Wikipedia talk:Bots

Requests for the bot flag should be made on this page. This wiki uses the standard bot policy, and allows global bots and automatic approval of certain types of bots. Other bots should apply below. Global bot flag requests are handled at Meta:Steward requests.

If you are requesting bot status, please use the Current requests section. For other matters dealing with bots, please use the "discussion section".

Local bots

Current requests

Put new requests at the top. Look here for a form to use to request bot status.

PieWBot

• Contributions
• Operator: PieWriter
• Programming language: Python
• Function: Change {{no sources}} to {{more sources}}, removes {{in use}}/{{under construction}} if page has not been edited for more than 7 days (can be changed).
• Description: It changes {{no sources}} or {{unreferenced}} to {{more sources}} if the article actually contains at least one reference by going through pages from Category:All articles lacking sources every week.

--PieWriter (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat observation) Quotes from this thread are relevant:

As for the "stub links", I think you mean stub templates. How would you determine what pages to add them to? For one thing, it's not just a question of how long the page is; it's also about how complete the article is. For another, even if you did go by length, you'd have to count only the actual text as displayed, not the infoboxes, navboxes, categories, comments, tables, wikimarkup, references, related pages, other websites, and probably more. As for the external links, that might be helpful if we want a bot for it, but I don't usually find too many of them when I go through taking care of them --Auntof6

Some of these suggested tasks like stub links and the external links to other websites changes would be content changes and are specifically not allowed to be done by bots. --DJSasso

Adding or removing stub templates are not uncontroversial changes in my opinion, and should never be done by a bot. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 03:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the bot’s function PieWriter (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I personally find (and iirc have read others voice similar concerns) that many articles tagged as unsourced suffer from tag-bombing as opposed to having major sourcing issues. I have on a few times noticed people tagging super short village stubs (ie X is a village in Y.) with no sources but the real issue is that it is a stub as the fact it is a village is a very very clear fact and one that would not otherwise be sourced. On expanding these I have sometimes found myself unable to add numerous references because there just isn't enough out there. So this is one reason why tags or even changing them is not a process I would like to see automated. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 23:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

To address concerns about 'tag-bombing' short stubs, I have can add a requirement that the article must have at least 1,000 characters (can be adjusted) of actual prose before the bot will change the tag. This ensures the bot only acts on substantial, with enough contnt, articles where the transition to 'more sources' is objectively helpful, while leaving short stubs untouched. PieWriter (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien: I understand the concerns and withdraw the first task, also can you look at the second function? PieWriter (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@PieWriter: Sorry for the late response, I have not been sure what I think about this idea. The tags can often get stale but can be removed with relative ease by a human, and there are certain things you might spot that haven't been done within a reasonable time - like copying from en, and I think I tagged one of them in the category as AI-generated when I was looking at the category at the time. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 16:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering there are some tags from a few months, ago and that these articles usually don’t get edited after the author creates them, the template just stays on the page for an indefinite amount of time. It would eventually get removed only if an editor randomly comes across the article or if someone looked through the cats. I think this bot would ensure it is done automatically. This also ensures that readers who visit the page won’t leave as they see the template thinking that the article isn’t finished. PieWriter (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

AsteraBot

• Contributions
• Operator: Asteralee
• Programming language: pywikibot
• Function: removal of {{orphan}}
• Description: Removes {{orphan}} once a month after articles have 2 or more backlinks. BattyBot used to do this task but is now inactive. Some example edits are here. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 20:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

  Approved for trial (50 edits). --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 23:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Ferien: Trial complete. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 00:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. Asteralee, I have just a couple of questions. As the bot is run with pywikibot, is it running continuously? Should I grant this the bot flag or will it just fix articles as needed? --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 18:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Ferien Currently, it is fixing 20 articles each month, which might overflow the RecentChanges log. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 18:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

BarrasBot

• Contributions
• Operator: Barras
• Programming language: python
• Function: archival of discussions
• Description: See Discussion. Current bot isn't work. Would set up the bot for this task again. It used to do the work in the past. Probably only needs to get a botflag back.

--Barras talk 19:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

We currently have Bot873 operated by Operator873 for this task that is still running daily. I would like to wait for a comment from him first (or no comment) before going ahead with replacing it, as he is still active in maintaining the bot. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, if we do go ahead and change, I don't mean this in a nasty way of course but I'd like the bot to stay stable for some time. Since SassoBot went inactive in 2022, we've had PDLBotArchiver, then Bot873 and now back to BarrasBot. It's been just over 3 years and we'd be on our 4th bot. For talk page archiving especially, some continuity is good. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The bot runs on a server which is paid for some years ahead. It should be able to do the task for the next couple of years, even without me watching it. -Barras talk 20:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

BTW, there are 143 pages with the old MiszaBot-config. I just did a dry run with the code. There are several pages that haven't been archived for months. -Barras talk 21:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done No problems if you want to take it up in the future and it is needed. But phab:T409016 has been created and the current operator has responded at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Archival bots?. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Barras @Ferien: As discussed, I'm disabling Bot873 as I don't have the time to maintain or figure out what happened with pwb on toolforge. Please approve BarrasBot for service. Operator873 ^connect 18:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thank you Operator873 for operating the bot over the last few years and taking over PDLBotArchiver on short notice. @Barras: Approved for trial (6 edits). I intend to approve but I just want to see a few edits to check everything is ok. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 18:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Works. Encountered a little problem with some template configuration, which was misleading for the bot. Fixed it (see edits and most recent deleted edit from the bot). Would run the bot for a few days when watching it and later switch it to automatic archival during UTC night. -Barras talk 20:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Barras: just checking this with you, but I believe this is more a setup error rather than an error with the bot? - as a message from 2021 archived into 2025. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 23:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the hint. That's a different problem. I Will look into it right now and run another test. -Barras talk 10:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Awaiting approval for complete run. As said, for the start I will be watching the bot before making it automatic. Fixed it both on Caliburn's tp and also Ao6 Newspaper page. The new dry run seems to recognize it all correctly now, but it's easier to take a look at real edits. -Barras talk 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Barras: Thanks for the fixes, this looks all good.  Approved. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

BotBahati

• Contributions
• Operator: Bahati11
• Programming language: Python (semi-automatic, supported by other languages)
• Function:
  • Delete non-existent categories on new articles
  • Add infobox on new articles of personalities
  • Delete if present the model {{portal}} on new articles
  • Put maintenance templates on new articles
  • Categorize new articles according to the theme
  • Clean the new pages
  • Answer to bot requests
  • Fix Wikicode syntaxes in new articles
  • Upcoming: Automatic execution parameters by administrators for certain cases
• Description :I did tests on my personal pages and I would also like to rename the bot in "OrdocuraBot" — Bahati11 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  A lot of this isn't work we want bots to be doing. For instance, categorising articles, "cleaning" new pages and answering bot requests are things we need humans to be doing. "Fixing Wikicode syntax" is also cosmetic work that shouldn't be done by humans or bots. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I found these tasks effective because the Bot will have integrated GPT Bahati11 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Bahati11 Please take note that not every task on Wikipedia needs to be done by a bot. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 18:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Denied. Per WP:AI, editors should ideally be solely responsible for any edits assisted by AI. With a bot account running with "integrated GPT", that is impossible to achieve. Bots running with AI should not be doing numerous complex (needing human review) tasks on this Wikipedia. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixinbot

• Contributions
• Operator: Cactusisme
• Programming language: Python
• Function: Adds and remove {{popcat}} from categories
• Description:Tests done on test wiki, here. Runs every 24 hours (can be changed)

--Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 12:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: Is the source code public if anyone wants to take a look? DreamRimmer (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme Some questions:

• What if the categories were redirects? Does the bot know what to do with them?
• WP:POPCAT has some examples of categories that do not need 3 categories, so the bot shouldn't be putting {{popcat}} on them.

⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 13:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It skips redirects and categories listed there. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 00:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It didn't skip a redirect in this edit.

As for the list at WP:POPCAT, I don't think the bot should base its decisions on that. I assume you don't mean that the bot skips the specific categories listed there, because those are just examples. There are many more that are included. How does the bot determine what is exempt?

Some other things:

• Why does the bot name not refer to your user name? You have CactusismeBot, which clearly shows who it belongs to.
• I see that the bot logs its changes, which is good. It looks like the text on the log needs to be changed to display the changed pages correctly.
• There's a potential for a lot of churn if the bot is adding popcat on every non-exempt category it finds with fewer than 3 entries. Often a category isn't populated immediately. Is there or can there be a throttle to limit the number of changes it will make at a time? That would allow reviewing what the bot is doing in case it's doing something we don't want.

For me, I might feel comfortable with the bot removing popcat. I'm not sure about adding it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The edit you mentioned was before I made the change so it skips redirects. The name really doesn’t matter, unless there is some such policy,as I feel like as long as you identify the bot. I am working on fixing the log, so it’s disabled for now (mainly due to API rates), I can change the bot to remove redirects only if that’s preferred. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 07:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed issues by DreamRimmer, only checks pages in Category:Underpopulated categories and only removes the template. Testing done, see this for edits. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 12:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

https://github.com/Helloeveryone-ctrl/Cactus-bot-/blob/main/bot3.py Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 00:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Your code is not efficient and will unnecessarily waste resources. It processes all 85,615 categories on the wiki one by one, fetching members of each, which results in a large number of API calls. For categories with many members, it uses pagination, leading to even more requests. Since fetching category members puts considerable load on the servers, running this script without properly filtering the categories that actually need editing is not a good idea. Using the API to identify eligible categories is not the right approach either. You mentioned that the script skips categories listed at WP:POPCAT, but there is no code that does this. Also, there is no reliable way to exclude categories mentioned in points 8, 9, and 10 of WP:POPCAT, except by hardcoding them. If I am counting correctly, the script could make around 6.5 lakh requests in a single run and would repeat the same in every future run unless optimised. I would strongly advise not running this script, as it is not safe for the servers. You should also make sure to set a proper user agent in all future scripts and add a reasonable delay between requests. Lastly, you mentioned PyWiki as the programming language, but your script does not use any Python module by that name, and such a module does not exist. DreamRimmer (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Denied. Tagging of articles and categories for issues en masse is generally discouraged. Instead of tagging the categories, I think it'd be better for the wiki if we spent more time trying to populate them. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 08:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien how about only removing and after fixing the errors above? Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 10:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

See above Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 12:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: Thanks for your interest in helping with this. The {{popcat}} template is used on fewer than 20 pages. I have written a simple script for you, which you can check here. It goes through each category where {{popcat}} is used and removes it if the category has three or more members. This kind of small task does not require logging, so you can use it without a log page. Given the limited use of the template, running it once a week is sufficient. It can also be run from the main account, as it will not make many edits. DreamRimmer (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

So I can run it through Cactusisme? Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 03:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course, you can run this low-edit script from your main account on PAWS, as all edits made through PAWS will be tagged, making it clear to everyone that the edit was made using a semi-automated tool and not an unapproved bot. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not able to access paws due to certain reasons. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 06:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Cactusisme, I still don't see a need. People who spend their time working on POPCAT will usually remove the template themselves. Sometimes even when I am around I will check that category for categories with 3+ entries and remove them there and then for people who forget. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

AsteraBot

• Contributions
• Operator: Asteralee
• Programming language: pywikibot
• Function: Adds {{commonscat}} to articles that have categories on Wikimedia Commons.
• Description: The bot selects and fixes 15 random articles every month from Special:AllPages (redirects are taken out of the list). The bot can also detect if the template is already there regardless of redirect name (like {{Commonscat2}}). I did some test edits. The bot code can be found here. Thank you for your time!

--⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 02:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-crat comments:

• Will it detect all kinds of commons templates -- commons, commonscat-inline, etc.? These are not redirects, they are templates with slightly different functions.
• How does the bot decide where to put the template?
• What if the Commons category name is not the same as the article name? It wouldn't work to assume they're the same.
• Would you link to your test edits?

I actually have been thinking of suggesting that we remove the commons templates, because there's a commons link in the left-hand sidebar. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6:

• Yes, the bot can detect all of the commons templates and their redirects, even the ones that are not so common, like {{Commons category multi}}. The bot skips the articles if it detects it already has any of those templates.
• The bot detects if there is a "Other websites" section in the article, and puts the template directly under the section. If there is no Other websites section, the bot puts the template above the metadata (categories, defaultsort).
• The bot checks Wikidata's P373 property to get the name of the category on Commons, then the bot adds the value as a parameter in {{commonscat}} and puts the template in the article. It would be {{commonscat|<Wikidata P373>}} in the wikitext editor.
• My most recent changes are here and here.

⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 19:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). - Let's see how it works. Eptalon (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee: Thanks. That sounds pretty good. I see that in the two changes you link, the bot put the template in between categories instead of before them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee: Also, does it detect the sister links templates? One such is Template:Sister project links. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I haven't thought of that. I'll get to it as soon as possible.

@Eptalon Thank you. The trial edits will probably start as soon as I get back from vacation. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 20:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 The bot has now been modified so it can detect {{Sister project links}} templates and, if there is not, add the parameters c and commonscat to the template. Any other comments? ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 03:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee: Not right now. Thanks for your answers. My career involved thinking of small details like that, so I hope I didn't seem too picky. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It's fine; I enjoy feedback from other users :) ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 14:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
@Eptalon: After 42 edits I decided to end the trial. Another round of edits would pass the limit. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-crat here again: I looked at a few of the changes. The Commons template goes at the top of the Other websites section (or sometimes a different section, if there is no Other websites section), not after it. In an article like Hōnensai, it would be common to use the inline form of the template so that the Commons box doesn't appear so far down. See en:Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Layout_summary for details.

I also see that there was already a Commons template in 175. It's added by Template:C18 year in topic. I don't know if there are any other templates that add one.

In an article like Adobe After Effects, the Commons template should go before the navbox at the end. If there were no navbox, it should go before the stub template.

Just some comments based on the few that I looked at. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I'll fix these issues. I'm not sure about the navbox templates because they're so much of them. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 18:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee: Thanks. I know that placement of the sister link templates is pretty complicated. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Fixed everything except the navbox and the inlines. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 18:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The latest test edits (done on my account) are here, here, and here. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 13:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee Just a note: Instead of blanking the yml page, you could just disable the workflow. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 09:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee: I'm happy with the edits the bot is making. I'm just not sure how to feel about the scale of this (both of the bot, quite low-scale and the actual template, quite large-scale, if that makes sense) - the bot is making 15 edits every month, there are ~20k transclusions currently in mainspace articles () and I'm guessing there are likely thousands more articles that need it. It's a very easy to fix problem, you can just make the bot run more often if needbe, but I'm also not sure how much we want this template to be added to hundreds of articles per what Auntof6 said, it is less necessary now than it used to be. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

To add for next steps, perhaps we should get a consensus on what the community thinks about the template - I don't have any particularly strong opinion either way, but I don't want to rush into approving a template being added by a bot when some people think it could be removed! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

DreamRimmer bot

• Contributions
• Operator: DreamRimmer
• Programming language: pwb
• Function: Create redirects for movie pages
• Description: The bot will create redirects from (film) and (YYYY film) to their corresponding (movie) and (YYYY movie) pages. There are currently over 300 redirects that need to be created, but after that, there will only be around 5 to 10 redirects needed per month. I will run it once a month to create the necessary redirects. Naleksuh used to do this, but he became inactive and was later banned. Example edits can be seen here.

--DreamRimmer (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Trial complete. Edits: Special:Contributions/DreamRimmer bot. DreamRimmer (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: Non-crat comment: would there be a way to determine if anything is linking to these redirects? It would be good to have them. It would be even better to be able to use them to find things that should be linking to the article instead of the redirect.

Besides that, could you add a template, something like {{R from other name}}, to classify these? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Yes, we can determine if anything is linking to these redirects, but I did not understand the purpose of adding this check. Do you want me to change any links that point to the redirect so they point directly to the main page? If so, I think this would not be helpful for two main reasons: first, the purpose of redirects in general is to allow people to link to them if the redirect is easier to remember than the main page; second, there would be very few pages of this kind. Regarding classifying these with {{R from other name}}, yes, I can add that to the redirects. DreamRimmer (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: From my point of view, the purpose of these redirects is to allow links to work when pages using the term "film" are brought here from English Wikipedia. Pages here should be using "movie". But this isn't that important, I was just wondering.

It would be great if you can add the "R from" template, thanks. :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Updated the code to include the template. DreamRimmer (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

DreamRimmer, sorry to be a pain but could you do one or two more test edits with the R from template? Thanks, --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien: Done DreamRimmer (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

 Approved. All looks good to me. Apologies for the late response, I have been quite busy these past few days. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 08:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) DreamRimmer (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

BarrasBot

• Contributions
• Operator: Barras
• Programming language: python
• Function: Cleaning up WP:VIP
• Description: Automatically cleaning up VIP reports once an IP/user has been blocked. I did a test edit. Waiting for approval to have it run permanently.

--Barras talk 16:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed, that there have been requests about that below. (Honestly, I haven't read the page before). However, it seems to be unwritten consensus, that we (admins) just remove reports of blocked useers/IP, once they are blocked. Being an admin, I've to say it's just useless work for me to do that. Locking at the history of VIP, we have to clear the page regularly. Useless and repetitive work, that should be done automatically. -Barras talk 17:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The same was requested last year at #VIP Helper Bot which ended up in a weak consensus to have it, but didn't end up going through. I agree we don't get too much reports for it to be too time-consuming, but also it is really easy for a bot to do. My only suggestion would be that the reports are cleared after 15 min-1 hour, as sometimes we might want to make suggestions on that noticeboard - although as Fehufanga commented there, that is becoming increasingly less common. Based on that, Approved for trial (50 edits or 10 days). Please end the trial at whichever comes first and ping me back when you're complete. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 17:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien:. 10 days are done also with almost 50 edits. The current state is, that the bot removes entries, that have been blocked (checking locally and globally). If the bot is reverted, it will not remove the entry for 12 hours. I just implemented something that the bot removes also stale IP vandal entries after six hours of either no edits from the vandal or once six hours since the report have passed. It won't remove stale reports of named users, I think these should always be checked manually by an admin. It also checks for partial blocks. Such reports aren't removed as well. If any further changes need to be made, I'm happy to implement them. Requesting final approval after the trial time. -Barras talk 13:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

 Approved. I'm satisfied with what I've seen. I don't think the bot will need a bot flag based on the amount it edits. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

IERA Bot

• Contributions
• Operator: User:Ieditrandomarticles
• Programming language: Pywikibot
• Function: Cleans out completed articles at WP:REQUEST
• Description: Like User:Hazard-Bot does with sandbox, but checking if the page exists, is not a redirect, and is not a Disambig Page. If the article now exists, it can remove it from the list. Like Hazard-Bot, this would likely not require a bot flag.

Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 20:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles: please excuse the long wait you've had on this request. I think this idea is reasonable. Approved for trial (25 edits or 14 days). Please end the trial at whichever comes first and ping me back when you're complete. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 17:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Also to clarify, I think you should change the task slightly so it only removes from the list 12 hours after the article has been created. This prevents potential vandal pages that end up being deleted from being removed. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for my inactivity, would the 14 days include time already passed since approval or just since first edit? Otherwise I can start on the bot now. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 20:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles: you can consider the trial to have started today as it hasn't begun yet. Please make sure you implement the change I've suggested though, as otherwise creations from vandals would result in the article being cleared from the list. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Should I also keep a save of removals for a week in case of deletions? Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 21:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I think 12 hours would be long enough to allow for the qd candidates. If we're having a whole log of articles being removed from the requested pages list then I think thatd complicate things to a level where a bot wouldnt be worth it. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, will start on that now :) Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 21:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Would creating tons of articles and disabling the 12 hour wait be allowed for the trial? Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 23:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ieditrandomarticles, you can create articles on there but I would like to see the 12 hour wait in action please. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 01:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, 12 hour wait will be kept. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 02:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Ive had some OAuth issues but the bot is now working. The first edit is here . If you have anything that you want to change send a reply, otherwise I will keep the bot running. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 03:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien Trial complete. 3 edits were made in 14 days (plus one that accidentally ran through my account). Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 15:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

 Approved. It's very low-edit but I don't see any harm in approving this. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles@Ferien: I realize this has already been approved, but would it be possible/reasonable to also leave pages on the list if they have a qd or rfd template on them? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I left it for 12 hours to try and prevent that, but also searching for a QD template wouldn't be a bad idea. RfD I am a little split on, as it is usually for notability issues, and if an article is nominated and succeeds then we might not want it to be created. Then again, is that a decision we want being made by a bot? --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

CactusismeBot

Not done. Re-request after ANI consensus.-BRP ^ever 12:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

• Contributions
• Operator: Cactusisme
• Programming language: Pywikibot (python)
• Function: local
• Description: I recently created this bot, called CactusismeBot. The main purpose of this is to mark requested which are fulfilled at WP:VIP as {{done}} . It runs everyone five minutes (can be adjusted). Its code can be found here.

--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have any questions or suggestions, please say. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It also mark globally locked users as globally locked. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There have been few such request in the past (including one just below), and none of those have been approved yet due to lack of general agreement. I feel like this mostly affects admins who respond to requests, so if you can get a consensus (general agreement) from admins at WP:AN, I will approve this request. For now, it's Denied. .--BRP ^ever 08:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: now informs admins if they forgot to mark as done. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That's unnecessary. It can simply be cleared in a while if they forgot. BRP ^ever 09:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Still, it reminds them that they didn't do it. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Also doesn't clear WP:VIP, in case the admins have other comments. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is a very good reason to remind admin (which bot can't figure out), it is simply a nuisance. If someone reports a vandal, and an admin block it, all that's left is to clear the request. If there is something important, I expect admins to add that without reminder. BRP ^ever 09:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not opposed to the idea of a bot that automatically clears VIP every few hours or so. A bot that reminds admins to clear the VIP would be much more annoying since we always block users after reading a VIP report (we might not even see the VIP report for the user we just blocked before the page is cleared)

My bigger concern is that you seem to be using Google Colab's AI feature to generate the code for the bot. I already see some mistakes that the AI makes:

• In the functions extract_vandal_username and process_vip_reports, the code only works with the {{vandal}} template. What if the report comes in the {{ipvandal}} template?
• In line 66 there is an assignment user_info = site.users[vandal_username]. Reading through mwclient's docs I see no indication that users is an attribute of type list of the Site class. This means that any line of code that uses user_info is going to also result in an error.
• The above can be fixed by treating users as a function that takes as input a list of usernames and returns a listing.List of user information. The way you'd use this is as an iterator. Additionally, to get who blocked the user, you need to use .get("blockedby") on the OrderedDict output.
• Use a cron job, not a forever loop that time.sleep()s for 300 seconds between each run.

Please make sure that your code actually works at a testing ground such as the test Wikpedia (or the other test Wikpedia) before you submit a bot request here. Don't just blindly trust AI's output, especially code that is going to be used on a MediaWiki bot. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

BetterRedirs

• Contributions

• Operator: Ieditrandomarticles

• Programming Language: Python (PyWikiBot)

• Function: Changing Double-Redirects

• Description: Moving double-redirects to a single redirect (Example: This edit I made to Baseball Uniform)

Ieditrandomarticles (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles any source code? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ieditrandomarticles We already have Xqbot for the job of fixing double redirect. Also, I see no point in the edit you mentioned above, and I can imagine a lot of cases where it can be counterproductive. It wasn't a double redirect, it was linked to a redirect (which imo is completely fine). BRP ^ever 08:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Further read at Manual of Style/Linking#Redirects. I am inclined to deny this request unless there is something else that I am missing. BRP ^ever 08:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

okay, feel free to deny. Ieditrandomarticles (talk | contribs) 12:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Denied.--BRP ^ever 12:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Leaderbot

• Contributions
• Operator: Leaderboard
• Programming language: Python
• Function: meta:Global reminder bot.
• Description: As above. The bot is expected to run rarely, but this process is required regardless, hence this request. Note that the bot automatically ignores the flood flag (noting since it seems to be rather common here from a quick look at the logs). The bot flag itself is not required, and please ping me in a response. Leaderboard (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

--Leaderboard (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien is this something you could look at? Leaderboard (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: I'm not sure this is necessary as we don't use temporary rights, almost at all. Flood is the only one that is used temporarily and even then that's so temporary that this bot probably would not serve a use. --Ferien (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien This is true - in that the case the bot will simply run but not post at all. The difference here is that if you don't want the bot at all, it will never run unless enabled later on. Either way, let me know your preference. Leaderboard (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Leaderboard, I don't anticipate us having any use to the bot anytime soon, and with us having to go through the bot approval process in order to give the bot approval, I don't think it is necessary to go through that now if it just won't end up being used for the long-term. Thank you for offering this, I just don't see a need for our community. --Ferien2 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien Wikis generally approve this bot even if it won't run for a long time. In that case, I'll formally put it as a no and put this wiki in the opt-out set (this is required as otherwise my script will keep telling me that approval is pending), which means that it will stay completely disabled for this wiki. If there is a need to re-enable, let me know then. Leaderboard (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

SpBot

• Contributions

1. Operator: Euku (talk · contribs) (home wiki: German Wikipedia)
2. Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic at 3 a.m. (CET)
3. Programming Language(s): Python + Pywikipediabot
4. Function Details:

   This bot archives resolved discussions and working queues, that are tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}}. For example see commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. For details, see commons:Template:Autoarchive_resolved_section.

   My SUL bot account has more than 1.1 million edits over all - most of them made in German Wikipedia. This archiving task is running almost non-stop since 2007. It is running for commons, wikidata, meta, de.wiktionary, de.wikisource, de.wikiversity, en.wikisource ja.wikipedia and ko.wikipedia as well. I was asked to run my bot also in this project.

5. Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): nightly
6. Edit rate requested: 8 edits/minute
7. Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euku (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Here to express my support. This bot will make archiving our WP:PGA, WP:PVGA, WP:DRV and our permission requests (RB and Patroller) much easier. I am hoping to also be able to use it on WP:RFCU but that will be done after consulting CU and community members.--BRP ^ever 11:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Euku: Looks good, Approved for trial (10 edits). I appreciate you may not be able to achieve 10 edits, that's fine, it is more of a target rather than a required amount, to check the bot for errors, although this has been used in many wikis already. You are welcome to use User talk:Ferien2 for testing, feel free to even add your own sections for testing if you need to. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I missed that. :) Two edits are done. No tasks are left.

  Please ping me, when I am allowed to switch on the auto mode. This time I ran it manually. Euku (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Euku Can you please run it once more on the same page. There was an error in the template on the page suggested for archival; I have fixed it.--BRP ^ever 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  done Euku (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Euku:  Approved. Looks all good! Sorry about the lack of response from me on the second test. --Ferien (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is now executed automatically. Euku (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

TolBot 5

• Contributions
• Operator: Tol
• Programming language: Python (source code)
• Function: Update COVID-19 data
• Description: Uses data from source to update JSON Template:COVID-19 data/data, used by Module:COVID-19 data to generate data point numbers for multiple articles (via Template:COVID-19 data/text) and the table at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. Already running on six other Wikipedias (see m:User:TolBot/Task 5). This would replace the current practice of manually importing the bot's edits from enwiki.

Tol (talk | changes) @ 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tol: This looks reasonable. Approved for trial (10 edits or 10 days). Please end the trial after whichever comes first. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Trial complete. Edits: 1, 2, 3. Tol (talk | changes) @ 06:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

All looks good,  Approved. Due to the low frequency at which the bot edits, the bot flag has not been granted for this task, and this will be noted on Wikipedia:Bots. --Ferien (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

MdWikiBot

• Contributions
• Operator: User:Mr. Ibrahem
• Programming language: PHP and python
• Function: interwiki
• Description: This bot is to bring leads over from mdwiki:Main_Page to a work space on Simple EN. This work space will be within the user space of MdWikiBot. An example can be seen here. The primary goal is to then load these pages into the WMF content translation tool for translation into other languages. A possible secondary goal is further simplification within this user space to possibly get it easy to read enough for main space here.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, I will probably end up speedily approving the bot for use in userspace, per w:WP:BOTUSERSPACE, but would just like to ask a few questions about the two goals before I do, just to make sure I'm correctly understanding the scope of your request. For the first goal, am I correct in assuming that this means simplewiki will be the place all imported mdwiki articles are stored for you (or other users) to translate along to other wikis? On the secondary goal, and I guess also on the primary goal, I'm also assuming that a human editor will be making these translations/simplifications as opposed to a bot, that is just importing the articles here for further work? Finally, I noticed on User:Mr. Ibrahem/Lunate dislocation, no attribution was given to mdwiki in any edit summaries or on the talk page. Will this differ if the bot starts being used instead? Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that this is a small community, and what I would like to prevent is a great number of "drafts" in a userspace, that get forgoten after a while. So we likely need to think about some kind of attrition too:

• Articles that haven't been edited (in userspace) for say 3 months get deleted again?
• Articles published to SimpleWP get deleted from userspace (including the redirect, if there's any)

What do others think? Eptalon (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes bot is just moving them here and humans will be doing the next steps. Yes we will make sure attribution to mdwiki is present in the edit summary.

User:Eptalon not sure why the suggestion to delete after 3 months? We have been running translation efforts for 13 years now. Translators arrive at different times… We are talking about 3,200 of these. Also if moved to mainspace not clear on need to delete as we may still want a stable medically reviewed version for translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was: When the translation is done, you likely don't need the 'template' any more? Eptalon (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The same starting content is translated into different languages at different points in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is too much of an issue to have content in userspace like this, the only issue I can think of is sometimes pages like these may end up in cleanup categories, and if hundreds of these pages are bought over, it may fill those categories up. But people are welcome to use their userspace as they please, and if it's benefitting the encyclopedia (even if not exclusively simplewiki), I see that as a good thing. Deletion of these userpages would make no difference in terms of storage space saving or anything like that, so there's no need to get rid of them. --Ferien (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I should note just for the record, this bot request was denied over on enwiki, at w:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MdWikiBot. As my opinion on this matter appears to differ from members of the Bot Approval Group over there, I think it's necessary for me to address that request and the reasons why I have a different response to this request. The idea that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service (NOTWEBHOST) applies both here and on enwiki, as we follow enwiki's policies as guidelines. The idea of these MDWiki-imported pages clearly pass points 1-4 of NOTWEBHOST, I think the point being addressed at the request for approval above is point 5, Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. I do believe it passes this point – the content comes from another project, but is being adapted for use on other Wikipedias and potentially this one. I also appreciate how on enwiki, the situation may also differ as there is no benefit to their mainspace here, but there is certainly potential for a benefit to our mainspace here, because we do not have as many articles on medical topics as enwiki does. --Ferien (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually kind of think the same way as the comments en.wiki. I am all for it for articles we don't have if it leads to our wiki having simplified articles on topics we are missing. But this seems like a bit of an end run around using WMF resources to create pages for a non-WMF wiki. I think it does actually violate #5 if its not actually being used to create articles here. The explanation above seems to indicate that the true purpose is to get them into the translation tool for other wikis. Without the primary purpose being to get articles into this wiki and without an actual timeline to do so as opposed to some editors might show up sometime we should not be harbouring pages like this, we are indeed not a webhost. -Djsasso (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Can WPs serve the purpose of supporting other language versions? One could argue that meta would be best for this; however, technically using meta is not possible with the current set up of CTX. And of course some would argue why technical problems such as this should be any specific version of WPs problem... However our goal is to get the sum of all knowledge, including medical knowledge, out to people in a language they can understand. If this effort supports that, is that not the bigger goal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

But the pages that are being created would be on WMF wikis as the pages already exist on MDWiki, that just happens to be where they are being imported from. The pages are from non-WMF wikis, but the attribution is there in the edit summary. The content is not for projects unrelated to Wikipedia, because it is for other language Wikipedias – and yes, I appreciate Simple English Wikipedia would just be one of many other wikis as opposed to the primary purpose of this task – but I find it difficult to link #5 to this situation. --Ferien (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)4

We don't allow people to use User space to create articles for en.wiki. We would delete those right away. Why would we allow non-simple pages to be hosted here for any other language. We aren't a webhost. They want articles to import to other languages they can create actual simple articles here to then import to other wikis. -Djsasso (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doc James and Mr. Ibrahem: Approved for trial (25 edits). --Ferien (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. done. Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Ibrahem, a bit pedantic of me to suggest, but are you able to get the format of the attribution to be, for example, https://mdwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide&diff=1402618&oldid=1382024 rather than simply https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Suicide? --Ferien (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ferien here is new example — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Ibrahem (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Ibrahem, thanks, that format is much better for attribution. I just want to check a couple more things. Firstly, MdWikiBot made two edits in the template space here and here. Could you explain those please? When would MdWikiBot have to edit the template space while this task is ongoing? Secondly, FerienBot2 removed a protection template here from MdWikiBot's userspace, although it was technically you who made the edit with the translation dashboard for mdwiki. Does the translation dashboard for mdwiki/MdWikiBot have functionality to automatically remove templates from these pages that are typically exclusive to enwiki, such as short description templates and protection templates that would be void on other wikis? --Ferien (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm not going to approve anything more for now, as two other bureaucrats have had very reasonable concerns and they should now be resolved before going any further with this. --Ferien (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The template edits was done manually by myself, as I was supposed to do it through my personal account, but I was logged in with the bot account to give the tool OAuth permissions. and yes we have a function to remove these templates and I am adding templates to it frequently. Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ferien agree with linking to the specific diff as being better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Denied. Apologies for taking a while to get back to you on this, but it's clear there isn't a consensus among bureaucrats for the bot to be approved at this time. Please gain a consensus at Wikipedia:Simple talk if you wish to continue with the project on this wiki. --Ferien (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

VIP Helper Bot

• Contributions
• Operator: Philipnelson99
• Programming language: Perl en:User:HBC_AIV_helperbot/source I will modify this to do only the functions specified below.
• Function: Keep VIP clear of blocked users
• Description: This bot will clear requests at WP:VIP where the users have been blocked. I notice that VIP is always cleared manually and that is an easily automated task and has been automated at enwiki for a very long time. Upon approval this bot would only remove the blocked entries, will request approval if handling stale requests is desired but don't think it's necessary at this time.

--Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

When I became an admin here, I was told to remove reports if they had been fulfilled rather than marking them as {{done}} on WP:VIP. I haven't seen it as much recently, but reports are sometimes left on purpose if an admin wants to respond to an editor's report but has still blocked the vandal. I personally haven't had a need to do this in a long time now, although I think other admins still do it. A similar task wasn't fulfilled in Wikipedia:Bots/Fulfilled requests/2021#LemonadeBot. --Ferien (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat observation) While I occasionally leave notes and comments for reports in VIP, I think for users that are already blocked, it is preferable to leave a message on the reporter's talk page instead, because of the ephemeral state of the noticeboard. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien Understood. I do think this request is slightly different from the request you mentioned. My requested bot task is to only remove the reports that list accounts / IPs that have been blocked since being placed on WP:VIP. I do not think it's necessary to classify a request that is unfulfilled/non-blocked as stale and have the bot remove those, as I said above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally there could be a period if a report is replied to that the bot waits to remove, even if the reported account is blocked. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not opposed to this idea at all, and do think it could be helpful with managing VIP. I think this would be good for what the bot should do (unless the community thinks of other ideas):

• Remove reports fulfilled, after 1 hour
• Remove reports that have had no responses for 2 days
• Remove reports on WP:VIP/B if they are not fulfilled after 1 day

--Ferien (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
I am perfectly fine with those tasks, and implementing them will be no problem. Obviously a testing period would be a good idea. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just waiting for comments from other admins, and if there isn't any opposition to this idea, I will approve a trial. --Ferien (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of removing reports of blocked users. I'm not sure about removing stale entries, though; maybe for IPs but not for registered users. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Is there a length of time that you think would be okay for considering a stale report clear-able? Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Be careful with the settings around partial blocks. Recently, ChenzwBot removed a report it had just posted to WP:VIP/B, because the IP range was already blocked from editing some other pages. See the addition and the removal. Kk.urban (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, what if the user is already blocked but is abusing their talk page? Kk.urban (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

In that situation, it would need manually clearing. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Although, the bot could track a change in the block log for a specific user since the entry was added and remove the report on that basis. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just following up here, since it's been over a month since my initial request. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Philipnelson99 How does this handle the report of it is globally locked but not locally? Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think we get so many that we need an automated means for removing them. Sometimes some are left there for good reasons that would be hard to automate around. I defintately wouldn't want stale removed as that really does take an admin to decide if its actually stale or not. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

FehuBot

• Contributions
• Operator: Fehufanga
• Programming language: Python (Pywikibot)
• Function: Updating the DYK
• Description: The bot automates the task of updating the DYK templates. This includes moving new hooks from the next queue to the template, clearing the queue page, updating the queue counter, updating the timer, archiving the previous DYK hooks, and adding the {{dyktalk}} template to the talk pages of the newly-promoted articles. The bot is written in python, and is made open source on GitHub. I have run several trials on testwiki. Shall the trial here be for the next DYK update?

--— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 08:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Approved for trial (16 days). so it would update on 1 and 16 September, then I can review all the edits then. --Ferien (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien Could you grant the confirmed user group to the bot? It cannot edit Template:Did you know as it is protected. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien Trial complete. The dyktalk module didn't work in both runs, but I've managed to debug it. Besides that, there's no issue with moving the hooks from queues to the main template. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I can tag the talk pages later if needed. Bobherry Talk My Changes 00:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
 Approved. But not flagged as it likely will not edit enough over a short period of time to need it. Thank you Fehufanga - this is another bot that will be very helpful in saving editors' time :D --Ferien (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Eptabot

• Contributions
• Operator: Eptalon
• Programming language: Java, with JWiki
• Function: Updating the translation of the week.
• Description: This bot is to update the tanslation of the week, fetching the new entry and updating the template to include in the recent changes. If the TOTW is already up to date, the page won't be touched. Before going on to request an account on a toolserver, I wanted to run this past the community. Look at the last few edits, and you'll see the magic the bot is doing.

--Eptalon (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no problems on my end. Eptabot has saved me quite a lot of time fetching the latest TOTW on Monday mornings and updates it earlier than I would as well. I have found it to be a very helpful bot so far. --Ferien (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Approved, no flag needed, added to Wikipedia:Bots – we are all done here. --Ferien (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

ஒன்று

• Contributions
• Operator: Karnataka
• Programming language: AWB
• Function: Blanking old IP talk pages
• Description: As per en:WP:Old IP talk pages IP pages that have been unedited for years may be irrelevant to the current person the IP correlates to. This bot will blank IP pages that have not been edited in the past two years and where the IP has not edited in the past two years and add a template stating that the page has been blanked.

--Karnataka (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Per w:Wikipedia:Old IP talk pages#Page preservation, there are other conditions to blanking that a bot wouldn't be able to determine. And as it's an essay, not a policy or guideline, the follow rule does not apply. This essay is based on community discussions from the English Wikipedia, that I think would turn out quite different on this wiki. --Ferien (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on that, I'm also not sure that two years is enough to be certain it is not the same editor. I've just blocked an editor who used the same IP four years later. I think this blank should only happen at least 5 years after no edits, if we do continue with this idea. --Ferien (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien makes sense. Currently around 445 pages follow ~6+ years, but like you said it would be better to hold this depending on community consensus. Karnataka (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think 5-6+ years is a good idea. Obviously, it depends on the community's opinion but I'm just not sure how a bot would be able to follow the conditions in the enwiki essay. --Ferien (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. This is page blanking not page deletion so the page history will stay intact, skip tool can be used for most of the template items and the query filters out IPs with a block history and the page count is low and can be run supervised however like you said it's best for this to only be used based on community opinion, since Simple and EN work differently and a bot can't properly fulfil all the conditions. Karnataka (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Karnataka, do you still intend to go ahead with this? If not, I can mark it as {{not done}}. --Ferien (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien no its okay, you can mark it as not done Karnataka (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - not denied so no problems in you requesting again in the future if you wish. --Ferien (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

FerienBot3

• Contributions
• Operator: Ferien
• Programming language: AWB/Pywikibot
• Function: Substituting templates that should be substituted
• Description: At first, I plan to use AWB with this bot to go through and substitute templates that are intended to be substituted but are currently transcluded, such as {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{unsigned}}. Then once I've done that, I will enable the Pywikibot code I've developed to check, once a day, for transcluded templates and automatically substitute them. This should all be done with a flagged bot rather than manually, as otherwise, notifications would be triggered.

--Ferien (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). - Let's see it in action... Eptalon (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Currently doing some edits with flood on this account right now, but once I'm done with that I will start the trial. --Ferien (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, what I am actually going to do is skip straight to the Pywikibot part, for a couple of reasons:

1. AWB has been used for template substitution on this wiki many times before, however this Pywikibot code has not. So Pywikibot needs more testing.
2. I was going to skip to the Pywikibot code eventually, but there is no use switching between two different bot tools, if I am just going to stay on the second one anyway.

I hope that's alright with you.  Doing trial... --Ferien (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a sensible decision... Eptalon (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The trial isn't yet complete, the bot has made 23 edits so far with certain templates and I will add to that list tomorrow, but here are my observations so far:

• Pretty much all the errors come from the fact I overlooked the recent addition to Template:Uw-vandalism1. There is a fairly easy fix to this in that this should just be removed from the list, although I'm also starting to question whether it's better to say "Hi, I am (user)" or "Welcome to Wikipedia" in the template. That's another discussion though.
• Special:Diff/8914851 signed the edit for some reason, I think that is to do with how Template:Uw-block1 works. Again, this can be easily resolved by just removing it, but also cases like that are rare. Fake block messages like that shouldn't have stayed around anyway.

┌────────────────┘
I will continue the trial tomorrow. --Ferien (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Trial complete. No more issues have came up since what I've mentioned above. --Ferien (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Approved. - I don't see any issues...--Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Eptalon. Could you grant it the bot flag as well? --Ferien (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

done. Flag expires in 6 months, we can prolong then.. Eptalon (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eptalon, it's been around 6 months and the flag is due to expire soon. To be honest, it does not edit very much. It has only 126 edits, including the 50 edits it made for the trial. However, I do run it every now and then, and while I wouldn't usually request continuing to have the bot flag for tasks this small, each edit would give a notification on user talk pages unless it was flagged as it is currently. (And there's the same issue if I were to do this all manually on my own account with flood.) Could you extend it indefinitely please? --Ferien (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
No reason to think the bot isn't working...I have given it another year Eptalon (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Eptalon, as the bot doesn't edit very much for this task, I would like to move this task to User:FerienBot. I have already revoked FerienBot3's bot flag. Are you alright with this? --Ferien (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

cewbot 2

• Contributions
• Operator: Kanashimi
• Programming language: unsure
• Function: removing templates
• Description: I want to add Cewbot functionality to remove Template:Ill from existing articles. Sorry I am not that familiar with bots. The bot seems active here already but not with that function.

--Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: I think the bot owner would have to make this request. It doesn't seem like you are the owner, but please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I’m not the owner, the bot is on the wiki too, I’m just requesting a configuration change. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, please contact Kanashimi using their user talk page to request more features. This page is used for bot operators to ask for their bots to be approved. --Ferien (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked the template settings and I think I can undertake this task. See Astrid Gjertsen for the test edit. I think I can't do more test editing because there are not many examples for testing. However, this program has been running in Japanese, Chinese and English wikis for many years. --Kanashimi (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If no more trial edits can be run for this task then I am just going to mark this as  Approved. Fairly uncontroversial as it's a basic task that the same bot has done on other wikis. --Ferien (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kanashimi (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

FerienBot2

• Contributions
• Operator: Ferien
• Programming language: Pywikibot
• Function: Adding/removing protection templates
• Description: Removes protection templates from pages that are already protected, by monitoring Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates and adds protection templates to pages that have been protected, by watching Special:Log/protect.

--Ferien (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien: Approved for trial (50 edits).. I can't provide the flag on completion, but I can monitor the behavior of the bot in trials. Operator873 ^connect 03:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Operator873, Trial complete. While the bot hasn't made 50 edits, there aren't any more edits to make at this time. The bot ignores pages in the module and template namespaces, as most of these pages usually need protection. That being said, the bot checks pages' protection status every 5 minutes, so if 50 is needed, I can just keep it running until we get to 50. --Ferien (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like works as expected. 50 trial edits is a threshold, not a requirement. I recommend an available Crat review and approve. Operator873 ^connect 18:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I had a couple of issues with the bot so these two errors ended up happening: 1 2. I've worked on it again this month, made more test edits and those errors are now resolved. --Ferien (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear to the reviewing bureaucrat: this bot doesn't edit enough to need the bot flag, so I'm not requesting the bot flag, just approval to use the bot. --Ferien (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks Ok to me. Go ahead... Eptalon (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

BattyBot

• Contributions
• Operator: GoingBatty
• Programming language: AutoWikiBrowser
• Function: AutoWikiBrowser general fixes
• Description: Remove {{Orphan}} from articles with more than two incoming links, and perform other general fixes. Running this query for simplewiki_p currently shows 171 articles to be updated (11% of the articles in Category:All orphaned articles). Thank you for your consideration.

--GoingBatty (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

GoingBatty, Approved for trial (50 edits). --Ferien (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ferien: Trial complete. See these 50 edits. I apologize that the first few edits have a redlink to "general fixes" in the edit summary. Most of the edits (and all future edits) have a correct link to "general fixes". Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty. Everything looks good!  Approved. --Ferien (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Rather than linking to an enwiki page, it might be better to create a soft redirect here and link to that. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ferien - Thank you! GoingBatty (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Auntof6 - Created WP:AWB/GF and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. GoingBatty (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)