Request bot privileges + API usergroup for "OneBot"

[percefia]

Hi,

I have created a dedicated bot account on Open Library:

• Username: onebot
• Profile: https://openlibrary.org/people/onebot

I would like to request:

1. Bot privileges for this account
2. Addition to the /usergroup/api so it can use the write API

Purpose of the bot: Automatically import missing book metadata (title, authors, ISBNs, publishers, covers…) from trusted french sources and create/update edition/work records.

Additional details:

• Estimated volume: a few dozen / a few hundred books a week
• I plan to use the official “openlibrary-client” client.

I will follow the recommended process (put the script in the openlibrary-bots repo and submit a PR for review before any bulk changes).

Thank you!

[percefia]

Apparently I need to mention the site admins for this request.

@mekarpeles @hornc could you please review this bot privileges + API usergroup request when you have a moment?

Thanks!

[openlibrary-bot]

Thank you @percefia for submitting this issue!

Warning

This issue requires access to internal infrastructure, production systems, or institutional knowledge unavailable to community contributors. It can only be resolved by a maintainer or staff member.

⚠️ Contributors, this issue will be ready to work on once:

• Triage — maintainers will add Priority: * and Lead: @*
• Needs: Staff Decision — a maintainer must decide whether to grant this new bot account bot-flag + /usergroup/api write access
• Needs: Staff / Internal — bot-flagging an account and adding it to /usergroup/api is an admin/Infobase action only staff can perform

---

Context (research findings)

• Write access is granted via the bot flag or /usergroup/api//usergroup/admin membership, checked in can_write() — openlibrary/plugins/openlibrary/code.py#L836-L843. The bot flag itself is set via an admin-only action, POST_set_bot_flag() → account.set_bot_flag() — openlibrary/plugins/admin/code.py#L399-L402 and openlibrary/accounts/model.py#L432-L435. Neither is reachable by a non-staff contributor.
• Even without bot/API-usergroup privileges, POST /import/batch/new already accepts JSONL submissions from any logged-in account; submissions from non-admin accounts land in status="needs_review" for manual admin approval at /import/batch/pending — there is currently no trusted-partner tier (docs/ai/imports/api.md). This means the stated "few dozen to a few hundred books a week" volume could in principle be submitted today through the existing review queue without any new access grant, depending on whether near-real-time processing is required.
• The documented pattern for a new external source adapter is a sources/<slug>/ pair (record.py + provider.py) added to the separate openlibrary-bots repo, not this repo — docs/ai/imports/adding-sources.md#L5-L29. This matches the requester's stated plan to use openlibrary-client and submit a PR to openlibrary-bots before bulk changes.
• This is at least the fifth open "bot/API access" request of this same shape currently awaiting a staff decision: Bot account request: import Portuguese books from Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal (CC0) #13222 (Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal import), Bot Account Application: pillarsdotnetBot339 #13191 (pillarsdotnetBot339), Bot Account Application: AgenticCommonsBot #12887 / Bot Account Application: extend AgenticCommonsBot scope to remote_ids.wikidata backfill #13136 (AgenticCommonsBot), and Request bot/API access for ASESYayinlariBot – ASES Yayınları MARC import #13285 (ASESYayinlariBot). All were labeled Needs: Staff Decision and (except Bot account request: import Portuguese books from Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal (CC0) #13222) Needs: Staff / Internal; none has been resolved yet, so there is no established precedent for how external bot-account grants of this kind are approved.
• No existing issue or PR references "OneBot", onebot, or a French-source import bot specifically — this appears to be a new, non-duplicate request.

---

Issue Assessment

Open questions

• Which specific "trusted French sources" will the bot pull from? A named source (and confirmation of its license/terms for bulk reuse) would let a reviewer assess scope and any identifier-registration needs (per docs/ai/imports/adding-sources.md).
• Which ingestion path is intended — POST /api/import (single record) or a JSONL adapter via POST /import/batch/new? The latter is the documented preferred path for new sources, since /api/import is planned for deprecation.
• Is bot/API access strictly required to get started, or could this begin through the existing /import/batch/new review queue under the account's current (non-bot) permissions? (Answer: based on docs/ai/imports/api.md, non-bot accounts can already submit batches — they simply land in needs_review for manual admin approval rather than writing immediately. Whether that's sufficient depends on the update cadence the requester needs, which is for a maintainer to weigh against granting direct write access.)

Action items

• Staff decision needed: whether to grant onebot bot-flag//usergroup/api access outright, or direct the requester to the standard batch-import + admin-review flow first (as with the four other pending, structurally identical requests above).
• If access is granted, clarify which endpoint/adapter pattern the bot should use, and confirm the specific French source(s) and their reuse terms.

---

🔔 Stakeholders

@hornc — metadata/MARC/imports area owner per project stakeholder mapping; the four other open bot-access requests in this same category also fall under import review.

---

Full triage checklist

• Triage — labels applied (Needs: Triage, Needs: Lead, Needs: Staff Decision, Needs: Staff / Internal, Affects: Data, Theme: Public APIs); no Priority:/Lead: @* set (staff-only)
• Problem / opportunity — general purpose stated (fill in missing French-language book metadata) but no measurable scope (how many records missing, which sources) or defined success criteria
• Scope — well-scoped to one bot account and one access request
• Justification — a rough weekly volume is given but no evidence of the underlying metadata gap or why the existing batch-review queue is insufficient
• Success & testing criteria — not defined
• Proposal & breakdown — no named source(s), no stated ingestion endpoint/format
• If bug: environment & repro steps — not applicable, this is not a bug report
• Risks, concerns, open questions — surfaced above
• Richy context — codebase and related-issue research done; no duplicate found; four other pending analogous requests identified
• References — no links to the specific French source(s) provided

---

Note

This comment was automatically generated by Richy, Open Library's issue enrichment assistant, on behalf of @mekarpeles. This is NOT a sign-off. This issue needs lead review before work begins.

[percefia]

Thanks for the triage @hornc @mekarpeles!

Here are the additional details requested:

Sources
The bot will pull metadata mainly from Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BnF) available via a free and open API here: https://api.bnf.fr/fr/BnF-Catalogue-general

The BnF API is the intermediary through which all books in France must pass in order to be sold.
All data used is under open licenses or public domain bibliographic data (no commercial restricted data).

Ingestion path
I plan to use the recommended JSONL batch import via POST /import/batch/new (and later openlibrary-client if write access is granted). I am fine starting with the existing review queue (needs_review) if that is preferred while the staff decision is pending.

Volume & cadence
A few dozen to a few hundred records per week maximum, mostly missing French-language editions that currently lack good metadata on Open Library.

Next steps
I will prepare a proper adapter in the openlibrary-bots repository and open a PR for review before any bulk activity, as documented.

Happy to provide more details or a sample of the data if needed.

Thank you for considering the request!

[mekarpeles]

We are trying hard to move towards a model where anyone who is logged in can submit a batch of imports via our https://openlibrary.org/import/batch/new API. This is much safer and gives community members autonomy to submit without needing special permissions. This endpoint works today but the UI is quite annoying and limited. We're hoping to work with @rattnak and @RayBB to improve this flow in 2026 to enable this as our default contribution path. Thanks in advance for your patience as we put this in place. We'll absolutely work with you as an early adopter to get your books in through this system.