Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Fulfilled requests/2010

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GrunnyBot

Grunny (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Since this is essentially a manually run bot and it worked fine this time I'll approve it and flag it. You will need to get separate approval for each new task you wish to perform. fr33kman 12:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I'll be sure to get separate approval for any new tasks :-). Grunny (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: GoblinBot3 already exists for this task, it wasn't run for the current edition as that edition (Which has, annoyingly, now been delivered...) hadn't been 'finished off' and I've actually noticed several out-of-date bits that I had been meaning to get to, well, now. I realise it's a wiki and all that, but surely the point of an Editor (see Wikipedia:Simple News/Team) is to, erm, edit the thing and dispatch once completed? A talk page message of your intentions would be nice! Goblin 22:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]
I'm sorry about that, Fridae'sDoom was looking for someone to run a bot to deliver it in IRC. He was considering delivering it manually, when I offered to help. I'll be sure to check with you in future :-). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all, but as I say, probably worth checking with everyone involved in the creation of the edition that it's ready. Knowing that FD was interested I did get a feeling that he might pop up for it to be delivered, but considering it wasn't ready (Edit summaries should really suggest that...) it wasn't really appropriate in this instance. No harm done, though. Goblin 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

WikitanvirBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Wikitanvir
  • Programming language: Python (pywikipedia)
  • Function: Add, remove, or changing interwiki.
  • Description: It will mainly patrol bnwiki recentchanges and newpages and link the article in other existing wikis.

Thanks in advance. — Tanvir • 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally like to see more edits. But bn wiki is such a small wiki so I will approve it for Approved for trial (50 edits)., however, I would like it to stay unflagged until it does hit that 50 even if it does take a long time since I don't expect it will affect recent changes much. I say this because you have very few bot edits from which to judge elsewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as you recommends. Will it be a problem if it works on category namespace too? — Tanvir • 17:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Just as long as its interwiki its good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Have 50+ edits now. — Tanvir • 11:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just approved on the English Wikipedia. Looks okay. - EdoDodo talk 15:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.


ChuispastonBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Grimlock (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC) This bot is already flagged on fr, de, it, nl and ru check it.[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits).. Please create a userpage for both you and your bot. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tests done. Grimlock (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

EdoBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Approved for trial. Please do some dozen edits to show that it works properly. -Barras (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Done slightly over a dozen edits on interwikis in categories. The bot found mostly categories I had recently created, since they were new and lacking interwikis. - EdoDodo talk 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. fr33kman 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

ZéroBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Toto Azéro (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. - You may qualify for speedy approval, but at the least you are welcome to make a few dozen edits without the flag. Given this is a interwiki bot with multiple language approval, you can also think about getting a global bot flag. EhJJTALK 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many test edits do you want to see ? The bot has already done > 22 edits now…
Yes I was already thinking of getting global bot flag but I think my bot is a little too young according to global bot policy… Toto Azéro (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. as to interwiki. Please permalink this request on the bot userpage. Jon@talk:~$ 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will… but isn't this request going to be archived ? And please, could a crat' give my bot the flag ? Toto Azéro (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Bot has been flagged. EhJJTALK 16:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

Mail Delivery Bot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Denied.
  • Op: User:I-20
  • Language: Python
  • Function: Deliver messages
  • Description: Taking over GoblinBot3's task for now.

—I-20the highway 21:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of messages, could you go into more detail regarding the task? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's to deliver the Signpost, since GoblinBot3 did that. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 03:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it means that this bot can't be approved, but just noting that User:PmlineditorBot had been approved previously for delivering SN. Also, I don't think we'll have another issue of Simple News in the short term unless someone else is working on one. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will help deliver SN. Care for friendly competition? —I-20the highway 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. There is no SN to deliver. Thank you for the offer of assistance. Jon@talk:~$ 12:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.


Mentibot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.
If you are doing only interwikis, you can make 100 non-flagged edits per standard bot policy automatic approval to show the bot is working correctly, without needing to go through bot application process. Let's see a few more (at least 20) and we can probably flag you at that time, given that this is an interwiki bot and you are a trusted user. EhJJTALK 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Approved for interwiki and flagged. EhJJTALK 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Mentifisto 23:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.


Hazard-Bot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Denied.
  • Contributions
  • Operator: User:Hazard-SJ
  • Programming language: AutoWikiBrowser
  • Function: Templating
  • Description: Semi-automatic. Right now, I have some templates to add.
 Not done You are far too soon off of a block for sockpuppetry to be permitted a bot account. fr33kman 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I need it is to help placing the {{orphan}} template on orphaned pages. I was told to make a bot account, because RC is being flooded, so that is what I did. Now, what about those orphans? Who will know that they need to be adopted into other pages?  Hazard-SJ Talk 06:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I also hate the orphan tag. A better use of your time would be to actually find pages to link those pages from. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Mainly per Fr33kman, it matters not the task that needs to be done, but that right now is not the right time for you to hold bot flags. Jon@talk:~$ 11:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, but for a different reason. I am not requesting the flag. Instead, I'm requesting approval to use it with the flood flag when requested, excluding its userspace, where I think it should be able to edit freely (manually). I'd also like access to AWB for the bot. No bot flag for now, and flood flag only when requested, so I can use this (my main account) while using the bot (if needed). Hazard-SJ Talk 19:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it won't be for the orphan template; it would possibly be for adding categories etc., but it should be mentioned in the Request for Flood Flag prior to use. Hazard-SJ Talk 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denied. Chenzw  Talk  14:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

Kgsbot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Kiran Gopi
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description:I am an active wikipedian in ml wiki. If needed to contact immedietly you can leave message on my Home wiki Talk page. I would like to run the bot for only interwiki links. Other bot flags on ml, lmo wikipedias

Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do 50 test edits. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status Unknown. In 5 days I will close this request. Jon@talk:~$ 12:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me some more time for 50 Edits, My wiki is a small wiki and daily there are only few nwarticles are coming. Tanks in advance --Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (60 days). Jon@talk:~$ 13:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Passes auto approval requirements and it looks good. Understandably low edit count coming from a small wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

Diego Grez Bot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Denied.
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Diego Grez
  • Function: Interwiki
  • Notes: already flagged on Catalan Wikinews, English Wiktionary, French Wikinews, Malayalam Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikinews, Serbian Wikinews, Tamil Wikinews and MediaWiki.org (it doesn't interwiki in this latter, but it is flagged anyway :P). Approved at Latin Wikipedia without bot flag. It is automated. I generally start it at Ml.Wikipedia or La.Wikipedia, and it could do AWB if needed. Diego Grez let's talk 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What programming language will you use, also, is this fully auto? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm using pywikipedia. It's automatic, but under my supervision. Diego Grez let's talk 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words what has changed since the last time you requested and the community was not interested in you having a bot flag? -DJSasso (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that firstly is not a big deal, and secondly I don't think I could do any harm with it. It will just interwiki. Diego Grez let's talk 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki can be very damaging. The bot flag is a very big deal because your edits are hidden from the RC. This comment alone gains a Oppose from me but I will leave it open for another crat to comment. -DJSasso (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:( Edits are supervised. Diego Grez let's talk 01:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done That's still not enough if the community does not trust you sufficiently to operate a bot. Please try again in a few months, when you have gained the trust of the community. Chenzw  Talk  01:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Bureaucrat note: Confused, is there a backstory that I am not seeing? Jon@talk:~$ 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check in the archives. I believe his last request was under MWBot. It was rejected by almost every crat if not every crat. Unfortunately Diego has a history as a cross wiki spammer and has been blocked on a few wikis so a few of us are concerned about such an individual being able to hide his edits. Above I wanted him to explain what has changed since last time. His comments about a bot flag not being a big deal, indicates to me he doesn't understand the damage even an interwiki bot can do. Not to mention there is no way for us to limit his edits to interwiki should he misuse the flag. -DJSasso (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I misuse it? Since my last request I was blocked on 3 wikis, and that has changed. My efforts to help build an encyclopedia do not help here, too? Diego Grez let's talk 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about if they help or not. Its about if we trust you or not. To be honest we don't need any IW bot runners. With the large number of global bot ops and the large number of local ones we have. It just isn't worth giving someone with low trust levels an IW bot. -DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, then I want to see the next Interwiki bot operator asking for flag. Diego Grez let's talk 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The next iw bot op might not have your past. -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denied. Chenzw  Talk  14:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.


OpenBot

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Sonia
  • Programming language: Just AWB for starters. (Maybe Pywikipedia later, but I'll come back and ask permission for that if I use it.)
  • Function: short-term approved cleanup tasks
  • Description: It's semi-automated, and right now all I want to do is replace all instances of {{ec}} with {{cc}}, per here. When I want to use it for something else, I will ask back here or at Simple Talk. Is that all right for a bot flag (and listing as a bot here)? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many instances are there? Will you automate is fully? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 08:12, 23 June 2010 (UT

At a guess, eighty- wow, I was expecting a lot more. That's small enough for me to do, semi-automated, in about fifteen minutes. For anything with more than about 200 pages to fix, I'll fully automate it after the first twenty. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 72, based on [1]. EhJJTALK 08:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved Your bot has temporary rights for this task only, and will be removed in 3 days. Good luck, Jon@talk:~$ 08:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with the task, thank you. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All settled, thank you for the work :) Jon@talk:~$ 06:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrouchoBot

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Groucho_NL (may be on another wikipedia like OperatorName)
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description: bot with global flag, doing interwiki links globally

--GrouchoBot (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUL ok and global flag.  Approved for interwiki links. Bot granted flagged locally. -Barras talk 12:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EmausBot

SUL and global contributions are ok.  Approved.. Jon@talk:~$ 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Emaus (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PiRSquared17Bot2

 Bureaucrat note: I could not figure out the result of this discussion. It is multithreaded and fragmented in so many ways. Jon@talk:~$ 08:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was WTF? WTF?
  • Contributions
  • Operator: PiRSquared17
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: Fix ISBNs and Other websites (external links)
  • Description: See below
Determining what words should always be replaced (in order to make articles simpler). Can it fix URLs (replace "[www." with "[http://www.")? PiRSquared17 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the idea of using a bot to simplify articles. Especially with what I see at User:PiRSquared17/S right now (which I assume is where the database for simplifying will be). Either way (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about fixing URLs (as described above [I am aware of https])? πr2 (talk • changes) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be doing all of the above tasks at the same time (i.e. stub sort, fix ISBNs and fix external links on the same page), or are these tasks run separately? If the latter, then you should really just create separate accounts for each bot. Bots should generally not do completely different tasks that are entirely unrelated to each other, on completely different pages. I'm quite concerned that you don't understand the bot approval process. You should have a clear, technical description of the bot's task, ask for approval for a test run, complete a test run, and then be authorized for that exact task on a larger basis (and get flagged). Bots are only authorized to perform their one (and rarely more than one) exact task. Having your bot complete similar (but not specifically authorized tasks) - such as the recent adding of [[Category:Math stubs]] - is not allowed. You are authorized to stub sort, and that is not stub sorting but adding cats. I'm not going to deflag your bot or block your bot, because I know you are acting in good faith, but you need to be very careful in the future to have your bot make only authorized changes. I'm hopeful that you will recognize that bots are capable of doing a lot of damage and that there is a strict approval policy in place to prevent that. I can't guarantee that another crat won't deflag and block the bot, because they would be well within their right to do so after your previous mistakes and warnings. EhJJTALK 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do them all at the same time. PiRSquared17Bot (current command • operator) 15:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will do a trial run. πr2 (talk • changes) 16:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry what are you doing a trial run on. Atleast one of these things has been rejected already. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing external links. πr2 (talk • changes) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Unless it's a task that's to be done only once, you should have another bot account to do the URL fixing, as the current stub-sorting bot already has a very high edit volume and rate already. How are we to track down edits if something goes wrong? Chenzw  Talk  04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have PiRSquared17Bot1 (talk · contribs · count) and PiRSquared17Bot2 (talk · contribs · count). PiRSquared17Bot2 will fix ISBN numbers. Can I do a trial run (for external link fixing)? πr2 (talk • changes) 01:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which bot does what, exactly? EhJJTALK 01:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PiRSquared17Bot2 πr2 (talk • changes) 01:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must have misread "what" as "that". Ok, so...
Bot1: Stub-sorting, only
Bot2: Fix ISBNs and fix URLs, only.
Is that correct? If so, you may start a trial run. EhJJTALK 01:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Can Bot2 get a bot flag? πr2 (talk • changes) 01:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've flagged it so it doesn't flood RC. Please do 40-60 test edits and then stop until a crat allows you to do more. EhJJTALK 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting it now. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing external links also means changing "External link(s)" to "Other websites." πr2 (talk • changes) 11:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, the bot can perform that task. fr33kman 11:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PiRBots
Task
Bot1 Stub-sorting
Bot2 ISBNs and fixing external links
πr2 (talk • changes) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is doing so right now. Can it change the "See also" section to "Other pages?" πr2 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please just do a couple of dozen first so it can be checked. fr33kman 23:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other pages is working "ok". I've requested 9 more ISBN edits before this can be reflagged as bot. fr33kman 03:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is now fully automated. πr2 03:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have regranted the bot flag as you have provided me with the example edits I wanted. I think that our concerns are met at this time. I want you to review the bots edits for mistakes and fine tune the code for a while. fr33kman 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a probationary approved. fr33kman 05:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is not making any mistakes now. πr2 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone found any mistakes? πr2 03:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

PiRSquared17Bot3

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Denied.
 Not done Based on the changes I have seen you make. You are incorrectly using an en dash. En dashes are for denoting ranges. In other words 1910–1911. Where you are changing them, hyphens are the correct dash. For example you changed "1910 - Joe Scmo" In this example a hyphen is the appropriate use. En dashes are incorrect because 1910 – Joe Scmo would indicate from 1910 to Joe Scmo, basically an endash replaces the word to, so if you shouldn't be placing the word to there, then an endash is incorrect . I would ask you to go back and undo all your incorrect changes. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were used correctly. ENWP uses en dashes (en:1857). πr2 (talk • changes) 12:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then en is using them incorrectly as well. This is something that people are constantly trying to do on en on various pages, and its often a war between people who know better and people who aren't aware of en dash use and just think they look better. En dashes are only for ranges. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read en:WP:ENDASH. πr2 (talk • changes) 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It supports this change. πr2 (talk • changes) 03:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.


User:DoubleRedirectBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Request Expired.
  • Op: —I-20the highway
  • Programming language: Standard pywikipedia
  • Function: Fix double redirects
  • Description: Uses a standard pywikipedia script to fix double redirects. Have one bot approved on simple.wikt (but that must be watched).
Test edits Please perform the usual number of test edits. fr33kman 02:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There happen to be no double redirects. —I-20the highway 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you need to wait until there are double redirects. -Barras (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question: do we really need this bot? Most of the time, there aren't any double redirects, and even if there are, they are fixed quickly anyway. Wouldn't it be simpler to do it manually? Just wondering... Pmlineditor ∞ 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need this?! User:Xqbot remedies double redirects. See its edit at Attica (Prison). Protector of Wiki (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain! How is redundancy good?! Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xqbot is quite busy with interwikis! —I-20the highway 17:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a 2x redir to test the bot. πr2 (talk • changes) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does that answer my question?! It is busy with interwikis because there are no double redirects to remedy! Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  Thanks PiR. Hope Xqbot won't get to it. —I-20the highway 17:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll test it by using the move log. I'm going to try my best to try to make a double redirect using moves. —I-20the highway 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think there is a need for this. Most global interwiki bots take care of double redirects as part of their mandate. There are a fairly big number of bots that take care of this. Which is why you aren't finding any. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Special:DoubleRedirects has been empty for a while, so I am not sure if there is even any existing double redirects other than the ones just made. wiooiw (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point, global bots do them as they occur. So they are usually fixed fairly quickly. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just fetched one. (Maybe a trap set by PiR?) —I-20the highway 17:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a trap? πr2 (talk • changes) 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You put it there. Thank you, though. —I-20the highway 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to make that change from this account. πr2 (talk • changes) 17:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to have this task done. Let the global bots do it. —I-20the highway 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Operator has opted out! Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was {{subst:Botdone}}

Ebrambot

Speedily Approved. - Already flagged on several wiki, almost 200k edits and edits here look fine. Also I suggest you request a global flag on meta. -Barras (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.

EleferenBot

Do 50 test edits and I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Chenzw  Talk  12:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, he only did 4 edits after I asked him to do 50. Please slow down with approving. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the bot has already made edits some time before the request. Is that alright? Chenzw  Talk  01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to get recent edits. But you've already approved it so might as well not worry about it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MWBot

To be honest I prefer this kind of work be done without the bot or flood flag. But I will defer to other crats. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want the bot with flag, there's no problem. I can do it without it :-) (The problem is, that the account is blocked...) --Diego let's talk 00:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous conversation from February 15, 2010 is fairly recent. I'll unblock that account and let you do a 50 edit test-run on that account (without the flag), to see if you are able to operate the bot correctly. However, at this point, I'm going to echo DJSasso's resistance to flag and preference to defer to another crat, whether or not to grant you a bot flagEhJJTALK 00:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fifty (two) edits done. I have done some more with my main account, too. --Diego let's talk 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my 'crat fellows, I object to grant bot flag. Also I saw on dewiki that the local crats there were a bit worried because of the name. "MW" often refers to MediWiki which could give a wrong impression about the bot's tasks. Barras talk 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Sorry, with your current ban on en.wikipedia and several problems here, the community simply doesn't trust you to be able to edit at a fast pace and without oversight (such as with a bot.... or rollback, which you've had denied recently, too). You can still edit with this account, as long as it's semi-automated and you know that any mistakes could lead to both accounts being blocked. Also, you can get the bot flag for short periods of time from any crat willing to oversee your edits, but for now we're not willing to allow you to have a permanently flagged bot account. Sorry, you are welcome to try again later when the community has more trust in you. Best, EhJJTALK 02:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to repropose my bot, now that it is renamed to Diego Grez Bot (talk · contribs). It will do just simple interwiki work just when I need it. Thanks in advance. --Diego Grez let's talk 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "just when i need it." Could you explain? Also, I'm concerned that your previous bot is blocked on several other wikis as being unapproved, and is blocked on en.wiki (one of the most important wikis for us to have proper links) as a sock of your account (i.e. you are banned and not allowed to operate a bot on en.wiki). Given there are so many interwiki bots out there, I can't think of a good reason for you to have one, too, considering you've shown that you don't know the process of requesting the flag, and you're banned on our most important and often linked-to wiki. Sorry, I don't want to seem mean, but I don't think this is a good idea. EhJJTALK 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm, obviously, not a bureaucrat, I did want to register my strenuous objection to MisterWiki/Fireinthehole/Diego Grez running any sort of automated process from either his account or a specific bot account while under such draconian editing restrictions on en.wikipedia. There's just too much going on, both crosswiki and here, for me to trust this user to run a bot. Lauryn Dirty little secrets 04:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still inclined to not give a bot to an editor with as checkered a past as you. But I will await second opinions from other crats. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the botop's history, I'd like to see more specific examples of work that this bot intends to do. Its scope seems to be ever-changing, and I wonder if the current bots can handle cosmetic issues themselves. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PiRSquared17Bot

Original request

Why the change? Jon@talk:~$ 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flood flag better? No need for a bot just for that. --Diego (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag and Bot flag are Denied. At this time the task needs discussion, most especially if we are recatting many stubs (some may be incorrectly stubbed, for example). The two stubs mean different items as well. Please get a community approval for the task on Simple Talk first. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 21:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very basic problem: Find a common category for Decidability theory, Algorithm, RAID and Optical disc drive? --Eptalon (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not approve the task above because it appeared that you wanted to change from one stub type to another stub type. By looking at the bot edits, I see that you are actually changing from the general stub to the tech stub. So, if semi automated, I want to see 25 more edits please, and Approved for trial.. Jon@talk:~$ 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. For the semi automated task of stub sorting from the general stub to the tech stub. Jon@talk:~$ 03:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa Whoa Whoa...slow down here....the operator has 115 edits across all the WMF wikis. You just gave a bot flag to someone who could easily be a vandal. Not saying they are. But there is no way someone with this low edit count should be granted a bot. This is a massive security bad. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I gave a bot flag to someone who contributions I am checking. Also, I've got a nice piece of Javascript that will rollback, every rollbackable edit. I looked at the edits, I looked at the task. I did not see any issues. I am not wikisluething, just looking for any reason that will allow me to deny flags or permit me to restrict editing. At firstly, I believe that everyone is editing to help us, not harm us, until they prove otherwise. I hope that I've addressed the technical details of the security issue, and the philosophical details of what I believe the wiki is. I trust this won't be an issue in light of all that? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot flag is not something that is given out lightly just assuming good faith. Generally to be a bot op you need thousands of edits of history to proove you are legit just like you do to become an admin. The bot flag is in its own way more dangerous than the admin flag because it opperates hidden. You can only watch its edits while you are online, in a matter of an hour the wrong person with the bot flag could either blank or worse yet vandalize every single article on this wiki. You can't be around watching 24 hours a day. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reversed due to lack of a prooven track record on behalf of the bot operator. The community is welcome to chime in if they think 150 or so edits are enough to proove the good faith of the editor. But bare in mind this flag is every bit as troublesome as handing out an admin flag to a person with only 150 edits. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to reply, but I can't this minute. I'll reply a bit later. Djsasso, would you mind leaving a note on the bot operators page so they don't feel like the have done something badly and this is pending discussion? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got many years experience as an editor WMF wide, I'm not new. I've not stupid or slow. I don't assume everyone is a vandal. I know that //I// (or anyone else) can undo or nuke every single edit with a click. We have principles. I see good contributions, a good task, and unless your willing to do that stub work, I don't have an issue with the task or the operator. I note that no one raised that issue in the discussion, and I'm aware exactly what userrights are implied to a bot flag. Jon@talk:~$ 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What good contributions? I see 115 (may have changed since I looked). That is not a track record. Anyone can do 100 edits and then ask for a bot flag.I have no problem with the task. I do have problem with the operator. Sorry, I don't think you are stupid or slow....but I do think that was a very stupid move. The community did not know all the facts which is why some probably didn't oppose. Though I note a couple opposes to the task itself. No one raised any issues because you made the call in less than 24 hours. Bot requests typically stay open for up to a week depending on the task. I have no problem with the task. I do have problem with the operator. Sorry, I don't think you are stupid or slow....but I do think that was a very stupid move. The community did not know all the facts which is why some probably didn't oppose. Though I note a couple opposes to the task itself. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That task opposition was to the changing of stub subtypes, not the current task. As a compromise, do you think we will be ok granting the flood flag temp to the operator when he wants to operate until he establishes himself? This will ensure someone is online, watching. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as someone is vigilant in checking I don't have a problem with that. That being said, I still fundamentally disagree with the flood flag itself for anyone. I would rather the changes be in the RC. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
And the conclusion is...? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have approved the bot. The operator has since proven to be a productive contributor, and in any case we should assume good faith. Stub-sorting is a relatively useful and uncontroversial task, in addition. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN fixing

New feature proposal: fixing ISBN. I also want it to be able to sort general stubs to any other stub type.  PiRSquared17 (talk)  15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the above is that your bot is already approved for stub sorting. So, you are welcome to sort any stubs, as long as they are done correctly. If you would also like to fix ISBN numbers, please do a trial run (at least 25 edits) that show correct ISBN fixing, and I'll approve this bot for that task as well. EhJJTALK 21:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did the trial run.  PiRSquared17 (talk)  19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. You may continue stub sorting or ISBN fixing as per your desire. EhJJTALK 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Math-stub

I have another feature proposal: I can put either ST;S or C (subcat or cat);Category_name;{{Stub-name}}; or ISBN on User:PiRSquared17/Bot. The botis able to parse and read this format. PiRSquared17 02:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can see examples and how the bot reacted by comparing the history of User:PiRSquared17/Bot and the edits of the bot. PiRSquared17 17:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate the power of this feature, I have created a Math-stub template, written the WikiBotReplace Code on User:PiRSquared17/Bot, and now I'll create . This is so fast! PiRSquared17 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on stub sorting

  • This bot is only approved for stub sorting from the general stub to the tech stub in a semi automated fashion. The other task regarding the ISBN is also approved in a semi automated fashion. There are no other approved tasks for this bot. In the future, please be very clear on the additional tasks you request. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 18:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EhJJ said that I could do any stub sorting. PiRSquared17 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unclear if Ehjj is referring to the original task approval, or approving a new task. I'll err on the side of good faith and agree with any stub sorting... but with the limitation that they are semi automated. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have always been semi automated. I did what a 'crat told me I could do. It's not my fault. PiRSquared17 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there was some confusion. To me, there is almost no difference between one kind of stub sorting (general to tech) as any other kind of "general to" stub sorting. If the bot can sort some stubs, it can sort all stubs. However, it may not be appropriate to create new stubs and then mass sort articles into that stub type. That said, this could have been handled a lot better. The admin could have simply asked that you stop your bot and get clarification. Also, there was no need to delete {{math-stub}} per "G6: Housekeeping / non-controversial deletion". This wasn't "housekeeping" and should have gone through a RfD! Creating a stub sub-type like this is perfectly within "be bold". If there was disagreement, it could go to the template talk page, user talk page, RfD, or WP:ST, as needed. Also, it would be better to change the template into a redirect rather than delete it, since all those pages that had it transcluded would be broken. In conclusion, perhaps you should get involved with Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project so that future decisions are made with community consensus. As for your bot, it is approved for all stub sorting and for ISBN fixing, both on a semi-automated basis. EhJJTALK 01:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "being bold" as the edit summary. It is not like I was using my bot to vandalize or blank pages. I was trying to help this wiki. WP:IAR. I was also trying to demonstrate the new feature of User:PiRSquared17/Bot. PiRSquared17 01:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually EhJJ we do have a standard that you can't create stubs that haven't gone through approval at the stub project. -DJSasso (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR. PiRSquared17 02:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A relatively new user shouldn't be expected to know every rule (especially rare things, like how to propose a new stub). It would have been more appropriate (in my opinion) to take an AGF approach. It was the immediate delete and block approach that I thought was a bit uncivil for such a small wiki, especially when there wasn't the threat of significant damage. EhJJTALK 02:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A new user maybe not. But someone who is running a bot doing stub sorting should know everything there is to know about stubs or they shouldn't have a bot doing stub sorting. And standard bot handling procedure is to block the bot immediately when it is doing something it shouldn't be and then to work it out. Griff didn't do anything wrong. Perhaps he shouldn't have deleted the template I am not commenting on that part, but blocking the bot is what an admin is supposed to do immediately upon noticing it not doing something correct. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If the bot was adding a template that had been deleted, then it makes to block the bot temporarily. I'm sorry if my original comments seemed a bit pointy or accusatory. Griff's done a good job as an admin and I don't want to cast doubt on that. Focus now should be to ensure this bot works properly in the future. Thanks for your input DJSasso. EhJJTALK 22:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was my fault. I didn't propose the stub. The template shouldn't have been deleted, though. All of those broken links... PiRSquared17 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR I would not think is a good thing to try and envoke in this particular case because we were purposefully trying to stop stubs from getting to specific on a wiki this small because we felt that it may hurt more than help to have too many stub types. This is why we implemented the approval system. A stub for math topics is exactly the sort of stub I think that is way to specific for a wiki this small. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
When will I be able to use my bot to sort stubs? (not math stubs) PiRSquared17 00:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think EhJJ already clarified you could. -DJSasso (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can? PiRSquared17 00:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DJSasso clarified that EhJJ clarified that I clarified that you could. Jon@talk:~$ 04:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot subpage

Can my bot edit its user sub-pages? PiRSquared17 01:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can a crat approve this bot? PiRSquared17 16:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The bot has been reflagged, and welcome back. I don't see why it can not edit it's subpages. Just so we know, what kind of edits? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 18:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EhJBot5

  • Contributions
  • Operator: EhJJ
  • Programming language: Java
  • Function: Maintenence
  • Description: Find interproject links to simple.wikt and check if the page exists at simple.wikt, if not, tag with {{dead wikt link}} (or remove tag, as appropriate). Also, replace links to en.wikt with links to simple.wikt. I have done some test edits following the nod from Fr33kman at Simple talk, but am willing to run more. EhJJTALK 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the concept or the bots operation, but what I would rather have happen is that the template just adds the page to a category, I don't like that it adds visible text to the inline prose. It really damages the quality of the prose in my book. Anyone else agree or disagree? -DJSasso (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your thoughts in that it looks bad on articles, but I would actually agree with it being visible as I believe visible tags would be more likely to be fixed than a discreet category. So agree with how it's going at the moment. Goblin 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
I think it needs to be tagged directly next to the word. Interwiki links do not turn red like intrawiki links too. If we just put a category on it, we would have to click on each interwiki link and try to figure out which one is the one without an entry. Having it next to the word makes it obvious, saving us that extra effort. Either way (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COuld the bot be adapted to give more precise messages, based on the changes it made? --Eptalon (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - It took 16 minutes, but you were gone by then. EhJJTALK 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could adapt or or to work here and have the bot change missing links to redlinks. -DJSasso (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it. I had considered a notice at the top of pages or on the talk page, but as Bluegoblin7 and Either way have mentioned, it helps to be able to indentify which link isn't working. From the data the bot reports while running, often there is only 1-2 of 6-10 wikt links that don't work. EhJJTALK 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These templates aren't notices, they literally change the link to red, which is why we are doing this in the first place is it not? Because the links aren't red? -DJSasso (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've created {{broken wikt link}} , which produces the following (as an example):

obscure [?]. The idea of the [?] (which can be hidden with "|q=hide") is to link to a page which explains the template's purpose, the bot, and how to fix it if the page has been created (and bot hasn't fixed the link, yet.) Alternately, perhaps adding it as a hidden comment (i.e. <!--See [[Template:Broken wikt link/help]] --> would provide a seamless reading experience, but still provide some help to a user who is unfamiliar with this template when editing. Thoughts? EhJJTALK 13:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer without the ? as I don't really see the point of it, since all we were trying to fix was the fact that interwiki links were blue instead of red. This solves that. However, its not something I will complain to heavily about if others think it should be there. I just think its redundant if we have the link red. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. I have reconfigured the bot to do these tasks (change links from en to simple, use the template {{broken wikt link}} if link does not work, change back to [[:wikt: if the link does function, and remove all instances of {{dead wikt link}} — the deprecated template). The new template has no [?], but that can always be added to the template if consensus is for it. Mind if I give the new bot a test run? EhJJTALK 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have at it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done a test run (Contributions). Thoughts about changes to the way it works or flagging? EhJJTALK 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to flag yourself when you feel you are ready to go live. I don't think anyone objects. And as a crat you can do it yourself anyways. I don't see any faults in its edits. -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. and flagged. Thank you for your input. I avoid flagging my own bots, as I like to get the opinion of another crat as to whether it is appropriate for it to be flagged. At this point, there is very little danger of letting the bot run flagged, and there appears to be community support for it. I have flagged it. Thanks also to others who have provided feedback here and on WP:ST. EhJJTALK 02:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AvicBot

  • Contributions (examples may be seen under my current username's contributions.}
  • Operator: Avicennasis
  • Programming language: Opera browser and a program called TypeItIn.
  • Function: Tagging.
  • Description: Semi-automation of a task - all pages will be (p)reviewed by a human prior to saving.
    • Task 1: Finds articles on animals/plants/minerals, and if they have articles at Wikispecies it tags as such. Also, if {{stub}} tag is found on any of these pages, it is replaced with {{biology-stub}}.
    • Task 2: Periodically checks the articles on the main page to see if any useful Commons tag may exists, and if so, tags as such. Also (p)reviewed by a human prior to saving.

Both of these changes have been previously done under my username, with flood flag. -Avicennasis @ 06:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per IRC discussion, I have run 25 articles under this bot. Results can be seen at User:AvicBot/trialrun. -Avicennasis @ 07:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - No problems found. Chenzw  Talk  08:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Found another large group of articles that seem to need commons tag. Particually location-based articles like those listed here. I am requesting a new task approval? I am proposing:
  • 3. Find location-based articles, and if they have articles at Commons, tag as {{commonscat}}
  • 3.1 If {{stub}} tag is found on any of these pages, it is replaced with {{geo-stub}}.

Same as above: all pages will be (p)reviewed by a human prior to saving. I have done some of these under flood flag on my account, but would be willing to run another trial set if need be. I would just ask for if it's ok to tag any article if it has a Commons page, but it seems too broad to be approved, even for a semi-automatic bot. Thanks again! -Avicennasis @ 07:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run a trial set up to 50 and report back. I am sure it will be fine for you to do these, but its good to do a trial anyways just incase. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50 articles done. Can be seen on AvicBot's 50 most recent changes. -Avicennasis @ 10:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approved additional task. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MondalorBot

According this request. Please note that some experienced and trusted bots (e.g. Xqbot) make exactly the same fixes (cosmetic changes). Thanks, Mondalor 13:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We make the same request of them as well. Xqbot for example has been blocked on a few wikis for doing it. Your changes look fine to me, unless anyone else has issues with the cosmetic changes in the next day or so I will mark it approved. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, could I get you to create a userpage for your operator account? Global bots operators are supposed to have user pages on each wiki they operate on as well. Not a huge deal but it is part of the global bot policy. It can be a soft redirect to your main ru page. Just as long as its not a redlink. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already created it. Mondalor 13:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you detail out what cosmetic changes will occur? Also, I gather this will be automated? Thanks Jon@talk:~$ 14:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I always run my bot in autonomous mode (with -auto/-autonomous option, but without -force). Cosmetic changes are minor changes that do not affect an article, but simplify its source code (removing spaces at the end of lines, sorting interwiki, etc.). Also you can see MondalorBot's contributions, if you have any questions. Mondalor 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked the contributions, yes. But what I'm asking you, is if you could listify the bot tasks... for example...
  • Changes Image to File
  • Removes white space
So we know exactly what the tasks are. Thank you again for the quick response! Best, Jon@talk:~$ 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is running the standardy pywikipedia/cosmetic.py. meta:Pywikipediabot/cosmetic changes.py has the list. Might be out of date though. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing "image" namespace to "file" namespace: [2]
  • Adding empty line between list of templates, list of categories and list of interwiki links: [3]
  • Sorting interwiki links: [4]
  • Adding space in <br /> tag: [5]
  • Fixing ISBN number and adding some spaces in headings of sections: [6]
  • Fixing name of category: [7]
  • Changing "_" to spaces: [8]

Mondalor 15:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Excellent... If the case is that the python code is unmodified for cosmetic changes (that is, it matches the tasks in the original coding) and those task above, then I recommend this to be Speedily Approved.. Jon@talk:~$ 15:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having review the above, as well as your bot's status on other wikis, I think you ought to be approved quickly. Since DJSasso was first to reply, I'll let him do the official flagging. EhJJTALK 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Approved for cosmetic_changes.py. No flag needed as he already has one. -DJSasso (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egmontbot

I only see five edits thus far. Were there any issues? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No :) It's just a bit difficult to find pages that need interwiki addition or modification, I have the bot searching at random. But anyway I'm not in a hurry :) --Egmontaz (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush, get 50 done, and then ask here again. (its mostly the disambig fixes I want to see). If you hit 100 interwiki changes you can also get a steward to grant you approval if one of us crats are not around for the interwiki part of your request since we allow automatic approval here. -DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EC - Yeah, take you time, no deadline. I wanted to help you if there were coding issues was all, and what DJ said. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You can get permission from a Steward if you do interwikis only. If you want approval for disambig, you'll need to let us know here once you have some test dismbigs. EhJJTALK 02:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did 50 changes. Since as far as I understand you are concerned more about disambiguation they were ~40 on this and ~10 on interwikis. I made a silly mistake but I fixed it manually afterwards, I hope this will not be a reason for rejection since I always review the changes the bot makes. Thank you! --Egmontaz (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look good.  Done EhJJTALK 11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, I'll do my best. --Egmontaz (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PmlineditorBot

  • I've never used the word 'retired'. 'Break' is all I have used; others have said retired. Re-appearing here and there now, hopefully. Goblin 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

EhJBot4

  • Contributions
  • Operator: EhJJ
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia and/or PHP
  • Function/Description: I'd like to play around with python/pywikipedia bot and/or PHP/Antivandalbot. Currently, I have no goal in mind, but will be doing a few test edits under this account to get a feel for how the code works. I will be checking all edits to ensure there are no errors. I am not requesting a bot flag at this time. EhJJTALK

MWBot

MisterWiki 17:57, 15 February 2010

 Not done Sorry not going to give a bot flag to a user indefinitely blocked on another wiki. Contribute on this wiki as a normal editor for a longer period of time and I may reconsider. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)   Not done - Please first get our trust to have an account that doesn't appear on the RCs. -Barras talk 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Vandal Bot and Toolserver

I would like permission to run the AntiVandalBot program that we once had under GoblinBot4. After talking to others on IRC I think this would be best done from the Toolserver on what is called a Multi Maintainer Project where we would be able to add and remove users and never have to worry about one user retiring or leaving and losing important tools such as this. There is also the possibility of running other bots important to the wiki from the same project (I am thinking the project itself will be called SimpleBots or just SimpleWiki). The bot itself and the project would be set up over the next week and would not be fully run without testing first. It is possible that I would run the bot for testing from my personal toolserver account (jamesur) if the MMP is not set up yet. We also have at least 2 other users who have shown interest in helping to maintain the project and there are a couple others who I am going to talk to who were involved in running GoblinBot (Chenzw and ChrisG for sure). I already have the code used for goblin bot, last updated a month ago by ChenzW. I have created the account User:SimpleVandalBot for the bot itself. It is currently tied to my email but would be switched to the toolserver email once completed (and forwarded wherever we want). James (T C) 02:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

approved for tests Please perform 50-100 test edits before bot flagging fr33kman 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefeare that this user run without bot flag, as we can see in recent changes his edit, is wrong? :-)) --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. I can't remember for sure... that was how goblinbot4 ran correct? James (T C) 01:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I actually meant "bot approval" rather than bot flagging. I agree it needs to be visible in RC. fr33kman 03:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was flagged as a bot but something in its code still made its edits visible. -DJSasso (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only its rollback edits were shown on RC. This is by default. THe warnings weren't shown there. The bot was flagged. -Barras talk 10:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot needs to have the flag so that it has the option of whether to use &bot=1 in the mw:api or not (i.e. to use the bot flag or not, per edit). So, any further development on this? I'd be more than happy to join in on this project and get it working again. EhJJTALK 22:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I was just asked about this on IRC, i'd like to point out that GB4 is already under a multi-maintainer project, and it would be much simpler to rename the bot and ask Chenzw or Chris to add further maintainer to it. I'd also just like to point out the the SVN repository code is very instable and not intended for production use - you'd be best getting the code that was running GB4 as it's more stable (but still not that stable). If you need me, email is there, but for the time being i'm 'not here' due to exams, work, other web projects and the fact I needed a break. The word 'retired' has been going around (I didn't start it) but because it's gone round i've been sticking with it. Not out to make a fuss though so i've not said anything about going or coming on wiki nor do I intend to beyond this. Will I be back? (Seeing as lots of people have asked) Not till my AS Modules are out of the way, but never say never. (Bluegoblin7 not bothering to login) 213.177.251.166 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't know that rb will appear on RC. Ok for the flag! --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MaximillionBot

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Maximillion Pegasus
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia.
  • Function: replace deleted;deprecated templates using the template.py/replace.py scripts
  • Note:Bot is already flagged.

Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seem like good and correct edit. --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done then. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DodoBot

 - EdoDodo talk 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (5 edits). Chenzw  Talk  15:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Done. - EdoDodo talk 16:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get you to expand on what sorts of category work you will be doing. I see you renamed the category, but what other tasks do you expect to do? I am not worried about the code since pywikipedia and awb are fairly standard, however I am concerned with the tasks you intend to do with it, since you aren't an active member of the community as far as I have noticed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tasks that I could do automatically would be renaming/removal/merging of categories, all of which will only be done if there is consensus that the change is useful. In semi-automatic mode I may also diffuse categories (replace parent category with more appropriate subcategories), something that I have been doing on my main account but requires the flood flag to be placed on me every time because of the high-speed edit rate. - EdoDodo talk 19:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without specific tasks in mind, I would rather you continue to use the flood flag. It's the whole reason we have it. Bot flags are more for ongoing tasks, and flood flags are for individual single instance tasks. Of course other crats can comment, but my opinion this sort of work would be best done with the flood flag when needed. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if the semi-automatic edits are a problem them I'm fine with just approval for the automatic tasks and I'll continue getting the flood flag for the semi-automatic tasks. - EdoDodo talk 05:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The current task of renaming Category:Hominians to Category:Hominins is approved. I will not be granting a bot flag as there are only 10 or so pages of which to rename the category. For diffusing of categories, I don't really see much difference between granting a long-term flood flag and a bot flag, seeing that you will probably be doing rather regularly. Might as well give the bot flag instead of flood. I will wait around and see what others think about this. Chenzw  Talk  17:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, current task is done. Will wait to hear about flag. - EdoDodo talk 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another task that is being discussed is having the bot keep reports such as most wanted articles, most active users, etc. updated. See Simple Talk for more information. - EdoDodo talk 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Fulfilled_requests/2010&oldid=8893442"