed wholesale since it does more than just creates the monobook formatting: As you stated, it also hides the link at the beginning to the "nominated" page. It seems that {{Lc1}} was set up this way since {{Cfd2}} already has a hard-coded link to the nominated page that is not part of {{Lc1}}, so making a link appear again would be redundant: Fixing this issue without using a parameter trigger in {{Lx}} as far as I can tell, would require manually removing the custom page link from all 3000+ pages since I don't think there is any possible "true/false" string that could catch and remove those links ("remove" since suppressing the cfd2 parameter in full would make the redundant page link appear.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I guess I was unclear. What I'm suggesting is this, followed by either leaving {{lc1}} as deprecated in old transclusions or substituting it with AWB/similar. Can't we do that? — Earwig talk 19:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@The Earwig: I understood what you were saying. As I stated above, that fix doesn't resolve the previous usages of {{Cfd2}} since those pages will now have duplicate page links with that fix. (That "fix" you did will only resolve new substitutions of {{Cfd2}}.) My goal is to eventually redirect {{Lc1}} to {{Lc}}. The "fix" you just did works well for new substitutions of {{Cfd2}}, but does not address the substitutions that have already happened if the ultimate goal is to get rid of the cfd2 parameter from both {{Lx}} and {{Lc}}. (I would actually be okay if that parameter is completely removed: I created the parameter since my intent was to merge the templates, not change them.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone mentioned a merge. Is there an actual WP:TFD around somewhere where this discussion took place? I don't feel comfortable approving this request, or even a trial, without some sort of clear consensus for this task. --slakrtalk / 04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And if it's uncontroversial (or believed to be), then the result at TFD should be obvious. --slakrtalk / 04:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Slakr: No thanks. The fact that anyone is mentioning that a TFD has to happen means that this is controversial. Unless "TFD" can stop being mentioned here, JJMC89 has my permission to withdraw this request. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943: My main point is that this is a merge done by automation. Typically the vast majority of template merges should be listed on TFD as a matter of policy. There's obviously WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BURO, but the core issue here is that of automation: if so much as one person later says, "hey, I don't agree with that merge," there's no traditional recourse; someone has to then revert over 3,000 edits (and quite likely make a bot to do so). That's the main reason for the "Links to relevant discussions" portion of the BRFA. --slakrtalk / 06:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Slakr: Fair enough. Either way, I think I would like to withdraw this request as well. In all honestly, I'd rather get rid of the parameter all together if possible, so I'll probably be looking into other venues to see if that can be accomplished. Steel1943 (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I humbly point to my suggestion from earlier. — Earwig talk 08:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Earwig, as I sort of stated above, the only way that I can see your suggestion working (basically replacing {{Lc1}} with {{Lc}} without the cfd2 parameter) is if the community would not be bothered with every daily WP:CFD subpage that exists prior to the change having the name of the nominated page listed and linked twice. I would be okay with this, especially since then the {{Lc}} template could then be better utilized for other related CFD templates (such as {{Cfm2}}, {{Cfr2}}, etc) since they seem to currently not be built with any type of "Lc" template in them. With that being said, we should probably move this discussion elsewhere, possibly at Template talk:Cfd2 or Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion since this discussion mainly pertains exclusively to {{Lc1}}'s usage in that template. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots in a trial period

edit WP:BRFA/APersonBot_5

APersonBot 5

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

Time filed: 23:40, Monday, January 11, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:

Function overview: Updates the statistics at {{Vandalism information}} using the last 30 minuteshour of recent changes.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Vandalism information#Defcon bot down for a month, perhaps?

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: The bot goes through the last 30 minuteshour of recent changes and counts the edits made with summaries that have "revert" or similar wording (for the exact regex, see here). Then, it divides by 3060 and updates {{Vandalism information}} with the resulting reverts-per-minute value.


  • Approved for trial (15 days). Speedily approved for trial, report back in a week with status update. — xaosflux Talk 01:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a sensible straightforward implementation in theory, but it could provide inaccurate results. {{Vandalism information}} is supposed to represent the current rate of vandalism, not just reverts. For instance reverts in the recent changes might include those from edit wars, normal WP:BRD activity, or even someone reverting themselves. User:DefconBot goes off of #cluebotng-spam connect, which would offer a more accurate representation, as ClueBot only targets blatantly disruptive edits.
    A930913, who maintains DefconBot, has said on their talk page that the bot has been suffering from issues with the ClueBot IRC feed. I haven't noticed any issues with the feed, but either way DefconBot is still occasionally making edits. Unfortunately it seems DefconBot writes to a page that is transcluded as vandal info, so not sure how the bots could work together, unless we get APersonBot to write to the same page?
    I still think checking all reverts is better than not having any vandalism information, and in my opinion the potential inaccuracy shouldn't get in the way of this bot being approved. I do however think we should explore ways to either work with DefconBot, or improve the logic with this task. APerson what are your thoughts? Maybe we could use the ClueBot IRC feed, and leave raw recent changes as a fallback? MusikAnimal talk 06:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    MusikAnimal, I agree with you that ClueBot reverts make more sense; I'll switch it over in about 12 hours when I'll get back to my main computer. APerson (talk!) 15:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Note also you can go off it's scoring of edits, and not just ClueBot's reverts. You could probably implement a lot of intricate logic, but my point is ClueBot is very conservative with a 0.9 threshold, when most edits that score 0.8 and above are reverted. MusikAnimal talk 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    The thing is, it's much harder to get the scores for each edit than the edits themselves; as far as I know, the scores are only accessible via the IRC feed, which is harder to read via bot than the contribution history. APerson (talk!) 18:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, parsing the IRC feed isn't quite as fun to implement =P Understandable if you don't want to go that route, I attempted it myself and only got but so far [1]. If you want to just check reverts, I would still go by the recent changes table (or API) and extend the regex to include reverts made with Huggle, STiki and Igloo. This again is because ClueBot will not revert everything. Also during peak hours patrollers might actually beat ClueBot to reverting vandalism, so you want to account for their activity. Be sure to exclude edit summaries that say "good-faith". This should give us a fairly comprehensive picture of how much vandalism is going on. The only issue is the patrollers go to bed, where ClueBot does not, which is why going by the scores would be most ideal. Just something to think about! :) Hope these recommendations are helpful. MusikAnimal talk 06:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    As of this commit, the bot shouldn't count good-faith edits anymore. APerson (talk!) 04:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggestions: Only have the bot update the page when the level changes to reduce editing. Change |info=RPM stats according to APersonBot to |info=%d RPM according to APersonBot so that the RPM can be seen in the template. — JJMC89(T·C) 09:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done with this commit. APerson (talk!) 04:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • DefconBot does not use the IRC feed, ClueBot NG actually broadcasts it additionally through labs via redis. With the recent lab issues however, the feed has broken a number of times and Damianz, the maintainer of ClueBot has needed to be summoned to give it a kick. I haven't looked too much into what you've done, but I did a fair amount of research into getting the levels right, which I would be happy to share. Currently I lack time to do anything more than give my bots a kick when they stop working, so if there is fresh enthusiasm on this front, that is great.

    My suggestions would be to either run APersonBot whenever DefconBot fails, or to wrap up DefconBot and use some of the techniques and research gathered there for APersonBot. If anyone wants access to DefconBot, tell me your labs username and I'll add you as a maintainer.

    The most reliable method of contact with me wil probably be to email me at 930913 {{ping}} 20:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

    Before I wrote the defcon task for APersonBot, I read through DefconBot's source code and tried to get a Redis solution of my own working, as well as an IRC solution; neither were as robust as the one I have with the recent changes API, so I went with the latter. Looking at ClueBot NG's current source code, it doesn't appear (to my non-ClueBot-developer eyes) that there's much support for the Redis feed. Pretty soon, I plan to use quarry and numpy to update the ranges at {{WikiDefcon/levels}} so APersonBot can get closer to DefconBot's percentage values. Thanks for the advice! APerson (talk!) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Trial complete. (pinging Xaosflux.) APerson (talk!) 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    Hm... I'm just a bit unclear where we stand with this task now, given the above comments by A930913. — Earwig talk 04:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    Well, as A930913 stated, the Redis feed, which is an integral part of DefconBot's functionality, is indefinitely down. The second suggestion he made - that we "wrap up DefconBot" and use APersonBot instead - seems a lot more viable to me. APerson (talk!) 04:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    I think what APersonBot is doing now is better than nothing, but we should really aim to measure actual vandalism than just undoing of edits. Edit wars are common, and this is going to detect those, along with other innocent undo's. If we don't end up using the ClueBot feed, either through redis or IRC, I recommend simply changing the regex to check only for Huggle, STiki, Twinkle (generic summary as produced by VANDAL revert), and Igloo edits in recent changes. It's with these tools that the vast majority of counter-vandalism is performed, and will offer a more accurate picture of what's going on. I might be missing what quarry and grumpy will do, that perhaps would help improve accuracy? MusikAnimal talk 06:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    Sure, I can implement that, although I don't know how big its effect will be: looking at the live reverts stream, a large majority of the reverts are countervandalism-related. Furthermore, even if edit wars and undo's did make up a significant minority of the edits, it would still take anywhere between 12 and 24 edit-war-related reverts per hour to bump up the defcon level. I'll start writing regexes. APerson (talk!) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    After watching the live reverts stream for a while and concluding that there were a lot of IPs reverting eachother, I've concluded that we'll need to rescale what RPM levels correspond to what defcon levels after the change is made. APerson (talk!) 16:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Do any of the issues raised in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoxelBot need to be double checked with this bot? --slakrtalk / 03:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for bringing that up; I haven't read through that BRFA yet. The edit frequency and sample size are not an issue with this bot; the bot edits every hour and uses every edit from the past hour. However, the false positives are more interesting. Looking at the way VoxelBot classified edits, there are quite a few ideas I could incorporate into the way APersonBot detects edits. Specifically, VoxelBot has more keywords that I could check for; also, the false positives coming from keywords showing up in section headers shouldn't be counted. MusikAnimal, do you think I could get away with this keyword-based approach instead of classifying edits based on the anti-vandalism tools used? APerson (talk!) 16:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a status update, if anyone's interested: I was notified of a bug involving the bot being logged off forcibly by some nefarious entity on Labs. From now on, the bot will detect when it's in danger of being logged off and make a pointless edit to keep its session alive. (At least, that's how it'll work in theory.) I've also just finished implementing VoxelBot's more advanced way of detecting reverts, and I'll have the numbers to allow these to be converted into defcon levels pretty soon. APerson (talk!) 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    Would you like to run a week-long trial with the new logic? — Earwig talk 03:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    If only because I've just changed the way the bot determines RPM, that sounds like a good idea. APerson (talk!) 03:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yep, just to be safe; hopefully not too much extra pressure on anyone. Approved for trial (7 days). — Earwig talk 03:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/SporkBot_7

SporkBot 7

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

Time filed: 00:06, Tuesday, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Perl using the MediaWiki::Bot library

Source code available: Standard Perl regular expressions

Function overview: Update transclusions of Template:Infobox river to use new syntax

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Discussion on the talk page for Infobox River.

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 13,320 transclusions

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes, assuming MediaWiki::Bot is compliant

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

Function details: The syntax for Template:Infobox river is being revamped, with some parameters being renamed, and others being merged. The bot would go through all the article-space transclusions of Template:Infobox river and update the syntax, as outlined in the linked discussion.


Seems sane. Would it be safe for us to trial given the sandbox doesn't appear to have been pushed yet, though? How shall we implement the changes? — Earwig talk 00:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Earwig. Once the bot is ready to run, we could copy the code from the sandbox to the main template, and temporarily include the old parameters in the new template code for compatibility, and after the bot run is complete, simply remove the old parameters from the main template. Or, just as the bot is ready to run, we could simply copy the code from the sandbox, to the main template. Depending on the bot's editing speed, the latter may hide some parameter fields in some articles for a couple of minutes, until the bot successfully completes the necessary updates. Rehman 03:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
13,000+ edits will take several hours, even with an impossibly high edit rate. Generally you don't want to go above 10 EPM. — Earwig talk 04:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If my math is correct, there should not be more than 3,000 articles, based on the previous scan. Regardless, I am willing to do the compatibility edit as soon as the bot is ready/approved. Best, Rehman 10:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The paradigm of finite state automata is unfit to deal with sequences produced by context-free grammars. ie you shouldn't use regex to parse templates. I don't expect a typical infobox transclusion to contain enough nested templates to the point that this would be a problem, but could you show us what your regexes look like? Σσς(Sigma) 00:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For simple parameter replacement on a few thousand articles, I'm not concerned, but reviewing the regexes would be nice nonetheless. — Earwig talk 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to trial this, so I'm hoping we can do a run-through of the parameter replacement while still keeping the template output correct during the transitional period. I assume this will require temporary extra code in the template to support both parameters (i.e. Rehman's first suggestion), so whenever you're ready. Approved for trial (50 edits). — Earwig talk 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! I'll start working on the code today when I get back home (I'm just leaving to work). P.s. Just FYI, Plastikspork also helped in the exact same task on {{Infobox power station}} and {{Infobox dam}} some time ago. Hence I am quite positive that he knows the way to get this done smoothly. Kind regards, Rehman 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
...just came back, and quite exhausted. Please give me another day or two, I will get the code sorted. And just for the record (since this is a discussion to approve the bot), I too support this bot task. Rehman 14:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I added the transitional double syntax, so we should be ready to go. I will add a tracking category (Category:Pages using infobox river with deprecated parameters) for all the articles with the old syntax shortly. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/EsquivalienceBot


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

Time filed: 18:40, Sunday, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (Pywikibot)

Source code available: User:EsquivalienceBot/Source

Function overview: This bot automatically purges Articles for deletion logs under debate plus one day before.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Every 10-15 minutes; 38 purges per hour.

Estimated number of pages affected: 10

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Not applicable

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

Function details: This bot automatically purges Articles for deletion logs under debate plus one day before (basically from today to eight days before today), plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/current itself. It appears that it is already handled by another bot. No parameters are given to the purge() function. This is to ensure that the newest versions of AfD debates are transcluded and errors on AfD page logs do not persist. The most recent AfD log is purged every 10 minutes; the remaining AfD logs (8 pages) are purged every 15 minutes.


If it's an issue of transcluded templates not updating, then you should be null editing affected pages to force MediaWiki to immediately re-build them. Your proposed bot is neither making surface changes to the Wiki nor is it in need of high api limits, so unless I'm missing something, I don't think you need a bot request. -FASTILY 23:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ping to @Joe Decker: for any comments, as has experience with User:Joe's Null Bot. — xaosflux Talk 01:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I don't have any particular concerns, and a cursory review of the code looks fine. I've noticed that those logs could use a purge now and then when using them, so there's a valid need as well. I'd support this for trial. --joe deckertalk 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Approved for trial (0 edits or 7 days)., please report back findings. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/Femto Bot_7

Femto Bot 7

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

Time filed: 21:05, Sunday, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): perl

Source code available: no

Function overview: Creates/updates lists of articles by location that require images.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Several year old request from User:WereSpielChequers.

Edit period(s): Will probably do a full scan monthly, might remove "fixed" items from the list daily.

Estimated number of pages affected: Initially one page for UK articles. May well add more, as there seems to be a demand for this type for report.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): n/a (will only be editing it's "own" pages.

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Bot flag need re-enabling.

Function details: Produces a report of pages in a given geographical area which require images. Details may vary by region. For example the UK page will have OSGB grid squares, which make it easier to find Geograph images.

UK example layout


Where is the report produced at? How specific are the regions, e.g. how many report pages do you expect to create?

Approved for trial (UK report). Sounds like a straight-forward list-generating task that doesn't involve direct article edits. We can probably look at your sample report to see if there's any issues, though I can't foresee anything. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've yet to see how big the (UK) report will be, but I expect a few thousand entries, which would go on one page - probably in my user space while I am trialling. Later it may go in Wikipedia space, probably under the "Database reports" hierarchy.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC).
We could also do with a list for Ireland, and ideally split out lists for Wales and Scotland. The finer the geography the better the chance of getting wikiprojects involved. At the other end of the scale, if there are other parts of the world with as many images on Commons it would be good to get lists (the UK is 0.1% of the Earth's landmass and about 10% of Wikimedia Commonms, so there can't be many places currently as well covered on commons. But we might have photographers interested in lists of articles without images in an area they are or will be in. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Any updates, Rich? — Earwig talk 06:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I have, for example, this which is fairly raw still. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC).

edit WP:BRFA/Hazard-Bot_34

Hazard-Bot 34

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

Time filed: 03:27, Monday, December 28, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Updates the list of common mistakes for WikiProject Fix common mistakes

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Update the lists at WikiProject Fix common mistakes, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 63#Bot to updated lists at WikiProject Fix common mistakes

Edit period(s): Perhaps monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 24, plus possibly the log table to make 25

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: At least for now, I'm planning to manually trigger this task whenever I'm aware of an updated dump (and it's available on Tool Labs). The script will go through all articles, searching for the common mistakes checked by the WikiProject (currently those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes#Log, though it's flexible enough to change). This task is only about updating the lists, not fixing the "mistakes" (if they are indeed mistakes, that is). To reduce false positives, I'll be searching for the mistakes with both a leading and a trailing space in the text. Also, I'm making available a page (possibly User:Hazard-Bot/Common mistakes blacklist, though I'm open to alternatives) to list pages to exclude from the lists (there definitely will always be false positives, so this will be a means of avoiding the same set of recurring pages on the lists on every run). Hopefully this is straightforward enough. Now to notify the WikiProject of their late Christmas present.  Hazard SJ  03:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


Approved for trial (50 edits or 30 days). Pretty straight forward, give it a test, report back results. — xaosflux Talk 04:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Hazard-SJ for my Christmas present. I'm the poor sap who currently does this manually, so I wholeheartedly approve of this. I also add a leading and a trailing space when creating the list, so Hazard is doing the same things I currently do. I use "blacklists" on CheckWikipedia. However, I haven't used a blacklist for Fix Common Mistakes, but this is a good idea. I would put the blacklist under the project's subpage. Thank you again. Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: you're welcome. I also realize I should have used the name "whitelist" as opposed to "blacklist". Anyways, how does Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/Whitelist or Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/Whitelisted pages sound? Let me know what you want. Face-smile.svg Also, I see that @JJMC89: got a quick start on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/a a from the first batch of lists. How were they?  Hazard SJ  14:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: I should probably automate this too Face-wink.svg  Hazard SJ  15:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the simple ones (both words the same) should be okay. I started working on an a and I've noticed some regular phrases that should probably be excluded: an a cappella, an a priori, an a la carte, an a fortiori, and an a posteriori. (I only saw the last two a couple times.) I remember seeing some pages with math/formulas/code that would always show up in the dump but not necessarily have an error, but I didn't take note of them. I'll try to keep track of new ones that I run into. — JJMC89(T·C) 15:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite and JJMC89: After a little talk with The Earwig, I've made some changes. The set of mistakes to be checked can now be configured from User:Hazard-Bot/FIX/Scan configuration. Each level 2 heading identifies the mistake, then unordered lists (* ...) within the sections can identify exceptions. I've filled in the mistakes, and added some of the "an a" exceptions (feel free to update them). As for the previous "blacklist", I've corrected the name to "whitelist", and it's now at User:Hazard-Bot/FIX/Whitelisted pages. This would probably come in handy for perhaps pages with quotes that contain errors, or whatever else the case may be, since specific phrases can be directly included within the configuration page. Again, moving those pages to subpages of the WikiProject is perfectly fine (possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/Scan configuration and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/Whitelisted pages?), and we'll probably also want to add some protection to minimize tampering. Since I just did a scan and don't have the next dump as yet, I'll hold off on the next run for a bit. (P.S. @The Earwig: I tried using \b instead of the spaces, but that also included -, creating multiple false positives, and I was unable to figure how to exclude that single character.)  Hazard SJ  08:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The next enwiki dump is currently being generated, so I'll hopefully be able to run that within the next few days.  Hazard SJ  06:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: but we had so much fun! No? (Kidding.)
@Hazard-SJ: that is AWESOME. I'm typically only working on here once a month or so (Great Userbox War etc., don't ask) so I just saw this. But I repeat - AWESOME! Anything that can improve WP:FIX, I'm all for it. Thank you so much! Let me know how it works out! Sct72 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bgwhite, JJMC89, and Xaosflux: The next batch is out (January 2016 dump)!  Hazard SJ  17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hazard-SJ   (Gene Rayburn) Hazard is soooooo slow. (crowd) How slow is he? (Gene Rayburn) A <blank> beat Hazard in a 100m "dash".
The February dump started today. Should be ready in a couple of days. To be fair, January's was late in starting up, but that won't stop me from giving you a hard time  :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ: Are we good to go here? — Earwig talk 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking good. If possible, it may be good to not match inside comments (<!--...-->), some tags (<score>...</score> [may have parameters inside the opening tag], <math>...</math>, <source>...</source>, <pre>...</pre>), and file names ([[File:(ignore me)|.*?]], |image=, etc.). — JJMC89(T·C) 07:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots that have completed the trial period

edit WP:BRFA/BG19bot_9

BG19bot 9

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

Time filed: 23:52, Monday, December 28, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Remove blank lines between list items.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Bot run for removing blank lines in list

Edit period(s): Monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: Initially ~120,000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This is an accessibility issue, see WP:LISTGAP. A list will be generated monthly that includes articles with blank lines between list items. List is generated using Checkwiki software. AWB will then be run on the list with general fixes enabled. Latest AWB version added the ability to remove these blank lines. Any spaces or tabs on the blank lines and AWB won't fix, these must be done manually (for now).


Whitespace cleanup is normally not approved, can you do a couple of manual edits and provide difs below to more clearly demonstrate exactly what you are trying to do? — xaosflux Talk 00:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Xaosflux I understand the whitespace issue and your hesitancy. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists tells why it is an accessibility issue for screen readers. Graham87 is a screen reader user and he can tell you about this problem better than I can.
Diffs for Aardwolf and Aardvark after an AWB edit.
When a blank line appears in a list, Mediawiki ends the list with a </li></ul>. Thus, when you have a list containing a blank line in between each list item, every item becomes a separate list to screen readers. For an example, take a look at the HTML source code for Achilles#Popular culture. You will see this:
<li>Achilles is portrayed as a former hero who has become lazy and devoted to the love of Patroclus, in <a href="/wiki/William_Shakespeare" title="William Shakespeare">William Shakespeare</a>'s <i><a href="/wiki/Troilus_and_Cressida" title="Troilus and Cressida">Troilus and Cressida</a></i>.</li>
<li>Achilles appears in Dante's <i><a href="/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)" title="Inferno (Dante)">Inferno</a></i>. He is seen in <a href="/wiki/Hell" title="Hell">Hell</a>'s Circle of Lust.</li>
<li>Achilles is the subject of the poem <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Achille%C3%AFs&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Achilleïs (page does not exist)">Achilleïs</a></i>, a fragment by <a href="/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe" title="Johann Wolfgang von Goethe">Johann Wolfgang von Goethe</a>.</li>
Bgwhite (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Bare sample
<li>a a</li>
<li>b b</li>
<li>c c</li>

<li>a a</li>
<li>b b</li>
<li>c c</li>

The first sample would be spoken by a screen reader as "List of 1 items, a, list end; List of 1 items, B, list end; List of 1 items, c, list end", as opposed to "List of 3 items, A, B, C, list end". Graham87 02:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

More discussion

mw:Help:Lists, references that a newline in a list triggers a new list creation. — xaosflux Talk 01:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  • "lists" are very broad, do you intend to only perform this operation on unordered lists? — xaosflux Talk 01:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Will only perform on unordered lists and only those that use wikicode (ie, *). On an ordered list (ie, #), the blank line is most likely intentional and a bot wouldn't be able to tell between intentional or unintentional. This is the reason AWB does not remove blank lines in an ordered list. Bgwhite (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this the same issue as referenced in bug T3115 ? — xaosflux Talk 01:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes. Graham87 02:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes and no. Yes, they do reference blank lines ending lists in the bug report. They still want blank lines to end a list. However, the phab ticket's issue is when you don't want a list to end with an empty line or a line without a * or #. The thinking is to add new wikimarkup to say that this is not an end of a list. Blank lines will still cause problems with screen readers will still continue. Bgwhite (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This makes sense, but are we sure this is a safe task for a bot to do automatically, or are there situations where blank lines would be desired (i.e. WP:CONTEXTBOT)? At the very least, restricting to reference sections should be safe. — Earwig talk 04:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I cannot think of any situation where a blank line is necessary. The blank line does not show up on the rendered page. The only people who would notice are those that use screen readers. There are more lists in the main article than the ref section. People usually read the article and skip the reference section. Both BG19bot, Yobot and Battybot, along with our manual edits, have been using AWB's implementation of this since September. I'm not aware of any complaints. The only reason to have a blank line is for the editor to "see" things better when editing the page... I'm 100% sure I'll will get complaints because of this reason. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      • @Bgwhite: It also provides slightly more visual separation between list items, which can help when list items span multiple lines (e.g. character descriptions), but since it actually creates separate lists, this can't be used for accessibility reasons. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nyuszika7H: Try telling that to people when they start yelling. When I moved TOC's per accessibility, I got plenty of heat, including multiple ANI writeups. I expect the same for this. Bgwhite (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • @Nyuszika7H: Speak of the devil. I'm getting flack for moving a TOC right now on my talk page. Ah joy Bgwhite (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding page sections - is this a general page issue, or does it primarily cause problems only in certain specific sections, such as reference lists? — xaosflux Talk 16:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • It is a general issue. No matter where the list with blank lines occur, Mediawiki will convert to multiple separate lists. This also includes talk pages and BRFA request pages like this one. Bgwhite (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • That reminds me. We're only editing the mainspace with this one, right? — Earwig talk 09:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, mainspace only. But, I'd like to see how you panic if I said no :) Bgwhite (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Trial complete. -- edits. 50 articles were entered. 8 skipped due to already being fixed by a previous AWB run. Bgwhite (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess my concern is really about the use of blank lines for edit window clarity, as you pointed out above, which seems like it should be a valid use case; I understand the accessibility issue, but this really feels like it needs a fix in MediaWiki. — Earwig talk 23:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The fix in Mediawiki is not going to happen and it can't happen. The phab ticket above said they will not consider removing a blank line to end a list because blank lines do correctly end lists in a gazillion articles. Look at Graham's example above (ie List of 1 items, a, list end; List of 1 items, B...), how would you like to hear that for a 20 item list? In my book, accessibility trumps the very minor disruption an editor will have, plus it is already in MOS. Bgwhite (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's be clear—I don't mean removing blank lines to end lists, I mean squashing adjacent <ul>...</ul>s when they are only separated in wikitext by a single blank line. As you pointed out above, this has no real use case; it is natural however for editors to try to do it, which leaves us with these accessibility issues. The Phab ticket seems to concern list items only, not entire lists, but maybe I'm not reading it right. — Earwig talk 09:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
From the phab ticket, "empty lines unconditionally terminate lists" and "lines beginning with "something else" unconditionally terminate lists". By saying unconditionally, I think that rules out blank lines between list items not terminating lists. T15223 was closed without action after seven years to not have blank lines terminating numbered lists. T109905 was submitted this past August to not cause the current dilemma of blank lines between list items. There was developer comment that said, On reflection, I can't imagine any way in which this kind of huge breaking change to how all wikis everywhere work can be justified by the gains we'd get.. So, a MediaWiki fix doesn't looks likely. Bgwhite (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, this only runs against lists separated by a single blank line? Multiple lines might suggest the lists were intentionally separated. That being said, have we tested the bot on a page where there are multiple blank lines separating lists?
    If that all checks out, this task overall seems sensible to me. I feel like if there are lists right next to each other, even if intentional, visually there's not going to be a big difference by joining them. Edit window clarity is a fair argument, but given the accessibility benefits and backing of the MoS guideline, I don't think you'll run into too many complaints MusikAnimal talk 22:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Good question. I had not thought of that. In the list of articles I complied, I was only looking for single blank line. But, an article could contain double blank lines between lists. I tested it out and unfortunately, AWB does combine the two separate lists into one. Playing around with the regex in AWB's code did not rectify this. Turns out, as part of AWB's general fixes, if there are two or more blank lines in a row, AWB will delete the extra ones and leave only one blank line left. Phab ticket T123825 has been submitted to fix this. I have generated a list of articles where this occurs and there are ~1,200 articles. An example of what you are talking is Transport in Bulgaria#Major roads. Unfortunately, this appears in a small minority of cases. In the majority of cases, the blank lines should be removed and this will need to be done manually. Yea for me!! :( So, I can wait for this fix or I can exclude the union of the two lists. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
      • T123825 has been closed as fixed. Tested it on Transport in Bulgaria and sandbox cases. Both cases worked fine. Bgwhite (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (20 edits). Just make sure the patch works. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite please confrm that rev 11837 fixes the problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and The Earwig: Anything else? Bgwhite (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


@Xaosflux, The Earwig, MusikAnimal, and Nyuszika7H: Any other comments? Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've received your pings, but I can't think about this now, so it's up to another BAG member. — Earwig talk 23:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (2000 edits). With this being such a large task, and with some community members being extra attentive to "cosmetic" changes, I'd like to keep this under supervision for a bit; do a run of 2000 so that more pages will be hit and we can see if there is any unexpected community outcry. — xaosflux Talk 00:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. — Earwig talk 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Xaosflux and Earwig. This is reasonable. February's dump started on the 2nd. I'll wait for the needed dump file to be produced in a few days before starting. Better to go with an updated list.
Things I learned from moving the Table of Contents for accessibility reasons. 1) People will complain, loudly. 2) Edit summary is key to keeping down the complaints. How about, "No blank line between list items per WP:LISTGAP. This is an accessibility issue for users of screen readers. Do general fixes and cleanup if needed. Goto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility for information and discussion." The link will goto an example like Graham gave above. Graham, is it ok to lead people to the Wikiproject Accessibility talk page? Hopefully there will be safety in numbers, more people know and respect you on accessibility issues, and I'm a wimp right now. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I appreciate that you are able to learn from experience, or at least from being bludgeoned. We are not all so wise.
I suggest a minor copy edit to your edit summary proposed above. Something like: "Remove blank line(s) between list items per WP:LISTGAP to fix an accessibility issue for users of screen readers. Do general fixes and cleanup if needed. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility to discuss these edits." I tested this edit summary in my sandbox, and it fits in the space allotted for edit summaries.
And then make sure you watch that WT:WP Accessibility page, of course. Thanks for making WP more accessible for all readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Indeed, sounds good. Linking people to the accessibility project talk page will be fine. Graham87 07:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite, if you haven't yet, start a talk topic on that page in advance, and link to this request. — xaosflux Talk 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove blank line(s) between list items per [[WP:LISTGAP]] to fix an accessibility issue for users of [[screen reader]]s. Do [[WP:GENFIXES|general fixes]] and cleanup if needed. Go to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#LISTGAP]] to discuss this.
  • Remove blank line(s) between list items per WP:LISTGAP to fix an accessibility issue for users of screen readers. Do general fixes and cleanup if needed. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#LISTGAP to discuss this.
See my edit summary for this edit, which is copy-pasted above. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe change the last sentence to "Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#LISTGAP."? — Earwig talk 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I concur that this should only run in mainspace. Though, I should note, this is really poor design in the screen reader itself. I mean, back-to-back ol's with only single li's and no intervening text is pretty obviously the same list. Is it even a "screen" reader if all it's doing is reading the code verbatim—not the actual look? :\ --slakrtalk / 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If "back-to-back ol's with only single li's and no intervening text is pretty obviously the same list", then we should have no problem in marking them up as the same list, right? --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question – Can the bot, rather than simply remove the blank lines, replace them with comments, as described as "the HTML comment trick" in Help:List § Spacing between items? Wbm1058 (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think the use of HTML comments should be the default way around this problem, as they would gum up the source code. They should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Graham87 09:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Starting up

There are 111,908 articles with blank line list problems in the February dump. I'll run the first 2,000 on Wednesday. Bgwhite (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Trial complete. Ran on 2,000 articles. Here is the ending point. Bgwhite (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/MoohanBOT_9

MoohanBOT 9

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

Time filed: 16:56, Wednesday, December 23, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Simple regex skip then AWB with Kingbotk plugin and User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects

Function overview: Add living=yes/no to pages in Category:Biography articles without living parameter

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): occasionally

Estimated number of pages affected: Max 3600 on first run (current articles in cat) - There are around 500 pages for living=yes

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Check the articles pages of the talk pages in Category:Biography articles without living parameter if the have Category:Living people add living=yes to the bio tag on the talk page. If they have a cat of the form XXXX deaths then add living=no - This might be expanded to include other ways of determining if a page is about a dead person.


Don't we already have a bot that does this? I thought the simple cases you mention are being handled, but based on the category it seems they aren't. Approved for trial (50 edits). — Earwig talk 19:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Trial complete. - ran approx 50/50 living dead, all edits seemed fine, no mistakes and no cosmetic-only edits.
It seems Magioladitis has Yobot (Task 9) approved for this, going about it in a slightly different way, not sure why the category has got so big, possibly just not been run in a while. I would like to run the bot and clear the simple cases first before having a look at getting more obscure ones tagged automatically. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Earwig: Sorry I'm late to the party. BattyBot 30 also does this. I ran the bot a few weeks ago. GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It should be fine to have multiple bots for this task. The only outstanding issue here seems to be the extra whitespace, which your bot handles fine (so it's definitely possible to fix in AWB). — Earwig talk 05:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@The Earwig: I'm not objecting to another bot - just answering your initial question. FYI, BattyBot doesn't use the KingbotK plugin. GoingBatty (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jamesmcmahon0 I just did another bot run. I would be happy if a second bot joins this task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

All trial edits look fine, except for a minor point: could you have the bot not add the extra newlines as in [2] and [3]? If it's not feasible, don't worry about it. — Earwig talk 04:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Jamesmcmahon0 redirects should not be tagged. Moroever, we want to keep the template as clean as possible. No reason to add empty parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Where is a redirect being tagged? I must have missed that... the first example is not a real redirect, but a mistake left behind by a botched page move. — Earwig talk 06:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@The Earwig: You are right. Maybe then the REDIRECT [[Talk:Jussi Pesonen (ice hockey)]] should have been removed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I can get AWB to skip redirects (pretty sure it's already checked to do that though). Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
As for adding lines and blank parameters, this is the default behaviour of either Kingkbot or User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects. However, I can have blanc params removed after other edits have been performed if this is desirable? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No, removing blank parameters would be less helpful; can't the necessary change be done with a simple regex replace? I don't think Magioladitis's code adds the line breaks based on what I've seen other bots do, so it must be the Kingbotk plugin. Looks like this has been reported, but no apparent response. @Magioladitis: any insight? — Earwig talk 22:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@The Earwig and Jamesmcmahon0: yes the problem comes from KingbotK plugin. In 3 days I ll be back and I will try to fix it. Perhaps @Reedy: could help too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jamesmcmahon0: Take a look at User talk:Magioladitis#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MoohanBOT 9 when you get a chance. — Earwig talk 08:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmcmahon0: the problem was the you activated all checkboxes in the tab. You should not. Focus only on living/non living. I really want you to take over this task. I want to abandon any talk page fixes as soon as possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Symbol full support vote.svg Approved for extended trial (50 edits). -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Trial complete. -- All completed successfully with no erroneous edits that I saw. However, whilst the bot didn't add any extra blank params, there were 8 instances ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]) where there were lots of existing blank parameters which the bot spaced out onto a separate line each - this does make it more human readable but also makes it much more obvious that there are redundant blank parameters. (NB, all of the blank params that I saw were added by User:Aboutmovies, when first tagging the page as a Biography article) Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Err, it doesn't look like the bot behaved any differently from the original trial... — Earwig talk 04:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/FastilyBot_3

FastilyBot 3

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

Time filed: 03:58, Sunday, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: [12]

Function overview: Find a malformed WP:SPI reports and report them at WT:SPI/C for clerk review.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): here & here

Edit period(s): Bi-weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): n/a

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

Function details: Basically as described above; find malformed pages and report as necessary to the clerks' noticeboard so that clerks can make fixes accordingly. Pinging @Vanjagenije & @Salvidrim! -FASTILY 03:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


This looks good; my only concerns are lack of traffic to the clerk's noticeboard and the delay between a malformed report being submitted and the bot reporting it; for the latter I would suggest either near-immediate notifications (maybe give the filer a few hours) or transcluding a page from the bot's userspace which contains the reports. Of course, the latter option prevents watchlist updates. I assume you are only reporting each page once? Approved for trial (7 days, or enough for a few reports). — Earwig talk 04:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Earwig: Fair enough, I've opted to list reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Malformed Cases Report for now. I've implemented an ignore list for courtesy blanked pages and administration/documentation pages. -FASTILY 05:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Trial complete. Worked as expected. -FASTILY 03:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/JJMC89 bot_2

JJMC89 bot 2

Operator: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 04:47, Wednesday, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Fix AllMovie titles with invalid value from {{AllMovie title}}.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:Bot requests#Template clean up (permalink)

Edit period(s): One time run initially, upon request afterwards if needed

Estimated number of pages affected: 1,500 initially

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Fix AllMovie titles with invalid value from {{AllMovie title}}. (Requested by Edgars2007.)

  • Find: \{\{(amg movie|allmovie movie|allrovi title|allrovi movie|allrovi\/movie|allmovie|allmovie title|amg title)(\s*)\|(\s*)[^\d]*v(\d+)(\s*)([\}\|])
    • Replace: {{$1$2|$3$4$5$6
  • Find: \{\{(amg movie|allmovie movie|allrovi title|allrovi movie|allrovi\/movie|allmovie|allmovie title|amg title)(\s*)\|(\s*)id(\s*)\=(\s*)[^\d]*v(\d+)(\s*)([\}\|])
    • Replace: {{$1$2|$3id$4=$5$6$7$8


Approved for trial (50 edits). — Earwig talk 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Please add the bot to the CheckPage. Thanks. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. — Earwig talk 07:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:PERM request Yes check.svg Donexaosflux Talk 02:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Trial complete. 50 Edits. I didn't see any issues. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

edit WP:BRFA/FastilyBot_2

FastilyBot 2

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

Time filed: 23:07, Tuesday, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Once I have written it

Function overview: Find files tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} where it is clear that they should not be transferred (i.e. the file has also been tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}, {{Possibly non-free in US}}, {{Userspace file}}, etc.) and remove {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Bi-weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: < 50 per run (but this is probably an overestimate)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Sure? Though to be honest, I don't see any benefit in doing so

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

Function details: The bot will look for files flagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} that should not be transferred due to the presence of tags such as {{Do not move to Commons}}, {{Possibly non-free in US}}, {{Userspace file}}. The bot will then try to remove {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} if possible. If it cannot, then it will link the file on a report page in its userspace for manual review & processing. I'll also make the list of bad tags publicly editable, so other editors can add additional tags. -FASTILY 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


  • Done! -FASTILY 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • My first thought is that a file with both "move to commons" and "don't move to commons" templates is in horrible disarray and no automatic action should be done aside from logging for human review. Why did it have both in the first place, and how can the bot know that any particular template is the "correct" one? (Okay, maybe MtC was added by a bot, in which case that seems sensible, but otherwise.) Looking at {{Userspace file}} arbitrarily, I see unless a specific significant non-Wikipedia use can be demonstrated—what if one has been? Some of the other templates seem more reasonable, though. — Earwig talk 07:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Note that the "move to Commons" template only is a recommendation: if the file has this template, then it is probably a good idea to move the file there. It is fine to move other files to Commons too if they satisfy the inclusion criteria on Commons. I sometimes come across public domain files which are incorrectly marked as 'non-free' and may choose to move one of those files to Commons, but most files which are marked as non-free are not suitable for Commons.
If the file has both "move to Commons" and "don't move to Commons", then something is wrong and then it is not a good idea to ask people to upload the file to Commons until the problem has been sorted out. If it is later discovered that the "don't move to Commons" tag is wrong, then "move to Commons" can be re-added when removing "don't move to Commons".
If a file has {{userspace file}}, then someone has asserted that the file probably isn't useful to Commons, and then it's better if we don't recommend people to upload the file there, although userspace files typically are permitted on Commons.
Another template I'm thinking of is {{split media}}. When that template is used, it often means that someone other the original uploader has overwritten a file, but without editing the file information page. In this situation, one of the files often has unknown source and/or licence, so it's often tricky to find out the copyright status of the files, and diffs and historical revisions of the file information page need to be carefully inspected. Maybe it's better if we don't recommend people to move such files to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} If there are no objections/concerns, I'd love to get started with a trial :) -FASTILY 03:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits or max possible in a single run). Might as well give it a shot, although I still admit concerns about practicality/usefulness. — Earwig talk 03:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Trial complete. So, did 100 by accident when I stepped away from my computer to grab a drink 😬. Besides from that, everything looks good. -FASTILY 05:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have checked the edits and they generally look good. I listed some of the untagged files at FFD because the files are unused and seem to be unencyclopædic.
I noticed a problem with some files like this. In Special:PermanentLink/615940909, the file was tagged with {{PD-UK}}, confirming that the file is in the public domain in the United Kingdom, and {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, confirming that the file is in the public domain in the United States. These tags ask for information about the other country, and add either {{wrong license}} or {{do not move to Commons}} if that information isn't provided. As a consequence, FastilyBot removed {{mtc}}. While I don't think that Fastily's bot needs to change its behaviour, I could see some use for a bot which checks if there is bot a United States copyright tag and a source country copyright tag present and then adds the correct parameters to the templates. I'm thinking of starting a discussion somewhere and then submitting a BRFA for the task. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I'm going to leave this open for a bit longer unless another BAGer gets to it first since I don't have time to give a full review, but it sounds like we're in a good position. — Earwig talk 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Quick question... what happened with this one? It looks like there were conflicting tags, but also a tag that should trump the conflicting tag (i.e., "This file was reviewed and flagged by a human (User:Stefan2) for transfer. By reviewing the file the user confirmed that it is safe to move it to Commons."). --slakrtalk / 04:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Stefan forgot to flip the switch in the pdsource parameter for {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} which caused the template to display {{Do not move to Commons}}. It's no problem to add a rule to omit files found in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human. -FASTILY 05:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag. If there are no other objections, could this be approved? -FASTILY 05:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I admit I can't give this a real look until Saturday, but did slakr have any objections? — Earwig talk 05:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Approved requests

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

Denied requests

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

Expired/withdrawn requests

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