This page contains an archive of bot requests. At the top, there is a table containing the basic information for each request, and further down is the discussion surrounding each bot. The format should show more recent requests first in all sections.
| Owner | Bot Name | Bot Use | Current Status | Voting | Comments and Recommendations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CodeLearnerSai | AutoAdministrator | Deleting pages with {{delete}} and protecting pages with {{protect}} if they have not been handled within two days | Rejected | This bot involves giving elevated permissions to a user who was not elected or appointed -jvvg | |
| CodeLearnerSai | WikiCensor | Censoring inappropriate language | Rejected | Already done by AbuseFilter. -jvvg | |
| Garnetluvcookie | Polybot | Various tasks | Rejected | No further discussion. -Kenny2scratch | |
| ContourLines | PageCheck | Check page content and find old and unupdated articles. | Rejected | All tasks either already done, typographical, or too nuanced for a bot. -Kenny2scratch | |
| CodeLearnerSai | No_Edit_Wars | Detecting edit wars and notifying participants | Rejected | Edit wars are fairly uncommon on the Wiki so a bot wouldn't be that helpful; proposing user has also not responded to questions and been fairly inactive on the Wiki overall -jvvg | |
| CodeLearnerSai | MoveCleaner | Fixing redirects after a page move | Rejected | Double redirects aren't a major problem; proposing user has also not responded to questions and been fairly inactive on the Wiki overall -jvvg | |
| Mar10Josh | Flipager | Taking care of each page, fixing each red-link, alerting users when they get a deletion of their pages, ect. | Rejected | User has not made any edits in six months. -jvvg | |
| JJBullet | CitationBot | Automatically add references and/or citations to pages marked with the {{cn}} template. Inspiration taken from Citation bot on the English Wikipedia. | Revoked by OP |
Older Archives
- Archive 1 - before September 2020
Accepted
Declined
AutoAdministrator
This bot would delete pages which have had the {{delete}} on them for 172,800 consecutive seconds. It would also raise the edit and move protection level by 1 step for pages which have had the {{protect}} template on them for 172,800 consecutive seconds. 
CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 21:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- 172800 seconds is two days. In almost every case a page with {{delete}} or {{protect}} was handled by an administrator in far less time than that. Also, both of those templates require manual review (even if very brief) to ensure they're being used properly. Finally, we will not give administrator permissions to anyone who was not elected or appointed.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Because this bot requires elevated permissions, this request is rejected without further discussion. jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Because this bot requires elevated permissions, this request is rejected without further discussion.
WikiCensor
This bot would censor words censored on Scratch anywhere on the wiki. It will let me know if there are any. The bot censors these phrases faster than an Admin or Bureaucrat. This ensures safety in the Wiki.
CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 18:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC) CodeLearnerSai
- We already have AbuseFilter to do this. It already will automatically censor inappropriate language and there is a log of instances in which it was triggered. jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK! CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 00:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK!
PolyBot
 Note: | I know some of these are taken by other bots already. I am proposing to strengthen these processes. |
PolyBot would do various tasks (e.g. clearing sandbox, fixing style, compressing files, and interwiki stuff). It would be written in Python or JS, Python being likelier. 
garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs)
- Also I have learned a good bit of Python since last time. garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- They are already done by other bots. Why don't you try to improve them rather than just making another request?
ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 20:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mine would be way more different than other bots, so that's why I'm suggesting a separate bot. garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 21:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- All the tasks you've listed is done by other bots. Can you explain how they will be different? Or how will you strengthen them?
- As Ahmetlii said, you could just edit the bots. The two bots that use python are TemplatesFTW and InterwikiBot (which also uses java).
12944qwerty Talk Contribs Scratch 22:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- The messages would look way different than TemplatesFTW and WM, and the code would be a biit different; we can't just revamp a whole bot. garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 14:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just because the messages are different and the codes are different wouldn't mean that the bot is different. All the tasks are still the same. 12944qwerty Talk Contribs Scratch 14:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just because the messages are different and the codes are different wouldn't mean that the bot is different. All the tasks are still the same.
- The messages would look way different than TemplatesFTW and WM, and the code would be a biit different; we can't just revamp a whole bot.
- Mine would be way more different than other bots, so that's why I'm suggesting a separate bot.
- They are already done by other bots. Why don't you try to improve them rather than just making another request?
So? Ken definitely wouldn't agree to a revamping of his bot. Also, IWB strictly does interwiki tasks, and I'm not prepared to do that (and request 10k accounts) garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @garnetluvcookie: If so, why TemplatesFTW's codes are under open source named as "deathly-hallows"? ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 17:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ken will allow to revamping his bot as long as he knows what you're trying to do. I don't know what made you think otherwise. 12944qwerty Talk Contribs Scratch 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- He wouldn't agree to what I'm thinking of. It has a different design, layout, messages, etc. garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs)
- You can always talk to him. I'd suggest asking on the weekends though as he is busy. You never know until you ask. 12944qwerty Talk Contribs Scratch 22:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're not getting my point. I'm suggesting a new bot, while you are suggesting I somehow persuade Ken to change the whole "aesthetic" of his bot. garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 22:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're suggesting a new bot. I understand that. However, this new bot doesn't have any task that can't be already added or modified to an existing bot. You also pointed out that just the messages and codes would be different. If only those two were different, there is absolutely no point for a new bot. 12944qwerty Talk Contribs Scratch 01:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're suggesting a new bot. I understand that. However, this new bot doesn't have any task that can't be already added or modified to an existing bot. You also pointed out that just the messages and codes would be different. If only those two were different, there is absolutely no point for a new bot.
- You're not getting my point. I'm suggesting a new bot, while you are suggesting I somehow persuade Ken to change the whole "aesthetic" of his bot.
- You can always talk to him. I'd suggest asking on the weekends though as he is busy. You never know until you ask.
- He wouldn't agree to what I'm thinking of. It has a different design, layout, messages, etc.
- Ken will allow to revamping his bot as long as he knows what you're trying to do. I don't know what made you think otherwise.
I will think of new tasks, I can't just think them up in 10 seconds, let alone when I wake up. garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're saying that you made a bot but didn't think of tasks in doing so? Isn't the whole purpose of a bot to have new tasks?
- Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? You already noted that it is possible to add to another bot, but wouldn't be likely because the owner of the bot wouldn't "like" your edits.
- I never said you couldn't think of tasks right away. But I would suggest knowing your tasks before you propose a bot idea. 12944qwerty Talk Contribs Scratch 13:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. I already have a good few ideas but I'm deciding on a few. garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok! Take your time and come back when you've decided on ideas. 12944qwerty Talk Contribs Scratch 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok! Take your time and come back when you've decided on ideas.
- Got it. I already have a good few ideas but I'm deciding on a few.
PageCheck
PageCheck would process a page and try to find notable usage of first or second person, informal language (e.g. 'yeah') or anything not meeting the wiki standards and write a note at the top. It would also be able to add references where needed. As well as that, it would try and find old pages and form a list on a page in it's userspace. All 3 tasks being attempted by humans are either time consuming or can result in common human error. It would perform these tasks on either a weekly or monthly basis and run through a selection of articles updated a lot recently and add those seemingly forgotten articles to it's list. As far as I know of I believe that none of the bots currently focus this much on the content of an article. It would either be written in Python or Java.
ContourLines [ Talk ~ Contributions ~ Directory ] 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:TemplatesFTW already checks first and second person, also
Further reviews needed for all requests. ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 16:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I had realised that. I believe that it could actually focus on page activity as a routine but have non-routine article related tasks. ContourLines [ Talk ~ Contributions ~ Directory ] 16:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- We're not accepting anything typographical anymore, which is most of the reason that bots don't focus on the content.
- What other "wiki standards" do you intend to look at, specifically? And how on earth do you plan to add the right references?
- Finally, "old" pages have a MediaWiki special page list: Special:AncientPages
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 17:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I had realised that. I believe that it could actually focus on page activity as a routine but have non-routine article related tasks.
No_Edit_Wars
 Resolved (since 15:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC))
|
|---|
This bot would detect if an edit war is seen. WikiMonitor currently doesn't do that. When it sees an edit war, it will notify the user who started the war with this:
| “ | Hello! I'm No_Edit_Wars, a bot run by CodeLearnerSai. This is a reminder that you just started an edit war on [[flame war page]]. Please do not do such a thing in the future. Check out User:No_Flame_Wars/Preventing edit wars for details. Thanks! | ” |
CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 01:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- How would it detect an edit war? There are plenty of situations where multiple users could be editing a page in quick succession that aren't edit wars. Also, edit wars aren't all that common, so the utility would be limited. Finally, the main tool in preventing edit wars is protection (since users sometimes do continue trying to get their revision to be the one that stays even after they have been notified that they are edit warring), and we will not give protection permission to any user who was not selected to be an admin by our established process. jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- It would detect an edit war by making sure each source code of a page is in a list. If not, it will add [sourcecode, 1] to the list. If not, it will replace the position of that source code in the list with [list[list.indexOf(sourcecode)][0], list[list.indexOf(sourcecode)][1] + 1, page]. When list[list.indexOf(sourcecode)][1] >= 3, then only it will notify the user who started the war with this:
| “ | Hello! I'm No_Edit_Wars, a bot run by CodeLearnerSai. This is a reminder that you just started an edit war on [[flame war page]]. Please do not do such a thing in the future. Check out User:No_Flame_Wars/Preventing edit wars for details. Thanks! | ” |
. CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 00:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what your source code does, would it be possible to explain it in more human terms? This still doesn't address the other issues I brought up, which are that this has fairly limited utility due to edit wars being uncommon and that the participants may still try to get the "last word" in with the only real solution to that being protection, which is a permission that will not be granted to a bot not owned by someone who is already an administrator. jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- When the number of times the page has had the same sequence of changes 3+ times, it will add {{protect|An edit war happened here.}} to the top of the page and notify the starter. CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 22:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, I think I understand it now. However, that being said, edit wars still seem to be fairly uncommon on the Wiki (I'm not sure if we've had any in the past month), and so I don't think a bot would provide much utility for this. jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why just the person who initiated the edit war? Why not everyone involved?
Dhuls (Talk|922 Contributions|Scratch) 03:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- The starter of the edit war needs to learn not to edit war more than everyone involved. CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 23:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, they don't. They all need to learn not to edit war.
For an analogy, say one person started a fight at school, and many others joined in. Everyone who joined in on the fight should be punished, as they all fought, not just the person who started it. Dhuls (Talk|922 Contributions|Scratch) 00:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, they don't. They all need to learn not to edit war.
- The starter of the edit war needs to learn not to edit war more than everyone involved.
- Why just the person who initiated the edit war? Why not everyone involved?
- Thank you for the clarification, I think I understand it now. However, that being said, edit wars still seem to be fairly uncommon on the Wiki (I'm not sure if we've had any in the past month), and so I don't think a bot would provide much utility for this.
That still doesn't address my point: edit wars are very uncommon, so a bot is in my opinion totally unnecessary for this. And yes, everyone involved in an edit war needs to know it's not ok, and who "started it" also is not easy to determine by a program. If the first edit was obviously unconstructive or made a major change without first having discussed it, then the first person "started it," while if the first edit was constructive and either minor or had already been approved as a result of community discussion, then whoever reverts the edit would be the one who "started it," and this is virtually impossible to determine with a bot. jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with @Dhuls. If two people edit-war, both of them should be punished. It doesn't matter who started it, because both of them engaged in the edit war. Also, @jvvg, if you think about it, @CodeLearnerSai can just activate his bot periodically, like once a week.
Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 10:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Activating the bot once per week defeats the whole purpose. The point is to catch edit wars quickly to notify the people who are involved, while activating it once per week, or even once per day will usually only catch it by the time it's long been dealt with by an admin. jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given that the situation this bot is designed to detect doesn't happen very often and that the owner of the bot has not responded to any messages for a full year (and not been particularly active on the Wiki at all recently), I am going to mark this one as rejected. jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Given that the situation this bot is designed to detect doesn't happen very often and that the owner of the bot has not responded to any messages for a full year (and not been particularly active on the Wiki at all recently), I am going to mark this one as rejected.
- Activating the bot once per week defeats the whole purpose. The point is to catch edit wars quickly to notify the people who are involved, while activating it once per week, or even once per day will usually only catch it by the time it's long been dealt with by an admin.
MoveCleaner
| Resolved (since 15:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC))
|
|---|
This bot would, when a page is moved:
- Check https://en.scratch-wiki.info/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/WpOldTitle&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1
- Make each redirect from WpOldTitle to WpNewTitle
CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 22:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Can't you do it manually. According to the move page, it is your responsibility. Dhuls (Talk|922 Contributions|Scratch) 00:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Given that you have the option to leave a redirect behind when making a page move, this doesn't seem all that helpful. Also, forcing people to look at "What Links Here" is actually helpful so they can see how impactful the move would be. Finally, moving pages with a lot of links doesn't happen frequently to justify the risk and effort level of adding a bot for this. jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- This would avoid double redirects. CodeLearnerSai (talk | contribs) 22:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, it is the mover's responsibility to make sure all links and redirects still work, without any double redirects or broken redirects. Also, moving pages doesn't happen so commonly that we need a bot to assist with this. There were only 25 page moves in September. Dhuls (Talk|922 Contributions|Scratch) 02:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, it is the mover's responsibility to make sure all links and redirects still work, without any double redirects or broken redirects. Also, moving pages doesn't happen so commonly that we need a bot to assist with this. There were only 25 page moves in September.
- This would avoid double redirects.
- Given that you have the option to leave a redirect behind when making a page move, this doesn't seem all that helpful. Also, forcing people to look at "What Links Here" is actually helpful so they can see how impactful the move would be. Finally, moving pages with a lot of links doesn't happen frequently to justify the risk and effort level of adding a bot for this.
This problem this bot is supposed to solve (double redirects/links to redirects) is not major enough to warrant a bot, the proposing user has not responded to any questions for nearly 11 months, and has been mostly inactive recently, so I am going to mark this as rejected. jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Cancelled
CitationBot
| Resolved (since 21:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC))
|
|---|
Is your bot's task necessary? Yes
Is your bot's task difficult for a human to do? Yes
Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use? Yes.
Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? Yes, it would be almost foolproof.
If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? Yes.
Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? Yes.
I hope this is good enough.
JJBullet ( u • t • c ) 17:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Then, could you explain what is the purpose of this bot? Archiving links or adding an archive link to the existing citations with a rotten link? Or is it something completely different, like e.g. fixing syntax issues on citation templates or maybe converting existing links into the citation templates? ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 17:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Put simply: If an article has the Citation Needed template ({cn}) then it will search Scratch and/or the Wiki for the correct reference / citation and edit said page with the template to include what is needed.
JJBullet ( u • t • c ) 18:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Could you give an example algorithm (preferably with a flowchart to understand the logic better) to differentiate what actually is requested while the citation needed template is added, or at least do you have an idea of how to implement necessary code in order to solve the problem via an automated bot? For example, let's say a random article contains something like that:
- Put simply: If an article has the Citation Needed template ({cn}) then it will search Scratch and/or the Wiki for the correct reference / citation and edit said page with the template to include what is needed.
| “ | NPM.js is used in implementations of Scratch.[citation needed] | ” |
- I've Googled that sentence and got somewhat irrelevant search results. How will your bot react to that? Do you plan something like "the bot fetches the citation needed templates and shows the user" or "the AI can handle that much of exceptional usecases"? ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I very, very strongly doubt that a bot would be able to automatically cite most of the flagged claims. A lot of information is either close to unciteable or would require something pretty obscure (for example a ST comment on a forum post that's not directly related to the subject). jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jvvg & Ahmetlii — After some further research into the English Wikipedia bot, I have realized I had the wrong idea about what the functions of said bot are. You can disregard this bot request. Sorry about that & thank you for your input, much appreciated. JJBullet ( u • t • c ) 21:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jvvg & Ahmetlii — After some further research into the English Wikipedia bot, I have realized I had the wrong idea about what the functions of said bot are. You can disregard this bot request. Sorry about that & thank you for your input, much appreciated.
- I very, very strongly doubt that a bot would be able to automatically cite most of the flagged claims. A lot of information is either close to unciteable or would require something pretty obscure (for example a ST comment on a forum post that's not directly related to the subject).
- I've Googled that sentence and got somewhat irrelevant search results. How will your bot react to that? Do you plan something like "the bot fetches the citation needed templates and shows the user" or "the AI can handle that much of exceptional usecases"?
