Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots
(Redirected from Wikipedia:BON)
    Bots noticeboard
    Shortcuts

    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

    Bot-related archives
    Noticeboard
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    Bots (talk)
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22
    Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
    Bot policy (talk)
    19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
    29, 30
    Pre-2007 archived under Bots (talk)
    Bot requests
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
    61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
    71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
    81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88
    Bot requests (talk)
    1, 2
    Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
    BRFA
    Old format: 1, 2, 3, 4
    New format: Categorized Archive (All subpages)
    BRFA (talk)
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15
    Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
    Bot Approvals Group (talk)
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    BAG Nominations



    getting a response from the bot owner?

    [edit]

    Hello,

    Where do I ask what to do when a bot owner is very infrequently active on Wikipedia and doesn't answer your bot-related question? (for whatever reason, could be as simple as just overlooking your talk post) My issue is not urgent, but it would still be nice to get some response. Waiting a month or twelve for their next visit seems... inadequate.

    In general, who takes responsibility when owners of active bots aren't responding? Is there someplace you can ask questions where bot "experts" try to step in for the owner? I am aware bot owners aren't more compelled to answer questions than any other user, but that still leaves the question whom to get an answer from. The people involved in the bot's task approval maybe? (Assuming they're still around)

    And not to ignore the possibility of Captain Obvious; maybe this is where I need to ask?

    Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOTCOMM does require that there's someone handling communication on-wiki, although "on other SUL-connected wikis" is ok and it doesn't necessarily have to be the operator. If there's no one replying at the bot's or operator's talk pages or other designated on-wiki location, coming here to raise the communication issue is appropriate.
    If the question in question is User talk:Basilicofresco#FrescoBot link related, you might try replying there with a direct ping first. Bot operators who don't frequently check the wiki directly should probably have email notifications set up, but the original post might have been missed.
    P.S. The edit you linked there appears related to "link syntax", specifically Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 2#Useless piping. Whether the specific cosmetic edits in that edit should continue to be done on their own, or should only be done in combination with more substantive edits, could be a legitimate matter for discussion (a lot has changed since February 2010 when that BRFA was approved), but it might be worthwhile to try to avoid starting that discussion in a spirit of conflict and to keep in mind some of the history involved that may make people touchy about it. Anomie⚔ 13:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind, if the bot operator is unresponsive - but the bot is running, mostly all we can do is block the bot. That is usually reserved for bots that are malfunctioning, or otherwise making "bad" contributions. — xaosflux Talk 15:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to be specific. The best answer to this question will probably involve taking a look at what bot and what bot owner, what communication has been tried, the bot's task, how long the bot has been out of service, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you all! After learning this goes all the way back to 2010 I choose to leave the starting of the "should cosmetic edits continue to be done on their own?" discussion to others. Let me just state for the record that having a bot go around changing every instance of ''[[foo|foo]]" to ''[[foo]]" comes across as obnoxiously pedantic. We have several recommendations relating to keeping piping intact, and just because various editing might happen to result in an "useless" state does not mean the unconditional removal of the piping is welcome. This task appears to only consider ''[[foo|foo]]" to be the result of a newbie mistake, which would have been much more reasonable in 2010 than today. But I realize the first step would be to discuss the policy and not the bot. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing the piping is probably welcome, but not in an edit on its own. I'm surprised the bot task was approved in the first place. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The task does have more to it than cosmetic pipe removal, starting from [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" and ranging up to fixing some things that produce redlinks. Plus 15 years ago was before some of the high-profile incidents that changed many people's attitudes towards some of these sorts of bots. If it were a new bot being proposed today, I think it'd still wind up approved, but there'd be more attention on the possibility of cosmetic edits and it might have wound up having to ensure at least one non-cosmetic change was in each edit. As things are, I see as yet no grounds for BAG to do anything about this bot that has been running for 15 years without obvious controversy.
    If someone wants the bot's behavior changed, I'd suggest their first step should be to politely (not confrontationally) ask the bot op. Should that fail and they really want to push it, they should have a Village pump discussion to establish whether consensus has changed. Anomie⚔ 21:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I think I have to say no to that. Having to first ask a bot owner if he or she will willingly spend time makes the process weirdly personal, especially if this is made "out of courtesy". I have mulled this over, and this this would set a very bad precedent, User:Anomie. If Wikipedia agrees some bot's work no longer serves the project, the bot owner should have no greater say than any other consensus-building participant. Anything else would mean "start a bot, that way you get to entrench your edits and force any criticism to become personal!" Remember, this isn't a discussion about fine-tuning or tweaking a bot's behavior, this is about the cases where we want a bot to no longer do what it previously did, a case where Wikipedia previously considered your bot's edits to be useful, but this is no longer the case. This message should be sent to a bot owner on behalf of the project; the burden should not lie on an individual editor. Compare a deletion discussion - they are closed by an uninvolved editor, and nobody thinks that editor is responsible or driving the change. More absurdly argued, if you can't revoke bot task permissions without first having to discuss it with the specific editor who manages the bot, I should not be permitted from ever changing (or removing) your general Wikipedia edits without first discussing them with you. (To make myself needlessly clear, this is patently absurd and not something I actually suggest). If this discussion doesn't go any further, and the reason why even whiffs of being a reluctance to critique a specific editor's efforts, as opposed to "I think edits that consist only of [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" are genuinely useful in the year 2025 and having a bot do them is good", then that mindset really needs to change: you don't own your edits. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being polite isn't "weirdly personal". Telling someone that edits from their approved bot task is "needless and unwelcome nitpickery" sounds like a good way to not get a response. I wouldn't blame the botop for not engaging. – SD0001 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's making it personal for no reason. Please assume good faith and do not assume I am out to insult anyone unless you have actual reason to believe so. I am not talking about my earlier issue. I haven't engaged the botop past a single message; and I have clearly stated I have left the particular discussion to others.
    This is about the general case. Courtesy pinging bot owners that a discussion about a bot they created is being held? Yes, that's welcome and polite. Not allowing editors to question the tasks of bots without first personally involving the bot owner, waiting for them to respond? Or, as Anomie said it, If someone wants the bot's behavior changed, I'd suggest their first step should be to politely (not confrontationally) ask the bot op. I respectfully but strongly object to this. It's as if you SD0001 shouldn't be able to "mercilessly" edit my, CapnZapp's, Wikipedia contributions without first discussing with me. CapnZapp (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that all that's needed is to have a consensus-determining discussion at someplace with enough visibility for the issue, which often means an appropriate Village pump page. But just because you can jump into an accusatory consensus discussion doesn't mean it's a good idea, when there's the possibility that if you just ask the botop they might agree with you and make the change without having to have a big RFC to establish community consensus. That's my point, not whatever nonsense you seem to have read into it. Anomie⚔ 12:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, if you "just ask" the botop and they agree, that's the best option. And as you recall, the first thing I did was just that: ask the botop if I had missed anything (in regards to [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" edits, which, if done manually, comes off as petty wikignomery, and as a bot seems obnoxious on an industrial scale). But "whatever nonsense" I read into it was nothing more than reading a requirement into your suggestion, that editors ought to first await the botop's opinion before being able to proceed elsewhere. Remember, in my case we were dealing with a botop that did not respond (for whatever reason, likely simply missing my query), and (based on contribution history) might not log back in for many months. My very first question in this talk section was and is: Where do I ask what to do when a bot owner is very infrequently active on Wikipedia and doesn't answer your bot-related question?. This should have told you I was never trying for a "accusatory consensus discussion" (at a Village pump, say) as a first step. But you went ahead and ignored the premise (having asked the botop already) anyway. Either way, I think I get the thinking around these processes, and again, had I wanted to pursue I now know how. I have no further questions at this time. CapnZapp (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" is not something that should be done on its own per WP:COSMETICBOT, but it's a helpful edit in general. You will have an uphill battle getting that sort of thing removed from WP:GENFIXES.
    I will note that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/FrescoBot_2 is fairly old, and predates a lot of clarity related to WP:COSMETICBOT. And even in the BRFA there are concerns about this type of edit.
    However, the rationale was that human systematically go through these CHECKWIKI categories to clean them up anyway, and that a bot doing that cleanup is less disruptive than humans doing it. I find myself agreeing with this, and see no basis to revoke approval or change the bot behaviour at this point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that [[Foo|"Foo"]]→"[[Foo]]" does not fall under the specific text of WP:COSMETICBOT, even though you'd have to look closely to see the rendered difference between "Foo" and "Foo" (although I don't know what screen readers might do with those). OTOH, the diff asked about in User talk:Basilicofresco#FrescoBot link related wasn't that, it was the actually cosmetic [[Foo|Foo]]→[[Foo]] (plus cosmetic removal of some end-of-line whitespace). Anomie⚔ 14:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without putting too fine a point on it, What's the point of an edit such as [15]? To me edits such as this come across as needless and unwelcome nitpickery. ... is perhaps not the best way to start. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Monkbot 21 removing url-status=dead desirable?

    [edit]

    The recently approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 21 is primarily concerned with changing |pages= to |article-number=, a helpful fix for many common journal pagination schemes. However, it has an ancillary task of completely removing |url-status=dead from CS1 citations, which doesn't seem to have been addressed in the BRFA and might be controversial. There are 1.7 million uses of this parameter value, so I'm not sure if this removal is desired by the community.

    This task conflicts with multiple other bots:

    It is also in contravention to citation documentation:

    • Wikipedia:Link rot specifically encourages editors to add the flag:

      Within citation templates, put the archive URL in |archive-url= and add an |archive-date=. If the link is still valid, include |url-status=live, otherwise set |url-status=dead.

    • Template:Cite web/doc § Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "url-status") for webpages that have been archived describes the parameter as optional, not redundant.

    There's a handful of complaints about this:

    Because many editors add |archive-url= to citations for live URLs without also including |url-status=live, I had always used |url-status=dead to confirm that I had manually certified the URL as dead, removing ambiguity. I'd be open to a discussion on deprecating |url-status=dead but it doesn't seem like one ever happened. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: Help talk:Citation Style 1. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the What is Monkbot doing? conversation, some surprising defaults were explained to me. But for the liveness parameter, I think it ends up being that |url-status=dead is a default, and the bot author uses the bot to enforce their opinion that adding url-status equals dead to cs1|2 templates does nothing other than clutter the wikitext.
    As you're saying, Dan Leonard, to me the presence of the parameter means someone has tried and verified the link, and that it is actually dead. There might be a practice of adding |archive-url= proactively to plan for event that the original URL should ever go dead or become inaccessible in the future. (Maybe it's also a prompt for the Wayback Machine to archive the page?)
    In a lapse of judgement, I found myself editing Gaza genocide where an editor had, as a habit, refused to add |url-status=live to citations, and may have actually removed it. That made verifying citations more difficult, since the archive websites aren't particularly fast and often clicked to death.
    And so no: I don't think |url-status=dead is extraneous, and should not be removed by robots. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way it won't break my bot or IABot. My bot does add url-status-dead when generating new archive URLs, but this is more due to old code back before this was an issue. I think TTM is the main proponent of removing it. I can see arguments either way. Until there is a clear consensus I probably won't change mainly because it would take some work. I suspect this will be a problem for many tools that are adding archives (VE?). But, if TTM wants to remove it as a cosmetic edit while doing other work on the citation, I have no qualms with that either. -- GreenC 19:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I'm not new, but every day someone uses at least one abbreviation I've never heard of before: What is "TTM"? -- mikeblas (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The person whose task we are discussing! :) -- GreenC 00:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Trappist the monk. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the BRFA and don’t see any approval to remove the above-discussed parameter, so the bot should be limited to only the approved functions. Cleaning up other parameters would need to be discussed and approved by BAG. – DreamRimmer ■ 00:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, got it. Thank you for the helpful answer, Novem Linguae. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I approved this task, so I'll comment. |url-status=dead is indeed the default behaviour, it does literally nothing but clutter the wikitext. Compare:
    • {{cite web |title=Article of things |website=example.com |url=https://example.com |archive-url=http://webarchive.com/2025-02-04-asdfasdf/htts://example.com |archive-date=2025-02-24 |url-status=dead}}
    • "Article of things". example.com. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24.
    • {{cite web |title=Article of things |website=example.com |url=https://example.com |archive-url=http://webarchive.com/2025-02-04-asdfasdf/htts://example.com |archive-date=2025-02-24}}
    • "Article of things". example.com. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24.
    Literally nothing changes. Removal therefore unclutters the Wikitext, and while it's not something a bot should do own its own per WP:COSMETICBOT, as part of other edits, it's fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the end of the conversation, or are you willing to consider opinions to the contrary? -- mikeblas (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone disputed that |url-status=dead is the default, but rather just the claim that it is purely clutter. I see it as having significant semantic value. As Mikeblas and I mentioned, many citations are erroneously written by humans to include archive URLs for live webpages without also setting |url-status=live, so explicit inclusion of the dead value signifies that it is actually dead. Personally, I've always thought |url-status= should be a required value rather than assuming dead, but it's far too late to fix that. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: many citations are erroneously written by humans to include archive URLs for live webpages without also setting |url-status=live"
    See this is the issue, if there is ever one. The solution, if you really, really care, is to identify live links, since that's changes the template behaviour, not dead ones.
    Or you can just leave the template as they are since archive links are always functional.
    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution? Sorry, I missed something. What is it that you're solving with your suggestion? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of human readability, having the specification of the URL status as dead in the markup is of great use, indicates that someone has checked the source and found the link has gone dead. As someone who hand-codes his reference links and hand-edits those placed there by others, I resent a bot having been designed to erase my efforts in order to make what is going on less obvious to those editing the text. If you wish to eliminate "dead" as a valid setting for that parameter, the bot page is not the place for that conversation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And to learn that there's one bot that adds and one that removes seems pretty absurd. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my take on the above discussion:
    • Of the "handful of complaints", it seems two accepted (at the time) the operator's explanation that |url-status=dead is redundant. I don't see that the OP here has tried talking to the operator before bringing their complaint here, which IMO is a bit of a faux pas.
    • While some claim that there's a semantic difference between |url-status=dead and the parameter not being present, namely that the former indicates a human actually verified the deadness, that doesn't seem to be reflected at Help:Citation Style 1#Web archives or Template:Cite web#csdoc urlstatus. It's not clear to what extent other bots adding |url-status=dead reflects that semantic difference either.
    • While Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 21 does not explicitly list this secondary cleanup, it does state more at User:Monkbot/task_21: Replace page(s) with article-number and that page does (and did at the time of approval) describe it, and some of the trial edits included it.
    Overall, as far as the bot goes it seems to be operating within approval. Establishing a consensus that there's a semantic difference between |url-status=dead and leaving the parameter out, or that the parameter should be left despite there being no semantic difference, is probably better for some other forum. Anomie⚔ 01:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I accepted in it the sense that I don't think debating it is worth any time but I do not feel that simply removing a parameter because it is redundant is a useful task, even as part of another task. Its like changing {{cn}} to {{citation needed}} it is a useless change but its even more useless to bother getting people not to make such a change. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Traumnovelle, {{cn}} to {{citation needed}} is useful, because cn is cryptic shorthand and citation needed is comprehensible. It is also cosmetic, though, so shouldn't be done on its own. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one of the three I didn't count as accepting the explanation, since you ended with disagreement (If the renderings are the same then there is no need to change it) rather than thanks. There's nothing wrong with that, BTW. Reasonable editors can and do disagree. Anomie⚔ 13:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of the handful of opinions and I guess I've changed my mind since March. As an editor and as a reader I appreciate url-status=dead. Personally I haven't cared if it can't be seen by readers but as an editor & when I am doing research and verifying info or a citation...then, yeah it is valuable to me. - Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, I finally found a previous relevant discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 93 § url-status=dead (and a side-topic about language=en). I'm not sure what, if any, consensus can be found there but at least I've now answered my initial question of it doesn't seem like one ever happened. Pinging participants SMcCandlish, Trappist the monk, jacobolus, David Eppstein, GreenC, Ceyockey, ActivelyDisinterested, Folly Mox, Izno, Nigel Ish, and Grorp. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Count me among the people who use url-status=dead to indicate that the url has actually been checked to be dead rather than just relying on the default behavior of the citation templates to treat it as dead. It is semantically meaningful even if it is visually no different than when blank. This was not a bot-approved task, should not have been a bot-approved task, and the bots should not do it, especially because the ambiguity has led to some bots adding it and some removing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't think it's useful, as it's absence is the same as it's inclusion. However if other editors find it useful I don't see a pressing requirement to remove it. Since the last discussion I've made an effort to include it because of that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is desirable. Yes, that parameter combination is redundant. Yes, the url-status being dead is the default when an archive-url is present (and the former parameter serves no purpose when the latter is not). Yes, any time a bot or a human "gnome" changes something that touches citations in any way, some handful of people will reflexively complain, because we have a number of editors obsessive about "their" citation formatting detailia that no one else cares about (it has always been this way). No, that does not mean there is an actual "conroversy" or "dispute", not when many thousands of editors don't have an issue with it, most of those who care to look into the matter understand why the parameter should be removed, and no one is putting up a fuss but editors you can count on one hand. Cf. WP:BIKESHED and WP:1AM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One bot sets it. Another removes it. But it doesn't matter? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, them strategy of simply sloughing off the expressed concerns by belittlling the people stating it. I haven't seen the "many thousands of editors" showing support for it either, but feel free to point them out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention SMcCandlish's most recent comment on this was there is an active dispute about this particular parameter+value, |url-status=dead (a dispute in which I'm now neutral), but at least two of you are still going around removing it at will despite vociferous objections. The reason I've opened this discussion was because, in SMcCandlish's own words, someone's still removing |url-status=dead from random articles, but I don't get the sense that there's actually a consensus in favor of the idea. I like the notion of removing any parameter that is actually redundant, but in fairness I'm not certain this is seen to be reundant, regardless what the original idea for implementing the parameter was. This parameter value is listed as valid in the CS1 documentation, appears in help pages, and is used 1.7 million times. If it really should be removed, it should be deprecated by community consensus. It's fine, of course, to change one's mind (and especially so over the course of two years). But to now turn around to call people who share his original position obsessive and say no one else cares about this is insufferably belittling. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § SineBot, benign helper or closet vandal?

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § SineBot, benign helper or closet vandal?, which may be of interest to this noticeboard. Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Global bot approval request for SchlurcherBot

    [edit]

    Hello!

    In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

    The discussion is available at Steward_requests/Bot_status#Global_bot_status_for_User:SchlurcherBot on Meta-Wiki. All Wikimedia community members are invited to participate.

    Thank you for your time.

    Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that, per WP:GLOBALBOTS, only interwiki link updating bots may operate on the English Wikipedia without a BRFA. In this case, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SchlurcherBot has already approved this task locally. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass revert request

    [edit]

    I had a typo in my code that resulted in 356 edits that need reverting. Is there still a mass revert script? The list of articles. Example Special:Diff/1305772241/1317946469 (the "SKIPDEADURL" string). -- GreenC 15:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this fixable with a regex? If so, might be a good fit for WP:AWBREQ. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the diff, looks like it's not fixable with a regex. Might still be a good fit for AWBREQ if a good mass revert userscript isn't found. That's the place to request a medium number of repetitive edits (somewhere between "too many edits for me to do" and "not enough edits to bother coding up a bot"). –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People at WP:AN are usually a good help with that sort of thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Doing... with alt account. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Special:Contributions/DreamRimmer Alt – DreamRimmer ■ 16:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, thank you User:DreamRimmer! I'll rerun the pages with the fix. -- GreenC 18:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenC, in future try Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool didn't know about that. -- GreenC 18:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard&oldid=1318395347"