Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

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

 Instructions for bot operators
I Before applying for approval
  • Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests.
  • If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.
II Filing the application
  • Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
  • Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.
  • Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
    • For a first request: use {{BRFA|bot name||Open}}
    • For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
III During the approvals process
  • During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
  • AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
  • At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IV After the approvals process
  • After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
    • For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
    • For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
Bot Name Status Created Last editor Date/Time Last BAG editor Date/Time
CyrusTheBot (T|C|B|F) Open 2026-02-26, 08:57:37 Primefac 2026-03-01, 16:17:18 Primefac 2026-03-01, 16:17:18
SdkbBot 5 (T|C|B|F) Open 2026-02-07, 21:26:55 Thryduulf 2026-02-20, 18:40:00 Primefac 2026-02-15, 17:48:46
PhuzBot 8 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2026-02-25, 00:02:36 Phuzion 2026-03-05, 02:57:42 DreamRimmer 2026-02-26, 06:10:38
MilHistBot 10 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2026-02-10, 01:29:40 Hawkeye7 2026-03-02, 23:15:39 SD0001 2026-02-26, 03:57:41
Scaledbot (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! 2025-09-16, 12:58:39 DreamRimmer 2026-02-08, 13:49:02 DreamRimmer 2026-02-08, 13:49:02
VWF bot 9 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 2026-02-09, 23:04:22 Vanderwaalforces 2026-03-01, 22:40:51 Primefac 2026-03-01, 16:35:21

Current requests for approval

CyrusTheBot

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

Time filed: 08:57, Thursday, February 26, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: Update articles of US counties and municipalities (cities, towns, CDPs, boroughs and villages) to contain the latest census data. Data includes the 2020 decennial census, 2024 American Community Survey, and the 2023 population estimates.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://github.com/StuartMcClintock/wikipedia-census-cyrus/blob/main/poster.py

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Periodic continuous runs to update certain chunks of data

Estimated number of pages affected: ~3000 county pages ~25000 municipality pages

Namespace(s): Articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Function details: 1. Add 2020 census data to counties and municipalities that are missing it

2. Add 2024 ACS data to counties and municipalities that are missing it

3. Add 2023 or more recent population estimates to historical population tables (plus direction indicators such as Increase)

4. Update ledes of articles that still mention a population older than the 2020 census (eg 2010 census)

Discussion

Are your edits going to look like Special:Diff/1341013410 and Special:Diff/1341011502? Are you using that source code in those two edits (and ones like it)? Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 March 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]

Bots in a trial period

PhuzBot 8

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

Time filed: 00:02, Wednesday, February 25, 2026 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Update deprecated parameters on {{Infobox mountain}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Unopposed deprecation discussion of photo param

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~27,800

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This is a fairly simple parameter replacement run. The pages are in Category:Pages using infobox mountain with deprecated parameters. The vast majority of the parameters that will be replaced are {{{photo}}}, but this will cover all of the deprecated parameters. I am aware that @OpalYosutebito: appears to be chipping away at this manually, but at 28K pages, I figure a bot run might be a little more appropriate. Also going to ping @Zackmann08: who brought this to my attention. Happy to answer any questions!

Discussion

That sounds great! Just be sure to watch for duplicate parameters. :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Edits as requested. I did catch one instance of the bot adding a duplicate parameter (but I fixed it immediately), so I'll be keeping a close eye on when this runs. phuzion (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On hold, as we figure out some things with the template. phuzion (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the bot run. This BRFA was submitted only 4 days after a misleading summary of the proposed edits was posted to Template talk:Infobox mountain. This needs to get consensus before it can even start. Any edits done so far should be reverted. — hike395 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current list of deprecated parameter is acceptable to me, although I think we should be careful and wait for a week to see if there are any more comments. I am still concerned that the initial test edits have removed parameters that are not on the current consensus list. — hike395 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s no problem at all to change the mapping of parameters. Once we’ve reached consensus on what the mapping should be, I can edit the config, and we can do another test run. Happy to put this on hold for a week while we wait for any possible discussion. phuzion (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MilHistBot 10

Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:29, Tuesday, February 10, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: Maintain the participants list of a MilHist task force (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force).

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/toolforge-repos/milhistbot-membership

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force

Edit period(s): monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 57

Namespace(s): Wikipedia

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Go through the membership of a MilHist task force (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force) and comment out members inactive for more than 365 days. Uncomment members who were inactive but have now resumed activity.

Discussion

Which are the 20 pages that this affects? – SD0001 (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The pages in Category:WikiProject Military history task forces. Actually, there are 57 pages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (2 weeks). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. African military history task force
  2. American Revolutionary War task force
  3. Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
  4. Balkan military history task force
  5. Baltic states military history task force
  6. British military history task force
  7. Canadian military history task force
  8. Chinese military history task force
  9. Cold War task force
  10. Dutch military history task force
  11. Early Modern warfare task force
  12. Early Muslim military history task force
  13. Fortifications task force
  14. French military history task force
  15. German military history task force
  16. Intelligence task force
  17. Italian military history task force
  18. Japanese military history task force
  19. Maritime warfare task force
  20. Medieval warfare task force
  21. Middle Eastern military history task force
  22. Military aviation task force
  23. Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
  24. Military land vehicles task force
  25. Military logistics and medicine task force
  26. Military memorials and cemeteries task force
  27. Military science, technology, and theory task force
  28. Napoleonic era task force
  29. National militaries task force
  30. Nordic military history task force
  31. Post-Cold War task force
  32. Polish military history task force
  33. Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
  34. South American military history task force
  35. South Asian military history task force
  36. Southeast Asian military history task force
  37. Spanish military history task force
  38. United States military history task force
  39. Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force
  40. Weaponry task force
  41. World War I task force
  42. World War II task force
Trial complete.
Nota bene* The regular monthly run will not do nearly this much work. There was a backlog that the bot run was written to address. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scaledbot

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

Time filed: 12:58, Tuesday, September 16, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Update US settlement census data

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Request 1 · Request 2

Edit period(s): Yearly; new estimates released yearly

Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown, likely low 10 thousands

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

  • Doesn't add to a template if it sees there are multiple of it on the same page
  • Doesn't overwrite info if it is same age or newer

Discussion

Supervised Test 1 & Supervised Test 2 Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Since this is your first bot task, I am treating this as a one-off task. For future years, a new BRFA will be needed, and then we can see if it can be approved to run annually. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} Anything on the trial? Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the trial is not yet concluded.
As part of the trial, the bot was ran twice, both times being stopped due to eventually forming a false association between the database and the article. This lead to the conclusion that the match script needs to be improved significantly, which I will do but haven't yet had the time. I still believe a reasonable fix is possible. Likely, as part of this, a semi-supervised confidence approach will be adopted where, if confidence isn't overwhelmingly high, the association is sent for manual review.
Also as part of the trial, an additional issue was identified. If the infobox population is from <2010, is cited using a named reference, and elsewhere in the body that reference is referenced, a cite error is caused because those references are now dangling. This may be a simple fix, but needs to be implemented.
When both of these fixes are implemented, I plan to resume the bot for the remaining ~25 trial edits. Afterwards, I will request an additional 50 trial edits. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} Any progress on the fixes? Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay, my real life workload is roughly cyclical—you can see that reflected in my xtools stats. I expect to be able to work on it again within a week or two. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 19:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any update on this? – DreamRimmer ■ 13:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bots that have completed the trial period

VWF bot 9

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

Time filed: 23:04, Monday, February 9, 2026 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s):

Source code available:

Function overview: Fixes a botched historical substitution of {{W-shout}} on user and user talk pages by converting it to the modern, intended wikitext/HTML structure without removing any content.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Vanderwaalforces#Another bot run fix hopefully

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 2975 from search

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: The bot performs the following actions:

  • Identifies user and user talk pages containing a known malformed substitution of {{W-shout}}.
  • Converts the broken output into the modern intended format by:
    • Moving the “Welcome!” heading outside of the styled
    • Removing obsolete {{#if}} and {{#ifeq}} parser-function wrappers left behind
    • Removing stray opening and closing <p> tags introduced
    • Preserving all user-facing content, signatures, links, and formatting
    • Appending <!--Template:W-shout--> as a tracking comment
  • The bot does not modify pages unless the exact broken pattern is detected.

Discussion

I've requested this task as it clears some issues that I've encountered when fixing lint errors, including missing talk page headings and everything stated above. --Gonnym (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The messages that were posted incorrectly to the user page instead of the talk page should either be deleted or moved. I don't really think there is reason to move them to the talk page at this point (but that isn't something I'm opposed if this is what needs to happen). Gonnym (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym I am as well surprised, like I said earlier. It's a little bit complicated; some messages were posted on both the user and user talk pages, some where only the user page, some of the users who have the message on their user page do not have a talk page at all, while some have a talk page but the welcome message was not posted to their user talk. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym Just to be sure (because this is programmatic, there have to be something specific to do), regarding the notices posted to the main user pages, should they just be deleted? I also do not see any reason to move them to the talk page, also, moving them to the talk page will be pretty unrealistic IMO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be deleted. They never belonged on non-talk pages and I don't know what they are worth now moving to talk pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Tysm! Trial complete. See contributions.
In the earliest 27 or so edits, I realised that some of these notices initially had a "Welcome" heading, and that after the fixes we then had two headers, I later fixed that by using regex to remove the duplicating header. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces in this edit a closing p tag was left which should also be removed (or the opening p kept). Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can the if parser functions be removed in the "We're so glad you're here!" paragraph? Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym Ah, I didn’t observe that particular closing p tag. Also, it is weird to find out that some of the We’re so glad paragraph has if parser functions, while some do not have.
I’ll tend to these rn. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I noticed that also. The parser functions were probably fixed at some point in the template. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym After reviewing the edit you mentioned above properly, it becomes obvious that the if parser functions at the last paragraph is not hardcoded in the welcome template; it came from the user's signature. So, I am not sure I should be programming that sort of removal when that occurrence might just be singular. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure np, any usages that left and I find, I'll just remove manually. Gonnym (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we're good to go; everything is in order. @Primefac. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAG assistance needed}} Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'd like to make sure the <p> issue gets resolved, as I am seeing it on most of the edits. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Trial complete. See contribs, thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:40, 1 March 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=1341182159"