Overview Dictionary Bot policy Bot Approvals Group Guide Noticeboard Newsletter Bot Requests Requests for Approval Adminbots {{ BAG Tools}} Creating a Bot List of bots Activity monitor Status report History Types

All editors are encouraged to participate in the requests below – your comments are appreciated more than you may think!

Shortcuts WP:BRFA WP:RFBOT

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.

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:

1. Create some 3200 articles from the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/To Do List/Missing settlements, link them with Wikidata.
2. 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.

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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

• 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) reply

  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) reply

  Ah yes. "Opt out" might be a good way to describe this third option. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• 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. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• 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) reply
• 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) reply
• {{ 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) reply

  @ 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) reply

  Thanks, I'll leave this open for a few days for comment before going to trial. Primefac ( talk) 16:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Time filed: 19:58, Monday, July 8, 2024 ( UTC)

Function overview: This is a pro forma request; the bot has been running for three years at User:JPxG/Oracle, but having these pages in my userspace is geting to be rather inconvenient, and I feel like I should just put them in projectspace. In fact, I had wanted to do this in the first place -- the only reason I used my userspace was because that way I didn't have to file a BRFA. At any rate, it's been running fine for three years.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python, Bash

Source code available: https://github.com/jp-x-g/oraclefordeletion

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a

Edit period(s): Daily or so (the two active pages are once an hour), if the Group wants me to do it more or less frequently that is fine

Estimated number of pages affected: Zero outside of its homezone, Special:PrefixIndex/User:JPxG/Oracle inside its homezone.

Namespace(s): Wikipedia

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): n/a

Function details: From the explanatory page: the Oracle pages contain detailed information on article deletion discussions. The current dashboard is updated regularly, and shows all current deletion discussions (along with their size, !vote count, and article statistics like number of editors and creation date). They are separated by day, and by open/closed status. It goes back 31 days. Monthly archive pages (like 2006-12, 2020-03, etc) are a huge table listing every AfD from the entire month. This table includes (and is sortable by) outcome, "keep" ratio, number of participants, size of the AfD page, et cetera. Yearly archive pages (like 2006, 2020, etc) include the summary table from the top of each monthly archive. They also feature aggregate statistics for the year. The all-time archive page has a number of tables and graphs, analyzing aggregate statistics for every AfD from 2005 onward.

Where would the new pages be hosted at? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As a second part to this question - has anyone asked for the page to be moved? Primefac ( talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: No objections to the move to project space, but can we get the missing end tag errors fixed before doing the move? (See recent ongoing discussion.) I'm happy to help in any way that I can. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Questions above. Primefac ( talk) 12:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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.

{
  "$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.

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:

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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

Time filed: 14:12, Wednesday, February 7, 2024 ( UTC)

Function overview: Replace {{ coord missing}} with {{ coord|source:wikidata|display=title}}

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Using coordinates on Wikidata

Edit period(s): Monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 20,661

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata contains 20,336 articles tagged with {{ coord missing}}, but they all have coordinates available on Wikidata. This bot would replace {{ coord missing}} with {{ coord|source:wikidata|display=title}} which will fetch the coordinates from Wikidata (e.g. this edit). This bot will also run AWB's general fixes. Thank you for your consideration.

This might be a dumb question, but if every page indicating that it is missing coords is already on Wikipedia, why do we have this template? Why not just make it a wrapper/redirect to {{ coord}}? I know that MSGJ asked for this, and I trust their judgment, but this seems like a lot of work if it's that trivial of an issue. Primefac ( talk) 14:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac: {{ coord missing}} contains 93,000 pages. Only 20,000 of them have coordinates on Wikidata. However, if you'd like to update the templates so this request would be moot, that's fine with me. GoingBatty ( talk) 14:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Yup, as I said... dumb question. Apparently I can't read, and (for some reason) thought that was also the transclusion count. Primefac ( talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Do you mean that if coordinates are on Wikidata then we can just change the behaviour of {{ coord missing}} so that it uses those coordinates instead of populating the maintenance category? Yes, that could be possible. The only disadvantages I can think of:

1. It will still say "coord missing" in the wikicode which could be misleading
2. The template may not be placed in the usual place (e.g. at the top) that the coord template is usually placed.

— Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 15:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. {{ coord missing}} should be changed to {{ coord}}, see below for more detail. — The Anome ( talk) 17:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd be happy to support this, with one proviso, that the {{ coord}} template be changed so that transclusion from Wikidata was gated via a "source=wikidata" parameter, so that it was clear on the enwiki side why the edit was made, and where the coordinates were being pulled from. So {{ coord missing|Name of region}} would become {{ coord|source=wikidata|display=title}}. — The Anome ( talk) 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

That parameter is not required by the template, so are you just putting that in for explanatory purposes and the template will just ignore it? — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 17:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Putting it there for explanatory and tracking purposes, so we can see how it got there and why. Right now, the template should ignore it, but might also be useful to let us add extra semantics to {{ coord}}. For example: right now, if you add {{ coord|display=title}} to an article that doesn't have coordinates on Wikidata, it blows up in an uninformative and mystifying way. Having this extra parameter might let the error message be improved, and also let such erroneous articles be put in a tracking category.

From my viewpoint as a maintainer of the {{ coord missing}} ecosystem, the more tracking metadata we have, the better. I'm committed to a long-term transition to Wikidata as the master source of geodata, but it's going to be a long process, and the more we can smooth the transition by having backward and forward compatibility during the transition process, the better. — The Anome ( talk) 17:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay thanks for the explanation. I support this approach. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'm glad you're stepping up for this; ecosystems made out of multiple single-purpose bots that use wikitext, templates and categories for orchestration are generally more robust that those which rely on complex multi-purpose bots. — The Anome ( talk) 17:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ The Anome and MSGJ: Updated this bot request to change to {{ coord|source:wikidata|display=title}} (e.g. this edit). (Note that |source=wikidata generates an error.) GoingBatty ( talk) 19:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks all, I noticed the lack of "where is this data coming from" earlier but got distracted and never came back to express my concern; this seems to deal with the issue in a suitable manner. Primefac ( talk) 21:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

What sort of error? source:wikidata seems unhelpful for populating a tracking category (if desired) — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 21:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

If the source parameter gives an error, the template can and should be changed to fix that. I've put forward a proposal on this on the template's talk page. — The Anome ( talk) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ MSGJ, @ The Anome: Go to 2024 Istanbul church shooting, click "Edit source", change source:wikidata to source=wikidata, then click "Show preview", and you'll see a message at the top right of the article next to the coordinates which states Coordinates: Parameter: "source=" should be "source:". GoingBatty ( talk) 22:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Understood. I also support The Anome's proposals to change these strange parameters — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 08:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to use any new parameters in this request. GoingBatty ( talk) 14:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ The Anome and MSGJ: If it's the template deciding when it pulls data from WikiData (presumably when no parameters are supplied and data is available on WD), then wouldn't it make sense for the template/module to add things into a tracking cat, rather than it be a parameter. Because the parameter might not be accurate as it's not the source of truth, right? e.g.:

1. One could write {{ Coord|57|18|22|N|4|27|32|W|source=wikidata}}, so the actual data isn't shown via WD but the parameter is still there
2. One could write {{ Coord}}, and the actual data is from WD but the source parameter hasn't been supplied, so is not in a tracking cat

ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

 On hold. pending fix to the {{ coord}} template (assuming that's the consensus here). Please deactivate the template/ping when the issue is resolved. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Operator: Mdann52 ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:45, Thursday, July 18, 2024 ( UTC)

Function overview: Reimplement deactivated bot HBC AIV helperbot5

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Currently Perl, possible future port to PWB

Source code available: Yes, see User:HBC AIV helperbot/source GitHub

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): per WP:BOTN#HBC_AIV_helperbot5_and_AdminStatsBot

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 5

Namespace(s):Wikipedia Space

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes, but not needed

Function details: Reimpliment the functionality of HBC AIV helperbot5 following operator passing away. See BOTN for context.

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Run it until you're sure it's working right, and then ping me here with the diffs and I'll check things and put in approval. Primefac ( talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I've been unable to get the existing code running again (well it runs ok, it just doesn't ever save it's edits to site....). I've spun up a pywikibot replacement using similar code and logic for now to keep the backlog down, I've reimplmented most of the functionality, minus the Legend information in the summary. Will look to add this in shortly. Mdann52 ( talk) 06:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac: see contributions with new code here - 12 edits so far. I've killed the bot as it kept hitting edit filters, and got reported to AIV by another bot due to Special:AbuseFilter/768, which I can't see - so not sure how much more testing is easy/feasable. Happy to continue trial for X days or X edits if easier, given the code has changed so speedy approval may not be appropriate. I still need to add in the tagging of IPs/Users when in categories, but the core clerking should be working. Mdann52 ( talk) 08:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Managed to get around the filter issue, happy things are running as expected from the clerking side. Mdann52 ( talk) 09:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm okay with a rolling trial; I'd rather you see and fix things on the fly rather than have to wait for a trial extension or similar. As long as the edit summary indicates it's still in the trial phase we should be okay. Primefac ( talk) 10:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Mdann52: If you come across the filter issue again, or even if you're just curious, I'd be happy to share the relevant parts with you. It's not the bot's fault, and would be resolved if it has the bot flag. We also have other workarounds. Just let me know if you want the info. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Zzuuzz: I managed to find another EFM in the end who sorted it - please send me the relevant parts if it could cause an issue in the future though! I know it's a false positive (I would be worried if a new user making bulk edits to that page *didn't* get flagged), I just found it amusing the bot got reported to the noticeboard it was trying to clerk! Mdann52 ( talk) 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe we should just give the bot the bot flag. I've seen bots flagged for trials before. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We do sometimes. For something like this where the code isn't identical to the old one, I'd rather have more eyes on the situation. I know a lot of folks have bot edits hidden, but anecdotally they also seem to be the ones that would actually notice issues, so for the moment (especially if the filter issue has been resolved) I'd like to leave the flag off (at least for a bit longer). Primefac ( talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knowing the filters as I do, and having sent some info to Mdann52, I think the filter aspect is good at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Does this version of the bot merge duplicates? Seems it only removed one of the two reports at AIV against the disruptive username account, as well. – 2804:F1...6D:BFBD ( talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merging duplicates is on my todo list, hopefully complete soon. That second report not being removed is an interesting one. The account wasn't blocked when it checked it, it was g'locked which doesn't show up in the local logs the bot is using (it also isn't marked as blocked, and just appears as "user does not exist" locally. I don't see what reasonable steps I can make it take in the short-term. To answer your other question, it removes replies that start with *:, it ignored ones that aren't correctly nested, but I've sorted that as well so it will look at normal indentation as well. Mdann52 ( talk) 10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

If you need code to detect global locks, that should be doable in raw SQL, raw API, or pywikibot APISite.is_locked() . – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, good point. I'll add that in. Mdann52 ( talk) 13:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to mention that when an account is locked and hidden, it's not easy to detect. I've never seen a bot manage it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Operator: C1MM ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:56, Tuesday, June 25, 2024 ( UTC)

Function overview: Would add constituency numbers in addition to constituency maps

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/C1MM-bot

Edit period(s): occasionally run, would edit all pages in one fell swoop

Estimated number of pages affected: ~4000

Namespace(s): Articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: I already have approval for running my bot to add image maps to infoboxes of Indian state legislative assembly constituency pages. I would like to add constituency numbers as well, which are listed in the filenames for the image maps. These numbers are obtained from Election Commission of India (must have an Indian IP address to access). My bot loops through all the pages in a given category where {{Infobox Indian constituency }} is present. Where there is already a constituency number the page would be skipped, just as it is skipped if there is already an image in the image_map section. Otherwise the constituency number would be added preserving infobox formatting (if any). This is in addition to adding the map in the same manner. This is editing pages which are not generally sufficiently important to have the Bots template.

(not-BAG) if the page already has a value in the relevant field, will the bot log/change it if it doesn't match the value produced by the map? This is probably worth trying to do. Mdann52 ( talk) 18:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I can easily add that function to the bot. C1MM ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac ( talk) 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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.

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;

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) reply

@ 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) reply

( Peanut gallery comment) I am BOLDly adding {{ BAG assistance needed}}: {{ BAG assistance needed}} House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 03:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've tweaked the trial numbers. Primefac ( talk) 17:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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 :) House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

{{ bag assistance needed}} (apologies for using this a lot as of late...) House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 22:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

And yes, HouseBlaster, using the assistance template twice in ten days is a bit excessive. Primefac ( talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ DannyS712: did you see the above? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

Time filed: 03:19, Saturday, February 17, 2024 ( UTC)

Function overview: Automatically populate sandboxes for modules listing disambiguation templates, set index templates or soft redirect templates; and if necessary issue edit requests to update the main modules.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (Pywikibot framework)

Source code available: https://github.com/mrstradivarius/dabtemplates

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Pagetype#Detecting pages with Template:Wiktionary redirect and other soft redirects ( permalink)

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 5

Namespace(s): Module, module talk, template talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This is an expansion of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StradBot (task 1). Task 1 was for updating a disambiguation template list for Module:Disambiguation; this task expands this to two more use cases: updating a list of set index pages for Module:Pagetype, and updating a list of soft redirects, also for Module:Pagetype.

The bot uses the following algorithm. This has not changed since task 1.

1. The bot constructs a list of disambiguation templates, set index templates or soft redirect templates. The list includes template redirects. It does this by iterating through all templates in a specific category (the -cat option). Non-templates are ignored, as are templates in the bot's exclusion list (the -exclude option). It then retrieves redirects for all of these templates.
2. It formats the list of templates and template redirects as a Lua table, and saves the result in a module sandbox (the -data-page-sandbox option). Saving is skipped if the module's content would not change. You can see sample output from the bot here.
3. If the sandbox module was updated, and if its new content is different from that of the main module (the -data-page option), then the bot adds an edit request to update the main module to the relevant talk page (the -data-talk-page option). There is a sample edit request here.

The bot will be used to update the following modules:

Approved for trial (one-time run). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 ( talk) 05:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Time filed: 00:14, Wednesday, June 14, 2023 ( UTC)

Function overview: This task checks the Top 25 Report page frequently to see if the current report has updated. If it was updated, then it will go through all pages in the new report and add or update the Template:Top 25 Report template on their talk pages.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: No, but if necessary I can upload it

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Top 25 report

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 25 pages/week

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: This task first checks the page Wikipedia:Top 25 Report to see if the transcluded link was modified. (This should mean that the report was updated.) If it has, then it uses the first revision of the transcluded page, which is always a basic list, to get a list of article talk pages to modify. It then goes through each talk page, updating the Template:Top 25 Report template if it exists and adding it if not. As for exclusion compliance, I have not added that feature in yet.

The Top 25 report is updated weekly. Why does this task need to run twice a day? Primefac ( talk) 09:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I wanted to ensure that the template is added quickly. I've changed it to daily, and if it should be longer then you can tell me. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 14:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Additionally, some reports (including the one for last week) are finished late, and do not get added until later on. I wanted to ensure that the pages on the report get the template on their talk page. If the next report is done on time, then the maintainers of the report will replace the transclusion to the late report with the new one less than a week after the old report replaced the one before it. I agree that twice a day was a bit too excessive. Daily should be fine. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 14:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Capsulecap is right about this. And task need to run twice a day.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Capsulecap: Hi. What would happen if the same article comes in top 25 report again, say with a gap of four months? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  If that happens, then there will be no difference from if it was featured twice with more than a four month gap. There is nothing that says to do anything different for pages on T25 which are featured multiple times in a small timespan, and pages like Talk:ChatGPT feature multiple such examples. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 23:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Approved for trial (1 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'm trying to wrap my head around what's this bot supposed to do exactly, so I'm going to approve it for a one-time run of 1 day. This should give me (and perhaps others) a better idea of what this is about. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Headbomb: Although I did a trial run, the bot made test edits with numerous errors. I have fixed the code causing these issues, and will (with permission) restart the trial when the next report comes in. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 19:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Capsulecap: can you link to the results nonetheless? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

See edits 4 through 29. Note that the newest three edits were a test run for a fix to something which happened in Talk:Elemental (2023 film), and that many incorrect edits were caused by other editors modifying talk pages to add the template before the test run was done. Although the bot will not add redundant templates assuming that nobody adds the top 25 placement before it, I am considering adding redundancy protection. One problem — the one on the page about the Titan submarine incident — was one I didn't think of, as the talk page was moved with the main page, causing the top 25 report template to be placed on a redirect instead of the actual talk page. This is a problem I am working on fixing, as I have noticed that "current events" pages that show up on the report often frequently get moved. The bot also ended up creating the page "Talk:Errible things in Russia, the North Atlantic and HBO have the most attention this week.", but I fixed the source issue and tagged the page for CSD. few of the edits are fine, and most would be fine if there was redundancy protection or if the top 25 templates didn't already have the week in there. One question, though — since the bot will run daily, and people wouldn't need to modify top 25 templates anymore — should I implement redundancy protection? Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 02:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

"Should I implement redundancy protection" I would say that's a good idea, regardless of how often it comes into play. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I just finished implementing the redundancy protection along with the redirect traversal stuff. The bot should work just fine now. Do I have to redo the trial? Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 04:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Trial complete. See 21 most recent contributions. Out of the 25 pages in the June 25th to July 1st edition, 21 pages were correctly edited, two pages (Talk:Money in the Bank (2023) and Talk:Titan submersible implosion) were not edited because of unexpected and likely erroneous formatting in the report's first revision (a space was in place of the usual tab after those two pages' titles), and two pages were not edited as they already had this week in their templates. For context on those two pages which didn't get the template on accident, the first revision of the report is always an imported set of tab delimited data — in this case, spaces were in place of tabs for the names of those two articles. The bot created two new talk pages on accident, which I quickly tagged for CSD. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Update: I've come up with a solution to this problem and will be implementing and testing it soon. This is the last issue which I will have to fix. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Approved for extended trial (25 edits or 7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. One week's worth, or 25 edits, whichever you need. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Trial complete. See See 25 most recent contributions. This time, I verified that all edits the bot would make would be correct on a script that had editing commented out. They were all good edits, so I ran the full script. All 25 pages on the report had the template added or changed on their talk pages. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 01:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Most seemed fine, but there was this that stood out.

Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I noticed that and didn't pay much attention to it as it was merely cosmetic. Since that was considered problematic, I'll get to fixing that and keeping the collapse as the last edit. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

For testing you can revert to a prior state and unleash the bot on it. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Trial complete. See 22 most recent edits. Also see this test edit which the bot made in user talk space showing a similar condition to the page Talk:Deaths in 2023. If you would like, I can manually revert the edit on Talk:Deaths in 2023 which added the newest date and run the bot again to show you. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Well... the collapsed stuff is handled correctly, but now it's inconsistent the other way around. It should list the ranks when they're there, or omit them when they're not.

Or, probably a better idea, update old listings to list the ranks, e.g. [1]. You might need some discussion before though. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I think it's a good idea to retroactively add the rankings to the templates, but I'm not sure of where to obtain consensus for that, and it would either require a bot task or lots of manual work. The other way you listed is probably easier, but causes inconsistency between pages. Something else I thought of is a Lua module that automatically grabs the placements, but I'm not sure if such a thing is supported. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 20:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What if it deleted what was there first, then re-added the template with all dates and ranks? In the same edit that is. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

It could work, but I think I would have to submit a separate bot task for that. A separate (and much simpler) approach would be to add a "ranks" parameter that does nothing to the bot category. If set to yes, then the bot will add ranks when it updates the report. Otherwise or if unset, the bot will only add the date. This maintains consistency within talk pages, but not between talk pages; the latter would require consensus strongly towards either using ranks or not. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Indeed, consistency within talk pages is usually a lesser threshold to clear. I'm giving you trial for that (make sure to include a mix of both types of edits), but if you want to have that (should we always rank things) discussion first, you can also wait for consensus to emerge before trialing. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Capsulecap, are you still doing this? —  Qwerfjkl talk 14:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am. Have taken a long break from editing but I never canceled this bot project. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 15:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

{{ 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) reply

Yes. As I said a long time ago, I wasn't really maintaining activity onwiki or paying attention to this page. I've decided to come back to wikipedia at some point in the near future (within 1-2 months) but I can add the features to the project. Thanks for reaching out. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 22:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac: I've added support for that ranks attribute, as is seen in the 5 most recent bot edits, all of which are to my test pages. I've also created support for converting preexisting top25 templates of the alternate form into regular form top 25s, and made it so top 25 report templates longer than 800 bytes are collapsed. I will test the bot once the report is switched to the current week, which should be on Saturday or Sunday. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac: Status: Current run had too many problems to use as a final trial. Fixed 2 bugs here. Should be ready to be released any week now. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac: Status: Apparently what I said above was wrong. The bot works fine on the average page but I forgot to put the ranks parameter on new templates. That has since been fixed. However, there are several larger problems that I discovered on this run — the bot broke another bot's template that was split over two lines (how rude of it!), and the entries in the report were changed from the first entry, necessitating me to delete templates from two talk pages. For some reason it also ignored the page Franz Beckenbauer in the first revision, but that shouldn't be a problem once I manage to switch over to using the newest revision with tables. Also created a list at User:CapsuleBot/Todo. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 02:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Programming language(s): C#

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

•  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) reply

  ^. 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) reply

  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) reply

• 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) reply

  Y Bot run with 50 edits. No problems reported. Diffs: [2]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• 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. [3] and [4] EggRoll97 ^{( talk)} 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  This should not be happening. Frostly ( talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  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) reply

  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) reply

  @ 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) reply

  Bot has been amended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

{{ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

{{ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Operator: EpicPupper ( 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

Programming language(s):

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).

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) reply

Just noting that I'm working on this but it may take some time. EpicPupper ( talk) 23:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Been a bit busy IRL, but will get to this soon. Frostly ( talk) 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

soon —  Frostly ( talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

{{ 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) reply

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) reply

I've made progress on uploading to Toolforge; just fixing a few bugs. —  Frostly ( talk) 03:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Finishing up final revisions to the code! —  Frostly ( talk) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

about time! Hehe —usernamekiran (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Time filed: 23:48, Monday, July 15, 2024 ( UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): pywikibot

Source code available:

Function overview: tag the talk pages of women's basketball articles with {{ WikiProject Basketball|women=yes}} and {{ WikiProject Women's sport|basketball=yes}} if not already tagged.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): request at BOTREQ

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: around 17,000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: At WP:Bot requests, a request was made to tag talkpages of pages from 4,300 categories list of categories.

After making some dummy test edits, I created a list of non-repetitive pages which is around 17,000.

all these categories are explicitly about women's basketball. some of the talpkages are missing "WikiProject Women's sport", some have it, but are missing the "basketball" ({{ WikiProject Women's sport|basketball=yes}}), and similar goes true for {{ WikiProject Basketball|women=yes}}.

I already made some null test edits, requesting a trial run with 50 edits. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac ( talk) 12:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Trial complete. the 50 edits. Apparently, the program is removing everything else from the talkpage other than wikiproject banners. I think I have found the reason/flaw. I will fix it in a couple of days I hope. I have already reverted all the 50 edits. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Time filed: 14:01, Monday, May 27, 2024 ( UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:

Function overview: Fix the URLs for the ECI election database.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Every six months

Estimated number of pages affected: 5050

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: The Election Commission of India has moved all of its data (except for very recent elections) to a subdomain. As a result, URLs in more than 5000 pages are now invalid and are giving a 404 error. This bot will replace URLs like https://eci.gov.in/files/file/11699-maharashtra-legislative-assembly-election-2019 with the new URL https://old.eci.gov.in/files/file/11699-maharashtra-legislative-assembly-election-2019. Simply replace https://eci.gov.in/ with https://old.eci.gov.in/.

Why every six months? Primefac ( talk) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

In India, elections are held in 5-6 states every year. As the elections approach or conclude, the ECI moves data from previous elections to this subdomain. This means that many URLs will become invalid after each year's elections. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 22:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Apologies if this is coming across as dense, just want to make sure I'm on the same page. Let's arbitrarily say that there's an election in July 2024, and the URL for those pages starts with https://eci.gov.in/ since it's a "recent election". At what point will that URL get archived to the https://old.eci.gov.in/ prefix? If it is archived after the subsequent election, why not just update the URL with the new election information along with the data it represents? Primefac ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The problem is that I don't know when ECI moves older election results to the old.eci URL. The recent elections, held in November 2023 in six states, were six months ago. So far, the ECI has moved three sets of election data to the old.eci domain. This suggests that they archive election data within six to ten months. For now, we can fix all these broken links, but we might need to do this again for future elections. If the BRFA folks think it's unnecessary to do this regularly (every six months), it's fine to handle it once. I'll try to submit a new BRFA in the future, and we can continue regularly if needed. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Previous discussion Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#ECI_-_Election_Commission_of_India. Geoblocking is preventing outside-India bots and DreamRimmer has India IP access. DreamRimmer, to caution, there are many non-obvious problems that can arise when operating on URLs. Probably the biggest is archive URLs you don't want to modify. This PCRE regex should capture only non-archive URLs (untested):

(?<!/)(?<!\\?url=)https?://eci[.]gov[.]in/[^\\s\\]|}{<]*[^\\s\\]|}{<]*

Also verify the new URL is working before switching, do a header check, don't assume, websites always have error rates some higher than others. Other issues might arise, most problems will show up during the first 100 or so edits. Common trouble points are |url-status=, {{ webarchive}} and {{ dead link}}. Also links that are square and bare. It might too difficult to get all these exactly right, if you can change the main |url= and square URLs and verify the new URL works, that will go a long way! -- Green C 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I would definitely be cautious to avoid any potential mistakes. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see how things get on. Primefac ( talk) 15:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Trial complete. Edits. Everything worked as intended, and all the new URLs are working fine. I want to note that initially, the bot did not change the url-status for Mangolpuri Assembly constituency, Chandni Chowk Assembly constituency, and Bawana Assembly constituency, but this issue has since been resolved and now functions correctly. Pinging User:GreenC if they want to take a look. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 13:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I spot checked, don't see any problems. Can you confirm if it also modifies these types:

1. Title
2. https://eci.gov.in/files/file/4053-andhra-pradesh-2004/

ie. square (1) and bare (2) links. -- Green C 17:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: these links are georestricted to India IPs and can't be archived, or archived very well. I found an article in The Hindu that talks about it. The article quotes one our most technically knowledgeable editors, User:Nemo_bis, who said: "Nemo has studied 'geofencing' of Indian government websites in the past, and in 2020 created a proxy service for users located abroad to access Indian government websites". This might be our solution. I hope Nemo has a working proxy for the Election Commission website? -- Green C 17:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GreenC, I am fixing all the links that start with https://eci.gov.in/files/file/, https://eci.gov.in/category, and https://eci.gov.in/ByeElection/. All these links are archived in a subdomain. The links for the 2023 elections of Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Rajasthan, Mizoram, and Madhya Pradesh are still working and have not been moved to the old subdomain, so I will not touch them.

• The working links are formatted as follows: (eg.)

https://www.eci.gov.in/chhattisgarh-legislative-election-2023-statistical-report

https://www.eci.gov.in/mp-legislative-election-2023-statistical-report

https://www.eci.gov.in/mizoram-legislative-election-2023-statistical-report

• The old election links are formatted as follows: (eg.)

https://eci.gov.in/files/file/9643-statistical-data-of-general-election-to-chhatisgarh-assembly-2018/ (now https://old.eci.gov.in/files/file/9643-statistical-data-of-general-election-to-chhatisgarh-assembly-2018/)

https://eci.gov.in/files/file/9685-madhya-pradesh-legislative-election-2018-statistical-report/ (now https://old.eci.gov.in/files/file/9685-madhya-pradesh-legislative-election-2018-statistical-report/)

https://eci.gov.in/files/file/9687-mizoram-legislative-election-2018-statistical-report/ (now https://old.eci.gov.in/files/file/9687-mizoram-legislative-election-2018-statistical-report/)

Other links that start with https://eci.gov.in/category and https://eci.gov.in/ByeElection/ have all been moved to the subdomain, so I will need to fix them. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 14:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Time filed: 12:48, Thursday, May 11, 2023 ( UTC)

Function overview: Convert template use following update

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Request for a template

Edit period(s): OTR

Estimated number of pages affected:

Namespace(s): 783

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: {{ Wikisource author}} recently was updated to allow for a |lang= parameter to link directly to non-English versions of wikisource for an author. A similar template, {{ Wikisourcelang}}, links to a generic search on said language wiki for said author. This task will change {{ Wikisourcelang|<lang>|otherstuff}} into a {{ Wikisource author|lang=<lang>|otherstuff}} call.

• {{ BAG assistance needed}} valid request not attended by any BAG members for almost two months. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.

This seems pretty straightforward. Let's go to trial.

Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Trial complete. Edits. As a note, I did not run genfixes just to make the proposed change more obvious, but if this task does proceed I will be running genfixes alongside them.

Piotrus, I think this request is a little more convoluted than initially requested. Languages such as de do not use an "author" prefix (see e.g. Adolph Friedrich Johann Riedel and his corresponding page on de Wikisource), but I can't figure out which languages it holds to. I am not necessarily seeing a specific pattern between what languages do and do not. My thoughts are of two possibilities - run this task only for languages where the proposed change has the intended effect, or just scrap this BRFA and do these changes manually. Primefac ( talk) 12:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac I think we can run it for some languages that we can determine now, it shouldn't be that hard as long as it is consistent for each language (ex. German never uses, Polish always uses it, etc.). We could create a list for all languages that wikisource exists on, or just run it for now for some editions that are the biggest (ex. the ones with interwikis here). I did some checks and it seems it's pretty consisten - just a wikisource naming convention. Note that depending on the language, the "author" prefix is different - Polish is "autor". Swedish is "Författare", etc. In the end, what we need to fix is not the outgoing links but the text on our side. Consider this case, similar to the German one you quote, where we improved the language or our template but messed the link: before, diff, after. Since the links work, can we just figure out the way to change the wording in the template but retain the same link as before? The older template was able to do it, somehow, seems we are introducing a new error somehow? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

If you wouldn't mind making a list of which languages use the Author (in whatever language) prefix, I can hard-code their use into the template so that there isn't any issue.

This wasn't a problem before because {{ wikisource author}} only linked to to the English version so no translation or odd coding was necessary. As mentioned in the original discussion, {{ wikisource lang}} just links to a general search (which does sometimes turn up the author page directly) and thus does not require the "Author:" prefix. Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 On hold. Just for now, while we deal with actual template issues. Primefac ( talk) 08:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac See talk, is this helpful? Those are most larger Wiki source projects, should be enough to get most of our stuff sorted out. We can take a look at what, if anything, is left after dealing with those languages? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Should do, thanks for that. Going to keep this on hold for a bit longer, there's a TFD for merging all of these together and I might be able to enact these proposed changes during the merge process. Primefac ( talk) 08:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Primefac Just checking the status of this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Somewhat stalled, been rather busy myself and it doesn't look like anyone has started work on the template merger. I think I might have cleared my on-wiki plate somewhat ( touch wood) so I'll see about prioritising the merger. Primefac ( talk) 10:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ( ), while old requests can be found in the archives.

• 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)
• SDZeroBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 13:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• CopyPatrolBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 29) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• ButlerBlogBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 42) Approved 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43b) Approved 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 44) Approved 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BattyBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 28) Approved 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 25) Approved 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• AnomieBOT ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 81) Approved 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• FrostlySnowman ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 09:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• AnomieBOT ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43) Approved 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• SDZeroBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• The Sky Bot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• DeadbeefBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 19:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 26) Approved 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BsoykaBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)

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.

• 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)

• DoggoBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Bot denied 08:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

• 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)

• Credibility bot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• RoccBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• SodiumBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Qwerfjkl (bot) ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 24) Expired 18:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• FABLEBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 16:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)