Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming, consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.

 Instructions for bot operators
I Before applying for approval
  • Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests.
  • If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.
II Filing the application
  • 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}}
III During the approvals process
  • During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
  • AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
  • At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IV After the approvals process
  • After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
    • For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
    • For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
Bot-related archives
Noticeboard
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Bots (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot policy (talk)
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
29, 30
Pre-2007 archived under Bots (talk)
Bot requests
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87
Bot requests (talk)
1, 2
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
BRFA
Old format: 1, 2, 3, 4
New format: Categorized Archive (All subpages)
BRFA (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot Approvals Group (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
BAG Nominations


Bot Name Status Created Last editor Date/Time Last BAG editor Date/Time
IUCNStatusBot (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-03-25, 05:46:08 AidenD 2025-07-03, 06:17:58 TheSandDoctor 2025-07-02, 22:46:23
GraphBot 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2025-07-02, 21:00:07 DreamRimmer 2025-07-08, 06:35:57 DreamRimmer 2025-07-08, 06:35:07
CX Zoom AWB 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2025-06-24, 12:55:26 DreamRimmer 2025-07-03, 16:54:49 DreamRimmer 2025-07-03, 16:54:49
CFA (bot) (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! 2024-12-31, 05:00:34 DreamRimmer 2025-07-08, 06:53:40 DreamRimmer 2025-07-08, 06:53:40
SodiumBot 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! 2024-07-16, 20:03:26 Sohom Datta 2025-07-30, 23:58:39 DreamRimmer 2025-07-13, 08:17:29
SodiumBot 3 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 2025-06-18, 18:16:08 Sohom Datta 2025-07-28, 05:52:30 ProcrastinatingReader 2025-06-29, 10:48:39
VWF bot 2 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 2025-05-28, 16:11:04 Primefac 2025-07-27, 15:10:17 Primefac 2025-07-27, 15:10:17
CanonNiBot 1 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete: User response needed! 2024-12-17, 12:50:01 Anomie 2025-07-17, 23:41:57 Anomie 2025-07-17, 23:41:57

Current requests for approval

IUCNStatusBot

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

Time filed: 05:45, Tuesday, March 25, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview:

A bot that updates the IUCN Red List status of Wikipedia pages.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual:

Automatic

Programming language(s):

Python

Source code available: https://github.com/DartAiden/IUCN_Status_Bot/tree/main

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): No discussion really applicable. I briefly made a request to see if anything was existing, only to receive little reply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#IUCN_Status_Bot

Edit period(s):

Run once

Estimated number of pages affected:

Around 11,000.

Namespace(s): Wikipedia pages for species.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Not really relevant.

Function details:

This is a simple script to update the IUCN Red List status of Wikipedia pages for birds, though the functionality can most likely be extended elsewhere. The IUCN Red List status is a measure of conservation status included in the species box of most birds. This bot extracts the name of the citation to ensure contiguity of editing, updates the status itself, and then updates the reference. This bot would be run once now, to standardize the citations, and once every time the Red List is updated, though it is necessary only to run it with those species that are being updated. I may add other functionality in the future, such as updating the actual pages that list statuses (List of critically endangered birds).

Discussion

Would it be worth doing this on Wikidata instead, and then have the template pull from there? — Qwerfjkltalk 12:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a bot once that did sommat similar updates by querying the IUCN API. There was sufficient adverse editor pushback that I retired the bot.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What was the nature of the pushback? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience links: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 19, User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 23#Monkbot Task 19 - IUCN status –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like it was really a content dispute about whether "Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)" is a valid IUCN designation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AidenD, Edit period: Runce on? Primefac (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? AidenD (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is what you have listed in the edit period for this bot. I was looking for clarification because I have never heard of that sort of time frame. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean "Run once". – SD0001 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. Incidentally, that's about the only option I didn't think of. Primefac (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, that is what I meant. My apologies. AidenD (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAG assistance needed}} * Pppery * it has begun... 16:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICS, this bot would run into the same concern raised with Monkbot 19 - that it doesn't consider "PE" as a valid designation, although Template:Taxobox/species does, and therefore would overwrite the classifications of species currently denoted with a status of "PE". Is that a correct understanding? If so, probably that should be settled as a content decision in some other venue first. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be possible to work around the content dispute. For example, programming the bot not to touch anything that is already PE onwiki. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may also comment out new PE designations, which could then be automatically removed or uncommented on resolution of the dispute. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point. @AidenD: Would it be possible to integrate that from above before we consider any sort of trial? TheSandDoctor Talk 22:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They can be manually added, the unfortunate problem is that the IUCN API does not discern between those - I can always manually add them, however. AidenD (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bots in a trial period

GraphBot 2

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

Time filed: 21:00, Wednesday, July 2, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview:

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Rust/Python

Source code available: Uses mwbot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Redirects_related_to_those_nominated_at_RfD and Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects

Edit period(s): Continous

Page: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (but N/A)

Adminbot (Yes/No): No

Function details:

  • Look at each RFD on each RFD Page
  • Determines whether there are any other redirects, in any namespace, that meet one or more of the following criteria:
    • Are marked as an avoided-double redirect of a nominated redirect
    • Are redirects to the nominated redirect
    • Redirect to the same target as the nominated redirect and differ only in the presence or absence of non-alphanumeric characters, and/or differ only in case
  • If the bot finds any redirects that match and which are not currently nominated at RfD, then it should post a message in the discussion (final details about the message are TBD, but the bot request outline the general point). The bot limits the length of it's message, ensuring that the RfD is not over-cluttered.

Discussion

Thanks for working on this GalStar, but it's not clear whether it is checking for redirects that differ only in the presence/absence of diacritics? Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics fall under non-alphanumeric characters. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CX Zoom AWB 2

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

Time filed: 12:55, Tuesday, June 24, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Implementing behavior change for {{PresFoot}}, compliance with MOS:CHRONO

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): AWB, Python

Source code available: Yes, see User:CX Zoom AWB/Task 2

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Special:Permalink/1296419942#Behavior change for {{PresFoot}}

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 2950

Namespace(s): Mainspace (mostly), few Userspace and Projectspace pages too

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No; templates will have erroneous output if all uses are not resolved

Function details: This task will find uses of {{PresFoot}} and replace them with {{PresRow}} followed by {{PresFoot}} (with no parameters; new behaviour for this template). It will then reorder all the {{PresRow}} in the article in chronological order. It will also check for potential stray table closer |} and remove them.

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFA (bot)

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

Time filed: 19:59, Tuesday, December 31, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: Removes articles from Category:Wikipedia requested images of biota if they have an image

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: No, but it can be if necessary

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Uncontroversial

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: ~3-6k first run; likely no more than 10/week afterwards

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details:

Discussion

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (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) Status of trial? – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SodiumBot 2

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/DreamRimmer/SodiumBot

Function overview: Notify previous reviewers of a article at AFD about the nomination

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Initial discussions on NPP Discord + previous BRFAs surrounding AFD notifications

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 1-2 per day (guessimate?)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, on enwiki, yes, for other wikis on other tasks

Function details:

  • Use the eventstream API to listen for new AfDs
  • Extract page name by parsing the AfD wikitext
  • Identify previous reviewers of page at AFD
  • Notify said reviewers on their talk pages with a customised version of the existing AfD notification message

Discussion

  • I like this concept in general. I tried to make a user script that does this (User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/WatchlistAFD.js#L-89--L-105), but it doesn't work (I probably need to rewrite it to use MutationObserver). Would this bot be automatic for everyone, or opt in? Opt in may be better and easier to move forward in a BRFA. If not opt in, may want to start a poll somewhere to make sure there's some support for "on by default". –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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]
    Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please make sure this BRFA is linked in the edit summary. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Operator assistance needed}} Any progress on this? Primefac (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had left the bot running, it hasn't picked up a single article by the looks of the logs. I'mm gonna try to do some debugging on what the issue is/was. Sohom (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pushed some fixes, gonna see how that does. Sohom (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran across Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 6 today, which is a very similar task, and uses an "opt out" strategy. This suggests that the community may be OK with having AFD notifications be on by default for a bot task like this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[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) What is the status of this? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember @DreamRimmer helping me out a bit with this, I'm not sure what is going on with the bot atm/why it is still stuck :( Sohom (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemme take a deeper look and get back to you by ETOW Sohom (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sohom Datta: What is the status of this? Requests shouldn't linger for almost a year. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I'm aware -- I'll try some stuff over the weekend and report back -- If it doesn't work out, I'll close this as declined. Sohom (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Job is now working (thanks to a lot of work by DreamRimmer!) Sohom (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came across this after receiving some (unwanted) messages at User_talk:Joe_Roe#Nomination_of_Vũ_Duy_Hoàng_for_deletion. The NppNotifier task should be opt-in. It would make sense to run it opt-out if notifying NPP reviewers of AfDs manually was previously a common practice, but that isn't the case. I'm pretty much average in terms of reviewing activity and I've reviewed 2100 pages in the last three years – that's potentially a lot of unwanted messages to send to someone without asking! Also, regarding Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Initial discussions on NPP Discord – this is really not good enough. It should have been discussed on-wiki, in advance with the people who are actually going to receive the automated messages (i.e. NPP reviewers). – Joe (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe, It should have been discussed on-wiki, in advance with the people who are actually going to receive the automated messages (i.e. NPP reviewers). -- I will start by noting that the NPP discord is made up primarily of NPP reviewers. Also, this BRFA was also advertised onwiki for the large portion for a month last year at WT:NPR during which multiple people commented above that having this be opt-out was a good idea (see above). I only implemented this to be opt-out after the onwiki consensus had been formed. Sohom (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A small minority of NPP reviewers. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. This is a policy. And I'm aware of the notification. That's what I meant by discussed in advance (of the BRFA). Doesn't it make sense to find out whether people actually want to receive these messages, before you request permission to run a bot to send them? – Joe (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about what you are implying here, the initial idea of a bot to notify NPP folks of AFD discussions was borne out of a discussion on Discord, when the BRFA was filed onwiki it was advertised in places where you would expect NPP editors to show up, folks edited, discussed it onwiki (here or remained silent), they said that opt-out was fine and that was what was implemented. I don't understand what policy was violated here. The BRFA is explicitly meant to be a venue to discuss the working of the bot, it's not insular to only folks who have technical knowledge and it is not required to work out every single thing about the bot before filing a BRFA.
    Regarding the meat of the complaint, as @Novem Linguae mentions above, there are cases where we do have opt-out notifications about AFDs from bots (another example of opt-out notifications would be the modus operandi of bots that WP:G13 drafts). There is a implicit consensus that these kinds of bots are fine and do not violate policy. Also, and I've reviewed 2100 pages in the last three years – that's potentially a lot of unwanted messages to send to someone without asking assumes that a large portion of these articles would get AFDed, when in actuality, you are probably expecting that number to be much much lower. Sohom (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are implying the existence of a consensus to run this bot opt-in that does not exist. I can only assume that this is because either you think it was formed on Discord, in which case again see WP:CON; or you have misread the discussion above where the very first commenter suggested opt-in, the second preferred opt-out, and no subsequent participant expressed a preference. I'm not saying this is a bad idea for a task, but you do not currently have consensus to run it this way and I'm suggesting that you perhaps could have done a better job in seeking that before writing and running a bot (even as a trial). The other AfD notification bots automate notifications that are or were previously commonly performed manually; as I mentioned above, this is not the case here. Thus I do not think you should send people automated messages that they did not ask for and would not currently expect to receive.
    assumes that a large portion of these articles would get AFDed – I have no idea what the proportion would be. But 1% is still 21 messages and any value is greater than the number I would like to receive if asked, which is zero. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe, I have disabled the bot for the time being. I still stand by the fact that I have to the best of my ability tried to have folks be involved, advertised discussions and acted based on what I understood the on-wiki consensus on the matter was. I also want to be extremely clear, I resent and reject your implication that I somehow willingly violated WP:BOTREQUIRE by running a bot "without consensus". That is a serious accusation. The burden of proof (imo) is still on your end that I have somehow ignored some form of established consensus and policy. If you have problems with the opt-out nature of the bot and want to restart the discussion, feel free to do so on WT:NPR and ping me to it. Sohom (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see plenty of support for this bot in this BRFA and at WT:NPPR. Joe Roe is the only objection so far.
    • As evidenced by the WT:NPPR diff provided by Sohom above, and the existence of this BRFA that has had 10 unique editors post in it, this task was properly socialized onwiki. Focusing on the Discord part is distracting and a red herring.
    • Sometimes the best or even only way to get more comments on a software proposal is to deploy it more widely.
    • I think it'd be reasonable to resume and finish the trial. If there are other folks that feel like Joe Roe who want to comment against the bot task, I think the best way to find this out is for the bot to do its trial.
    • I am not unsympathetic to Joe's concerns. My initial instinct in the very first comment in this BRFA was to make the bot opt in. But that is not the way the onwiki BRFA discussion went.
    –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending no concerns/objections by tmrw, I'll start the task again. Sohom (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bots that have completed the trial period

SodiumBot 3

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

Time filed: 18:15, Wednesday, June 18, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Taking over the functions of User:Yapperbot (frs, pruner, uncurrenter, not wikidatatable), the maintainer has been inactive for 3 years and API changes have caused the bot to become brittle, keep stopping and requiring frequent restarts that require upkeep and/or Toolforge admin intervention. I intend to keep the same code and actions but include maintaince fixes to make it less brittle. The primary reason to take over the task is so that we don't need to bother Toolforge admins for every outage.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Golang

Source code available: Yes, (forked repos: [1], [2], [3])

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Yapperbot (the three discussions on the page are all about failures of the bot)

Edit period(s): Continous

Estimated number of pages affected: FRS and Pruner are opt-in, so as many users and pages opt-in, uncurrenter depends on the number of {{current}} templates placed

Namespace(s): Mainspace, Talk, Userspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No, uncurrenter is article-facing, and frs and pruner are explicitly opt-in

Function details:

  • FRS - Running the Feedback request service
  • Pruner - Removes inactive members from WP:FRS and other Wikiproject lists
  • Uncurrenter - Removes {{current}} from pages where it has been around for a long time.

For everything except FRS the original un-modified code will be used, for FRS, minor maintainence fixes will be made. If this bot is trialed or approved, Yapperbot should be blocked to only operate in userspace

Discussion

Original BRFAs for reference:
– SD0001 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you email the botop to stop the tasks being taken over? We could partial-block if necessary but that's more of a last resort. – SD0001 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sent! Sohom (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SD0001, do you have any thoughts about this being three tasks in one? Obviously FRS and pruner are related so I could see those combined, but uncurrenter seems rather unrelated. I'd rather split that off into a separate task. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine as these are previously approved tasks and the same code is being reused, so there's probably not much chance of things breaking. – SD0001 (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. The FRS job is stuck again, and since the current operator has not responded, we should consider other ways to stop it. There is a switch page at User:Yapperbot/kill/FRS that can be used to stop the job, which is a better option than blocking it. I am approving a 30-day trial so that we can monitor for any errors and give you time to adjust the code for long-term stability. This trial is limited to the FRS and pruner tasks. Since there is no control page for the pruner task, partially blocking it from the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces should be a suitable workaround. – DreamRimmer ■ 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still need uncurrenter? Does Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 10 not cover that area sufficiently? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking through the code, there was/is a kill switch in the form of User:Yapperbot/kill/Pruner for pruner. I've gone and activated it alongside the FRS kill switch. Sohom (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For the period of 30 days) Sohom (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the pruner job appears to be broken, I'll throw some time into fixing it and run a manual run (the typical schedule appears to be once a month). Sohom (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pruner's manual run is complete this is a list of all edits made for the task. Sohom (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery ProcBot says that the task is inactive and [4] says that the uncurrenter job is active. I'm honestly not sure what is going on and who is doing it. (cc @ProcrastinatingReader who might be answer this more cleanly -- I'm happy to drop it completely if the task has already been supersed -- though we should kill the task from User:Yapperbot's side then) Sohom (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yapperbot was intermittently crashing when I filed ProcBot 10, but was working again sometime after approval, so I run ProcBot 10 (which is active atm on Toolforge) to deal with current-related templates (like {{current related}}, which Yapperbot didn't cover). I don't know if Yapperbot has broken on {{current}} since then. I can extend ProcBot 10 to cover regular {{current}} in any case.
I'm not opposed to the approval of this task as-is, including uncurrenter, though. Doesn't hurt to improve reliability (especially as I am around a bit less these days). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial complete., @DreamRimmer, the FRS task has taken the maintenance fixes well, and there were no stoppages or issues over the course of its month-long run. The Pruner task had a rough start due to database incompatibilities, but it was run manually twice over the month-long period and appears to be working correctly, including fixes for User_talk:SodiumBot#Task_3_(FRS). A list of all contributions by the bot for these two tasks can be found at Special:Contributions/SodiumBot. (Also, based on the discussion above, I will apply for a BRFA for uncurrenter separately from this BRFA). -- Sohom (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VWF bot 2

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

Time filed: 16:11, Wednesday, May 28, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:

Function overview: Automatically remove transclusions of closed RfD discussions (see example) for convenience regular upkeep.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Removing_fully_completed_daily_RfD_list_pages_from_the_main_RfD_page

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 remove transclusions of closed RfD discussions (see example) for convenience regular upkeep. More examples at Special:History/Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Discussion

What is being proposed is not quite what the description implies. The bot would actually remove transclusions of daily log pages on the main RfD when all discussions on that day have been closed or relisted, rather than removing the transclusion of individual discussions (which are not typically transcluded anywhere). Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf from my overview and details above, I clearly mentioned “closed RfD discussions” and from what you just said, it’s only “relist” I didn’t mention (which this process will obviously cover), so I do not think I clearly get what you mean by “not quite what the description implies”. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The description implies the bot will be working at the level of individual RfD discussions, rather than what it will be doing which is working at the level of a day's worth of RfD discussions. For example the bot will take no action in relation to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 27 until all the discussions on that page on that page have been closed or relisted, at which point it will untransclude the page from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I should clarify that I do support the proposal, I just think it's important that the description of what it does clearly matches what it will actually do. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the source is available, where can it be viewed? GalStar (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. It's a single page being edited, but I'd like to make sure (since it's a very visible one) that everything's working as intended. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} Anything on the trial? Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. These are the diffs for the trial edits. The bot runs every two hours and logs it findings at User:VWF bot/RfDlog:

  1. 20:55, 21 July 2025
  2. 06:55, 20 July 2025
  3. 04:55, 19 July 2025
  4. 02:55, 17 July 2025 (multiple entries removed)
  5. 22:55, 15 July 2025
  6. 08:55, 15 July 2025
  7. 02:55, 15 July 2025
  8. 00:55, 15 July 2025 (multiple entries removed)
  9. 18:55, 12 July 2025 (multiple entries removed)
  10. 04:55, 10 July 2025 (multiple entries removed)
  11. 22:55, 9 July 2025
  12. 18:55, 8 July 2025
  13. 00:55, 7 July 2025
  14. 06:55, 3 July 2025
  15. 00:55, 3 July 2025
  16. 22:55, 30 June 2025
  17. 22:55, 28 June 2025
  18. 20:55, 24 June 2025
  19. 16:55, 24 June 2025
  20. 14:45, 23 June 2025

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You completed the trial two hours ago, please don't ping us immediately. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CanonNiBot 1

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

Time filed: 12:49, Tuesday, December 17, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: A replacement for tasks 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of FastilyBot (talk · contribs), whose operator has retired

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Rust (mwbot-rs crate)

Source code available: Will push to GitLab later

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): See this

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: A couple dozen every day

Namespace(s): File:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Near identical functionality of the previous bot, just rewritten in a different (and better) language. All are modifying templates on File description pages, so I'm merging this into one task.

Task details (copied from WP:BOTREQ)
Original task Description
1 Replace {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, for local files which are already on Commons, with {{Now Commons}}.
2 Remove {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} from ineligible files.
7 Replace {{Now Commons}}, for local files which are nominated for deletion on Commons, with {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}.
8 Replace {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}, for local files which have been deleted on Commons, with {{Deleted on Commons}}.
9 Remove {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}} from files which are no longer nominated for deletion on Commons.
15 Remove {{Now Commons}} from file description pages which also translcude {{Keep local}}

Discussion

  • Thanks for stepping up to help! For easier review and tracking, could you please list all these tasks and their descriptions in the "Function details" section? You can use a wikitable for this. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (120 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please perform 20 edits for each task. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Operator assistance needed}} Any update? – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that - I've been inactive for the past three months or so. (probably should've got this thing done before disappearing, my bad) Will get those trial edits done soon! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. @Primefac and DreamRimmer: alright, I've finally completed the trial edits after procrastinating for uh... five months? See Special:Contributions/CanonNiBot. Some edits (60 or so according xTools) were performed on pages that have since been deleted. No major issues, and the code has been pushed to GitHub. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have only made edits removing {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Do the other tasks not require any edits at this time? Primefac (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac very sorry for the late reply - I uh, accidentally removed this page from my watchlist a while back. (Aaron Liu thanks for the reminder) I've performed several trial edits for all tasks, some of which were to pages that are now deleted, which is why they're not showing up on Special:Contribs. The tasks that required the most edits were 1, 7, 8, and 9. [​[User:CanonNi]​] (💬 • ✍️) 09:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do at least a few edits for each of the other tasks. Feel free to post individual diff links, I'll keep an eye on this page (and of course, I can see deleted revisions). Primefac (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2025 (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) 00:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC) Re-enabling, asked a question and need a reply. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though AnomieBOT said so, the bot-op was not notified. I notified them manually. courtesy ping @Anomie: —usernamekiran (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because User talk:CanonNi#BAGBot: Your bot request CanonNiBot 1 was still on the page from June, the bot didn't add another copy of the notification. Probably this message shouldn't use that check. Anomie⚔ 23:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Approved requests

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


Denied requests

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

Expired/withdrawn requests

These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval&oldid=1303160029"