Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard
Here we coordinate and discuss Wikipedia issues related to bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our bot policy and know where to post your issue.
Do not post here if you came to
- discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page
- discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at WP:BOTISSUE
- discuss general questions about the MediaWiki software and syntax. We have the village pump's technical section for that
- request approval for your new bot. Here is where you should do it
- request new functionality for bots. Share your ideas at the dedicated page
| Bot-related archives |
|---|
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § citation bot malfunctioning. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
BOTINACTIVE isn't followed?
editAccording to WP:BOTINACTIVE, bots which haven't edited in 2 years get de-botted. But we have Category:Inactive Wikipedia bots, with some bots which haven't edited in often more than ten years but still have the bot user group. Examples of bots in that category which still are members of the bot usergroup are User:Acebot (last edit 2019), User:AndreasJSbot (2013), User:Arbitrarily0Bot (2012), User:ArmbrustBot (2020), User:ArticlesForCreationBot (2013), User:AttributionBot (no edits, granted 2014), User:AudeBot (2012 apart from one edit in 2018?)... Perhaps time to check them all and remove the bot user group where warranted? Fram (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- The rule isn't "bot > 2 years since edit", it's "bot > 2 years since contribution and operator > 2 years since contribution". The latter part of this rule keeps a lot of bots on the list. Izno (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Then the next question probably is, wouldn't it be better (for security mainly) if bots which haven't edited for X years (2, 5, 10) get de-bot-grouped anyway regardless of the status of the operator? It's not as if all these operators are around anyway, e.g. the operator of AceBot has made two edits in the last 2 years... Fram (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I started a discussion about nudging the relevant requirements north at WT:Bot policy/Archive 29#Bot and operator inactivity - blocks which had Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Inactive bots as its immediate background. Some other editors tried to make it about some sort of timeline but either way I took the reception as lukewarm. Eyeballing both archives since I don't see any other discussion about changing inactivity requirements. Izno (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Though there has been at least one discussion that circles that drain regarding whether bots are open source and freely published, because one usual objection to tightening the belt has been "we don't have access to the source so we can't make X bot not a bot anymore". This doesn't really apply to the ones you've pointed out but it might to ones you didn't. Izno (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for those links. I don't understand that last point though, removing the "bot" user group does nothing to make the code more or less accessible? It's just that if such a bot would suddenly restart but without the bot tag attached, it would appear in recent changes and so on so would get more (or faster) scrutiny than if it could operate "stealthily", in the background as a bot. Fram (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Then the next question probably is, wouldn't it be better (for security mainly) if bots which haven't edited for X years (2, 5, 10) get de-bot-grouped anyway regardless of the status of the operator? It's not as if all these operators are around anyway, e.g. the operator of AceBot has made two edits in the last 2 years... Fram (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
New maintainers needed for Citation bot
editSee the topic a couple sections up. User:Citation bot's maintainers @Smith609, @Kaldari, and @AManWithNoPlan are all inactive and while the bot still works, it has been blocked due to a new bug (which is pretty serious, though it only impacts a few pages). Considering that the only person who has been maintaining the bot recently has said they are no longer able to maintain it, it seems to be time for someone new to jump on board. I'm posting this here in hopes that someone who sees this will be interested in stepping up. Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- smith has the full power on the repository. There are thing he can so that I cannot. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I’m interested in contributing to a bot. I’ll take a look. Dw31415 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Re-running an already-approved OTR
editI was requested on my talk page to do a re-run of a one-time task I ran a few months ago. Thing is, the bot was given a temporary flag and it has since expired, so I'd need to get it reflagged, right? How would I go about doing that? ~ Rusty meow ~ 15:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe file a new BRFA, which would probably be speedy approved. Unless someone is willing to expedite the process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Since the original approval was for a one-time run, a new BRFA should be done in any case. The new BRFA might request another one-time run, or might request to run the code periodically or as-needed. After approval, a 'crat will re-flag as usual. Anomie⚔ 15:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was actually just about to say the opposite to Anomie, but in thinking about it I do suppose changing it from an OTR to an open-ended request would probably require explicit approval (even if it's just a speedy one). Primefac (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this sort of thing is what speedy approvals are for. I do tend to take a stricter stance on the "paperwork" being done, but having the paperwork in order can avoid problems later on if someone decides to complain about a bot. Anomie⚔ 16:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was actually just about to say the opposite to Anomie, but in thinking about it I do suppose changing it from an OTR to an open-ended request would probably require explicit approval (even if it's just a speedy one). Primefac (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Since the original approval was for a one-time run, a new BRFA should be done in any case. The new BRFA might request another one-time run, or might request to run the code periodically or as-needed. After approval, a 'crat will re-flag as usual. Anomie⚔ 15:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
User:FireflyBot Task 2
editFireflyBot is outputting nonsense in Template:DRN case status for the Pointer (computer programming) dispute. It says that the case was filed 54 days ago. Yesterday it was right. Can someone either take a look at the bot or take over the bot? The bot operator appears to have retired from editing Wikipedia about a year ago, This is not urgent, because I can ignore the case template and look at the case itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed it with Special:Diff/1327710589, which was caused by an editor copying a signature from October. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)