en.m.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval
< Wikipedia:Bots
Overview (Dictionary) Bot policyBot Approvals Group GuideNoticeboard Newsletter
Bot RequestsRequests for Approval Adminbots{{BAG Tools}} Creating a BotList of bots Bot status reportBot activity monitor
Please remember that all editors are encouraged to participate in the requests listed below. Just chip in – your comments are appreciated more than you may think!
If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. To do so, follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming it may be a good idea to ask someone else to run a bot for you, rather than running your own.
New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!
 Instructions for bot operators
IBefore applying for approval
  • Ensure that you have read the bot policy and that your bot is compliant with it, and that your idea isn't listed as a frequently denied bot.
  • If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task in the appropriate forums. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion from your request for approval.
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button' just in case anything goes wrong.
IIFiling the application
easy-brfa.js can be used for quickly filing BRFAs. It checks for a bunch of filing mistakes automatically! It's recommended for experienced bot operators, but the script can be used by anyone.
  • Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
  • Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.


Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
  • For a first request: use
    {{BRFA|bot name||Open}}
  • For an additional task request: use
    {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
IIIDuring the approvals process
  • During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input) and move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{BotTrialComplete}} to the request page and move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot (it helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred).
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
  • At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IVAfter the approvals process
After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
  • For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
  • For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
Bot NameStatusCreatedLast editorDate/TimeLast BAG editorDate/Time
William Avery Bot 4 (T|C|B|F)Open2021-06-12, 19:28:51William Avery2021-06-12, 19:40:43Never edited by BAGn/a
William Avery Bot 3 (T|C|B|F)Open2021-06-02, 08:14:14William Avery2021-06-13, 08:50:19Never edited by BAGn/a
Cewbot 8(T|C|B|F)On hold2021-05-08, 23:45:44Kanashimi2021-05-24, 22:43:23Primefac2021-05-10, 12:59:35
ElliBot(T|C|B|F)On hold2021-01-23, 14:46:12Primefac2021-03-08, 19:29:15Primefac2021-03-08, 19:29:15
TolBot 1A(T|C|B|F)In trial2021-05-31, 17:52:19Tol2021-06-13, 19:02:36Primefac2021-06-05, 11:56:35
DoggoBot(T|C|B|F)In trial2021-06-02, 17:57:50EpicPupper2021-06-05, 02:20:30Xaosflux2021-06-05, 00:53:50
FACBot 7(T|C|B|F)Extended trial2021-05-25, 01:23:40Hawkeye72021-06-04, 04:05:44SD00012021-06-01, 13:41:33
ProcBot 8(T|C|B|F)On hold2021-05-02, 21:18:20ProcrastinatingReader2021-06-03, 11:21:22Primefac2021-05-11, 12:32:03
AWMBot 2(T|C|B|F)In trial2021-04-22, 15:32:42ProcrastinatingReader2021-04-28, 02:09:53ProcrastinatingReader2021-04-28, 02:09:53
PearBOT II 11(T|C|B|F)In trial2021-04-19, 21:34:48ProcSock2021-06-07, 20:59:16ProcrastinatingReader2021-05-06, 12:39:12
GreenC bot 20(T|C|B|F)In trial2021-04-15, 03:12:16GreenC2021-06-14, 06:12:12The Earwig2021-06-14, 04:56:41
PearBOT II 10(T|C|B|F)On hold2021-04-11, 19:48:22Trialpears2021-04-19, 21:40:42TheSandDoctor2021-04-15, 01:04:04
SDZeroBot 10(T|C|B|F)Trial complete2021-05-24, 18:07:20SD00012021-05-25, 13:33:49ProcrastinatingReader2021-05-24, 18:53:52
Current requests for approval
William Avery Bot 4
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: William Avery (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:27, Saturday, June 12, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Sorts tables of draft picks in articles under Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team that have been tagged with {{Chronological}} into chronological order, and optionally remove the {{Chronological}} tag.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot and mwparserfromhell)
Source code available: Yes draftPickSortBot.py draftPickSortBot.sh
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTR#Cleanup of chronological data in NFL Draft tables
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 121 (of 298 in the targetted category)
Namespace(s): Mainspace/Articles
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
  1. The bot will process pages that are in category Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team and have been tagged with {{Chronological}}. See query in draftPickSortBot.sh.
  2. Each section is scanned for {{Chronological}} templates, and the bot attempts to process the first table it finds after the tag.
  3. If the table does not have a header row, or the first column is not headed "Year", processing of the table is abandoned.
  4. Each row in the table is assigned a sort key based on the applicable Year value and its original sequence in the table. This has to account for rowspan attributes on the Year table cells, and sanity checks are made; e.g. that the value of year is within the expected range, and only the year cells have rowspans. If any of these checks fail, processing of the table is abandoned. Empty table rows, which are seemingly ignored by MediaWiki, are dropped.
  5. The rows are sorted on a key of their assigned year value and their original position in the table, to give the desired new sequence, and reinserted into the table
  6. Depending on a run parameter, the associated {{Chronological}} tag may also be removed.
Testing:
The bot can also output the sorted tables to a report page. Example at User:William Avery Bot/tablesortsample
Userspace test without removing tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:William_Avery_Bot/draftPickSortBotTest&diff=prev&oldid=1028221379
Userspace test removing tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:William_Avery_Bot/draftPickSortBotTest&diff=next&oldid=1028221507
Discussion
William Avery Bot 3
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: William Avery (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 08:11, Wednesday, June 2, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Remove dead URL's and associated {{Dead link}} tagging from CS1 templates if there is a free alternative available via an identifier.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot and mwparserfromhell)
Source code available:​unneededDeadlinksBot.py​unneededDeadlinks_medicine.sh​unneededDeadlinks.sh wikipythonics_util.py
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#Remove dead links from book and journal citation templates with identifiers - It was agreed to proceed only where there is free access indicated. There may be further discussions to be had regarding other access levels and situations. These would have to be the subject of a further BRFA.
Edit period(s): one time run, with possible ad hoc repeats
Estimated number of pages affected: 111 pages for WikiProject Medicine, c. 1000 pages overall
Namespace(s): Mainspace/Articles
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
  1. Query the database for pages in Category:Articles with permanently dead external links (See SQL query in unneededDeadlinks.sh​). I expect initial runs to be confined to WikiProject Medicine articles. (See unneededDeadlinks_medicine.sh​)
  2. Each {{Deadlink}} present will be processed, and processing only proceeds if there is a value of 'yes' in the fix-attempted parameter.
  3. Using mwparserfromhell the deadlink template's ancestor elements are examined to find a tag or other element likely to contain the affected citation.
  4. The affected citation is the sibling template element that precedes the deadlink tag within the identified ancestor. This and the preceding step have details that depend closely on the mwparserfromhell parse tree, and have been refined by scanning large samples of pages. e.g. if there is a plain external link after the preceding template, then the dead link being tagged is that external link, and not a link to any preceding template, so no fix is possible.
  5. The candidate template is checked for a value in the url parameter. Processing only proceeds if there is a url. Editors sometimes mark a broken doi etc with {{Deadlink}}, rather than using the doi-broken-date parameter.
  6. The candidate template is checked for a value in the archive-url parameter. Processing only proceeds if there is not an archive-url. Presence of an archive-url should indicate that the link is fixed.
  7. A check is made to see if there are identifier parameters present that indicate free access. For details see WP:CS1#Access indicator for named identifiers. Under the scope of this request, processing will only proceed if free access is indicated and the access is unaffected by presence of a doi-broken-date or a pmc-embargo-date.
  8. If all the conditions are fulfilled, the url parameter is removed from the template along with any access-date parameter, and the {{Deadlink}} tagging is removed.
  9. Apply a general fix to remove template redirects using the rules at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. (I thought I could apply this fix prior to the above processing to simplify it, but some of the fixed templates were then removed, making the edit summary misleading.)
Test outputs:
Discussion
Cewbot 8
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: Kanashimi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:43, Saturday, May 8, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Maintain challenge templates at corresponding page.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): wikiapi on GitHub
Source code available: [1] on GitHub
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot for Challenges projects
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 2K+
Namespace(s): talk pages
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: This task will take over work of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 15.
Discussion
In this TfD the community overwhelmingly decided to merge the banners into the WikiProject banner stuff. Although that was only to apply to the {{WPUS50}} template, I think the sentiment in that discussion was against having it in a separate banner. Example new usage. In line with that, I'm wondering how your task would add these templates? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. I think we may insert the templates into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Maybe BabbaQ have good idea? By the way, I think using the expression |WPUS50= will cause difficulties of related templates if we want to add/remove them later. The problem triggered when I run the task Normalize Multiple issues in zhwiki or jawiki, they allow both {{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}} and
{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
. So I need to check them both. If the challenge templates are merged to different meta-templates as parameters, the situation will be more complicated. In my opinion,
{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
is better than {{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}, for it is easy to search for both humans and bots. Kanashimi (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The other templates in that category have been nominated for deletion/merging with their parent WikiProject banners. I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion first. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 On hold. Sure. I will wait for the discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Wikipedia article challenge templates ending. Kanashimi (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
ElliBot
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: Elliot321 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 14:46, Saturday, January 23, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s):
Source code available:
Function overview: Automatically apply {{redirect category shell}} templates to redirects with Wikidata, and remove redundant {{Wikidata redirect}} templates.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 50,000-100,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: I recently modified {{Redirect category shell}} to automatically detect Wikidata links and apply the template {{Wikidata redirect}} if they exist. This was previously already done with protection levels, and there is no reason that {{Wikidata redirect}} should not also be applied.
There are currently 100,000 redirects in the category Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, which is applied by the software. There are currently 30,000 redirects in the category Category:Wikidata redirects. Nearly all of these were put into that category by applying {{Wikidata redirect}} manually, meaning they will need the tag removed (as it will be a duplicate).
Many of the remaining 70,000 pages will need the template {{rcat shell}} added. As the change to {{Redirect category shell}} was recent, many redirects connected to Wikidata items, without {{Wikidata redirect}}, but with {{Redirect category shell}}, have not been added to Category:Wikidata redirects. The difference in count between Category:Wikidata redirects and Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item is the number of pages that will be modified.
The edits will be carried out with AWB running as an automated bot. There is very low risk of disruption in this task, though the number of edits is significant. Using AWB, this bot can also carry out other generic fixes to redirects, though this is not a significant part of its functions.
A somewhat similar failed request was Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TomBot, but that that request was for a bot that would edit ~30-60x more pages, with less benefit overall. This is a much more narrow and useful request.
Discussion
  1. Any prior discussions on doing this that you're aware of, which establish broader consensus for this task?
  2. Will this BRFA cause Template:Wikidata redirect to become redundant? If I understand correctly, this task will orphan all of its transclusions? If so, and especially if there's no prior discussion, I suggest sending that template to TfD (and then this bot task can be technically implementing that TfD). That would be one way to test the wider consensus for this task, too.
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There are no discussions I know of establishing consensus around this particular task. {{Wikidata redirect}} will not become redundant for two reasons. {{redirect category shell}} transcludes it. However, this usage could be subst, of course. The other usage is in cross-Wiki (such as to Wiktionary) and category redirects, the "soft" usage. The "hard" usage could be deprecated from the template, however (they are implemented slightly differently, with an automatic switch). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
To begin with, I'd say stylistically this presentation is inferior. See eg here. The one on the top (caused by the edit) doesn't look as good as the manual one & looks slightly out of place with the plaintext.
If the rcat shell has to be manually added by bot, is there really a point to this? Why not have a bot add {{Wikidata redirect}} to pages in Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry - that was due to my changes being misunderstood and reverted. If you check now, you can see the way they were intended to look.
The reason for adding {{redirect category shell}} over {{wikidata redirect}} is for automatic detection. If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense. I'd suggest dropping a link to this BRFA from the template talk pages for the two templates, to allow some time for comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
So the idea is that {{RCAT shell}} should add the Wikidata box by checking for the connected item. Manually adding the template wouldn't be necessary then because the software can already detect if a page is connected to a Wikidata item. Is that correct? --PhiH (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@PhiH: pretty much. The shell will automatically detect a link to Wikidata, and if found, transclude the template. Therefore, this bot will remove the redundant manual transclusions of the template, and add the shell to automatically transclude on any redirect linked to Wikidata. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand what changed with {{wikidata redirect}} and {{redirect category shell}} correctly, redirects that only have {{wikidata redirect}} will be changed to an empty {{redirect category shell}}, which then results in an error. This means that manual inspection is needed to determine another redirect category to apply, which obviously this Bot task cannot do. —seav (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
FYI, an empty Rcat shell results in sorting the redirect to the Miscellaneous redirects category, which is monitored by editors who will then tag the redirect with appropriate categories. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Would that be a problem then, Paine Ellsworth? Filling the cat up with some tens of thousands of pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
An empty RCAT shell with a Wikidata item doesn't need to be categorised in Category:Miscellaneous redirects because it generates the Template:Wikidata redirect. I didn't check if that is implemented yet. A page with that template and no Wikidata item is a problem as well. They just move from one tracking category to another. --PhiH (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Why doesn't it need to be categorised into misc redirects? Having a Wikidata item connected/existing isn't really an explanation of why there's a redirect on enwiki. Surely the redirect still needs to be categorised? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@PhiH: @​ProcrastinatingReader​: the {{redirect category shell}} template should not be applied without any categories by a bot as the Category:Miscellaneous redirects should be filled manually. Consequently, I don't plan to do that with this bot. I can manually categorize the redirects that do not have any categories.
(though, a tracking category for uncategorized redirects that can be applied by a bot would probably be useful. I don't feel like gaining consensus for that, though, as that would likely be much more contentious than this proposal) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think my point is easier to demonstrate with an example, or I’m mistaken about exactly what is proposed here. Can you make 5 edits as a demonstration, either with the bot or by hand if you don’t have the bot coded yet? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe a page demonstrating what changes would be made would be more useful, since there are a few differing cases here? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
An actual edit or two of each case would be preferable, as that's the least confusing way to see what is actually proposed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
But you want to add an empty RCAT shell to pages that currently only use {{Wikidata redirect}}, don't you? Should they be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects if they are connected to a Wikidata item or not? --PhiH (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I can manually categorize the pages currently in that situation. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not about manual categorisation. We are discussing whether the category should be added by the RCAT shell when the redirect is connected to a Wikidata item. --PhiH (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
To ProcrastinatingReader​: as long as there is at least one rcat template within the Rcat shell, such as the "Wikidata redirect" template, then the redirect would not be sorted to Category:Miscellaneous redirects. As the proposer suggests, that would not be a problem. The proposer appears to know that a bot should not add an empty Rcat shell to redirects, which would bloat the Misc. redirects category. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there are multiple cases we have to discuss, feel free to comment below.
  1. Redirects that already use the RCAT shell
    This should be uncontroversial: Where {{Wikidata redirect}} is used it gets removed and the template is transcluded by the RCAT shell.
  2. Redirects without the RCAT shell…
    1. …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
      The template gets removed and the RCAT shell is added. Should the RCAT shell be programmed to add these pages to Category:Miscellaneous redirects?
    2. …that don't use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
      The RCAT shell is added. Same question as above arises.
    3. …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are not connected to a Wikidata item
      The template gets removed. Adding the RCAT shell would cause them to be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects.
      Currently these pages are tracked in Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects. Before this bot task begins someone should work through this list and add the pages on Wikidata if necessary.
--PhiH (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this bot will add the Rcat shell along with an internal {{Wikidata redirect}} tag when it senses any redirect that is already itemized on Wikidata. If that is what happens, then the redirect will not be sorted to the Misc. redirects category. I also sense a possible challenge where the {{NASTRO comment}} template is applied. One of many examples is at 3866 Langley. Would this bot do anything to those many redirects? I actually like the idea of more Rcat shell transclusions. I wonder if the bot will continue checking for new redirects that become connected to a Wikidata item? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The bot won't touch the {{NASTRO comment}} redirects, since it has no need to.
I could run this after the main clean-up job (probably a weekly run would be sufficient). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
NASTRO comment applies the Rcat shell and so would auto-apply the Wikidata redirect template. There will then be two renditions of Wikidata redirect. Won't one of them have to be removed? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought the point of this bot is that these edits wouldn't be necessary anymore. Here you said If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary) --PhiH (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
A weekly run would handle any new redirects that have been created. Editors LOVE to create new redirects; however, they generally leave it up to bots and Wikignomes to categorize their new redirects. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I hadn't thought about completely new pages. --PhiH (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@PhiH: "Redirects that already use the RCAT shell: This should be uncontroversial": Have you thought about the cases where the rcat shell only contains the Wikidata rcat? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Also curious as to why AWB is used? Don't get me wrong; I love AWB. However it's not known for its speed or lack of clunkiness. According to the manual, ...any edit to the bot's talk page will halt the bot. Before restarting the bot, the bot operator must log in to the bot account and visit the bot's talk page, so that the "new messages" notification is cancelled. So why not make a non-AWB bot to do the task? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Mainly because I know AWB and regex better than I know any other frameworks to interface with Wikipedia. I could write custom code, if that would be preferred. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I was just curious, so it would be up to you, of course. I just know how it drives me crazy sometimes when I have to stop in the middle of something, log out of AWB, log in to Wikipedia just to check notifications, log back out and into AWB to commence. That happens with non-bot-auto work as well. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Um... you don't have to log out of AWB to reset the counter. Also, technically you don't have to log out of Wikipedia either if you log in to the bot account in private mode. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
So just to clarify what I'm waiting on: An actual edit or two of each case would be preferable, as that's the least confusing way to see what is actually proposed. After that, it'll be more clear to have the discussion on which edits are good and which need further discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Re: the message above. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac and ProcrastinatingReader​: thanks for the ping. I've actually expanded the scope of what I'm intending to do here a bit (see User:Elli/rcat standardization) - and planning on getting consensus for the changes elsewhere first, before going through with this, so if I could put this request on hold or something that would be ideal (sorry, I'm not sure exactly how this type of situation works, but getting approval for the narrow task of shelling and removing one rcat doesn't really make sense given my goal to deal with ~20 of them). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 On hold. Just comment out the template when you're ready to go (no harm in having it sit here for a while). Primefac (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Bots in a trial period
TolBot
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: Tol (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs ·page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:52, Monday, May 31, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Updates Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Nearly the same as User:TolBot/Task 1#Source
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): BRFA TolBot 1
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected:​Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Function details: Almost the exact same as described in BRFA TolBot 1, except it uses a whitelist of countries (only African countries) instead of a blacklist of non-countries (like continents and income groups).
Discussion
A test edit is here. This is a rather tiny change from the original task (but it still requires another BRFA). Tol | talk | contribs 17:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.Primefac (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Countries with no data & sorting
Moved from Template talk:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa § Countries removed
 – Tol | talk | contribs 18:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This update removed countries from this list. Is there a reason to remove countries, even if there is no sourced data available? Also, it would be helpful to maintain the alphabetical order of countries so that it is easy to parse the diffs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The bot is removing countries from the list and re-sorting them out of alphabetical order, which makes the diffs very challenging to inspect. Please fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: It only outputs data for countries which have data from OWID. It cannot add countries for which no data is available. I can, however, get it to output the countries in alphabetical order. By the way, your reversion broke the bot (it relies on the HTML comments "<!-- PASTE UPDATED DATA BELOW THIS LINE -->" and "<!-- UPDATED DATA ABOVE THIS LINE -->" to tell where the data starts and ends). Tol | talk | contribs 18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about breaking the bot. After the next update, I'll add a note about the missing countries. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: It's fine. I've just patched in an update to sorting so that it sorts alphabetically. I just manually ran it — how does it look? Tol | talk | contribs 18:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Better! It appears to be missing Gabon, even though there is data at the source (assuming you are using the OWID site) for that country. Burundi, Eritrea, and Tanzania are missing from the OWID site, so they can be omitted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I'll add Gabon; it should be there with the next update. Tol | talk | contribs 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
DoggoBot
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: EpicPupper (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:57, Wednesday, June 2, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser, RegEx replaces
Source code available: AWB. The regex is available at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js​, and the custom replace for PumpkinSky's signatures is at [2].
Function overview: Bot to fix various Lint errors, as well as replacing PumpkinSky's signatures including font tags with span tags.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): [3], Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot
Edit period(s): One time run, unless more conclusive regexes are written
Estimated number of pages affected: 1,081 currently most likely much more with the new regexes, need to run a search to get the exact number
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Requesting bot flag as to not clutter RC. The bot account will need AWB access. All edits will be marked as "minor". Tested once with my own account here (with JWB, as I was on my Mac, but the bot will probably run AWB).
Discussion
I support this task, and request that you add more regexes so that pages do not have to be revisited by multiple bots. On the page linked above in the sample diff, there were multiple easily fixable font tags, along with missing italics at the end of Template:RM bottom, that could be fixed with simple regexes while the bot is visiting each page. There are many such regexes listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot​, although the operator reports that they resulted in some false positives. I have some more limited regexes at User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/doi.js​, in the sections marked "font wrapping links - move inside link and convert to span tag", "replace font tag in user and user talk links with span tag", and "replace all deprecated font color tags enclosing untagged text". I have never seen a false positive with those regexes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Thank you for mentioning these. I'll take a look at those pages (and the related discussions linked at the BRFA) and try to pick up all the regexes that seem to have no false positives. I prefer to stay on the safe side and only add the non-false positive regexes. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
As a note, looking at WP:HTML5, there seem to be many other easy replaces (eg strike tags with s tags), which hopefully can be incorporated into this request. Compiling a full list later. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: Please let me know when you are ready for a trial. --TheSandDoctorTalk 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you TheSandDoctor. @Jonesey95: could you take a look at the regexes at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js​? I am aware that the script is very erroneous and will most likely not work, I am just using it as a dumping ground for regexes (I'll input them raw in AWB). EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
If you are planning to run this bot without supervision, I recommend removing the sections entitled "Links in links", "Fix linter problems", "Fix linter missing or extra end tags", "div-span-flip error", "small tag or template wrapping multiple lines", and "replace deprecated tt tags" (both sections). Certain regexes in those sections can create new errors or recommend inappropriate changes. I always use my script in a supervised mode, inspecting each preview before I save it, so that I can avoid those inappropriate changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Removed, please tell me if you have any other concerns. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: I think I'm ready for a trial. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 04:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Any objections? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
FACBot 7
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 01:23, Tuesday, May 25, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): C#
Source code available:​https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/tool-milhistbot/browse/master/mono/PeerReviews.cs
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:FACBot#Updates to peer review
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 1,000
Namespace(s): Talk
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.
Discussion
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.SD0001 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is the results of the run limited to 25 edits:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25
All checked look fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@SD0001: Should I run off another batch? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Approved for extended trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.SD0001 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Second run: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1516 17 18 19 20 21 22
@Hawkeye7 Sorry I missed looking at the oldids earlier. Turns out the bot has added the current revid instead of the oldid in every edit.
Also, in the 2nd batch:
SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Have fixed the problem with the revid (caused by fiddling with the dates to fix a problem with the first set). have re-run against each of the problematic edits (offline, without updating). Will run off another batch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
ProcBot 8
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs ·SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 21:18, Sunday, May 2, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Ruby
Source code available:
Function overview: Update an edit filter automatically.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Edit filter mailing list
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 1
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will periodically update data of a specific edit filter. There's discussion on the edit filter mailing list if any BAG members have access, also happy to discuss on IRC.
The bot account will need to be flagged with EFM. I've done a test without submitting on my own account. Worth noting that since there are no API endpoints to update edit filters programmatically, the bot makes normal web requests for this purpose. It has checks for roughly expected data and saves a record of the request for safekeeping.
Discussion
AWMBot 2
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: BJackJS (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:32, Thursday, April 22, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised
Programming language(s): Node
Source code available:​https://github.com/Oppurtun/AWMBot/blob/main/task1.js
Function overview: The bot scans broken review templates then scans previous names and places it under the peer review template.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):​Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_repair_broken_peer_review_links
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: Around 1000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The bot scans pages under the category. It then scans previous names and places it under the peer review template.
Discussion
Have any changes been made to address the feedback/issues discussed in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWMBot? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there has been a change that involves the replacement of the entire tag with a near 0 margin of error with editing. BJackJS talk
I think part of the issue there was that it was adding page titles which just didn't exist. For example Special:Diff/989309968​, even though Wikipedia:Peer review/Becky (model)/archive1 is a redlink. Is that resolved? If so, what's the behaviour of this bot if it runs on a page like that? Will it skip, remove the entire peer review tag, or is there a different parameter name/value it will add? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm working on a function that verifies if a tag replacement is a redlink and it will then skip over that so it can be done manually by people who may have a better idea of what to do than an automated system. BJackJS talk
Okay. Send me a ping once that's done and I'll be happy to send this for trial :). I don't think it's worth cycling through trials without that function, like in the previous BRFA, as in this edge case making those edits doesn't really solve the problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
User:ProcrastinatingReader The function has been added along with a major bugfix. BJackJS talk 17:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
PearBOT II 11
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: Trialpears (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 21:34, Monday, April 19, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB (or possibly JWB)
Source code available:
Function overview: General TfD implementation through removal or simple replacements
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): As needed
Estimated number of pages affected: Dozens to thousands depending on template
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: It is often enough that I want to perform TfD implementation using a bot that I think this is warranted. There is no acute need for another bot of this nature with PrimeBOT 24SporkBot and BsherrAWBBOT 2, but it would reduce the wait time for these projects at times. The template that prompted this request was {{R from historic name}} where {{R printworthy}} has to be added to the 5000ish uses which doesn't have it separately, but if I had the bot last month I would probably have done {{Friendly search suggestions}} as well and {{WPUS50}} looks like a likely future candidate for the task.
Discussion
So I think Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT was a TfD-related task, have you done any others? If this goes to trial, do you have any templates in holding in mind you'd like to work on? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader I have one other TfD task now, PearBOT 4. If I ever want to do something even as close to the technical or implementation complexity of PearBOT 1 that will go through another BRFA since a lot of testing and a second pair of eyes will be needed. As I said in the function details, the first usage would be {{R from historic name}} with {{WPUS50}} likely to follow. I've implemented tons of TfDs, often using AWB, over the past few years. --Trialpears (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I think for the Rcat template it can just be replaced with a template call of the target template name, and use AnomieBot to subst it all. But the same can be said for many TfD merges. I suppose they're different tools, and depending on the case one approach can be slightly (or substantially) easier than the other.
Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Approved for 3 templates, 25 diffs each. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem with using AnomieBOT for {{R from historic name}} is that there is a significant number where {{R printworthy}} already is present which would result in duplicate templates. Anyway, I've done 25 edits with {{R from historic name}} (1, 2, 3-25). Everything went as expected, except me forgetting to turn of the other currently running task at first which would have made the edits interspersed with each other and put the bot over the recommended max edit rate. Would it be possibly to go ahead with the specific templates I've already had a trial for or do I have to complete all 3 templates first? I don't think there's a third appropriate template for a bot in the holding cell right now and it would be a shame to artificially delay the others. --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is {{R printworthy}} being added? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
As noted in the relevant discussions the main difference between them is that historic name tags redirects as printworthy while former name does not. As stated in the latest TfD "It's best to just tag relevant "historic" names as printworthy". --Trialpears (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha. Presumably it would omit adding printworthy if it's already added? If so, and given diffs look fine, you can complete the run for that template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes the list excludes all pages with either {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}}. I've started the run and expect it to finish for tomorrow and I plan on doing {{WPUS50}} then. --Trialpears (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Another template trial done for {{WPUS50}}: Contribs. First edit got the wrong edit summary because AWB was being weird and unselecting my custom summary. Other than that this was a very uneventful trial. --Trialpears (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Those mostly seem fine but it might be a good idea to respect the spacing preferences that exist in the template. For example in Special:Diff/1020227303 or Special:Diff/1020227281​. Don't AWB's AddParameter functions automatically account for this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I implemented a version to deal with block formatted templates (none of the ones that appeared in the trial were block formatted though), but didn't deal with the spacing. I could make a specific regex for it. I don't know about the AddParameter functions but if such things exist that would be awesome. I know there is the template parameter renamer and I suppose the template dater module has to have some sort of parameter adder. Could you give me a pointer to this thing? --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's [4] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I've implemented a module using this. It appears that it only deals with spacing around the equals sign though so I've added some regex to deal with whitespace around the pipe as well. I've done about 25 preview tests with this and it works well. Do you want another 25 edits or can I start the run? --Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Though I have no reason to think there will be any issues, another 25 seems preferable for trial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Here you go! It makes the parameter spacing consistent with the first parameter. Some of the templates in the trial already had inconsistent spacing which it of course doesn't fix. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
LGTM. Feel free to complete the run. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader Is the trivial case of orphaning {{Indic script needed}} fine as the third trial? --Trialpears (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it's done now? The orphaning at TfD tends to be done quickly. ProcSock (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
GreenC bot 20
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: GreenC (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count ·logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 03:12, Thursday, April 15, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): GNU Awk and BotWikiAwk
Source code available:​User:GreenC_bot/Job_20
Function overview: peerr removes the template
{{Peer review}}
from talk pages where no longer needed. ie. the template was added more than 7 days ago indicating the peer review processes has stalled or was not properly initiated.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):​User_talk:GreenC#Bot_functionality_request & Template_talk:Peer_review#Bot_task
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 0-5 per day
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Long description: As part of the peer review process,
{{Peer review}}
are added to article talk pages, but sometimes the process is not done correctly or stalls. A tracking cat was created to catch these (Category:Peer review requests not opened), but still requires manual removal of the template after waiting some time. It is safe to say if the template has been in place for more than 7 days without indication the rest of the processes has been done, the template can be removed. To automate: once a day, the bot retrieves the list of page names in the tracking category, along with today's date ("added date"), and adds it to a text file. If the page name is already in the text file don't add it again, rather check if it has been more than 7 days since the added date. If so, verify there is a corresponding peer review page called Wikipedia:Peer review/PAGENAME/archiveX and if not then remove the Peer review template, and remove the text file entry. Likewise if the page name is in the text file but not in the tracking category then remove the page name from the file.
Discussion
These were test edits to ensure that when I am not looking (such as sleeping or working) when it begins editing automatically 7+ days from now it doesn't destroy a page. And Nightengale College the template qualifies to be removed, if you want to revert the page to this edit as the first trial edit, though it is kind of cheating; better to wait 7 days when it will do it again automatically which is what the trial is testing. -- GreenC 03:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I'd just prefer that you not make six edits on a live talk page of an article for testing purposes, or at least that you make it clear that you are running a test on that talk page. I very nearly just shut off the bot because you were just repeatedly reverting it without explaining why, even by edit summary. So, consider this a gentle reminder that bots are here to help the rest of us, and mucking around article talk pages without explaining yourself isn't helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
{{​BAGAssistanceNeeded​}} It's been 7 weeks since the trial started. The bot edited 8 pages. Of these, three were a mistake due to the wrong namespace Example. That is fixed, it now only runs if a Talk page (regex "^Talk:"). So 5 legit edits in 7 weeks, which it does correctly. At this pace, it could take another 8 months to get to 25. Would it make sense to lower the trial target? -- GreenC 04:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess the question becomes this: if there are so few, is there a need for a bot to do this? This is a legit question, for what it's worth, as "making one edit per week" is something that a human can do just as easily as a bot. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
There might be dozens in the tracking cat and you'll need to know which ones, and when, to remove it. Meaning you'll have to go through each one, rechecking them continually for a change in status, then deciding if enough time is gone by, then make the edit. A single edit might take 15 minutes or more (or 15 minutes and no edit). I didn't make up this bot idea, I was approached by Tom (LT) who does this work manually. -- GreenC 01:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Truth is, the bus factor at peer review is often one, so this kind of thing often lingers for months to years before it's fixed and what's more, is often forgotten about and has to be rediscovered as an error. It's true that this not a particularly critical error, but having a bot look after this sort of automated task frees up volunteer time and headspace to work on other goals. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The fact that the bot doesn't edit often doesn't seem like a problem to me if it's doing useful work. I'm inclined to approve now provided we haven't seen any issues in the existing behavior. — The Earwig (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The edits to Talk:Jitin Puthenchery are interesting. There are four instances of the peer review template, all duplicates. It thus takes 4 cycles to delete them - delete one, wait 7 days, delete the next, wait, etc.. it works, but takes multiple edits and about 30 days. Alternatively it could delete all instances when they are duplicates. -- GreenC 06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
PearBOT II 10
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: Trialpears (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:48, Sunday, April 11, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available:
Function overview: Replaces the short descriptions "Wikimedia list article" and "Wikipedia list article" with none
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article"
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: Around 75,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: It's all discussed at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". TLDR: There's a consensus that "Wikimedia list article" and "Wikipedia list article" are undesirable short descriptions and that no short description is necessary for most lists and a bot is the way to implement it. This bot is about as simple as they get and a trial would be a bit silly, but I can do it if so desired.
Discussion
Bots that have completed the trial period
SDZeroBot 10
(BRFA Approved BRFAs talk contribscount SUL logs page moves block logrights log flag)
Operator: SD0001 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count ·logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:07, Monday, May 24, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): TypeScript on Node.js
Source code available: github
Function overview: Allows users to create wikified database reports and keeps them updated.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: -
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: This is basically the ListeriaBot for database replicas. Instructions for usage are at User:SDZeroBot/Database report. When that template is transcluded to a page (user/WP namespaces), SDZeroBot will run the provided SQL query and update the page (once immediately and then every 24h).
Why we want this in addition to Quarry? Wikilinks! Page titles & usernames can be made clickable, unlike in Quarry results. For articles and draft pages, the bot can include excerpts; also not possible in Quarry.
There are some sane checks to prevent abuse of resources (10 min enforced timeout implemented using MariaDB's max_statement_time parameter, limited usage of concurrent db connections, and won’t save to mainspace if someone transcludes the template there).
Discussion
Example uses: see Category:SDZeroBot database report subscriptions (though these are all rather simple examples). – SD0001 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Trial for 5 report updates. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] -- picked up some random queries off recent Quarry runs for the trial. The 1st and 3rd edits are updates done immediately on page creation while the other 3 are the scheduled daily updates. – SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Denied requests
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.
K.Kapil77 Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
DoggoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
LemonadeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
DannyS712 bot IV (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 73) Bot denied 09:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Usernamekiran BOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Bot denied 14:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Pi bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Roccerbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
DaedanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Area code bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
NotPlanter (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
RedWarn (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 23:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Gedimon (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 14:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
PhuzBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Bot denied 06:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
MDanielsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 19:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
DaedanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 1) Bot denied 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Expired/withdrawn requests
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.
PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 36) Withdrawn by operator 01:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 35) Withdrawn by operator 00:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
DeltaQuadBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Expired 14:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
TolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
DaxServerBot I (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 19:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
YTStatsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
MusikBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 16) Withdrawn by operator 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
CommonsCategoryBot (BRFA · contribs ·actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
AWMBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
DeprecatedFixerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Withdrawn by operator 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
DomdomeggBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 14:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
YoutubeSubscriberBot (BRFA · contribs ·actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 01:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yapperbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Expired 21:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
SDZeroBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Withdrawn by operator 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
MDanielsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log ·block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Withdrawn by operator 17:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Last edited on 12 June 2021, at 19:32
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
LanguageWatchEdit