Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Brfa)

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

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

 Instructions for bot operators
I Before applying for approval
  • Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests.
  • If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.
II Filing the application
  • Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
  • Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.

  • Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
    • For a first request: use {{BRFA|bot name||Open}}
    • For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
III During the approvals process
  • During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
  • AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~2 weeks) 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
Blippy1998Bot 2 (T|C|B|F) Open 2026-07-14, 05:41:54 Blippy1998 2026-07-16, 16:16:38 Never edited by BAG n/a
SdkbBot 5 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2026-02-07, 21:26:55 Sdkb 2026-07-10, 15:22:36 Primefac 2026-03-08, 20:49:01
SnowyBot 2 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2026-04-25, 02:07:40 Primefac 2026-07-19, 13:18:25 Primefac 2026-07-19, 13:18:25
FlammableBot 2 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 2026-07-01, 23:28:33 FlammablePizza 2026-07-14, 15:57:20 DreamRimmer 2026-07-14, 14:22:34

Current requests for approval

Blippy1998Bot 2

Operator: Blippy1998 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 05:41, Tuesday, July 14, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: updating a draft set of data modules, hopefully with permissions to also edit what would hopefully be a non-draft set of data modules, with new data about legislatures pulled from official/authoritative sources, starting with the United States House of Representatives. btw if i'm allowed to add my own userspace and my own module sandbox to Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration without asking permission, let me know and i'll just do that for now, but it would be nice to get permission to edit Module:Legislature and its subpages in the near future with my bot also.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python, Scribunto

Source code available: it's just on my computer at the moment

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Blippy1998Bot
User_talk:Morwen#A_barnstar_for_you! - i describe it a bit here, BELOW the discussion about Module:Legislature diagram, which is wholly unrelated (i probably should have started a new section). i have described it elsewhere, too.

Edit period(s): no more than every hour when my laptop is open, but realistically no more than a few times a month to begin with, scaling with how many legislative chambers are covered

Estimated number of pages affected: for now i think just 3 but probably well under 100 within the next year

Namespace(s): the Module:Sandbox/Blippy1998 namespace and maybe my userspace for now but in the future hopefully Module:Legislature and all its subpages, plus perhaps some templates

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes (it would only edit a short whitelist of pages for now)

Function details:

the goal of this bot is to automate updates for data on legislatures - current seats, current members, current committees, and whatever else people see fit to add. there is to be a module with functions that parses that data in useful ways, computing the list of members belonging to a certain party, the balance of power, etc. this is not meant to replace user editing of highly-trafficked pages, but rather to serve as centralized, standardized database-like storage for information that infrequently-edited articles and sections of articles can pull from so that they stay up to date automatically. (this can be seen as a major expansion of my previous work, which can be read about at my previous bot request.)

this bot would, initially, edit Module:Sandbox/Blippy1998/Legislature/US/lower/committees, Module:Sandbox/Blippy1998/Legislature/US/lower/members, and Module:Sandbox/Blippy1998/Legislature/US/lower/seats only, i think, but i would love to see it grow to cover other legislative chambers, and of course to migrate to Module:Legislature once i think it's ready. i may have it edit various templates - within my userspace to start - automatically to update citations automatically as it downloads new data, for example.

basically, what it would do is use a number of python scripts to download the xml file, check it against the local copy, and update it if it's new. then, if it did that, it would parse the new one and update the committees, seats, and members jsons i have locally before simply converting those to lua data modules and uploading them to the pages i listed above. in other words, it would effectively just update the data at each of these data module pages in this formatted, quasi-relational way, parsed directly from the official xml file every time it's updated.

Discussion

How does this data get pulled off of the legislative website? Also, legislators' districts at the state level seem to have trouble getting updated. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 01:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it just gets this page using a python script every hour while my laptop is connected to the internet. i haven't written code to pull data for every state legislature - that would be incredibly tedious to do alone - but i've designed the structure of the modules to be easily expandable to other legislatures. for example, if someone wrote a script to download data for Texas's Senate, they could put the data into Module:Legislature/US/TX/upper/members, Module:Legislature/US/TX/upper/seats, and Module:Legislature/US/TX/upper/committees, or other subpages as appropriate, and then use the same functions in Module:Legislature (already written in Module:Sandbox/Blippy1998/Legislature) and templates (not yet written) to create views of the data, like a wikitable of all the members of a certain committee, or just the tally of members of a certain party. the point is to set up a framework that is easily extensible so people can write their own scripts and upload a data module to a sensible location with a standardized format (like Legislature/[ISO country code]/[subnational entity code]/[chamber label]/seats) and then not have to rewrite functions that actually parse that data. but all i'm seeking approval for is the bot that pushes the updates to those pages. seeing as all i have is the US House at the moment, updates would realistically not happen more than a few times a month to just a few pages, but, yes, hopefully more legislatures would be added and the number of pages and frequency of edits would scale with that. Blippy1998 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SdkbBot 5

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

Time filed: 21:26, Saturday, February 7, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: Removes erroneously italicized commas at the end of italicized terms.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: The bot will be operated by running through lists of pages from the RegEx search query insource:/''[A-Z a-z]+,'' / with a find and replace for ''([A-Z a-z]+),'' →''$1'', . It will use the edit summary Fix erroneously italicized comma and general fixes (task 5).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): None. Although not explicitly specified in the Manual of Style, it is standard English to italicize only the term itself, not punctuation following it.

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 82,000 per this search

Namespace(s): Mainspace (potentially expanding to other namespaces)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Because italics markup looks similar to quotation marks and many editors are used to American-style quotation, many editors erroneously put commas following italicized terms within the italicized term, causing the comma to be erroneously italicized. This bot will fix many of these instances, using the AWB settings described above. I did 50 test edits for a version excluding italicized terms with spaces, manually reviewing each one, and the only instances that gave me any pause were ones within quotations, e.g. here (after "for" in the paragraph beginning "King asked a bookmobile driver"). These could be excluded if an issue, but, per the MOS, Insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically), so I think it's fine to include them. I reviewed another 60 edits (including terms with spaces) via search and found no issues.

Discussion

Should something similar be done with bold? (10,000 per this search) -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. It might also be worth requesting this be added to the genfixes for AWB so that when this run is over any new instances will be more likely to be picked up. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it'd definitely be nice to do the same thing with erroneously bolded commas. I intentionally kept the query constrained to start off (ignoring any italicized terms with unusual characters, for instance), but it could be expanded after the initial run is over.
And yes, I agree it'd be nice to add this to the GENFIX set. Cheers, Sdkb talk 22:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not wanting to do bold? Primefac (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the first 100 search results for the bold query. I found one niche edge case: On this page, bolding is used to delineate which parts of two passages match. Because manual line breaks are used, some bolded strings end with a comma. You could argue that this is a downstream effect of the article using poor syntax with manual line breaks, or that a passage like that should have been surrounded with {{as written}}. But because bolding is sometimes used for niche purposes like this, I think it's the slightest bit riskier to try to fix it than italics.
I'll defer to whatever the consensus is here about whether, given this, it's worthwhile to include it or not. Sdkb talk 17:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like something so minor that it would be best either ignored or done as part of AWB GENFIXES. I oppose this being done as the sole edit to a page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the most earth-shattering change to a page, but it is an improvement, and it's clearly in compliance with WP:COSMETICBOT because it changes the output HTML of the page. It is something that I occasionally notice as a reader. Also, because it's an AWB bot, it can be run alongside GENFIXes, so often the comma fix will not be the only change the bot makes. Sdkb talk 17:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the change is an improvement or neutral, and I have no objection to the change being made alongside changes that are unambiguously improvements, but minor changes like this should never be the sole change made by a bot. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On hold. There is opposition to the task, and with only the implication of consensus to run the task based on existing guidelines I would prefer to see a stronger consensus to specifically target this as a bot run. I know AWB releases updates less frequently than most countries change leadership, but that would be another route to go down to start whittling away at the list. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac, where would be an appropriate venue to get additional input on whether there is consensus to run this as a bot task? Thryduulf's view seems to be that WP:COSMETICBOT should be made stricter, and while I know that's a view some editors hold, presumably it's a minority given that editors have not found consensus to change the language of the bot policy. Sdkb talk 20:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Either at the MOS talk or a Village Pump. I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a more strict ruling on COSMETICBOT given that it already says Minor edits are not usually considered cosmetic but still need consensus to be done by bots. Since this is a "barely visible" type of minor edit, I'd like to get at least some measure of support for making it; it's not like you're going to need an RFC, just enough to indicate that Thryduulf is in the minority when it comes to being concerned. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: Did you start a discussion to gather consensus at all? Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenshi Hinanawi, yes, see here. I read it as a weak consensus to proceed, although it didn't gather as much input as I would've liked. Sdkb talk 15:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bots in a trial period

SnowyBot 2

Operator: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:07, Saturday, April 25, 2026 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Here

Function overview: Standardises citations of Australian legal cases with the {{cite AustLII}} template

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Once a month

Estimated number of pages affected: ~800 currently

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This task will use regex to identify cite web templates linking to AustLII, a legal database used in Australia. The template {{cite AustLII}} standardises the referencing of legal cases, but there are around 800 references to AustLII (query here) that use the cite web template instead. After the initial run it could be scheduled to run on a regular basis to keep on top of new edits (wouldn't need to be very often). If this is successful a similar task could be applied in future to change from cite web to {{cite Legislation AU}}.

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, trial log is at User:SnowyBot/Trials/Task 2 SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{Operator assistance needed}} Any update? – DreamRimmer ■ 12:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On hold. Just going to mark this as on hold given the operator looks to be away until September. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bots that have completed the trial period

FlammableBot 2

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

Time filed: 23:28, Wednesday, July 1, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: Implements MOS:POSLINK by locating all [[Example|Example's]] and changing them with [[Example]]'s.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://gitlab.com/flammablepizza/FlammableBot/-/blob/main/task2.py

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

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 46,600

Namespace(s): Mainspace Articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (through default PyWikiBot settings)

Function details: The bot searches all articles for instances of [[Example|Example's]] and replaces them with [[Example]]'s (max 15 edits per minute). This task was specfically requested to help implement MOS:POSLINK. It is intentionally conservative to prevent a high error rate.

Also, I did a dry-run by generating 200 edit diffs. I checked many of those diffs and did not see any errors. One manually-approved edit can be seen here: [1]

Discussion

Does this find also MOS:CURLY apostrophes? --Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wasn't aware that curly apostrophes exist. I never noticed in my tests because most results use straight apostrophes (and curly ones were simply skipped). I just implemented curly apostrophe support though by changing my regex expression. FlammablePizza (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some kind of search results (for the general task, not my question above) which I'm sure has false positives. Gonnym (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The search does have false positives such as [[Grimm's law|Grimm's]] at English language and the [[List of most-visited museums in the United States|country's]] at Washington, D.C. We discussed problems like this quite extensively at the linked bot request discussion. The intended intentionally conservative scope of this bot is to fix only cases like [[Example|Example's]] where both sides of the pipe are identical except for the terminal ⟨'s⟩. There is some continued discussion about eventually deploying a bot with expanded capabilities but the kinks have not been worked out. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Myceteae is correct, my regex limits the bot to instances when both sides of the wikilink syntax match completely (excluding the "'s" part), using a capture group to verify that they match. This will catch most MOS:POSLINK violations, but will skip the more complex ones (which can be cleaned up later by another bot if needed). I would link search results for my method, but Wikipedia search doesn't natively support capture groups. FlammablePizza (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded some test diffs to my sandbox here. I know the formatting is terrible, but my bot isn't made for easy dry-runs. Also, there are two citations listed in the diffs that are broken due to the edit filter (not my bot). FlammablePizza (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, this will not require "crawling all articles" but I would still put a conservative estimate of a max 100k pages (search is looking for all instances of a piped link ending in 's not just the straight [text|text's] that this task is running). Primefac (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comment, I was initially using a PyWikiBot page generator that used a (very general) regex search server-side before returning any pages, but repeatedly hit an apparent cap of 10k pages. This resulted in me moving to an all pages generator instead and running all regex client-side. FlammablePizza (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current AllpagesPageGenerator approach isn't ideal because it processes a large number of pages unnecessarily. I tested it on 5,000 pages, and only two required edits while the other 4,998 were skipped. That doesn't seem like an efficient use of resources.
SearchPageGenerator does have the 10k limit, but I can provide you with the list of pages matched by the regex above, allowing you to process only the relevant pages. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. – DreamRimmer ■ 19:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I downloaded the English Wikipedia page dump and used a script to generate a list of matches locally (list can be found here: https://gitlab.com/flammablepizza/FlammableBot/-/blob/main/search_matches.txt). I also modified my bot to run from that file instead of using a page generator. Please note that not all pages in the list will be edited though, as it is generated from the same regex as the search. FlammablePizza (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I ran my strict regex on the previously generated list and generated a file containing the list of 46,600 pages that will be edited by this task. The bot will now only process the pages that will be changed. File can be found here: https://gitlab.com/flammablepizza/FlammableBot/-/blob/main/matches.txt. I also re-ran a dry-run and the bot looks to be ready-to-go. FlammablePizza (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Approved requests

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



Denied requests

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

Expired/withdrawn requests

These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval&oldid=1364948107"