What policies etc. would it need to comply with?

One of the main policies all bots on (at least enwp) need to comply to is to not make changes which has no inpact to the visability of the article. (like removing a blank space after a dot if there is a line break afterwards. This will not make any visuable change, but bots might want to do these edits anyways.)

This will probably also depend on the results of the {{cite doi}} et al. deprecation discussions, moving to Blocked.

Consensus has been reached to deprecate {{cite doi}}: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cite_doi&diff=689081528&oldid=687187072

This investigation should no longer be blocked, so I'll move into sprint.

Asked here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot#Questions:_Interest_in_and_prerequisites_for_starting_up_automated_citation_fixing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Citation_bot:_gauging_interest_in.2Fprerequisites_for_the_automated_citation_fixing_function

@Fhocutt: There doesn't seem to be much interest in restarting the automated citation-fixing, especially without a dedicated maintainer. My suggestion would be to answer whichever of the original questions you can, and then we can close this without a follow-up task, unless more interest emerges in the meantime.

In T110774#1853501, @kaldari wrote:

@Fhocutt: There doesn't seem to be much interest in restarting the automated citation-fixing, especially without a dedicated maintainer. My suggestion would be to answer whichever of the original questions you can, and then we can close this without a follow-up task, unless more interest emerges in the meantime.

I am very much intrested in a bot that runs automatically and populate citations which are missing information.

@Josve05a: Excellent. Could you reply to some of the questions at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot#Questions:_Interest_in_and_prerequisites_for_starting_up_automated_citation_fixing
Thanks!

Answered two questions.

Does the old database still exist?

If it does, it is the mysterious core file in the tool labs repository, but I wasn't able to log in with the old credentials.
Additionally, even if it is, it will be 2-3 years out of date and probably not useful.

How many blocking issues are there?

Unclear how many are blocking, but new issues have been reported recently (link)

Is there any sort of consensus on how good it needs to be to run automatically?

None mentioned; it is unclear whether it would need to have no open bugs, or whether a certain level of bugginess is acceptable.

What policies etc. would it need to comply with?

Standard enwiki bot policies; technically it wouldn't need to be reapproved, but consensus might demand this; unclear.

Who would maintain this/keep up to date with issues raised?

No one has volunteered as a maintainer, so there is not anyone right now.

With no maintainer, I do not recommend working on automated citation fixing.

there seem to be 69000 articles with bare urls
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=insource%3A%2F%5C%3Cref%5C%3Ehtt%28p%7Cps%29%5C%3A%2F&fulltext=Search

maybe some tool support would be indicated

@Slowking4: Thanks for the report. I'm working on other Community Tech projects and am not able to add more features right now. However, if there's anyone who wants to submit a patch for this or is interested in taking up maintainership I can absolutely work with them.