New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

Approval process – How these discussions work
Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon

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

Instructions for bot operators

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

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}}

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 Name	Status	Created	Last editor	Date/Time	Last BAG editor	Date/Time
IUCNStatusBot (T\|C\|B\|F)	Open	2025-03-25, 05:46:08	Pppery	2025-08-03, 04:59:16	TheSandDoctor	2025-07-02, 22:46:23
GraphBot 2 (T\|C\|B\|F)	In trial: User response needed!	2025-07-02, 21:00:07	Tenshi Hinanawi	2025-08-04, 18:54:55	DreamRimmer	2025-07-08, 06:35:07
SodiumBot 2 (T\|C\|B\|F)	In trial	2024-07-16, 20:03:26	Tenshi Hinanawi	2025-08-04, 18:57:02	DreamRimmer	2025-07-13, 08:17:29
CX Zoom AWB 2 (T\|C\|B\|F)	Trial complete	2025-06-24, 12:55:26	CX Zoom	2025-08-04, 19:06:56	DreamRimmer	2025-07-03, 16:54:49
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

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

InstructorCommentBot

Operator: Rostaf (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:00, Thursday August 4, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s):PHP and Javascript

Source code available:the sourcecode will be available once it is cleaned up for sharing

Function overview: The bot posts comments to article talk pages on behalf of an identified Wikipedia user who are experts in different scientific fields and the comments are their evaluation of the article and how to improve the article.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):This bot is relevant to an ongoing project to work with different scientific communities to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles by involving the experts in the field. This project has been started as an initiative in collaboration with Association for Psychological Science. More information about the initiative can be found at: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/APS-Wikipedia_Initiative

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: We expect about 500 pages to be edited in about 3 months time period.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N (see the explanation in function details below)

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details: The goal of the bot is to make the process of posting comments on article talk pages easy for users who are not familiar with Wikipedia markup language. The users who have access to this bot are experts in different scientific fields such as psychology and sociology and the purpose of the comments left on the article talk pages are providing information on how the article can be improved. The bot is connected to a portal that researcher at Carnegie Mellon University have been developing as part of the bigger project on involving experts in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. As part of this project, the team is developing tools to support faculty who are interested to use Wikipedia in classroom. An important purpose of this bot is to allow faculty to share comments they are providing to their students with the Wikipedia community to broaden the audience who can contribute in addressing the problems with the article. To avoid the abuse of the bot, the bot is not allowed to post comments more than one in 2 minutes per single user. Any attempt to abuse the bot will alert the system administrators and they will follow up on the account which has been making the attempt.

Since the messages from this bot are individual messages from real people, we do not want to skip any message even if it is related to {{bots}} template pages, we would like all messages to be be delivered.

Moreover, for the same reason and the fact that these edits represents the comments of a real person we would like those post *not* to be flagged as by a bot to make sure that they are not going to be filtered out of watchlists and recent changes.

Discussion

I've been working with the Carnegie Mellon University team developing the Wikipedia tools that this bot will support, and can vouch for Rostaf. The main purpose of this bot is so that the expert comment functions will work without users having to provide Wikipedia passwords offsite (the system has its own passwords, like TUSC and other bots that do manually-requested wiki actions on behalf of users).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly is the operator of this bot? Sounds very interesting. SQL^{Query me!} 15:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks User:SQL for your comment. I, Rosta Farzan (Rostaf) is the operator of this bot. Rostaf (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I see that 'about 500 pages' are to be affected - which articles are we looking at trying this on? SQL^{Query me!} 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the first stage we expect the articles related to Psychology to be the target. Exact articles are not clear at this point. Several classes in Psychology are going to use this tool and the list of the articles they will be creating/editing will be specified once the semester starts and the students get started on their assignment. Rostaf (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you mean by "several classes in psychology are going to use this tool?" Will the psychology students' posts be labeled as "experts" by the bot? If not students, how will someone be qualified as an "expert" for using the bot? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good question, students are not considered experts, faculty of those classes are. The bot is a tool available to the faculty to share comments that they provide to their students working on Wikipedia articles to broader Wikipedia community if the faculty choose to. Rostaf (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is sound and it could definitely pay off in the long run. So what kind of input do you users provide, and how will it look on the talk page side of things? Will it be a single post, a series of posts, a thread-like discussion? Will you employ a specific template/format for this or otherwise tag the discussions? Will there be a way to track all the discussions? I suppose the main question is, how will the output differ from the users entering it themselves? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They will highlight a particular section of an article that they want to provide feedback on and the post on the article page will include both the highlighted section and the comment. You can see a sample at User talk:Apswi. If desired, we can add a particular template to highlight those comments. The comments will be signed with "Posted on behalf of User:Rostaf by User:ExpertCommentBot 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)"; and we will have a track of all those comments in our local database Rostaf (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the majority of editors won't know about the bot or its purpose, it would be helpful to provide a very brief description about it and link to an information page. I personally also think it would be useful to include some template, perhaps an invisible one, to tag/categorize the pages so they can be easily found. Also, whose account is User:Apswi? I assume User:Cwarrior's? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I totally agree with the information page and the template. Currently I provided information on the user page of the bot. Do you suggest to create a separate information page? or should I just add more information on this page? I will also create the template and add it to the posts that the bot makes. User:Apswi is just a test user we created which is created by User:Cwarrior who was a summer intern working on this project. once the bot is approved, I will delete this test user. Rostaf (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this task very exciting - has there been any discussion on-wiki that we can reference to see how the community as a whole feels about this task? SQL ^{Query me!} 08:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of bureaucracy, you should drop a note at the Psychology WikiProject and probably the Village Pump. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I could possibly see a negative reaction (e.g., "creates classes of user"), so community input might be better now than later. :\ Apart from that aspect, one thing I know off-the-bat that should be easy to implement is that I'd suggest creating a template for whatever the bot will be adding that's similar to {{unsigned}}, rather than hardcoding it, so that it's easier for bots to recognize and so that your talk page doesn't get bombarded with requests for minor changes to the template. They're gonna do it anyway, but it's nice to have a place to point them instead of dealing with even more requests ad infinitum. I speak from experience. :P --slakr^\ talk / 12:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good idea. I will post it on Psychology WikiProject and Village Pump. The WikiProject has been informed about our general project before and they have been very accepting and encouraging. Rostaf (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the post on Wikiproject Psychology talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#ExpertCommentBot Rostaf (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ask this above, but I would like this part elaborated upon, "The bot posts comments to article talk pages on behalf of an identified Wikipedia user who are experts in different scientific fields and the comments are their evaluation of the article and how to improve the article." How are experts identified? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The experts are identified through registration with our tools, to be able to access the tool, they have to signup and provide information about whether they hold a PhD or not, their expertise, their experience with Wikipedia, their email address, and a valid Wikipedia username. So basically those with PhDs or higher degrees in Psychology that are going to to teach a class in psychology will be considered as expert. Rostaf (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will they be limited to commenting on talk pages of articles in their area of expertise? Psychology is a huge field. A PhD in one area does not make one an expert in another area. How do you or the bot deal with this issue?
  - If they are limited to their area of expertise in the broad field of psychology, how is their area of expertise decided? Do they assign themselves an area of psychology for their expertise? American PhDs in the sciences tend to be very limited, a geomorphologist and a seismologist may both have PhDs in geosciences. This does not mean they should both be labeled experts in geology in general. Well, I guess they are experts in geology, in general, but I would not want the geomorphologist's remarks labeled as "expert" on a seismology article.
  - Has the wikipedia community as a whole decided that it is allowing other than IP or registered user access to editing wikipedia? I assume so, by the nature of this discussion, but I think this information (a link to the discussion in the broader wikipedia community) should be included.
  - I disagree with this bot being used to stamp people as experts under these circumstances unless you can show me a community discussion that establishes that the wikipedia community agrees that those with PhDs in a subject are considered experts and should be given a special notice template to set their comments apart on article talk pages. Maybe just a stamp with their name and their PhD and their area of expertise in psychology.
  - --68.127.234.159 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with your points that they could potentially edit a page that they are not expert in; however, I think this is going to be unlikely since they are going to provide comments to their students on articles related to the topic of the course which they are expert in. Having said that, we are not planning to tag these comments with "experts". They will be only tagged with the name of the Bot and the name of the user submitting the comment. Rostaf (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then I would like the comments to be limited to the topic of the course they are teaching in some way, so the contributions demand less community monitoring.
      - The name of the bot is "ExpertCommentBot." So, using the name of the bot, tags the comment as by an "expert" posted in an unusual way: by a bot that posts only comments by experts, kinda creating a specialized class of editors. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Potentially, we can change the name of the bot to something else such as TeacherCommentBot. Rostaf (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you do away with calling the posters "experts," my objections fizzle, and you will probably eliminate a lot of discussion from the community by not high-tiering the professors as experts. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the main goal of this bot is to benefit Wikipedia community from feedback that professors are providing to their students. We save those comments locally and are available to users of our portal but by employing this bot, we would like to broaden the audience for students to potentially receive feedback from others as well and also to provide feedback to Wikipedia community about issues with article. Comments specific to students will stay confidential in our system and will not be posted on the article talk page. Rostaf (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is confusing to me rather than clarifying. You say the main goal is to post the feedback professors provide to their students, but then say that "comments specific to students will stay confidential?" I'm now not certain what the bot is posting? I thought the bot was posting feedback from professors about ways to improve articles being edited and written by students as part of a class. Can you create an example with a real article and real comments rather than the link above? If there are other things to this project that are completely unrelated to this bot, and won't be posted, there's probably no need for disclaimers here. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bot will post comments from professors but some comments and feedback from professors are just for educational value for the students and could be considered part of the academic evaluation. Those will stay confidential. We leave it up to the professors to make that decision. If they find a comment general and not too private for students, they can choose to post it on the article talk page through the bot. I hope this makes it more clear. Rostaf (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see what you're saying now. That seems so outside of anything to do with this bot, that teachers won't post private comments to students with it, that it was hard to figure out what, if anything, you meant. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you go ahead with the rename to something a little more "neutral", like "TeacherCommentBot" so we can move this on to trial? Have you left a Village Pump message yet? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot is renamed to InstructorCommentBot. I have created InstructorCommentBot page and also posted on Village Pump proposal section (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_for_InstructorCommentBot). Rostaf (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better name choice. Thanks. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the BRFA to appropriate page. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page threads ordinarily involve interaction with other editors. If the bot users don't know how to respond to other editors who comment on their contributions, everything posted by InstructorCommentBot may fall into disrepute. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a bad idea. It would give undue weight to the comments from these people. I don't see why it is easier for anyone to post comments in that way; it isn't hard to click 'new section' or 'edit' on a talk page, and simply write stuff; in what way is it easier for these experts to post via a bot? It sounds more complex, not less, if anything. Absolutely no "Wikipedia markup" is required; it'd be nice if they signed with ~~~~, but even that doesn't matter. I'm also concerned as to how they can respond to direct responses to their postings. Chzz ► 03:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When instructors use this, they won't be actually on Wikipedia; they'll be reviewing their students' work through the portal that Rostaf and her colleagues are building to help instructors track Wikipedia assignments effciently. That system lets instructors choose to make inline comments about Wikipedia articles that only the students can see, or optionally to also post the comments publicly on-wiki. If they are already using this system, then navigating to Wikipedia to duplicate the comment they've already made is more of a hastle than I expect many will be willing to go through. Many instructors want to be able to give comments directly to students, some of which would be okay to be seen publicly and some which the instructor wants only the student to see. The point of this is to make it easy to post useful comments publicly when there's no reason not to.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see now why you elaborated on the private comments. Maybe a better explanation that this bot is part of an outside wikipedia interface would have helped pre-answer these questions. STrike my comment above. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the "inline comments about Wikipedia articles that only the students can see" will not involve any kind of edit to Wikipedia whatsoever, right? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just make a link to auto-add the comments (with them logged in) on the wiki (ie, preload)? Or, using JavaScript to give 'em a button to 'add this to wikipeida'? Both of which would mean, they'd be logged in, editing in the normal manner. I'm not entirely comfortable with the bot, because it seems 'hack-ish' - not convinced we need an exemption in this specific case, allowing 'posting by bot'; it should be easy enough to have 'em logged in and posting in the normal way - even copying over the comments for 'em with a formed URL. That seems a better solution, to me? Also, can you explain how they'd know about responses, how they'd notice if e.g. their posting caused them to be issued warnings on their talk page, etc. Chzz ► 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz raises some good points. Can I respond to the user by clicking on their user name in the usual manner, if, for example, I have a comment that should go to the user on their talk page rather than on the article talk page? Can I see all of their contributions? --72.208.2.14 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Rostaf from above: "The comments will be signed with "Posted on behalf of User:Rostaf by User:ExpertCommentBot 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)"" — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, anyone will have the opportunity to leave messages on the users' talk page. and in fact that could be a good way to get them more involved in the community. and in our tool we show them if they have new messages on their talk pages. 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So, the comments will appear in User Rostaf's contributions history or not? --72.208.2.14 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns, after reading Chzz's posts, are that this bot allows editing in a method outside of long established editing practices of wikipedia, and that this could lead to the omnipresent cries of sock puppetry/meat puppetry/other scum when I disagree with you that is a huge part of the incivil mess that is editing wikipedia for outsider editors.
Will other bots from other similar projects then choose to use this editing mode, bot posted comments? I don't see that it's too much of a burden on a professor using wikipedia in his/her class for that professor to copy and paste useful comments about an article on the article's talk page. It shows that the professor is part of the community he/she is teaching and encouraging the students to use.
Some of the experts on wikipedia do get into hot-headed discussions. It can be frustrating to edit an article in your area of expertise, then have someone come by and rewrite the article to emphasize a crackpot theory. I watched in physics a huge argument over months of wasted editing time that included sock puppets, meat puppets, blocks, sanctions, AN/I, and RFAs and other discussions. A lot of the turmoil arose, in my opinion, because the expert was unwilling to negotiate his expertise in a polite way, but it continued because of the bull-headed idiocy of an established wikipedia editor who resorted to unsavory methods to get his way.
I want experts on board on wikipedia, but I would like them as full members of the community, editing in the same way everyone else does (but civil). That's how I add my own expertise, by the way, by simply editing the articles myself. I think that members of the community may not like this, that an editor's contributions are not so transparent, and I think it sets a bad precedent that has not been firmly chosen by the community: some editors get their comments posted by bots. -72.208.2.14 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns brought up by the community but as Sage Ross mentioned the bot work on a system outside Wikipedia. We have a tool which presents changes made by students on any article revision by revision and faculty can just highlight any part of the text and add a comment for the students about the highlighted part and at this point we asked them whether they would like to post the comment to article talk page or not and if they agree the bot will post the comment on the article talk page. So I believe this is much easier for the faculty than navigating to the article page, going to discussion page, add a new section and past the comment there. In terms of adding a javascript button to allow them to post the comment with their username, again, since the system is outside Wikipedia that is not an option. If there is anyway to go around that, we would be happy to do that but as far as we know that is not possible. The only possible option that we know is asking their password every time they want to post a comment which can be very cumbersome and we imagine they will immediately oppose that. So we believe this bot will facilitate receiving feedback from experts in a field that they would not provide that feedback otherwise. Of course, it is ideal and our goal as well to encourage experts to get involved with Wikipedia community by directly editing pages but helping them to get started and get involved without too much barriers at the beginning can be helpful. Rostaf (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As clarified above already, the posters are not editing Wikipedia articles. They are posting feedback to their students on a completely separate project. I suspect most have no desire and no time to get involved with Wikipedia. Yet, they can still contribute to the project, even if not directly. Their comments are to the talk pages, and not articles; and no one is obligated to act on these comments, like no one is obligated to act upon any registered editor's comments. The comments like "This article is wrong" can be safely ignored, while "Mary was born in 1892, not 1893; see Smith J. (2000) Mary the Great." are of note to article watchers and editors. WP:V is still there. Hypothetical AN/Is, stubborn editors, or loud RFAs have nothing to do with this request. I rather have potentially useful comments posted via a 3rd party tool, than not posted at all. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are another hypothetical. Maybe a real example would help. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly you mean by a real example, but if you mean examples of those comments given by instructors, our system has not been live yet, so we do not have real examples yet. Rostaf (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask an instructor who has used the set-up before to comment on a couple of wikipedia article talk pages in response to or about edits made by his/her students? To show me how useful the comments could be. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anyway, no point in speculating forever. Let's see this in action, when the system is ready/live. You can just run the tool, like you normally would and we'll see how many and what type of comments are produced. Leaving the number of edits at your discretion, my suggestion is some 20 or so comments or some 10 or so pages for the starters? Then we can see if this improves the encyclopaedia or not and how the process can be improved. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! thanks for the approval. we expect the system to go live in about a week or so and should be used throughout the semester. 128.237.126.194 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, be aware that this approval is for trial only - once you've had enough comments to demonstrate how this works, we'll need to revisit this for full approval. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any progress? Anomie ⚔ 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 courses registered with our system this semester but they are all still in early phase of the assignment so no commenting has happened. I expect this to start later in the semester. I will update this page once I have more information about users' activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rostaf (talk • contribs) 02:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I only asked because of the comment 6 weeks ago that it was expected to go live "in about a week". Take your time. Anomie ⚔ 10:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems similar to the feedback tool being developed.
Maybe I have been wiki-ing to long, but "click discussion, new section, and fill in title and content" doesn't seem complex. The only mark-up required is to sign with ~~~~.
Maybe the feedback tool should be API enabled.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Request Expired. At least for now; there hasn't been any activity on the bot for a while, and it hasn't performed any edits since being authorized for a test run ~4 months ago. --slakr^\ talk / 02:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Lightbot 17

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:45, Wednesday August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: No.

Function overview: Modify template parameters relating to units of measurement

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The convert template allows control of unit abbreviation for the input and output. For example: "8 km (5 mi)" can be presented as "8 kilometres (5 miles)". The parameter is 'abbr' and accepts values including 'abbr=off' and 'abbr=none'.

During a discussion at the convert template talk page:

What's the opposite of 'on'? Is it 'off' or 'none' ?

it became apparent that the names were incorrect and 'abbr=none' should be named 'abbr=off'. A migration strategy was devised. The last stage was to edit articles replacing 'abbr=none' with 'abbr=off'.

In accordance with what User:Jimp said, I've been updating templates that contain units of length, area, volume, temperature from '=none' to '=off'. I believe those to be reasonable within previous bot permission. I'd like explicit permission to go further and edit articles with other units such as:

South African Class 6E - to replace '{convert|563|kW|hp|abbr=none}' with '{convert|563|kW|hp|abbr=off}'

Edit period(s): Continuous. The 'abbr=none' task described will be a one-off.

Estimated number of pages affected: Thousands. The 'abbr=none' task described will be a hundreds.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: Will modify template parameters. In this instance, it will replace 'abbr=none' within the convert template with 'abbr=off'. As described at:

What's the opposite of 'on'? Is it 'off' or 'none' ?

Discussion

This will have no effect on what is displayed. The parameter value none is to be replaced with the more logical and consistent off. It's a matter of streamlining {{convert}}, making it easier for users to understand & use. It's routine house-cleaning affecting just over two hundred pages. JIMp_talk·cont 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Please can BAG take a look at this? Lightmouse (talk) 18:00, 5 Autgust 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with this request. Let's get a quick trial run, and see how it goes.

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Done. Edit summary is "L17. Technical update to convert template. No change to view mode". Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This trial appears to have gone very well. I don't see any mistakes or bugs, and it is an uncontroversial task.

Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Denied for now.

Lightbot 16

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:20, Sunday July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Delink common units of measurement

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request is similar to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 6. That was designed to delink common units but limited to units of length, area, or volume. The constraints were put in place to gain confidence and experience. Following experience, this bot is designed to address all common units (e.g. including weight, time, speed, volume, etc).

Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details:
Edits will delink common units of measurement in accordance with wp:link - What generally should not be linked. Wikipedia has information on what may be regarded as a common unit. The threshold for delinking may be adjusted depending on whether a conversion is present. Lightbot6 has been very successful. If an issue arises that can't be resolved locally, community guidance will be sought.

Discussion

Please provide a list of every unit that will be delinked. Please describe how the exception "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article" in wp:link - What generally should not be linked will be addressed, bearing in mind that it is up to the bot to get it right, not the responsibility of the article editors to use some peculiar syntax to "protect" a relevant link. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of brainstorm-y ideas for this:

If the unit in question is linked multiple times in the page, there's probably a decent chance it's legit to delink, at the very minimum, the 2nd or 3rd+ occurrence (so as to also cover WP:OVERLINK).
Double check to make sure, via the api, that things like gram and inch and whatnot don't have backlink relationships with the page-of-interest (e.g., if "Article Foobar" is referenced by gram, either as a direct link or, especially, a redirect, don't touch the linking of units on "Article Foobar" at all). Same goes with categorymembers of stuff related to measurement, distance, etc.

Also, given the prior history with reference to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Date_delinking_.28Lightmouse.29, it'd probably be ideal to seek consensus to run this before any sort of large-scale run. I could easily see this bot causing a ruckus—even if it worked perfectly—because it seems like this could affect a lot of pages.

--slakr^\ talk / 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already consensus for this (see WP:OVERLINK). However, I would like to know what the "general logic" of delinking would be before making a decision to trial or not. Several people complained at User talk:Lightmouse, and I'm inclined to share their concerns. Exclusion lists should be fairly comprehensive (e.g. Category:Units of measure + subcats should definitely not be covered by the bot, there probably are others that should be excluded too, like Category:Measurement, Category:Metrology, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process includes obtaining a target list (often by doing 'what links here' and/or a database scan). Then preprocessing the list based on a variety of criteria (e.g. includes certain strings in the title or body) and/or matches a whitelist. There are also run-time checks. Each process and check takes effort in different ways and has pros and cons.

I've recently been doing a massive run. A small proportion on a large run becomes disappointingly large in number (i.e. more than a handful). The feedback and investigation shows most of them due to redirects (issue now resolved almost 100% using an AWB switch) or by insufficient exclusion (as you suggest). The exclusion process does make use of categories but it didn't go all the way to the top of [:Category:Measurement]. I tried initially but ended up using the lower categories such as [:Category:Units of measure]. See what the AWB manual says about drilling down from the top:

Be advised that this can be very time intensive and may yield redundant results. For example, recursively searching from Category:Evolution will find the Human evolution article several times and even traverse the same subcategories numerous times. Worse yet, the process may take so long that it will terminate prematurely (caused by either Wikipedia or AWB).

It's clear that I'll have to go to more effort and increase the size of the exclusion list. One method may be to use the database scanner to include more categories in the whitelist. I can say more about this recent massive run but I think I'll wait for your further thoughts. Lightmouse (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Hmmm... Well this is sound and all, but I'm not really ready to approve or trial anything at this point in time. Judging from your talk page, complaints about improper unlinking arise fairly often. While this lead to improvements in the code and logic, it also makes me believe that the false positive rate is currently too high at the moment to approve this or trial this. There are also a few discussions on the MOS concerning unit unlinking (I'm sure you're aware of that) so I would take the time between now and the resolution of whatever unit unlinking RFC is going on to improve and solidify existing code/exclusion logic rather than to expand it. So for now, with no prejudice against a later BRFA for the same task, after false positives rates have gone down, and not before one week after the conclusion of the "RFC" on unit unlinking. You can re-open the request on this page rather than file a new one once you believe the false positive rates has demonstrably gone down, and that the unit unlinking stuff on the MOS has been resolved and stable. We'll revisit the matter then. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

Fbot 3

Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 02:37, Monday July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently, although I'll probably post a copy in my userspace soon.

Function overview: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 3-4k at most

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: Same as above: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.

Discussion

The bot should have some kind of exclusion list (or even just follow {{bots}}), just in case there is a legitimate reason for a template to be transcluded (maybe its on a page showing examples or something). --Chris 11:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that sounds reasonable. {{bots}} it is. I've adjusted the run details above accordingly. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at User_talk, File_talk, and Talk for just one template - it appears that this template is occasionally transcluded as part of regular discussion. Would it make sense to exclude all talk pages (perhaps even 'just for now')? SQL ^{Query me!} 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but these templates were not intended for use in discussions. Image license tags inappropriately categorize non-file pages (i.e. category pollution) into categories intended for files. The bot will untransclude file license tags so that non-file description pages are not inappropriately categorized. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just make categorisation namespace-dependent? Or is avoiding transclusions on Special:WhatLinksHere also necessary? If so, why? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept of making categorization namespace dependent, but IMHO, it lacks practicality. We have a large number of license tags which would require the addition of a new parserfunction to each and every template. Furthermore, employing such a protocol would make creating new license tags unnecessarily complicated for non-coders. While a side goal of this bot is to help clean up license tag tranclusions in Special:WhatLinksHere, the main purpose of the bot is to maintain and clean up categories pertaining to media file license tags. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do they not have a meta-template that could be edited? I haven't looked. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. The vast majority of image license tags are constructed with templates such as {{imbox}} or just plain raw code. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be (possibly too?) blunt, I would greatly prefer to see the underlying templates corrected, over constantly having to maintain all the affected pages indefinitely. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second that. It may take a few days, but it'll solve the root of the problem, instead of chipping at the symptoms as they appear (if you pardon the House-esque analogy). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. Please consider this request withdrawn if a volunteer willing to maunally update all 200+ file licenses templates over the span of a few days can be found. Otherwise, I'd like to run this bot task. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the templates and made 3 changes. It looks like almost all the tags already employ {{file other}}. Do you by any chance have a list of templates that have caused mis-categorization? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a list, but I'm sure one could easily be generated. I'd write the script to do that but I'm currently on vacation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Since there doesn't appear to be consensus for this bot, I'd like to formally withdraw this request. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. per operator SQL ^{Query me!} 08:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling, not relivant to this request for approval

Please

I'll just chime in to say that Fastily is involved minor controversy. He and a few other has been converted to a novel interpretation of our guidelines-- specially he calls for us WP to effectively surrender our fair use rights in virtually all cases. This new 'interpretation' of guideline has proven to be very controversial, especially as Fastily has not always been careful to establish a consensus for this change.

I'll leave it to wiser minds to decide whether this bot would be worthwhile.

But this is a user we probably should be looking at restoring to editor for a wikibreak, not an editor we should be further empowering-- that will just cause more demoralization and discontent. Free Images only is a great idea, but it's not Wikipedia. Fastily missed the boat on this-- don't be giving him robotic minions to propagate his errors. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This thread is now the subject of an ongoing WP:ANI discussion here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, how is this relevant to the bot task? The task's scope is very precise and there is no ambiguity in function details. What harm (hypothetically) do you suppose this task can do? Does Fastily have history of misusing alternative/bot account? It's not like he is allowed run it for any other unapproved tasks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with H3llkn0wz. I do not see how this is relevant to the requested task. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. It would only impact on the assessment of this bot request if community trust in Fastily had been eroded to the the point that he called into question his/her competency in running a bot in line with WP:BOTPOL. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which hasn't happened. I'm closing this nonsense down. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

BOTijo 10

Operator: Emijrp (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:33, Thursday April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Yes, it is free software (GPL3), available at Google Code

Function overview: archive ref links, see examples in the conversion table below

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): continuous

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details:

Bot checks all the articles (not only new ones), searching for <ref> links introduced in the last X days
- Which age limit? 7 days? 30 days? 365 days?
If there is an archived copy of the website less than 30 days old at WebCite
1. bot links to this available archived copy
else
1. if website is online (no error 404, 403, etc)
  1. bot archives it at WebCite and...
  2. ...links to this last archived copy
2. else
  1. : ( website was lost forever (?), do nothing
Submit changes to article using the conversion table below

Features to discuss:

#Conversion table below
Auto-generated titles using the <title> html tag?

Discussion

Citation templates should not be introduced in the references given as plain text (WP:CITEVAR), instead you can use {{WebCite}}. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{WebCite}} it is easier, but {{cite web}} offers more information (WP:CITEVAR says so: Generally considered to be helpful improvements Replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and fights linkrot). So, more opinions? Regards. emijrp (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "To be avoided unless there is consensus: Switching between major citation styles". Introducing {{cite web}} in an article that exclusively uses plain-text referencing is considered a reference style alteration. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me to build a table like this one? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose automatic generation of titles. While something sensible may happen in a large proportion of cases, this has been done before and it led to countless inappropiate examples and quite a few complaints. Web page titles are often full of spammy key words, are sometimes identical across the whole site, and sometimes contain bafflingly irrelevant information. I would be fine with bot assisted human so that the obviously rubbish , but not fully automatic. Better to leave a bare url than risk nonsense titles. SpinningSpark 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have 12M links (although not all are refs), so this bot can't be manually assisted. If auto-generated titles are not desired, I can leave empty that value or fill it with the same URL ([1] or http://google.com). emijrp (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think you should leave the ref as a bare url, at least that tells the reader for certain where they are being taken. Autogeneration will produce too many spurious results. I also agree that {{cite web}} should not be introduced into articles where it is not already the preferred style. I would, however, support changing links that have no text into a bare url as it is a disservice to readers not to make clear where they are being taken to. SpinningSpark 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SpinningSpark if an editor informs you that they think your bot has made a mistake, what action will you take? SpinningSpark 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is obvious he is wrong, I will leave a link to this RFA (where the issue was discussed before) in his talkpage. If it is not sure, I stop the bot and discuss. emijrp (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you talked to the WebCite people about this, so you can conform to any restrictions they may have? Will you be adding |deadurl=no along with |archiveurl=, in case anyone ever gets around to adding that to {{cite web}}? Anomie ⚔ 10:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no talked to WebCite people yet, because I prefer to approve this bot in Wikipedia, and later, ask them to add my IP (or Toolserver IP) into the white list. Today, an IP is banned when it has archived 100 URLs, and you have to wait some hours to start archiving new URLs again.

From the FAQ: If you are a programmer or a student looking for a project, here are some ideas for programming projects. [...] develop a wikipedia bot which scans new wikipedia articles for cited URLs, submits an archiving request to WebCite®, and then adds a link to the archived URL behind the cited URL. So, I think there is no problem with white listing stuff.

My idea is to add deadurl=no/yes and archiveurl= to every single {{cite web}} occurrence. Is that OK? Sorry, but I have not understood your question. emijrp (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few pitfalls that I have thought of;

Will you be checking that the reference does not already include a link to WebCite? There is a danger that you might replace a link to a valid archive with a link to one that has entirely changed since the ref was created. If there is an earlier archive link, that one should be retained as it is closer to the actual page from which the information in the article was taken.
I don't like your algorithm for using pre-existing WebCite archives (30 days). If this archive is different from the one looked at by the editor you will be archiving the wrong thing. You should only use the pre-existing archive if it is younger than the date the reference was inserted. You won't, in any case, end up with duplicated archives at WebCite. Their software will return the link to the pre-existing page if you attempt to archive a duplicate.
Are you searching for references that are not between ref tags such as those in a Bibliography, References or Footnotes sections?
Are you taking steps to exclude sites such as Google books, Amazon Search Inside and other sites that display previews of copyrighted print works?
Are you checking that the ref is not to a site that is already an archive site such as The Internet Archive or the Wayback Machine?

SpinningSpark 14:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Yes. The bot only edits references without archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters. Furthermore, if the url= parameter contains archive.org or webcitation.org, it is skipped.
OK, but I guess that younger pre-existing archives are not common. If a ref was added to an article in 2002, and there is no archive at WebCite before 2002, would I archive a copy today (2011) and add it to archiveurl= parameter? A lot of websites may be changed since the day the ref was added. By the way, the script adds archivedate= parameter, so, a reader can compare accessdate= (for example 2002-01-01) with archivedate= (for example 2010-12-31) and she will know that (probably) the archived copy is different to the original website (8 years).
No. The script only edits references between <ref> tags. If you want to add more cases, go to the conversion table below.
I don't exclude that domains, but I can black list them. By the way, almost all the Internet is copyrighted, not only Google Books or Amazon. It is not possible to archive only websites with free licenses. Read the What about copyright issues? section at WebCitation.
Yes, I exclude archive.org and webcitation.org domains. That URLs are not archived.

Regards. emijrp (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRION asked for a few minutes of help from all readers with this request list, and I decided to check it out. On WebCite I found this info: "WebCite allows on-demand prospective archiving. It is not crawler-based; pages are only archived if the citing author or publisher requests it." The bot is not the citing author, and not the publisher (of the cited work). –89.204.137.195 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The citing author is the Wikipedia community, this bot will only automatize this process. Read I am a programmer or student looking for a project and ideas - How can I help? section, they request a Wikipedia bot. --emijrp (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that Gunther Eysenbach of WebCitation.org was actively involved in our discussion about archiving external websites that Wikipedia uses for references and such. Mr. Eysenbach specifically stated that WebCite wants to work with Wikipedia to get websites archived and he has even offered a $500.00 bounty to encourage people to get this task accomplished. So the concern raised above is not an issue in this case. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the "citing author" is listed in the edit history, and only unregistered users like me can be considered as some anonymous "community". I don't know Python, does the bot respect robots.txt? Does it use link rel="canonical" to find "canonical" content with a relevant robots.txt? Does it limit its accesses on a given web server somehow? When I tried to create a simple link checker (a kind of bot, unrelated to Wikipedia) some years ago I managed to flood some web servers with HEAD requests, the damage was fortunately limited by a slow modem connection. –89.204.153.138 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion table

Suggest as many conversions as you want.

Original	Modified	Examples
<ref>http://google.com</ref>	<ref>http://google.com - {{WebCite\|url=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR\|date=archived_date}}</ref>
<ref>[http://google.com]</ref>	<ref>[http://google.com] - {{WebCite\|url=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR\|date=archived_date}}</ref>
<ref>[http://google.com Google]</ref>	<ref>[http://google.com Google] - {{WebCite\|url=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR\|date=archived_date}}</ref>	[2]
<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://google.com\|title=Google\|accessdate=2009-01-25\|more parameters...}}</ref>	<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://google.com\|title=Google\|accessdate=2009-01-25\|more parameters...\|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR\|archivedate=archived_date}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://google.com\|title=Google\|more parameters...}}</ref>	<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://google.com\|title=Google\|accessdate=date_url_was_addded\|more parameters...\|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR\|archivedate=archived_date}}</ref>

How will you make sure that the date format used for |archivedate= matches the article format (e.g. {{use dmy dates}} or predominant use, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/H3llBot_4 for example)?

How do you re-verify dead links? Currently a week is the usual amount to re-check the site in case it had temporary maintenance/downtime.

Does the bot follow redirects from 404 pages to live pages?

A relevant Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dead url parameter for citations addresses marking urls with |deadurl=yes or |deadurl=no, which is relevant to this BRFA. I don't want to create fait acompli by asking you to do this, but then again I want to wait until the end of RfC. In any case, I think there should be some indication that the original links are not dead yet and the supplied Webcite url is pre-emptive archiving. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above RfC has closed as successful and |deadurl= will be implemented. Would you be able to add this your bot's logic? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Yes, no? SQL ^{Query me!} 08:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response from the operator in 8 days, operator has not edited this page since mid-july. Request Expired. without prejudice, please re-open this request whenever you would like. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

Bots in a trial period

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

AvicBot 6

Operator: Avicennasis (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:29, Friday July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: Yes

Function overview: Maintain indef blocked categories

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: unknown

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Will grab users in the indef block categories, and check to see if they are, in fact, indef blocked. If a user is not found to be blocked, the username will be set aside on a subpage. If, after two weeks, the user is still in the category, and still unblocked, AvicBot will remove the category from the user talk page.

Categories affected:

Discussion

Is there a policy/guideline/discussion regarding their use that you can link in "relevant discussion" as a "consensus for this task"? If not, could you leave a note on the category talk/some noticeboard regarding this, please. Although I doubt this will be controversial. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the category pages (except the last one) have the note "Users who are not blocked should be removed from the category" on them. Still, I can post to the talk pages, though not sure which, if any, noticeboards might be interested in this. ^Avic _ennasis @ 11:08, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more of a bureaucratic point than anything else. So you can point out you invited wider discussion even if no one replies. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice to all the category talk pages, as well as Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, which is also the talk page for WP:WikiProject user warnings, as it seemed most relevant to this request. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:49, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Take however long you need to make the page list (if you haven't already). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:26, 5 Av 5771 / 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the contribs for this run. It appears to have gone very well. I don't see any problems, or concerns with this task. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this mostly affects pages with a subst'ed block template. There are two cases I see where the bot could make a better edit by also removing the surrounding conditional: [3]

{{#switch:User talk|User|User talk=[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

and [4]

{{#ifeq: yes | yes |[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for link-spamming||{{PAGENAME}}]] | [[Category:Wikipedians who have temporarily been blocked for link-spamming||{{PAGENAME}}]] }}

. Not a deal-breaker, but could be nice. Are you are willing to implement these?

Approved for extended trial (75 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anyway, let's catch any more weird cases to see that nothing breaks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - Implemented above suggestions. Removes

{{#switch:User talk|User|User talk=[[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

when it finds the whole sting, e.g., here, else it removes [[Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy|{{PAGENAME}}]], e.g., here. Likewise with other cats. ^Avic _ennasis @ 05:46, 19 Av 5771 / 05:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I haven't looked at most of the edits yet, but the one you refer to above with the switch coding link is blocked, or perhaps more properly, globally locked and hidden. Is there anyway your bot could account for cases like that? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Currently, the script uses an API call to check for blocks, e.g. like this. The same API call for the locked account looks the same as an unblocked account. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:34, 19 Av 5771 / 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the block appears using the "globaluserinfo" call: [5]. It also shows the account is locked and hidden. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this issue happened a number of other times; at least 22 of the user talk pages uncategorized in the last trial belong to users who are blocked locally and globally locked and hidden. There are several others that I'm not sure about, although it's possible they just never got blocked in the first place. Would it be possible to try and fix this for one last trial run? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be hard to re-work the script, assuming the above API call can catch both local blocks and global locks, and it looks like it does. How many more would you like for the next trial? ^Avic _ennasis @ 03:55, 20 Av 5771 / 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Take however many pages you need to be sure the new call is working - try in increments of ten, perhaps, and see how it goes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before you run that, note that the globaluser thing will probably only return results when the local account is unified to a global account. In general, that'll be most of them, but I have seen a few recent accounts on checkuser that are *not* unified. So you may want to check both just in case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} - Any updates on how this is going? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the additional check, the scripts have been pretty slow - and I haven't had much time for testing this lately. I'll probably have some definite results within the week. ^Avic _ennasis @ 23:00, 28 Av 5771 / 23:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe I've got it down (and have re-coded some things so it's much faster.) AvicBot parsed Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming, and removed all locally blocked users from it's working list, as well as a globally locked account, and found ~80 or so that matched the criteria. (Non-indef-blocked, non-locked accounts in an indef-blocked category.) I processed 30 of them here. ^Avic _ennasis @ 21:30, 6 Elul 5771 / 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. ~55 more here. I believe I have all the kinks worked out now. ^Avic _ennasis @ 23:25, 17 Elul 5771 / 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. I see everything looks good, and no reason to deny this bot, can a BAGer give the go ahead? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Looks good --Chris 11:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

LivingBot 19

Operator: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP (Peachy)

Source code available: Haven't written it yet, will be (from my Toolserver SVN).

Function overview: Perform simple tasks relating to publishing The Signpost

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A. I am currently responsible for this process, and no-one objected when I raised it recently. Any successor could choose to use the script (or not). Merely replacing manual edits either way (no innovation).

Edit period(s):Once a week.

Estimated number of pages affected: Half a dozen a week

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: I am current interim editor-in-chief of The Signpost. At the moment, every week, the editor-in-chief must perform a long series of edits (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Publishing) in order to publish. All of these are entirely robotic in nature (updated dates, etc.) and therefore are best done by bot.

Discussion

Sounds pretty simple to me. Which exact steps do you need the bot to do? I notice one step, for instance is to Semi-Protect a page. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, yes. This approval relates to all the tasks that involve editing English Wikipedia, except a number which are de facto obsolete (including the semi-protection step you mention). Hence LivingBot would not need +sysop. (Incidentally, I should mention that the script will have a master password, handed from editor-in-chief predecessor to successor, since other parts of it -- not included in this approval -- related to external sites, as mentioned in the instructions linked above.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty uncontroversial. Let's see how it does for 2 weeks.

Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the bot has other tasks that don't require sysop flag, you should probably make a separate account for the ones that do (i.e. this one). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you misread: this task does not require +sysop. Oh, and the first run completed last night, only one small error. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! Misread indeed. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second run last night, no errors with the actions of the bot viz this BRFA.

Trial complete.. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the trial went off without a hitch.

Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

BogBot 2

Operator: Boghog (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:14, Friday July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Manually assisted.

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Yes: link

Function overview: Populating new fields that have been recently added to the {{Drugbox}} template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Adding clinical fields (and by extension external links) to the drugbox has been extensively discussed:

There is general consensus to populate the new fields. In contrast, there was some reservation about creating special purpose templates that would be transcluded back into the respective drug articles:

special purpose templates

Hence the present request is only to populate the new fields and not to create special purpose templates.

Edit period(s): One time run for now.

Estimated number of pages affected: 4854 pages currently transclude the {{drugbox}} template

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: Populates the recently added fields to the drugbox. Some of these fields create links to external sites. Hence the bot checks to make sure each link is "live" before populating the field. In addition, the sections of the drugbox were also recently reordered, so the bot will sort the fields in the order they are currently rendered. See diff for an example bot edit for this requested task.

Discussion

This looks pretty good to me. I notice that this template is trans'd onto other namespaces such as User:. Would the proposed bot ignore these? SQL ^{Query me!} 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have specified this above. The list of pages that the bot will be working from is generated by the script "python pagegenerators.py -namespace:0 -transcludes:Drugbox > drugbox_titles.txt". Hence, the bot will only work on templates in main and not user namespace. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Please consider putting some sort of link in the edit summary to this page.

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. In the process, I have uncovered and fixed a number of bugs. In addition, I have also included a number of additional checks per this discussion. I think the script is now fairly robust, but I intended to ramp up slowly to make sure there are no additional surprises. Boghog (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there is another bot editing drugboxes soon after BogBot does (e.g. [6] [7] [8]; there are dozens), but I'm assuming the tasks are sufficiently different that there's nothing we can do about this. I'm not an expert on the subject at all, so I can't gauge whether the changes are accurate, but everything seems to look good as far as I can tell. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we seem to be getting there... No concerns with the CheMoBot at this point.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent edits by CheMoBot highlighted a small bug where BogBot forgot to propagate the DrugBank_Ref parameter. This bug has now been fixed. BogBot and CheMoBot are are complementary, the former is adding data while the later is verifying that changes to the template have not messed anything up. So CheMoBot did its job by catching an error by BogBot. I am also making a few additional small changes per this discussion. I will make an additional small test run to make sure everything is functioning correctly. Boghog (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have implemented the changes mentioned above and run some additional tests. The percentage of follow-on edits by CheMoBot is reduced. The few that remain are justified (e.g., diff, BogBot added ChemSpiderID and CheMoBot then added the ChemSpiderID_Ref parameter indicating that the data has been verified). Both bots appear to be functioning correctly. Boghog (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot seems to be editing outside of approved trial. While it's not that big a deal, you really shouldn't do that (WP:BOTPOL is very clear on this). A question for now, could your bot add the ChemSpiderID_Ref instead of CheMoBot and save the extra edit? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated these are just additional tests to determine how the new changes discussed here [9] are working. This overall is a tremendous improvement to articles on pharmaceuticals and hopefully this bot can soon be approved for a full run. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for exceeding the 100 edit approved trial, but I was trying to test some modifications to the script that were made in response to Earwig and Jmh649 comments. I also have been monitoring closely the edits the bot makes and manually fixing any mistakes. I could add the ChemSpiderID_Ref parameter but I would prefer that CheMoBot makes an independent check to make sure that the ChemSpiderID link is valid. Where do we go from here? Perhaps an extended trial of 100 additional edits? Boghog (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (≤100). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'm fine with an extended trial. I'd have suggested 50, but 100 is fine too. While the trial is going on, could you ask the Chem people what they think about the ChemSpiderID_ref thing? If they are fine with the dual edits, so am I. If they'd rather have BogBot do the update itself, then I'd prefer that. See also this suggestion for edit summaries. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side-suggestion, would it be possible to fix those stupid first two fields. It's a pet-peeve of mine to see something like

{{Drugbox| Watchedfields = changed
| Verifiedfields = changed

When they should/could be like

{{Drugbox
 | Watchedfields  = changed
 | Verifiedfields = changed

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am here after a question from Boghog. The part of the verification needs more than only adding the parameters. Where new and correct parameters are added, also the index should be updated (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index. Bogbot could pre-fill the _Ref parameters and also update the index if needed, but then still an extra edit is needed to get the correct value for the index ('verifiedrevid = ######') in the box. The only option I could think of to circumvent that, would be a change in the saving mechanism of the mediawiki software - if I were able to 'reserve' a revid, put that in the box, and filled-in the _Ref parameters, and then save the page giving it the revid that I reserved, plus putting the revid in the index, then CheMoBot would not need to update the page after an edit. Otherwise it is inevitable that there will be follow-up edits.

Regarding the verification Boghog, I work from several external lists, some of which privately mailed to me (CAS, UNII, ChEBI, ChEMBL), some of them readily available from internet (DrugBank, KEGG; the latter not too useful but it can be cross-checked against the other databases), some that I generate by eye (ChemSpider; I also got a list from them), and some that I source based on the others (StdInChI and StdInChIKey come from a ChemSpider search on the correct record. I am sure you could do it as well using BogBot, but since the code of CheMoBot seems pretty stable (though I removed a bug a couple of days ago) I think it is better to use that mechanism (CheMoBot also handles the more complex ChemBox). Note, CheMoBot is not capable (at the moment) to 'sort' fields in a box to a preferred order).

Second part, yesssss, pretty please. I will see if I can do that as well where possible. Also

{{Drugbox| 
Watchedfields = changed |
Verifiedfields = changed |

is something that I sometimes see and which hurts my eyes. I know it is just edit-esthetics, but it has been bugging CheMoBot in the beginning as well (as well as many other missformats an crazy parameters. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the test edits now performed - it is not the only thing that needs to be done, it would also need a check whether all identifiers are correct (with respect to the index), and set the _Ref parameters accordingly, but that can be done (if you add e.g. a 'DrugBank = ####' and that is different from the value in the version which is indexed in the appropriate index (and you do not update the index), then the _Ref field should be set to '{{drugbankref|changed|DrugBank}}' - the bot will then not follow up if that is done consequently to all fields. If the index is updated, I don't think you can circumvent a follow up edit by CheMoBot, as it for sure will update 'verifiedrevid = ####' (except if you know beforehand what the revid will be when the page gets saved). I must say, this is something that has been bugging me for some time, especially when I update a lot of pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If CheMoBot does I good job of this having a second bot run after Bogbot is not too big of a deal. Bogbot is only going to be run once on all the pharmaceutical articles to add data. CheMoBot is run whenever article data is changed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, especially Dirk for your comments. As Dirk mentioned above, there is already a well functioning mechanism in place for verifying the data, namely CheMoBot. In addition, the process is significantly more complicated than adding a single parameter. Therefore I will not attempt to duplicate what CheMoBot is already doing well. As Doc James indicated, the update of the drugbox templates is a one run job, so there will be a limited number of follow-up edits. Concerning the second point, I completely agree. The previous version of the bot rebuilt the template from the first character after the first pipe so that if the first pipe was on the first line, it remained on the first line. This has now been changed so that the template is totally rebuilt from scratch from the opening curly bracket to closing bracket so that each parameter including the first is on its own line. Furthermore templates imbedded within the drugbox (e.g, citation templates) are collapsed so that all parameters within the imbedded template are on the same line. This should make parsing the template by bots in the future much easier. I will start the second trial run shortly. Boghog (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well if Chem folks are alright with the dual edits, then I'm alright with it. Also, concerning the edit summary "per bot trial" would be better than "per bot approval", as the later implies it's already approved. You got up to one hundred edits in article space (and as many as you want in your own sandboxes). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, {{tl|foobar}} doesn't work in edit summaries. You can use the {{foobar}} directly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended

Trial complete. see last 50 contributons. Per the requests above, every parameter is on its own line and the edit summary has been tweaked. Everything seems to be functioning normally. Boghog (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look excellent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

User:Fbot

Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 02:30, Monday July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently, although I'll probably post a copy in my userspace soon.

Function overview: This is a re-request for the task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot. I withdrew the first request due to RL business, but I have more time on my hands presently, and have finally got around to coding this script.

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

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 20k

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot

Discussion

Other than the change from Python to Java as the base language for the bot, are there any other changes you plan to make from the original filing? Are you using a established framework, or something of your own design? SQL ^{Query me!} 12:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No changes from the original specification. I'll be using MER-C's bot framework. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on this page with concerns, looks like a sound idea,

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I still have a few bugs to resolve, but I should be done and have the trial complete before the weekend comes around. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time! If you need an extended trial or additional edits, just let us know. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a great deal of respect for Fastily, but I think this is a very bad idea, because I think it's going to make a number of current problems (listed below) worse.

A) The number of people that use "self" licenses incorrectly is staggering, meaning that the number of files that incorrectly are claimed as own work is even more staggering.

B) Many users don't know how (or worse, don't care) to make sure that Move to Commons tagged files are actually eligible for moving before they preform the moves.

C) There are already 20,000 files waiting to be moved over.

D) Of those 20,000, I'm guessing upwards of 500-1000 shouldn't be moved.

As an alternative, I would suggest that the bot checks for a "self" tag, and checks that there is metadata from a camera (or perhaps from a camera and also not from Photoshop or Paint.NET) and then if the file meets both requirements, dumps them on a pre-screened list (but does not tag them for moving) so that humans can make the call as to moving them.

A second (less desirable but easier to pull off) alternative, would be that Fastily's bot does not tag the files with the regular Move to Commons tag, but a special tag that clearly and specifically states that the file was screened by a bot, and that the file should only be moved over by a human after double checking the approval. Said tag would dump into a second list or sublist, separate from the current list of waiting files.

I'm sorry if this all seems paranoid, but the last thing I want is for a bunch of otherwise usable files to get deleted from commons because of bad "self" tagging. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the original suggested specification details at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot, I have added a |bots= parameter to Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. When used, the template will output an obvious warning to users transferring files to Commons. In response to Sven's concerns above, the main issue seems to be with metadata. It is not logical to deny a move to commons based on concerns relating to missing metadata; users frequently upload perfectly valid images without metadata, created with a device other than a camera. Additionally, metadata from a camera does not automatically qualify an image for transfer to Commons; there may still be underlying copyright issues (e.g. FOP, DW, DM). That aside, I see nothing else that should be changed with the current approach. Presently, my code is mostly complete and fully functional. If there are no other objections, I shall proceed with a trial run within 24h. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons|bot=yes}} solution works for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm about ready to begin the trial. I'm currently collaborating with Sven to create a blacklist and whitelist for the bot. The code is compiled, functional, and ready to rock. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider tweaking {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} so that bot-tagged files are categorized into a category like Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged). That way Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons would still be primarily human-tagged images, which should be given higher priority than auto-tagged images. Otherwise, I'd love to see something like this. Maybe also add {{PD-ineligible}} and its kin to the whitelist? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. The bot parameter could be set to output Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged) (though personally I would like "(bot-assessed)", rolls off the tongue you know). Drilnoth, would you like to do the honors? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, using (bot-assessed). –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Apologies for the delays. I'm currently on vacation and still working on a few efficiency issues. The whitelist and blacklist are basically complete. I should have the trial run in the next few days. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. No problems during run, all edits checked. I believe we're good to go. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed) still empty then? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drilnoth... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err... did they get sent to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged)? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, there was a bug in my code. It is putting them in the bot-assessed category. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Everything looks good; nice work. — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

User:Petan-Bot task 9

Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:07, Tuesday June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): c++

Source code available: yes

Function overview: Do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#moving_afc_pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#moving_afc_pages

Edit period(s): hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: 10-50 every day

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: Moves the pages which have the afc template and are in userspace to afc space Petrb (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see how this is going to work out. For now, it's up to you if you move reviewed requests or not. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Petrb (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this only move pages from userspace (I see some incorrect moves of already existing AfC pages)? What happens if the candidate page is a sub-sub-page (for example, User:H3llkn0wz/drafts/My first article)? What happens if the draft has a talk page?

Also, can you fix the wrong moves, such as this and others, please? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't move talk pages and now it only move the User: sub - pages, concerning / it moves everything behind User:Name so even if article is something like User:blah//dev/md it move /dev/md Petrb (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have another trial, make sure it is indeed working correctly now Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Also can you please post the source code somewhere so I can review it? --Chris 11:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Petan-Bot/source/9 Petrb (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The code is missing the removal of the (optional) {{userspacedraft}} template on the moved pages. mabdul 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Don't see any more issues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

SteveBot 5

Operator: Steven Zhang (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:28, Saturday May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: ~~Either Automatic Supervised or manually assisted with AWB.~~ Automatic but supervised.

Programming language(s): ~~AWB~~, pywikipedia

Source code available: ~~Standard pywikipedia, using brokensectionanchors.py, and AWB~~redirect.py

Function overview: ~~Fixing broken section anchors using brokensectionanchors.py, currently I have not tested this yet, alternatively I will use AWB.~~ Fixing double redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ~~Unsure. The database report only lists the first 1000 pages.~~Run on a daily basis. There's normally 50 or so a day.

Exclusion compliant Y

Already has a bot flag Y

Function details: I have not tested task 4, but I am hoping that with this task I can repair some of the broken section anchors that are found and updated daily here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Simple task to fix redirects.[reply]

Discussion

"I have not tested task 4" -- what is task 4, do you mean Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SteveBot_4 and how is it relevant to this BRFA? How does the bot determine the correct section name? Do you use the "Best guess" column from reports for the change? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, task 4 would be this task, I disregard that task that you linked to, as it was rejected. Tasks 1, 2, and 3 were approved, Task 4 was rejected, I suppose this is task 5 but it would be the fourth approved task, if that makes sense. For some, I will use best guess, however it will be a manually assisted task, so using AWB will just make the work a little bit quicker as opposed to manually doing the task by hand on my account. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on the trial? MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to work on some code to see if there's another way to do this task other than the hard manual way, which will have to be done pretty much by hand, but will need some time to work on it. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, take your time. No rush. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on this task? SQL ^{Query me!} 08:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark this one as {{BotWithdrawn}}, the code seems overly complex to write. I would request a separate task in place, the fixing of double redirects. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update all the relevant fields to match the specification of the new task? Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - [10] though I went over 50, sorry. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}, trial is done, could someone review the results please. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results look good, uncontroversial task, competent bot op. My only question is about whether we should be doing this task in the userspace. Sure, double redirects are double redirects, but is the appropriate behavior? Probably so – relatively minor concern – but I wanted to know what people thought about this. — The Earwig ^(talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have redirect loops in their userspace, as for some reason they want double redirects in their userspace. This bot won't change that. Most other double redirects are caused by users moving drafts from their userspace into mainspace and then moving them again. I don't see an issue with fixing this up. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Works for me; you're good to go. — The Earwig ^(talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

Puggansbot

Operator: Puggan (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:00, Monday May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Manual started, downling a list of current avaible task from http://toolserver.org/~sk/cw/enwiki/index.htm, try to do them and then stop.

Programming language(s): PHP whit CURL

Source code available: http://wikibot.puggan.se/wikibot/wiki.phps

Function overview: Fixing problems reported in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia, at the moment id (17,53,57) se details for more info.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): manualy run 1-3 times per day

Estimated number of pages affected: i guess it can be 10 per day, but have no clue, it takes what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia reports

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, it checks for nobots-, bots- and inuse- templates, and skip thous pages.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: The bot was build for the sv-wikipedia, and currently doing 3 task from the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia:

And my plan was to do the same for the en-wikipedia

Discussion

Please read WP:BOTPOL and make sure not to run the bot without trial/approval from BAG. Concerning the task, note that "Cosmetic changes should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time." Only the headlines one is a visually-altering change. The other ones should not be made on their own. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about "make sure not to run the bot without trial", i thougt en and sv hade almost the same rules, so started a test whit about 50 edit as sv sugested, and manualy checking all diffs between each edit. i'm not leting it edit anything more on en until i get a trial status, and keep it on sv only if its funktion isn't wanted here.

Would you consider expanding the scope to fix the case where there are <ref> tags but no <references/> or {{reflist}} ? There used to be a bot to do this but it no longer runs. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, I wouldn't really object having a bot take care of category duplication. It's not like its an entirely trivial change like changing ==Bob== to == Bob == assuming the spaced version is dominant, and certainly isn't a cosmetic change. Categories should not be present more than once on any page, even if it doesn't really "break" anything. This would be similar to removing duplicate interwikis links. It's something that's hard to spot manually, and it should never be done, even though it doesn't break anything if it's done. Moving interwikis below categories however, is a cosmetic change. It can be done in parallel, but should not be done alone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (≈15 edits for each task). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Only "Category duplication" and "Sections ending with a semicolon" tasks should be made on their own. You may do "Interwiki before last category" but only together with the main tasks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any progress on the trial? MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a sailingboat at the moment, so I'll wait to reaktivate the english script until i get home from my vacation --Puggan (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (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) Any progress? If you're still on vacation, that's fine, but the last message from the user here was over 1 1/2 months ago, and they've edited on svwiki since then. Also, if you haven't modified the code since the accidental bot run earlier, can you possibly ensure that its edit summary is a bit more descriptive, perhaps providing a link back to WP:BOT noting it is a bot account, or providing a link back to this approval, or providing a link back to your talk page? Thanks. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note on the user's SV talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. No updates in over two months, despite attempts at contacting the user, so I'm going to expire this request. If you decide to return, I have nothing against you reopening it and completing the trial. — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

Ohms Law Bot 3

Operator: Ohms law (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 02:23, Friday May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: No

Function overview: Adjusts links within article content in accordance with WP:NOTBROKEN

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:NOTBROKEN

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: All(?)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Sure

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: for this task Ohms Law Bot will examine links within article content. If a link is piped, and the display portion of the link is the title of an article that is a redirect, while the target portion of a link is the article containing the content, then Ohms Law Bot will change the link to target the redirect page. This functionality would be in compliance with Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken.

Discussion

Do you have a list of pages you wish to operate your bot on or are you just cycling allpages? Noom _talk ^stalk 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't decided yet. I was considering just using random pages.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOTPOL, if you're requesting a lot of page content, you would be better off using a database dump. Noom _talk ^stalk 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I won't be requesting a lot of page content. It'll work on a single page at a time.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there many of these links that need to be fixed? Or you'll end up skipping through pages fairly quickly. Noom _talk ^stalk 15:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience manually editing pages there seems to be a lot of them. However, I don't actually have any statistics... It'll likely skip through a number of pages fairly quickly. I don't think that there's any way to avoid that, though. Note that I'm using the API though, so the server load shouldn't be very significant.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I anticipate adding other tasks eventually, so the whole "skipping though articles" issue shouldn't be much of a problem. This task likely won't run on every page, but it will be used.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've reviewed this and I can't make any sense of what it is that the bot would actually do? Could you give a before/after example? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, It's simple really. Say, for example, that someone places a link to [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]] on a page. Since Asymmetric Algorithms exists as a redirect to Public-key cryptography, the link can (and should) point to the redirect page itself, not the target. So, the bot would change the link to [[Asymmetric Algorithms]], which is what WP:NOTBROKEN advises us to do (in the majority of cases).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either. In your example you would change the displayed value of the link. How will the bot know if that fits the context/phrasing of the sentence, or if only the existing target value does? Rjwilmsi 15:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to echo the above in not quite understanding this. For instance, "Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]]." is the intended sentence. Changing this to "Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Asymmetric Algorithms]]." implies a different thing. If anything, you would want to change it to "Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Public-key cryptography]]."; but that is WP:NOTBROKEN. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this coming, dammit. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for you guys other then "it won't be a problem". The reason is that... well, this isn't a single purpose bot program. There's a fairly significant back end to it, which performs some Natural language processing... AI is sorta what I do. Anyway, seeing as how I'm unwilling to share my code, and I anticipate that sharing some of the source would be an inevitable result of this line of questions, the only solution that I can think of is allowing a trial run (or outright denying the task... which I'll be fine with, but I hope doesn't happen.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something of an answer: The bot doesn't change the display text where there isn't a page matching the display text. For example, say that there's a sentence such as Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]]., and the pages "Public-key cryptography" exists, but the page for "Asymmetric Algorithms" doesn't (I realize that it does, but bear with me. This is an example, after all). If that's the case, the bot may change the target, but it will not change the display text. I've found out that, using this simple logic actually prevents the vast majority of the problems that you guys are bringing up here. I'd like to be clear: there will be occasionally "false positives" from this task. However, a handful of false positives (possibly) for every 100 changes that this task would create is an acceptable rate, to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like Wikipedia to be run by bots writing up perfect FAs, that's not going to happen. I don't think you will gather consensus for changing links like that and we'll have to deny the BRFA per WP:CONTEXTBOT. Bots have little to no sense of context. I will be very surprised if your code manages to outsmart that. But, per your own estimate, a handful false positives per 100 edits is more than CluebotNG is allowed, which is extremely useful, and even then had users arguing about false positives. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "Wikipedia to be run by bots writing up perfect FAs". :D
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. deprecates. Indeed, it has less point; it does not change the visible text (Assymmetric algorithms in the example); it does not change where the reader winds up (Public-key cryptography, at the top of the page). It might be useful to take that link and make it a section redirect, but that's more than a bot can do.

So why? What benefit does this have besides the trivial one of making the redirect faster, which is not enough to jusitify the time required to process another edit of the linking page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example does change the visible text: [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]] to [[Asymmetric Algorithms]]; i.e. Public-key cryptography to Asymmetric Algorithms. That's the thing. A bot doing WP:NOTBROKEN would have been denied already. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for the confusion. Oppose until Rjwilmsi's question is answered; this is guessing that the link will be better than the actual words written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sort of change that the BOT would make: Diff of Revision as of 22:23, April 28, 2011

I made that change manually of course, but the logic is there for the bot to do exactly what I did myself. Actually, I could have the bot make the links go to page sections as well, using logic something along the lines of "if there's a section header on the target page matching the original target, point to that", but adding that to this task might be slightly controversial.

Also, please note that I'm philosophically opposed to bots "protecting" their edits (at least, for bots such as mine). This bot will not, and indeed can not, revert edits by others (at least, not intentionally). I know that this comment isn't really related to anything that has been brought up, but I hope that it'll... inspire confidence, somewhat? Allay some fears that might exist, I guess.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is restricted to See also sections, it's not rewriting prose, which is something. Is it?

That it cannot revert is positively useful; if you could send that code to some other editors on this page, they would become more useful contributors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (userspace only). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. A dry run trial for a concept proof. Make some link change reports with the surrounding prose included, so we can see how the bot would handle those cases and if the rewording is correct. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, working on getting this done now. I need to change a couple of things first, and I'm suddenly really busy off-wiki, but... it'll happen. Thanks! I have to admit that I didn't foresee getting any approval for this, so you've caught me a tad bit flat footed here. Sorry. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress? MBisanz ^talk 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some. I had to take some time off from development for a while, but I'm back at it now. I screwed up my local database though, so I'm in the process of recreating it, which is going to take a little bit of time.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. No hurry, I just like to make sure I'm not neglecting older requests. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} How is this request coming along? SQL ^{Query me!} 07:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response from the operator in 8 days, this subpage has not been edited by the operator in months. Request Expired. without prejudice. Please re-open this request whenever you would like. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

MCBot 3

Operator: MC10 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:17, Sunday April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: pywikipedia

Function overview: Use ~~clean_sandbox.py and~~ interwiki.py

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Runs when I have the chance to do so

Estimated number of pages affected: ~~clean_sandbox.py: 1 page;~~ interwiki.py: around 10 pages a minute, at the quickest

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: If approved, this bot will run ~~python clean_sandbox.py and~~ python interwiki.py -cleanup -autonomous -namespace:0 -start:!, exactly.

Discussion

It appears User:ChzzBot II already clears out WP:Sandbox on a regular basis (see the most recent one as of today). Why do we need a second bot to do the same thing? —SW— ^gossip 05:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from the tasks. —mc10 (t/c) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's this edit all about? The bot says it removed a link to this page, which does not exist, so it was removed due to the cleanup option being on. However, the actual link that was removed pointed to this page, which does exist, and therefore should not have been removed. Also, it changed the hi link to point to a non existent page, here, whereas it previously pointed to an existing page (and presumable correct) here. Can you explain this please? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that this is related to this SourceForge issue, because I'm using a Python 2.7 version, after the warning showed up also while using a Python 2.6 version, so I gave up using Python 2.6.x. If I need to, I can switch back to a previous Python version, and try again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, um... is it fixed? What version were you using when you made the edit I linked to above? What version are you using now? What version of pywikipedia are you using? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the newest Python 2.7 version. I've been using the pywikipedia from svn trunk usually (I sometimes get a bit lazy and forget to update my version). I'm going to install Python 2.6 as well when I start my bot again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is it fixed then? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any progress? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed; I have switched to Python 2.6. —mc10 (t/c) 02:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} it's been a month since the trial extension - and almost 2 months since this bot has edited, is this request still active? SQL ^{Query me!} 07:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it right now; I was out of town and unable to run pywikipedia. —mc10 (t/c) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I have 51 edits, if I counted correctly. —mc10 (t/c) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Edits look fine. Usual pywiki. Keep an eye occasionally for -cleanup to not mess up. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

Bots that have completed the trial period

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

TTObot

Operator: This, that and the other (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:10, Saturday July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Manually invoked to begin with, then automatic (without user review of each edit) while performing the requested task

Programming language(s): JavaScript

Source code available: User:This, that and the other/masstag.js

Function overview: Tag pages en masse with {{tfd}} (or {{mfd}} in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I asked JPG-GR, an admin active at TfD, about this matter. ~~The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.~~ Wikipedia talk:TFD#Bot for mass TFD nominations

Edit period(s): As required. Most likely, fairly infrequently.

Estimated number of pages affected: Between 10 and 800 per run

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details:

It is a requirement of our deletion processes that interested members of the community are made aware of impending deletion of a given page, and of any discussions that are taking place to that effect. For the XfD processes, this is done by way of tagging each page being considered for deletion with a particular template (in order to give notice to users who have added the page to their watchlist), as well as notifying the creator and/or major contributors to the page with a talk page notification.

However, when mass nominations are being carried out, it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes impractical.

This bot account, running my masstag.js user script, will tag pages en masse with ~~templates such as {{tfd}} and {{mfd}}~~the {{tfd}} tag (for mass TFD nominations), and the {{mfd}} tag (for userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations). It will run as needed by me, and as requested by other users. The script does what it is told, and does not edit without user permission (i.e. clicking the "Submit" button), so the operator is entirely responsible for any mistakes.

Operation would be as follows:

I log out of this account, and log in to the TTObot account using a web browser.
I invoke the masstag.js script, supply the correct parameters, and click "Submit".
The script makes a large volume of edits using the edit API, one after the other, with a 4-second delay between the last server response for one page and the first server request for the next page. (This throttling is not implemented yet, but this would occur prior to the bot's first edit.)
When the run is finished, the output is dealt with, and I log out of the TTObot account.

At a later stage, a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep" may be added to the script.

This bot is not exclusion compliant because (a) the bot performs a simple, reliable task that only adds to the page content, and does not modify any existing content; and (b) the bot will most likely not operate in userspace (the place for which the exclusion system is intended). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Trial

Approved for trial (50 taggings). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that was quick! I'll find a task for it to do sometime during the next few days. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notify anyone or discuss this with anyone other than one admin? And you got approval for a trial in 4 minutes? Who's your buddy! I would like a detailed explanation of why this bot task should go to trial approval immediately, without any prior discussion in the community. Can you just post links to pages that show that this task is something that either does not require any community discussion or approval, or links to pages that show this task is such a no-brainer that a 4 minute approval for a trial is reasonable? I don't think that any sort of bot mass tagging for deletion of anything has broad community approval. But I could be wrong, so please help me out by posting links. Thanks, --72.201.210.130 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't approve it within 4 minutes... You should probably ask H3llkn0wz - he clearly thought it was worthy of approval. In my view, it is just a way of following process - I would certainly prefer not to do it, but it seems that the status quo, as determined by admins at TfD, is that it is needed. See here, here and here for instances where TfDs have been dismissed because the templates were not tagged. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Showing that TfD discussions are dismissed when templates have not been tagged for deletion is not a community discussion about the need for a bot to tag templates for deletion. JPG-GR's comment that there "may be an automated" way to tag this many templates for deletion is not a community bot discussion. Try the automated editing thing.

A nomination for deletion is not a maintenance edit. Please initiate a community discussion.

I request this bot approval for trial be revoked until a community discussion is had in an appropriate place, or at least community input is requested.

And, I request the bot approval for a trial only be granted after the RfBA has been posted for long enough for community members to comment here. 4 minutes is not long enough. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shall see what happens. However, I note your suggestion that I "try the automated editing thing". That is precisely what this task is - an account specifically for automated editing, not your average "bot". I asked at WT:BAG whether a BRFA was required, and H3llkn0wz thought it would be a good idea. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have posted at WT:TFD. (I admit I probably should have done that earlier.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be overlapping a technical trial with a bot approval. BOTPOL: "During the request for approval, a member of the Bot Approvals Group will typically approve a short trial during which the bot is monitored to ensure that it operates correctly." 50 edits are to see that the bot can handle all the common cases and does not imply the bot will be approved. Both {{TfD}} and WP:TFD say that multiple templates are to be tagged and this is what I have seen done before. So that is enough reason for me for a trial. It is not approval, it's a check of technical implementation. That's why the BRFA is still open, I have no intention of closing it quickly and the operator can start a wider discussion. A trial does not prevent discussion, in fact in majority of cases most discussion takes place after a trial as that tends to invite broader input. I haven't even posted the issues I can see yet, like subst'ed template pages needing <noinclude> tags. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to rush into a trial without any input, particularly for a bot that is being designed to tag 100s of pages ("en masse"). Whether this board routinely gets community input or not, please act as if it matters; going forward with a trial without allowing time for community input is disrespectful of the community. Not all bots are solely about technical issues. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

72.201.210.130: First, you are obviously quite familiar with Wikipedia. What is your account, or what IP addresses have you edited from in the past if you are one of those who refuses to register an account? And second, do you have any actual objection to this request, or are you just here to complain about the perceived "lack of process"? Do note that this request is for a bot to tag templates for deletion that a human has already decided to nominate; it will not nominate anything itself, and will not tag anything without being specifically told to by the operator. Anomie ⚔ 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some rule that RfBA does not allow IP input? Please provide I link, and I will then comply with your shut up demand. See my actual objection below. I did read what the request was for. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anyone ever say "shut up"? Anyway, the link you request is WP:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Anomie ⚔ 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Anyway, folks, the trial is over. 42 taggings were made (I couldn't quite fill up exactly 50). 23 of those have already been deleted, as the author ended up approving of their deletion. I also made 2 edits to the bot account's personal CSS and JS, while logged in as TTObot (since I am not an admin, I cannot do it from my account). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look fine. As usual, leaving the BRFA open for a week or more for more input. Personally, I'll probably recuse myself from closing this for the sake of bureaucracy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is the blanket request for approval for tagging en masse, initially with tfd, but if BAG gives approval for this bot, what unspecified other tagging en masse is this granting permission for? So, yes, I disagree that a personal bot for tagging en masse should be given permission to operate on wikipedia.

The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion.

I requested that this trial approval be revoked. I ask that this request be answered directly. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot finished the trial and no further edits are approved. This discussion will not be closed until the issues are adequately resolved. As a side issue, it is a good point that trial/trialed bots do not have their discussions transcluded. I'll bring this up on the WT:BRFA. May I also suggest we make a separate heading for the issues related to the task itself (as opposed to process/trialling), as it is my experience this will quicken the discussion and make outside input likelier. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the bot's purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated for deletion. Prior to this bot, sometimes pages would be mass nominated but not actually tagged for deletion, because it is such a tedious task to do so - this bot seeks to remedy that. Not to mass tag pages as the whim of the operator. –xeno^talk 22:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear the the purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated. It's not taking the pages for tagging from a list or category or anything that indicates these are pages that were already nominated. This was it's initial function, "Tag pages en masse with a certain tag (initially {{tfd}})," then an elaboration about it being for mass nominations, not for tags on templates already nominated for deletion. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly explained in the function details. It will tag pages that are involved in mass TFD or mass MFD nominations. –xeno^talk 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clearly explained in the function details anywhere that this is only about pages that have already been mass nominated until you added this. Please make sure the bot operator understands, because it does not appear that this was his/her intentions:

"However, when mass nominations are being carried out, it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes impractical."

--23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to me that this bot is meant to run after someone (maybe the operator, maybe someone else) initiates an (batch/mass/group) XfD to tag the pages that are to be discussed. Do you object to pages that are nominated for deletion having a tag placed on them pointing to the deletion discussion? –xeno^talk 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Function overview: Tag pages en masse with {{tfd}} (or {{mfd}} in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations." It doesn't say after someone initiates the discussion, but "following mass XfD nominations" in the functions overview, and it says "when mass nominations are being carried out in the details." Maybe you could provide me with an example of an XfD that has been initiated where this bot would be run afterward? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures. The pages to be tagged were moved since that nomination, see here for the list. –xeno^talk 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages? Not the same level of concern as TfD and now, the examples you raised of mass nominations for AfDs. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you go find someone else who also disagrees with the bot's proposed scope? Mass/batch/group nominations happen all the time, and this task is, imo, desirable. –xeno^talk 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's not policy, it's just that you support it. Got it. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written. –xeno^talk 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a relatively recent example of a mass nomination at TFD. I don't think there is really a gap in the policy (or to be finicky, guideline, since that is how Wikipedia:Deletion process is labeled), just occasional lapses in practice. Sometimes a nomination with a large number of pages will not have all the pages tagged, and most often the result is people in the XFD complaining about that fact that they aren't all tagged. So I would say tagging all the pages in your nomination is the guideline, whether by bot or not, and I don't see anything about that needing to be rewritten. --RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from wrong discussion section

Meanwhile where is this bot's discussion under "Current requests for approval?" The only bots currently requesting approval are Lightbot 16, Fbot, Pause! and BOTijo 10.

This bot is not a current request for approval; according to the BRfA board, this request for approval is not current. So, has it already been passed? The discussion dead and over? That appears to be the case. And, the reason this bot is no longer up for discussion is that 4 minutes after the BRfA was posted, it was apparently granted, or at least the discussion on it was apparently closed (hence it's almost immediate removal from "Current requests for approval).

If it is no longer a current request for approval, because it was removed from that category in 4 minutes, then what is it? An already approved bot! --72.201.210.130 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are again overlapping approval and trial. This is not an approved bot, please read WP:BOTAPPROVAL. This request is open until it is archived. It is still in the Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval. The only thing that was granted to the bot was a 50 edit technical trial. And I already brought the fact that trial(ed) bot BRFAs are not transcluded on the main page (WT:BRFA#BRFA discussion transclusions). If your issue is that the request appears to be not listed, then do comment on the proposal to "list" all the BRFAs, pre-trial and post-trial. And how can you claim the discussion is dead if two users have asked questions? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose this bot task. It appears to have morphed into something completely different from what was originally requested. ("It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks," versus adding TfD and MfD tags." Really?)

And the new guise demands community participation, as it appears, also, that the community guidelines for this task have not yet been written. "Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written. –xenotalk 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)" Then let's allow the community to write the policy, before a bot is created and approved to implement it. This is more in line with long stated community workings on wikipedia, rather than requesting approval and granting trials for an ever expanding ill-defined task where the bot operator pre-dismissed community input. ("The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.")

This task should be discussed first, by the community; relevant policies/guidelines written, then approval for a defined task requested rather than trying an end run around writing guidelines by implementing a bot that does what some person wants without prior community input/discussion. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Per HellKnowz's suggestion, I've put this in a separate subsection (and added a subsection header for the trial above). I saw the note about this at WT:TFD, so thanks for placing that. A few questions about what the bot will or won't do:

There are optional parameters for {{Tfd}}, such as |type=, to allow the notification tag to appear on pages where the nominated templates appear without being too prominent or breaking page layouts. Will the bot be able to place those parameters when appropriate?
Alternatively, sometimes it will be best to wrap the notification with 'noinclude' tags. Will the bot be able to do this in the (relatively rare) cases where it is appropriate?
Will the bot also notify template creators as is typically done by tools such as Twinkle, or will it just place the tags? In the trial it seemed to just place tags.
Is this bot programmed to handle situations where it encounters redirects or protected templates?
Is this bot just for your own use, or do you plan to accept requests from the editing public?

In theory this seems like a reasonable use of a bot, but I think all the questions above deserve consideration first, and I didn't see those situations in the trial edits. --RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some answers:

Please remember that I specify all parameters of the bot. It is "dumb", so to speak (except for the fact that it skips speedy deletion candidates).
If a {{tfd}} requires <noinclude>...</noinclude>, then I will specify that when I run the script.
Likewise, if a {{tfd}} needs a |type=, I will specify that when I run the script. (Essentially I input the wikitext to be tacked onto the beginning of each page. So I can add whatever is needed.)
If creators are to be notified. I will do so manually myself. (The script outputs a list of all initial contributors of the templates it tags, whom I can subsequently notify manually.)
Redirects are not followed (hence, the redirect would be tagged - I might need to look into this case); protected templates are necessarily skipped (it's not an adminbot!).
I am happy to open it to requests from the deletion-nominating public. Of course, I would consider the merits of each request before carrying it out.

Hope this helps. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pretty much what I thought the answers would be. I believe the redirect situation will need to be addressed, however. If you just want to delete the redirect, then it should be listed at WP:RFD, not TFD or MFD or whatever, and if you want to delete the target, then presumably the bot will need to follow the redirect to it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request is for tagging templates with "a certain tag (initially {{tfd}})". Are there other tags or categories of tags that might need to be added that we can explicitly list here, to narrow the scope of this request to a limited set of tags? Anomie ⚔ 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can foresee {{tfd}} and {{mfd}} being added using this bot. Possibly {{sfd-t}}. But mainly {{tfd}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that deletions are high-tension venues, so you should specify exactly which namespaces/templates the bot will work with and under what circumstances. For any additional ones, you can drop a note at WT:BRFA. I'm afraid we cannot approve a bot with a vague "with a certain tag". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just say this:

This bot will apply the {{tfd}} tag to templates involved in mass TFD nominations, and the {{mfd}} tag to userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations.

— This, that, and the other (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Caution about de-tagging kept pages

Without expressing an approval or disapproval of this bot process, I must point out that "a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep"" is a necessity before full implementation. If say 700 templates are tagged and then the templates are kept, that's a LOT of work (just like tagging 700 templates is a lot of work). The likelihood of a particular TfD being closed with that much baggage and cleaned up properly without a bot is relatively small, I would think. JPG-GR (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point! --RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} I completely agree - would it be possible to roll this functionality into the bot? Even, perhaps if isn't initially - or even always turned on. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I will implement this functionality shortly. It will need testing, but I cannot foresee how a trial would operate. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it could only be trialed with mocked up test pages, unless there happened to be a large TFD that resulted in "keep" around the time testing was needed. One additional note: It would be nice if, in addition to removing the {{Tfd}} tag, the bot could also add {{TfD end}} to the talk pages. I wouldn't see it as a showstopper if it can't, but if we're going to facilitate making mass nominations, we should try to facilitate as much of the closing as we reasonably can. --RL0919 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (1 batch of detagging kept templates). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. If possible, placing a {{TfD end}} (taking into account documentation pages). If you cannot find any, then just do a sandbox edit or two. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the tag removal function, I made a few sandbox edits on my account (not TTObot's account). I'm yet to write {{tfdend}} tagging functionality, though. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tested {{tfdend}} tagging. See Special:PrefixIndex/User:This, that and the other/sandbox/masstag for the results of the tag removal trial, and Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:This, that and the other/sandbox/masstag for the results of the {{tfdend}} tagging trial. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The examples all seemed good to me. My only caveat is that all the {{tfdend}} examples appeared to be adding it where the talk page did not exist previously, as opposed to a talk page that already had other content. Given that you've shown the bot can add the {{tfd}} tag to a page with content, I doubt it would be a problem, but just noting the unverified test case. --RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that outlying case, and have kept it in mind. So what needs to happen now to move this request forward? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The function overview does not cover {{tfdend}}. Why? What else does this tagging en masse include that isn't listed in the function overview? "Function overview: Tag pages en masse with ~~a certain tag (initially {{tfd}})~~{{tfd}} (or {{mfd}} in limited cases)." --68.127.234.159 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks. I think that would be clear to anyone remotely familiar with the process. —SW— ^chat 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, others in the discussion asked the operator to add the tag removal and Tfdend functions after the bot request was first made, as shown in the comments above. It would make sense for the overview to be updated based on the latest version of what the bot is supposed to do. --RL0919 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the task is modified, function descriptions should reflect that. It allows the community to discuss what is being requested. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this and links posted by Xeno, it seems the bot is destined for more than simple template deletions, namely, it is also intended for AfDs. I think the AfD community will be interested, and failure to notify the wikipedia community is reason enough to put a halt to this BRfA. Again, if the guidelines need changed, Xeno, change them, then create a bot to implement the changed guidelines. This end run around community policies is nothing that bots were ever intended for on wikipedia.

"Read the instructions for nominating an article for deletion at WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD etc. They all instruct you to add a template to the top of the page you are nominating, e.g. {{Afd1}}, {{Tfd}}, {{Mfd}}, {{Cfd}} etc. These templates notify anyone who visits the page that it has been nominated for deletion, and provides a link to the deletion discussion page. If you are nominating multiple articles for deletion, then it logically follows that you will add the appropriate tag to each article you are nominating. If you are nominating 500 pages for deletion at once, you can either go through and spend 3 hours manually adding these tags to each article, or you can talk to this bot owner who has been nice enough to write a bit of code to help you out."

A discussion at AfD talk, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Multiple_articles_in_a_single_AFD, does not give a strong indication that the policy has changed in a way to favor creation and running of this bot. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is about whether or not bundled deletion nominations are a good idea, and/or if they are not often being used correctly. There is no discussion (which I'm aware of) where editors are saying that every article in a bundled nomination shouldn't be tagged with a clear notice that it's being considered for deletion. If bundled deletions eventually get outlawed (quite unlikely), then this bot script will have no more use. However, until that time, there is no policy which prevents this bot from performing its stated function. —SW— ^talk 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not even decided that bundled deletion nominations are approved by the community, then it can't be decided that using a bot to make them is appropriate and should be approved.

"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:

performs only tasks for which there is consensus"

This is pretty clear in bot policy: there is consensus. Not just the tacit non unapproval that you and Xeno are arguing for. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is inconclusive at best. Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of large nominations, but there are also examples given where they would be reasonable. The proposed bot usage isn't for AFD nominations anyway. As to policy, editors will object if a nomination is too broad or poorly defined (I've done so myself in specific cases), but there is no policy or guideline against nominating multiple pages in one discussion. There is a guideline saying that the nominated pages should be tagged. So the proposed use of the bot appears to be entirely within policy.

The bot operator has been very responsive to the legitimate issues. There was a concern about the potential usage being too non-specific, so the operator clarified it. There was a request that if it tagged, it should de-tag. There was a request that if it de-tagged, could it also add the talk page template to document the nomination. The operator added both of those functions. These haven't been added to the overview yet, but that just came up as a concern in the last few hours. If the main objection is a discussion showing some people's vague discomfort with large nominations in an area that the bot isn't even expected to cover, then I would think it should be approved. --RL0919 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)WP:BUNDLE describes how bundled nominations should be done. They are commonplace. To suggest that they're not valid because they're not explicitly listed on a policy page (or to suggest that they're not valid on TfD's because they're not specifically mentioned on WP:TFD) is purely a bureaucratic complaint which won't be entertained here. —SW— ^spout 03:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General note: BRFAs like this aren't a place for the discussion of consensus on underlying wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this instance, there is firm consensus that multi-page nominations are clearly in-line with policy, and have been performed numerous times. Template:AfD footer (multiple), for example, has been in existence for over 4 years, alone. Therefore, this page is only for the discussion of the technical aspects of the aforementioned script, because the underlying deletion policy is solidly established. If you'd like to propose an RFC regarding the underlying deletion policy, this is not the place to do it; consider the village pump for policy, for example. --slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...so from the technical standpoint, I see no problems with this bot. --slakr^\ talk / 03:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Utterly uncontroversial and policy compliant, despite troll's claim to the contrary. Approved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

HtonlBot

Operator: Htonl (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:58, Sunday July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Here - custom script requiring pywikipedia.

Function overview: Replace {{WikiProject Africa|South Africa=yes}} with {{WikiProject South Africa}}, where appropriate.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Talk page template; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#WikiProject South Africa banner template

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Around 10,000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: In the past, WikiProject South Africa tagged its articles with the {{WikiProject Africa}} banner with the parameter |South Africa=yes. We have now introduced our own project banner, {{WikiProject South Africa}}. This bot will traverse Category:WikiProject South Africa articles and, subject to certain conditions, replace {{WikiProject Africa}} with {{WikiProject South Africa}}.

It will only perform such a replacement on pages which:

are in one of the Talk, Wikipedia talk, File talk, Template talk, Category talk, Portal talk or Book talk namespaces; and
contain {{WikiProject Africa}} (either under that name or one of its redirects), and:
1. the |South Africa= parameter is set to a non-empty value other than "no"; and
2. no other parameter is set to indicate the article's association with another African national wikiproject; and
3. no other task force parameter is set, except those for the protected areas and military history task forces.

When performing the replacement, it will transfer parameter values from the old to the new template as follows:

The |class=, |attention=, |auto=, |needs-infobox=, |listas=, and |small= parameters, if they are set, will be transferred unchanged.
If |South Africa-importance= is set, its value will be transferred to |importance=; otherwise the value of |importance= will be transferred.
With regard to the protected areas and military history task force parameters, the values will be transferred to the corresponding but differently-named parameters. - htonl (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

~~Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.~~ — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just use the existing parameter to trigger a transclusion of the new template? Then you wouldn't have to edit all this pages. I would like to see this question answered before a trial commences. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are both articles on which only the {{WikiProject South Africa}} banner should appear (as in the vast majority of articles relating to purely South African topics), and articles on transnational topics on which it should appear alongside the {{WikiProject Africa}} template (for example Talk:Orange River, where the Lesotho and Namibia projects still use the Africa banner). It would also make the coding of the Africa banner considerably more complicated; as WP:RSA adds new task forces it would become, in my opinion, unacceptably so. We would be trying to glom two separate templates into one with a bit of ParserFunctions hackery. - htonl (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, does WP:AFRICA know that it is about to be removed from 10,000 articles? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet; I'll inform it if you like, though I should point out that it is being removed for exactly the same reason that WP:EUROPE is not included on every article associated with WP:UK, WP:NORTHAMERICA is not included on every article associated with WP:USA, and so on. - htonl (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified. - htonl (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects are allowed to associate themselves with whichever articles they like. WPBIO is intentionally broad, for example. Anyway, good call on the notification. Best to wait now for a bit. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 08:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I did not realize it would remove the original banner. That should be decided by the project if it is to be done. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, we've gone for a week and there've been no responses from WP:AFRICA (except for NJR and he was already involved). Can I run this for a 50-article trial now? - htonl (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks now and still no responses on WP:AFRICA. Please can htonl get approval for a 50-article trial. We would really like to start getting the South African articles in shape. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? I don't understand the hurry. You have your categories, this request is just to alter the visual display of the template.

I'm still not completely happy about the need, but we can have a technical trial for now

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - htonl (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the contribs for this run, I am happy with how this went. I am of the opinion that this bot should be approved. Any other opinions? SQL ^{Query me!} 05:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well at least I can outline an alternative:

All new instances use the new template
The WP:AFRICA template is updated so that it actually displays as South Africa
Over time, the number of articles reliant on the kludge is reduced gradually, e.g. by replacing when assessing as part of an assessment drive.

This would increase the WP:AFRICA template burden, but drastically reduce the number of edits required.

- Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion - an implementation like that would just require a further fix down the road. I'd rather get it over with now, and fixed. That being said, are there any objections to approving this bot? SQL ^{Query me!} 08:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make {{AfricaProject}} do that - basically, to implement the logic that the bot follows, but in ParserFunctions - would be unpleasantly complicated. - htonl (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am with SQL on this one – a single (relatively) quick bot run and the problem is done, resolved, etc., and we won't have to deal with unnecessary template ugliness or a long-term process that can be resolved with a rather short-term fix. — The Earwig ^(talk) 08:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the time issue. New projects usually begin with some sort of (usually one man) assessment drive, and so that may eliminate half the bot burden. WP:PERF and all that, but edits on this sort of scale do have costs. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not a new project, User:NJR ZA has been doing a sort of one-man assessment drive. But he did a lot of that assessment using the old Africa template before the new template was introduced. I've also reduced the burden somewhat by changing redirects like {{WP South Africa}} to point at the new template; we're down to about 8000 potential bot edits now. - htonl (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how many edits/second are we looking at for this task? SQL ^{Query me!} 08:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOTPOL prescribes a rate of one edit every ten seconds for non-urgent tasks, so I was planning to follow that. - htonl (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One edit every 10 seconds sounds perfectly reasonable for this one-time task. Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Lightbot 15

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Janitorial edits to selected units.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request contains similar functionality to:

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13 (Janitorial edits to units that contain at least one unit of length, area, or volume).
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 6 (Delink common units of measurement)

A relevant guideline is at:

mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."

The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. Examples of such conversions exist in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.

Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details:
Units will contain at least one unit of:

amount e.g. mole
angle e.g. degree
capacitance e.g. farad
charge e.g. coulomb
current e.g. amp
energy e.g. joule
force e.g. newton
frequency e.g. hertz
length, area, volume e.g. metre
light e.g. candela, lumen, lux
mass, weight e.g. kilogram
pressure e.g. pascal
potential e.g. volt
power e.g. watt
resistance e.g. ohm
temperature e.g. degree Celsius
time e.g. second
torque e.g. N·m

Edits may add conversions to units e.g. "The engine output was 160 hp" -> "The engine output was 160 hp (120 kW)"
Edits may change text or template and change format or spelling e.g. "200,000 Kw" -> "200 MW"
Edits may add or remove links e.g. "The supply was 230 volts" -> "The supply is 230 volts". This will be in accordance with Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked.

In many cases, the convert template will be used. In some cases plain text will be used.

Discussion

This is a suitable expansion on Lightbot 5 (units), not Lightbot 3 (units and dates) or Lightbot 2 (units and dates).
What exactly is there to convert with resistances/capacitance/frequency/etc... and many other such quantities? AFAIK, moles are unique, conversions between radians and degrees are undesirable, electrical units (amp, farad, ohm, volt, ...) are also unique (in as much as you don't want to convert between couloumb and statcoulombs, or similar), etc... Is this a request to perform janitorial edits on these units, or to do conversions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to combine or merge any existing or proposed applications. They're all beginning to look very similar. That's no surprise because the issues of conversion, format, spelling etc are similar.
As the 'function details' section says, I'll be looking for scope to add conversions, change text/template and format/spelling plus link/delink. I gave each quantity an example SI unit because there's only one SI unit. But most of my time will be on non-SI units such as 'btu', 'ft.lb', 'psi' etc.
I haven't based it on demand, I just copied a list of unit types. I'm worried that if I waited until I encountered a requirement, it would involve extra effort from BAG and me, plus weeks/months of time.

Lightmouse (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted, we could replace all prior applications (approved or not) with this one. We'd only need to include length, area, volume, mass. Lightmouse (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose " we could replace all prior applications (approved or not) with this one." Yes, we could; that's precisely the problem. This is another "Lightbot can do whatever Lightmouse wants" application, on the basis of a MOSNUM provision maintained by revert-war.
Headbomb, please stop "approving" these; it's a conflict of interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A COI? That's a new one. Anyway, per the ARBCOM restrictions, Lightmouse is permitted to run a bot for one single task [or one group of closely-related task, with BAG having the discretion on what exactly "closely-related tasks" mean]. Lightbot was approved to perform janitorial edits to units, and this falls exactly under that scope, and is as far removed from "doing whatever Lightmouse wants" as is imaginable. Each expansion on that task gets its BRFA, is trialled to review the bot's behaviour and ensure the MOS compliance of the edits as well as their appropriateness, problematic stuff is corrected, then re-trialled, and so the cycle goes until the bot is performing satisfactorily.

If there's an actual problem with Lightbot's edits, raise the issue. If not, then this discussion is rather moot and a waste of everyone's time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 per "type" of unit). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anyway, digressions aside, let's move to trial. I'm giving you 25 edits per "type" of unit so the code can be tested (aka, 25 for amount, 25 for angles, 25 for capacitance, 25 for charge, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. * amount e.g. mole

angle e.g. degree Done

* capacitance e.g. farad
* charge e.g. coulomb
* current e.g. amp

energy e.g. joule Done
force e.g. Newton Done
frequency e.g. Hz Done
light e.g. candela, lumen, lux Done
pressure e.g. pascal Done
potential e.g. volt Done
power e.g. watt Done

* resistance e.g. ohm

time e.g. second Done
torque e.g. N.m Done

I'll park the struck-out ones. Lightmouse (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, I've added length, area, volume, mass, weight. Lightmouse (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also units of temperature. Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the results of the trial? Jc3s5h (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the see trial results. The edit summary is prefixed by "L15. ". Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

Reports overview. In the reports below, I do not attempt to list every instance of an error; several of these kinds of errors occur in multiple edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error report. In this edit the bot incorrectly changes volt to Volt. The capitalized version is correct because (a) it is the title of a Wikipedia article and even if there is an error in a title, it should probably be preserved, and (b) SI units names that are ordinarily lowercase become capitalized when used or placed in a way that any other common noun would be capitalized, including when it is the first word of a title. I suspect this could be a fundamental weakness in the bot, in failing to distinguish titles and first words of sentences from other uses and placements. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The bot was looking for upper/lower case errors for volt. It detected '12345 Volt' and assumed it was a voltage value rather than a link. It shouldn't have been changed. Your assessment is correct. It needs to be addressed prior to a proper bot run. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to completely fix. In this edit the bot changed kv-a to kV-a rather than the kV·A or kV A allowed by NIST Special Publication 811, or the kVA allowed by ISO 31-0. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was looking for upper/lower case errors involving volt. The target 'kv' was correctly identified and replaced with 'kV'. I'm glad of the failure to fix feedback that the more complicated Volt-ampere errors are also in need of fixing. I'll add it to the wishlist and may do targetted runs build on experience and confidence with volt. I hope that's ok. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable error report~~ Failure to completely fix. In this edit the bot changes "30 degrees/second" to "30 degree/second". ~~It is normal to use plurals of unit names when the units are spelled out, so this looks wrong to me.~~ NIST Special Publication 811 page 32 indicates this should be degree per second. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did that as a manual edit. MOS says:

When unit names are combined by division, separate them with per (e.g., meter per second, not meter/second).

So it should have been ""30 degrees per second" or a fully symbolic form. So "30 degrees/second" and "30 degree/second" are both wrong. I don't care much right now about degrees of angle, but permission is necessary to correct some editor errors where degrees of temperature and degrees of angle are confused. Lightmouse (talk)

Error report. In this edit the bot changes the word degrees in a URL. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I was struggling to find examples of 'degree' errors and I switched off the section of code that protects URLs. Thanks for letting me know.

Error report. In this edit the bot changes "candlepower" to "candela" but does not make the corresponding change to the abbreviation "cp" later. Since the audience for this article probably isn't very knowledgeable about light units, this change makes the article more confusing for readers. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. I wasn't aware the abbreviation 'cp' was used on Wikipedia. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to deal with erroneous input. In this edit the input is "a 210 calorie cut" (referring to pizza). It should have been written "a 210-calorie cut". The bot changed it to "a 210 calories (880 kJ) cut." Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're saying failure to fix. Yes, I don't fix all types and permutations of errors that editors make. I'd like to and as I gain experience and confidence, I'll build out from basic fixes. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error report. In this edit a conversion is provided for BTU but the abbreviation BTU is really HVAC industry jargon for BTU/h, so the conversion should have been to kW. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one led to quite an extensive discussion. In some of the articles linked from that page, the solution is to eliminate the jargon and say BTU/h when that's what's meant. I think that's better solution for a non-specialist publication like WP. I did ask for community input as to whether the conversion template could be updated to cope with the jargon and convert BTU into kW. I think the conclusion was to use BTU/h instead. I don't know where people are with that one but it did generate interesting discussion well beyond my scope. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon might or might not be tolerated, but it is unacceptable to blindly suppose that because the US HVAC community uses "BTU" as jargon for BTU/h, that the HVAC community in other countries uses kJ as jargon for jJ/h. Thus if the bot can't distinguish the jargon BTU from the actual BTU, it should not attempt to convert BTU at all. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edit. In this edit the bot changes "The amount of sustained power required of the pilot is around one horsepower" to "The amount of sustained power required of the pilot is around 1 horsepower (0.75 kW)." Deciding whether a single-digit number should be spelled out or a numeral is complex, as described at WP:ORDINAL. I doubt a bot can be programmed to deal with such complexity. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to do that way. If the consensus is that "1 horsepower (0.75 kW)" isn't permitted as a solution, then I may have to stop doing such conversions. So be it but it'd be a shame. Tackling numbers-as-words involves huge amounts of code if I'm to avoid false positives. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in production version. In this edit the abbreviation "fps" is replaced with "frame/s". If one wants to consider "f" to be a valid abbreviation, it should be "f/s", otherwise, it should be "frame per second". This should be fixed in the new version. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. On Wikipedia we have multiple versions of 'fps': first person shooter; feet per second; frames per second. I've even seen articles use more than one meaning within the same article. It doesn't matter much for specialist magazines, but conflicting abbreviations is less desirable for Wikipedia. Some units have acceptance (to some percentage) within all communities that the full and abbreviated can be identical (e.g. 'bit'). That's particularly helpful when used within the context of potentially conflicting abbreviations. The form 'frame/s' is used just like 'bit/'s on occasion e.g. [11] and it seems to require no learning from non-specialists or specialists but if the form 'f/s' were deemed better, I can use that. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this feedback is welcome. If need be, feel free to move forward with some unit types and strike others out. I'm keen to move on to operation or a more extensive trial if needed. Naturally, I'm seeking this as 'enabling permission' for as wide a scope as possible. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, to the extent possible, leaning towards a more-extensive regular expression to confirm that the error is exactly what you expect in the way of erroneous input, and taking no action of the regular expression is not satisfied. For example, if looking for unconverted calorie(s), check there is white space before, and white space or sentence terminal punctuation after calorie(s). Then if you encounter "calorie/" or "-calorie" you will know it is something the bot doesn't know how to handle, and do nothing.

In some categories of trial edits, there were more edits that failed to completely fix the problem than successful edits. A bot that converts one error to a different error once in a great while is OK, but when the number of error-to-error edits approaches something like 10%, I think we should decide the bot shouldn't attempt that task. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General problem

We have something like 35 articles listed on Watt (surname). I daresay the surnames of other scientists who have units named after them are less common. Nevertheless, I think we are vulnerable to false positives of the form "in 1759 Watt formed a partnership with John Craig" being converted to "in 1,759 watts (2.359 hp) formed a partnership with John Craig".

Initially I didn't think to check Watts (surname). That lists about 70 more Watts. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Process issues

There are process issues that could be improved here.

Feature requests are being incorrectly described as errors.
Most, if not all, editors develop code as non-bots prior to an application. The Lightmouse account isn't permitted to be used to develop code. Therefore BAG and Lightbot are spending extra effort assessing undeveloped code.

We've debated this issue for more than a year now. Can we try another tack? Lightmouse (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that feature requests are being incorrectly described as errors. I can think of at least two situations where the bot could make an error when it makes an edit to erroneous or sub-optimal text:

The text immediately surrounding the edit and clearly related to the edited text is still wrong. For example, "meters/sec" --> "meter/s".
Sub-optimal text is changed, but the rest of the article becomes harder to read, as when an old version of a spelled out unit is changed to the modern version, but the abbreviation is not changed.

Case 2 is an outright error, so old versions of units should not be changed to new versions unless (a) the abbreviations or symbols are the same and (b) the definition of the old and new unit is close enough that there is virtually no chance a measurement would be stated to enough precision that it would matter.

Case 1 is tolerable in small amounts, but if it happens frequently the bot should be fixed or should not attempt the particular error it is having trouble with. Bluntly, thinking of case 1 as a feature request suggests that all that matters is the bot operates as the bot author envisioned it would work, not thinking about whether it is satisfying the reader's need and the need for article stability. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote I've been busy for the past month, but I should get time to review the edits sometimes during this week. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, please consider how we should address overlapping scope. For example:

Bot runs to handle defects with 'foot' (length) encounter defects with 'foot pounds' (torque or energy).
Bot runs to handle defects with 'pounds' (weight) encounter defects with 'foot pounds' (torque or energy) and 'pounds' (force).
Bot runs to handle defects with '°C' and '°F' (temperature) encounter defects with 'degrees' (angle) and 'calorie' (energy).
Bot runs to handle defects with potential encounter defects with power.
Bot runs to handle defects with force encounter defects with pressure.

You can see that a simple scope targetting 'foot', 'lb' and degrees temperature will have considerable overlap. It's a *lot* easier to address overlapping units than to avoid them and leave defects in place. Multi-unit scope reduces input effort and increases benefit to articles. If you don't yet feel confident with one or more of the above units, please approve those that you can. You may wish to consider the benefits of moving to the more conventional approach encouraging BRFA requests *after* development in non-bot account (even if only as 'x automated edits per day'), rather than running BRFA trials live on undeveloped processes. Lightmouse (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when the best point in the process would be to test for corrections of many different units, but certainly the bot should be trialed in it's "release candidate" configuration before going into production. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Review/Approval

Alright, reviewing this. Sorry it took longer than expected. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Horsepower → Watt
Approved. Calorie →kJ
Approved. Frequency
Denied. BTU/ BTU/h ← rarr; kJ / kJ/h, seems too controversial/unimplementable.

??? Candlepower → Candela, is there really consensus for this? Seems that the historical value of the candlepower differs from the candela. Or is the logic tweaked to ensure that improper conversions do not happen?

I just swept up all the units I could think of. Can you give me an instance of a conversion that you think is improper? Otherwise, it's easier just to deny it for now. Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are improper converstions. Which is why I'm asking if there really is consensus for this. WP:MEASURE could probably tell us.

OK. Well, let's deny it for now so we can move on. Lightmouse (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Force. Can you handle cases like this (lb.s.t = pounds of static trust)

If the thrust is static, it applies to all units, it'll still be static. It's like 'above mean sea level'. It looks fine to me. What would you like to see in that instance? Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the result is "11,400 lbf (51 kN) s.t" which seems rather awkward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I could expand it to 'static thrust'. Alternatively, we could ask the community what they want done. Lightmouse (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb wrote:

Horsepower → Watt
Calorie →kJ,

I am seeking unit-independent approval of measurement quantities. Are those approvals are restricted to those particular units? Lightmouse (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of this request have been approved. Yet, it's not visible in the approved list. Can it be added please? Lightmouse (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error report

Lightbot edited a unit-related article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Lightbot 14

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Janitorial edits to units that contain at least one unit of mass e.g. 30 stones, 50 lb/min.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.

A relevant guideline is at:

mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."

The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. Examples of such conversions exist in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.

Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details:
For units that contain at least one unit of mass:

Edits may add conversions to units e.g. "The engine weighs 160 pounds" -> "The engine weighs 160 pounds (73 kg)"
Edits may edit the format or spelling e.g. "200 Tons (180 MT)" -> "200 short tons (160 t)"
Edits may add or remove links e.g. "160 pounds (73 kg)" -> "160 pounds (73 kg)". This will be in accordance with Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked.

Discussion

Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions -

How will you determine the precision of the conversion to use?
Where the unit is ambiguous (e.g. "pounds" or "tons") how will you determine which is meant?
Why would you change the format of units, and what would you do if there was an objection to a change you make?
What will you do if you find an article that uses a mix of metric and imperial units (I've seen this, including ones that use the convert template with 'imperial (metric)' and 'metric (imperial)'? Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precision: The 'convert template' will usually be used with default precision. If you want to know more details about how it works, feel free to ask at Template talk:Convert. In many cases, this is a match, or +/- 1 significant figures. With the template conversion in place, it's easy for an editor to adjust precision.

Ambiguous units. In many cases of 'ambiguous units', there is no ambiguity in the context. For example, it's almost always easy to see when the author write 'gallon' but means the US gallon because it's in a US article about a US topic using US sources. Ambiguity will be avoided where the ambiguity is real.

Reasons for format change. It's not possible to use the convert template *without* adopting a standard format in accordance with guidelines. Non-template and template conversions will be (as far as I know) consistent. If somebody disagrees with the format used by the convert template, then the convert template will have to come out. But the issues are usually trivial or esoteric for example the addition of 'US' to gallon and/or the use of upper and lower case. From time to time, new variations on these issues do crop up and I've started many discussions myself in the relevant guideline pages following feedback on a conversion.

Mix of metric and non-metric. The bot isn't designed to resolve mixed units and has no provision for it in the code. Articles often contain primary metric alongside primary non-metric - sometimes it's for a good reason (such as mixing miles and metres on transport, as you suggest. I'm aware of this), sometimes it's not. Over the years using automation and seeing lots of articles pass in front of me, I have noticed suboptimal unit sequences and responded with human edits in either the Lightbot or Lightmouse accounts. So the option is useful, but is a low priority for Lightbot.

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recused MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for clarifications on Lightbot 7 and 12. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. with the same terms as LightBot 12 (aka, edits which introduce conversions MUST be reviewed against WP:MOSCONVERSIONS to ensure they are not unwanted). Spelling/formatting/overlinking is uncontroversial copy-editing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. See Trial edits. Edit summary is 'L14. Edits to terms that contain at least one unit of mass' Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

André the Giant
- Changing 119 12-ounce beers in 6 hours to 119 12-US-fluid-ounce (350 ml; 12 imp fl oz) beers in 6 hours is not my idea of a sane conversion

I agree. I kept the code simple by using the default settings for the template. By default, it converts US fluid ounce to both ml and UK fluid ounce. That seems unnecessary to me for the following reasons:

The ml value is sufficient, even in the UK.
UK and US fluid ounce values are very close. They're identical in many instances, such as this.

If you agree with me, I'll update the code so it drops the UK fluid ounce i.e. the outcome should be 119 12-US-fluid-ounce (350 ml) beers in 6 hours. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I know at this point this is only testing mass-related stuff, but ideally you'd change a height of 6'3" and weight of 240 pounds by age 12 to a height of 6'3" (1.91 m) and weight of 240 pounds (110 kg) by age 12.

Yes. I'll have a generic piece of code that does many units in one pass and is safe for using on many articles with low rates of human intervention. The more challenging cases (e.g. ounce, gallon, barrel) are best done using specific code with a human focussed and sensitised to the specific anomalies associated with those units. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More feedback later. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing lots of pages with lengths but omitting weights. Please can we make progress on this to reduce the requirement for multiple passes? Lightmouse (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should drop the imperial measures in the {{convert}} defaults. The above made me think. Does the bot recognise " 6'3" "? JIMp_talk·cont 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesn't currently recognise 6'3" but it's in the plan. Instances like 6 feet 3 inches are much easier.

It seems to me that we're in the desirable position of discussing tasks for the bot, rather than merely approval. If so, can we move to approval?Lightmouse (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'd approve, but I want to see how the new code works before doing so. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Done. See contributions. Summary is L14. Contains at least one unit of mass. Avoiding 'foot pounds', 'pounds force', 'pounds per square inch' is almost the same effort as converting them properly. I'll create an application for 'units of torque, force, and pressure' unless you want to make them in scope of this one. What do you think? Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It works well on biographies etc..., but I was more worried about the science-type of articles. Any way you could get more sciency-type of articles for trial? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the force/torque/pressure units, I'd file a separate BRFA so the logic can be trialed and reviewed on its own page. If everything its just a little bit more bureaucratic, but if things go wrong it's easier to deal with it on its own page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the two feedback examples in turn:

Here "3lbs." is converted to "3 lb." when it should be "3 lb"

I agree. It's on my wishlist to eliminate the period but I don't think I'll ever work out how. A period may be an indication of the abbreviation or it may be punctuation. I can't distinguish the two without making false positives.

Non-breaking spaces. It hasn't forgotten it. That example uses numbers-as-words and I don't use the template, I have to specify the text. I've just never programmed for nbsp. Along with a minority of users, I don't like them as a way to control wrapping. The template has them by default and when I had AWB general fixes switched on, it added them.

I'll file another BRFA for other units. Lightmouse (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your interest in the combination of human height and weight by targetting the trial at human articles. I'd be happy to run another trial on 'science-type' articles. I've created Lightbot 15 to address a whole range of other units. Lightmouse (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Alright, then let's go for another 50. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.Done. I've tried to make it add conversions where usage was 'sciency' but it wasn't always easy to confine it to just that. If you want me to have another go, I can. See contributions as of now. Edit summary is L14b. Contains at least one unit of mass. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Works well enough with pounds, but these were the simpler case. I was more curious about fluid ounces, tons, etc... i.e. things that could be ambiguous. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share your caution about ounces and tons. That's why, over the years, I've not done much about those units. In the cases where I have touched them, it's only with major human intervention and/or dedicated process/code. I'll run 50 edits with some examples. Lightmouse (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Done. See contributions as of now. Edit summary is L14. ounce or L14. ton. As I expected, these involved almost a lot of time/effort to set up and involved a lot of human involvement during operation to capture the various versions of the units and avoid false positives. I'm hoping the trials have demonstrated the actual and potential capabilities. Lightmouse (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Lightmouse (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. As always please be sure to take due care with the bot and be responsive to comments/feedback. --Chris 12:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

Lightbot 10

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Janitorial edits to units

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.

Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details:
Edits will add conversions to the following metric or non-metric units: inch, foot, mile, mm, cm, m, km, plus their squares and cubes.

Discussion

So if the bot comes across "38 kilometres long", it will add "{{convert|38|km|mi}} long" or something similar, correct? —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a Lightbot edit shows that it changed:

"25 miles long" to "{{convert|25|mi|km}} long"

As many people know, my primary focus is on improving accessibility for metric readers with a secondary focus on non-metric readers. Thus the editing scope includes all units. The example of "38 kilometres long", as in Altafjord, is theoretically in scope but is unlikely to be touched. I leave that to editors such as yourself who focus on non-metric units. You and I have cooperated and shared code in the past and I think our work is compatible. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try to convert for everyone when I encounter something. I'd like to see the AWB code if you could post it somewhere. BAG folks: I don't have any objection to this bot. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To move this BRFA forward, per WP:BOTPOL ("performs only tasks for which there is consensus"; "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"), please provide link(s) to the relevant policy/guideline/consensus that this task should be both performed and performed by an automated bot. The three BRFAs linked do not provide such links. Thank you. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant guideline is at:

mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."

The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. The three previous successful approvals (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) have successfully done many thousands of edits along these lines. There is also the recent approval (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5) that converts feet but not inches, this request merely seeks to add inches to the scope. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. I'm sure I could find examples of inch conversions in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.

Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support approving this under the arbcom restriction that allows a "single task", since this merely expands the single, already approved, task very slightly. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about a 20 edit trial then? Lightmouse (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Task is a suitable expansion of Lightbot 5. Note that a successful trial will not necessarily result in however, since I still have some reading to do with the ARBCOM mess, and I'm also wondering if Lightbot 5 should have been approved at all... But let's trial it for now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Acknowledging this now but it may be a few days before I run the trial. Lightmouse (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Lightmouse (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to trial result? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Trial edits. Edit summary is 'L10. inch, foot, mile, mm, cm, m, km, plus their squares and cubes' Lightmouse (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Inches should be converted to cm, not mm. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very easy rule to implement although it isn't mentioned in wp:mosnum. Is it for all articles or just sword articles? Lightmouse (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually one tries converts to the units closest to the original units. Kilometre/mile, metre/foot, inch/cm, etc... Some discretion is of course involved (yard to meter conversion is usually fine, but meter to yard usually isn't), but it's a good guideline in most cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'nearest-unit' rule means mm would never be used. With a difficult binary choice we need to be right more than 51% of the time. Where the choice was 'wrong' for the individual conversion, the reader is still much better off than without any conversion present. Amendment is much easier than making the initial conversion: you only need to change one or two characters. The convert template defaults to mm and I made the same judgement call, but if you want cm then I'll make it so. Lightmouse (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well, it's pretty rare that someone converts from inch to mm in the world too. No idea why the templates automatically convert to mm, but that should probably be tweaked. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, this appears to assume that people silently convert SI into imperial and back into SI. Sure, inches and cm are around the size of human fingernails, but the ISO won't even recognise cm as a legitimate unit (× 1,000 for each gradation, they say). I see no reason to be swaying towards cm by default. Tony (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I agree with you that the general rule "Inches should be converted into cm, not mm" is not true. However, your statement that cm is not an SI unit is not correct either, as centi is a SI_prefix. It is a matter of choice whether to use cm or mm, both are correct. However, I agree with your argument that gradation of 1'000 is preferable and therefore personally I would also use mm or m and not cm. I would definitely convert fractional inches (< 1 inch) to mm, larger distances (> 100 inch) into meters. Kehrli (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In technical documentation, measures (from a few mm up to a few metres) are usually in mm. In daily usage among people, cm or m are much more common. How to resolve this discrepancy here? A room's ceiling would be at 2400 mm in a building plan and at 2.40 m in a classified ad. A bolt would be 40 mm long the factory, but 4 cm in the shop. −Woodstone (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just come here following a notice at WP:MOSNUM.) Agree with Headbomb. In the real world centimetres are far more common than millimetres except in e.g. technical measurements. Also, I had no idea that ISO had deprecated centi-, and even if they did, the French cun^H^H^Hgentlemen also want e.g. a space before a per cent sign or kibibyte for 1024 bytes, and we (rightly) don't give a damn about that. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 17:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the template by default rounds the conversion of a whole number of inches to the nearest centimetre (and rightly so, IMO), so expressing the conversion in millimetres means there's be a non-significant potentially misleading zero at the end, as in 12 inches (300 mm) where the exact value is 304.8 mm. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Also come here following a MOSNUM notice) In technical usage, millimetres should be preferred. In Australia, there is a rule in the building trades that centimetres are not to be used. I can't vouch for other countries, so this appears to be a case where it is best to follow the sources. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is about what conversion to use when the source unit is the inch. (Anyway, the bot is just using the template's default, which for a non-intelligent being is probably the best thing to do. Discussions about whether the default should be millimetres or centimetres belong to Template talk:Convert, don't they?) ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent one I can find is Template talk:Convert/Archive January 2010#Default for inches conversion changed?. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 10:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(coming to this late) Guys, centimeters are certainly an SI unit. This is more than just a matter of style. But I agree with A. di M. that centimeters are generally more common.

However, the practice varies greatly by discipline. In technical matters, an iPhone, for instance, its dimensions would be given in inches and millimeters. I’m not so sure I can offer a simple solution. But an important consideration here is to ensure a conversion does not introduce the false precision that would be typically be introduced if inches were converted to millimeters. So for values that are more than one inch, conversion should be in centimeters.

I would further suggest that if it is possible, values less than one inch have conversions in millimeters. If the inch measurements are fractions, then to the nearest whole millimeter, e.g. 3⁄8 inch (10 mm). And if they are decimal inches, then to one decimal place less precision, e.g. 0.354 inch (9.0 mm). It is important to not be careless with precision so as to make a false statement. If an image sensor is said to be 0.354 inches wide, then to convert to three places of precision would result in 8.99 mm, which would in many cases be incorrect since the image sensor was likely metric in the first place at precisely 9 millimeters.

I would also suggest that consideration be made to converting decimal inches that are less than ten inches and are given to three places of precision or more that the conversion be to millimeters with an equivalent number of significant digits, e.g. (The original iPod was 4.02 inches tall (102 mm). This is a real-world example.

Sorry to be a pain and a stickler on this, but if we are going to have bots wading through thousands of articles, I am convinced the above will ensure that A) false precision (errors) are not introduced and B) information is presented most naturally. Greg L (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the metric community reads, writes, and speaks as if mm and cm are interchangeable. For example, kitchen units are sometimes described as '600 mm' and as '60 cm', in the same text and by the same speaker within minutes. Metric people don't think in inches and you can see in two clicks that there is no '25 mm' boundary between cm and mm in the metric world. No problems with the precision issue that applies to all units, it's covered and can be discussed in detail at the template talk page, your good points are all well-known to all template users and we'd be happy to debate it in detail there. I think this bot can do better than tossing a coin by using the following working guidelines:

mm up to 100 mm, fractional inches, rainfall, architecture, cameras, engineering and technical specifications, cars, trains, aircraft, modern ammunition and weapons, and instances where the article already contains mm
cm for all other instances

This will require extra effort for coding, list management (e.g. use categories to get lists of target articles), and human oversight. I hope that's acceptable to allow us to start work. Lightmouse (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without appearing to be burdensome, it would be interesting for those who operate auto-thingies and those who care about mm/cm to know your detailed thinking on this if BAG says yes to your starting work. Could you post a thread on your talk page before or during so others can benefit from knowing how to approach this? It would also be good for us to get a documentary grip on who/how/where cm and mm are an issue for editors in various fields. I regard trials and auto-running as a learning experience that should be made easily accessible to increase the community's skills and knowledge in this area. Tony (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Lightmouse is very familiar with many conversion intricacies—more than I was prepared to address here and more than I realized (optics came to mind but not munitions).
I would say that about the only “attitude” that needs to be maintained heading into this conversion endeavor with a bot is a willingness to initially—if that’s what it takes—to limit conversions to those circumstances where there will be a low possibility of errors such as false precision or unsuitable units (centimeters when measuring the size of artillery shells instead of the proper millimeters). The bot could start out with less sophisticated logic that limits itself to a narrow set of cases. With increasing sophistication to its ruleset and booleans, it can be tasked with a broader scope.
The only other “attitude” that bot operators must embrace is that it is often not possible to obtain perfect, cross-project uniformity; most-reliable RSs in certain fields like theater-area tactical missiles in naval settings might refer to …and the U.S. Navy stated that since the No‑wang missile has a range of 3500 nm, it could threaten Hawaii. This use of “nm” like this would be an abomination unto the eyes of the SI gods. That is just an example of the broad principal of exceptions to a rule and I understand this is just inches and centimeters and millimeters. My point is that any bot operator needs only to be sensitive to feedback from editors if their objections are predicated on the proper practices within that art as evidenced by most-reliable RSs. I have every confidence that Lightmouse understands this and embraces the principal.
So long as these sensitivities (false precision as well as practices within a given art that are an exception to the rule) are embraced going into this, then I see no reason not to allow bot activity to commence; complex bot activity is often an evolving thing. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(OT) Well, using "nm" without either giving the spelled-out name on the first occurrence or a conversion to kilometres (and possibly to statutes miles too) is an abomination IMO, and not just because it happens to also be the symbol for the nanometre. :-) ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree 100%. Greg L (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a new discussion about this at Template talk:Convert#Default target unit for inch conversions. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The best is the enemy of the good". Voltaire. We now have a pragmatic approach that disconnects this bot application from the template default. I think it's a good idea to start with inches in the easier cases of engineering etc. With your further support, I'd be happy to start work, respond, make notes, and we all can see how good we are doing in real practical examples. Lightmouse (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I take it that speed will be limited and the moment an editor raised an issue, the operation in that area would stop until sorted? Tony (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone has a better idea, I propose a rate ramp. Until Lightbot10's 500th edit, it can do 50 per day. Until it's 1000th edit, it can do 100 per day. Until it's 2000th, 200 per day. Until it's 4000th, 400 per day. Until it's 8000th, 800 per day. Etc. That's easier to implement/audit than it is to explain.

If an editor raises an issue, I'll stop and discuss. I've had many welcome points raised over the years which have led to improvements. Some issues merely need clarification of what/why/how. Unit edits are often nuanced binary choices (such as mm/cm), regional/domain preference, matters of opinion or judgement. Such issues may need to be referred for community input via another forum e.g. mosnum or the template talk page. Does anybody else wish to comment? Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this application is entirely contained within the scope of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13. If Lightbot13 is approved, this application will be withdrawn. Lightmouse (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Alright, everyone has a chance to say there piece about it. Seems that the mm/cm thing isn't yet resolved. However, since this is the only thing holding it back, I'll approve all other length/area/volume conversions mentionned in this BRFA (so you can merge them with the "main" Lightbot code), and have an extended trial at a rate of 25 inch-->cm/mm conversions per day for a week for the new rule set you've devised. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Note that Lightbot 5 and Lightbot10 (this one) are superceded by Lightbot13. It's a bit messy to have an caveat on this one but not mentioned on Lightbot13. Should we withdraw Lightbot5 and Lightbot10 and put the 'inch' caveat on Lightbot13? It's up to you. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caveat applies to the inch-->mm/cm conversion in general, regardless of what BRFA "technically" covers it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to workload, the trial is taking longer than a week. I've edited 75 articles. When I've edited 175 articles, I'll mark the trial as done. See: [13] The edit summary is L10. inches. Lightmouse (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Done. See contributions. Edit summary is L10. inches. Lightmouse (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, reviewing this. Sorry it took longer than expected. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second conversion is wrong.

This is wrong too.

Not "wrong", but should be better Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The_Last_Command: As a class, multiple dimensions are more of a challenge than '<value> <unitname>'. The conversion "6.8 x 4.2 x 1.1 inches (28 mm)" isn't wrong. It's a correct conversion of only one of three dimensions. I agree with you it's definitely better to have all values within multiples converted. For some reason I spotted the first multiple but not the second.

United_States_Bakery: As a class, combination units ('x feet, y inches') are more a challenge than '<value> <unitname>'. Yes, that's wrong. Of the three things you've spotted, that's the one that's worst. You'll see that I did fix it later. It's why I haven't done routine runs on inches. But with a bit more effort I think I can do some focussed work on them.

Chimney_sweep: As in The_Last_Command, it's a multiple dimension. It may be possible, given more time and experience, to target common range formats.

A great deal of my processing and code effort is spent addressing this issue. As I've suggested before, inch conversions usually involve more human processing and human oversight than most other units. That one slipped through. In my routine process and code, I don't do inches. If you permit me to to tackle inches, I can focus on these sort of issues and do dedicated well-overseen runs. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This BRFA has been superceded by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13 and is no longer required. Withdrawn. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

Withdrawn by operator.. Anomie ⚔ 15:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

Petan-Bot

Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:09, Saturday March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): c++

Source code available: no

Function overview: Updating stuff for huggle

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 1 + other projects where this would be enabled, for trial only on english wp

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details:

Help with maintenance of whitelists across wikimedia projects (sorting, removing wrong entries) - there is a need to remove invalid entries, other way huggle is having a lot of troubles updating

Discussion

Where are the whitelists stored on the projects?
How are the "invalid entries" defined?
Can you elaborate on "Synchronize warning templates of huggle with templates project (it would create a copy of templates and change the syntax)"? What do you mean by "templates project"? Does this create huggle specific templates for all project's templates? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1: Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist

2: duplicate entries, unsorted data

3:It would copy the templates from Wiki project user templates to the Template:Huggle templates and changed its syntax to correct for huggle. Petrb (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 week). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. One page, WP namespace, needed maintenance for Huggle. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it wouldn't be approved I will have to stop it, thanks for review Petrb (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. so? Petrb (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been actually checking the edits yourself? [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Wikipedia usernames are not case insensitive. How does the bot determine this is the same user? User:WhosAsking =/= User:Whosasking; User:Keithh =/= User:KeithH; etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to solve it Petrb (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2011 (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) Have you yet? It shouldn't be difficult to make it case sensitive surely? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about changing a bot, we need to change way how names are stored in whitelist (for this I need to talk with other people who use our whitelist for own purposes, I think cluebot uses it too), bot can't check if two similar users are or not same user Petrb (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request has not been edited in nearly a month - is there any recent progress to report? SQL ^{Query me!} 12:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the operator's talkpage, requesting an update on this request. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to get in touch with the operator of this bot for a week. For now, Request Expired. - you may re-open this task whenever you like without prejudice. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

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.

AussieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 14:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
DeadbeefBot II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 17:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
GalliumBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 10:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
TenshiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 16:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
GalliumBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 19:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Bot1058 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Approved 12:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
C1MM-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 06:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
AussieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 1) Approved 17:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
TenshiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 15:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
GraphBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 00:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
CitationCleanerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 13:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
DreamRimmer bot III (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 12:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
RustyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 12:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
DeadbeefBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 12:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 84) Approved 13:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
TenshiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 15:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
PharyngealBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 13:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Jlwoodbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 03:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
SchlurcherBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 23:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 47) Approved 11:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 32) Approved 07:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BunnysBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 14:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
HilstBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 20:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC) (bot to run unflagged)
MinusBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 14:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Bot1058 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 12:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 83) Approved 15:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BunnysBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 11:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
VWF bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 14:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
DreamRimmer bot II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 11:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BunnysBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 15:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)

Denied requests

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

christina.zheng.uploader (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

MauchoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 42) Bot denied 08:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Snotbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Bot denied 07:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Bot denied 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RichardcavellBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobot B (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

shoutboundbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 06:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PhearBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I Doh Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

SCG01Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

SCGBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

RichardcavellBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SuriBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

AngelBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

MOSNUM bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 09:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

bonabot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 16:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

AvicBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

brest-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fti74Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

GCIBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

KarlsenBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Bot denied 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AK Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

bot_urcs (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 02:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

openZIM (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

MscannjrBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WillieBot 2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganeshbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 08:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

BlackMarikBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sahimrobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SagaCookBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

CountBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 00:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

TotalDramaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ReplyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

TFAProtectorBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixatypobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 10:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

ValhallaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot 10 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ChinaRailwayENGED (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Velociraptorbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GeneGoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Template Maintenance Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IronBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MisterWikiBot (2nd) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

MisterWikiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 16:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

EmBOTellado (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:48, 2 December 2009 (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 anytime. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.

ThreeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 07:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Project Messenger Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

GurchBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Withdrawn by operator 10:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Petan-Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Expired 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Petan-Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: task8) Expired 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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
Wikipedia Wikipedia_talk
v t e