Wikipedia:Bots/Fulfilled requests/2009

Fulfilled requests

What are you using to determine when a stub needs to change? Are you manually doing it. ie checking each edit? -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's semi-automatic (for now at least until it's had a decent testing phase) so i'm checking the edits it's making before allowing it to do so. It did throw up a couple of false-positives whereby it was trying to tag sports stubs as geo stubs, but I think i've got around those now. The main problem is the sheer amount without stub types ;). Also please see GB5 below. Goblin 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Ok continue with the testing for a bit and I am sure one of us will give you the flag. As for GB5, since yours wasn't running EhJJ started a bot doing that task if you look below. You guys might want to confer with each other as to who is going to actually do it. No point having two for such a low frequency task. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks. As for GB5 I updated it today because me and EhJJ decided that mine would do it. Compare the contribs, mine edited the most recent ;). Cheers, Goblin 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
Actually his has. ;) But I believe you two talked so I will mark yours as done. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator:
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description: add interwikis, it has flag on Spanish Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezarate (talkcontribs)
Please do 50 test edits. -DJSasso (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done, no response. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all its doing is updating counts once in awhile I will leave it unflagged for a bit to watch its edits. Shouldn't be an issue since the numbers don't change too often. I will flag after a bit. -DJSasso (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've been doing test edits in my user space, and it appears the bot is stable and not at risk of causing havoc. I'll take it "live" on the actual WP:RC page tomorrow. Once it does a couple dozen edits (probably over the span of a week or two), I'll re-request a flag. Thanks! EhJJTALK 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done as it appears GB5 will be doing the task. If this is not what was agreed let me know. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bot has been running live for a while now and it appears to be in a stable and functioning state. I don't mind deferring to GoblinBot5 if it's running, but for now I'll leave EhJBot3 online. I think it would be best for the bot to NOT have a flag, as it edits infrequently and people probably want to see changes in New Changes and their Watchlist. Thanks! EhJJTALK 02:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a crat to label the bot "approved but not flagged", because I guess it's still technically only approved for test edits at this time. The bot will run whenever GoblinBot5 is offline, essentially as a back-up, per the note I left on Bluegoblin7's talk on Nov 26. Thanks! EhJJTALK 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be easier for the bot to take over for GB5 instead of having two bots approved for the same job? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Griffin. One bot that is doing the work is enough for this. Your bot seems to work well. Probably we use this one and not the GoblinBot? --Barras (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't actually matter if two do it. It provides redundancy and doesn't harm anything. Go work on articles people. -DJSasso (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that my bot be enabled for a new project, which is general fixes with He has already done this in the past, so please feel free to look at the edits to make sure that they are appropriate. Thanks, Razorflame 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way will your bot's edit differ from the one's Scream's bot is doing? Can you perform some test edits please? fr33kman talk 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Test edits already performed (about 250-300 edits worth). I am not sure how mine will differ from NVS's, but if we are doing the same thing, I will try to find some other project that my bot can work on. Razorflame 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, why don't you check with NVS and see what's what, and if it's the same consider another project. If it is different (a bit of overlap is fine) then come back and we'll get it approved. :) fr33kman talk 00:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And please remember that you should not be making cosmetic changes to pages that you aren't doing something else to already. Since your bot is only approved to do iw's. That is what you would have to also be doing. There is a setting in cosmetic changes to make sure you do this. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I already have it enabled, so therefore, can you please approve me for making cosmetic changes in addition to iws? Razorflame 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approved fr33kman talk 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] didn't even wait a day...hell an hour to already do what you said you wouldn't do. You are making cosmetic changes without any other additions to pages. Please stop and enable the mode to only make changes when other changes are being made to the page. -DJSasso (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err those edit are from earlier...but those are an example of what you should not do. -DJSasso (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Razorflame: please only make changes that MediaWiki will actually parse differently than the previous state. Don't make edits that end up being null. fr33kman talk 04:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, don't worry about it. The changes that are being made are clearly interwikis with cosmetic changes thrown in as part of the changes. Cheers, Razorflame 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about Darkicebot

Hello again. I would like to ask the community if you could approve my bot for sometimes making AWB changes that need making when the time comes. My bot has been used for AWB changes in the past, so therefore, I would just like to ask if I can be approved to continue doing so. I believe it is still on the approved user list of AWB users. Thanks, Razorflame 04:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an indication of the types of AWB edits it'll me making? fr33kman talk 04:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AWB-type edits that might need making in the future. For example, sorting of stubs from one stub type to the other. Razorflame 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fill out a request as needed would be my suggestion. This is how its done on en, and I can't forsee a situation where we need to rush into stub sorting that we can't wait for a request to be made. You are already approved to use AWB, but you need to be approved per individual task on a bot. -DJSasso (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was just an example of what I would do with it using Darkicebot. I don't see why I should have to request permission to use my bot to make AWB edits every single time that I need to do it when I can just request it now as a blanket effect in the case that I do need to do it. Razorflame 05:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is how bot requests work. You are only approved for a single task at a time. Just because you are using the AWB platform instead of the pywikipedia platform doesn't change that fact. -DJSasso (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I am only approved for a single task at a time. I am asking if I can use AWB when needed to make changes so that they don't flood the Recent Changes as needed. I'm not going to ask here every single time that I need to make AWB edits with my bot, I want to ask here for permission to use AWB with my bot period, so that I can use it at anytime without having to get on here and post a request to use AWB to edit for that particular instance. Since I know that I am going to be making changes using AWB more than once in the future, I am trying to make life easier for you. Instead, you are making it harder on yourself. Sheesh, I feel like I am being interrogated here...Razorflame 05:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I was trying nicely to tell you no you do not have blanket approval to use AWB for anything your heart desires. I am telling you to request approval here so we can keep track of what you are doing with it, and to make sure you do test edits before you are approved so there are no mistakes with it. You have made mistakes in the past. This is one way we make sure that mistakes don't happen. It is actually less work for us if you do this than for us to have to check everyday your bots edits to see what you are doing. -DJSasso (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made any mistakes in the past with my bot using AWB. If I did make a mistake, it was quickly fixed. Trust me, I'm not asking for autonomous use of it. I am only asking for semi-autonomous use. I'll check every single edit it makes after the batch of edits are made myself if you don't trust me to even do this. You seem to have something against me. Everything that I ask for or suggest, you seem to have a qualm against, which isn't what I want to see from an administrator. This is a simple request and I don't see what the hell the big deal is. Razorflame 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request I would deny any editor. We have a standard in place for all editors that you get approval for each individual task, be that stub sorting, tag adding, interwiki or whatever. I am not going to make an exception for you, sorry. It is not a simple request, its a request for special treatment. And your veiled personal attack is not very becomming of you either. -DJSasso (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I said was in any way a personal attack. I was merely bluntly stating the truth, which obviously you like to tell others. Razorflame 05:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No suggesting I have a grudge against you is a personal attack. If you are going to make a statement, have proof I have a grudge rather than a belief. -DJSasso (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a personal attack? Saying that you have a grudge against me is easy. Proof can be seen on Wikipedia:Simple talk, and on several other things. Saying that you have a grudge against me isn't attacking you in any way. It is stating an opinion. You seriously are reading into things too much. Razorflame 05:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, anything I said is proof I disagree with you at times, but is not proof I hold a grudge. Show me where I have said I have a grudge against you. Please, I beg of you. -DJSasso (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't said that you have a grudge against me, but that doesn't prevent me from believing that you do. I also have the right to say that I believe you have a grudge against me onwiki because I know for a fact that it doesn't constitute a personal attack. Razorflame 05:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can believe it all you want. But when you phrase it in a sentence the way you did it becomes an attack. -DJSasso (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, tacking on that it isn't what I want to see from an administrator? It is the truth. I don't want to see someone disagree with someone all the time over things from an administrator, as it shows that they are tempermental. Not a personal attack. Razorflame 05:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with someone does not mean they are tempermental. Just means they don't agree with you. The world (or me) is not out to get you. -DJSasso (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operator: LSG1
Programming language: Pywikipedia.
Function: interwiki
Description: interwiki to en:wiki and de:wiki, bot on de:wiki and en:wiki
--LSG1 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a usepage for both you and your bot. Then perform 50 test edits. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain the rationale for this edit please? The edit was incorrect. Please make sure that you are not running -force or -hint with -autonomous, as this causes problems with the interwiki additions. Razorflame 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was my mistake, i pressed 2 and not 1, Sorry! :-( --LSG1 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Test edits performed... --LSG1 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done -DJSasso (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add new task, general fixes from Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Looks good! :) fr33kman talk 17:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice this request till now, make sure you aren't making the cosmetic changes the only thing you do. They should always be coupled with another task. Without looking at the archives I forget if you are approved to do interwikis, if you are this is what people generally have this script working in conjunction with. -DJSasso (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked several times to get this bot working, so i've given it a go and *think* it's now working correctly - testing on my own wiki has gone well, but things don't always go perfectly on WMF wikis. Just looking for approval to make test edits - shouldn't need the flag due to the low edit rate. Goblin 18:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Approved for tests. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Has made one edit so far, though this was slightly late for technical reasons. The latest edit was not required as there were no updates. I'll keep watching it. Goblin 20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
I will flag it after about 20 or so edits. Just want to see some consistency in its numbers. I can't imagine it will go amuck so this is pretty much just a technicality. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I understand :) Goblin 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
The bot has not made any edit since 15 September. Is there any problem? Chenzw  Talk  16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bot has since made more changes but is down again. Should get it started up at around lunch time. Cheers, Goblin 09:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

  Done -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contributions
  • Operator:
  • Programming language: pywikipedia
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description: add or changes interwikis in autonomous mode
  • Bot Flag on: 25 local wikis and global bot flag SUL

Thanks in advance - Foxie001 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do 50 test edits or so and then I will approve. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FoxBot has made more than 100 edits. Sorry for the late response but due to some problems caused by an update of the mediawiki software FoxBot hasn't made any edits for two weeks. - Foxie001 (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done - FoxBot is a global bot, no need for local flag. EhJJTALK 13:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: EhJJ
  • Programming language: Java
  • Function: various, currently moving articles and changing redirects, (see contribs)
  • Description: Moves Article/VGA stub to Wikipedia:Very good articles/Article and fixes the redirect at Main Page/Article *. I'd like to get the bot flag temporarily so that the bot can suppress redirect creation on move. If you'd like, you can de-flag the bot after this task is done. I've made a few carefully supervised test edits and will check over every edit once the bot is done the above task. EhJJTALK 10:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that I should put a notice here about my new bot. It helps in making useful redirect pages semiautomagically! Info and discussion are at User:EhJBot/Proposal. My misread of DJSasso's comment was that I may proceed with some test edits, which I am in the process of doing. I'll stop for now until I get further approval. Thanks! EhJJTALK 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sampled a few edits, looks fine so far; thats the technical side. Keep up the test-editing...--Eptalon (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've throttled the bot to 1 edit per minute (60,000 msec) with threading. It's now done more than a hundred test edits. I think it's ready for a flag, but let me know if you want me to show you some other tests or explain what it's doing more clearly (I'll be updating User:EhJBot regularly). EhJJTALK 20:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done [1] by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · count). EhJJTALK 02:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The bot has been renamed EhJBot1 (talk · contribs). EhJJTALK 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • contributions
  • Operator: Dinamik
  • Programming language: Python, pywikipedia
  • Function: adding/fixing interwiki (
  • Description: add or changes interwiki links in autonomous mode
  • Bot flag on: be-x-old, ca, cs, fi, he, it, nl, no, pl, ro, sr, sv, uk, zh-yue

I request that Dinamik-bot gets a bot flag. The bot will be add and fix interwiki links. Thank you! Dinamik (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done -DJSasso (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Mymelo (Mymelo)
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description: use with autonomous mode.
  • Bot flag on: ar, bpy, bs, ca, cs, cy, da, de, en, es, eu, fa, fr, ga, hu, id, it, ja, ml, mn, nap, nl, pdc, pt, ro, roa-tara, ru, scn, sco, sr, th, tr, uk, vi, vo, zh, zh-classical, zh-yue SUL status

Thank you. --Mymelo (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some test edits whlile a short time. If it is not enogh, I can run my bot again, Thank you. --Mymelo (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Griffinofwales
  • Programming language: None
  • Function: welcome users
    • New function: Stub-sorting, other uncontroversial repetitive tasks.
  • Description: Bot will be completely manual and will welcome users who have edited. The purpose will be to keep the edits off recent changes. See WP:AN and my talk for related threads.
    • New description: Bot will be completely manual and will be used for uncontroversial repetitive tasks (such as stub-sorting). See WP:AN and my talk for related threads.

--Griffinofwales (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a standard of not welcoming users until they have actually edited here. So this bot would violate that standard as it would welcome them as soon as their account was created. It is also felt that being welcomed by a bot is not a friendly gesture and is cold and doesn't feel friendly which is why we have rejected bots for this in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Will welcome users who have edited" Shappy talk 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that but he also says in his other talk that he is welcoming users from back in June. We only welcome users whose edits are less than a day old and are new accounts. And my point about a bot still stands, its a very cold way to be welcomed. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We only welcome users whose edits are less than a day old and are new accounts. We do? I never heard that, and I agree with you about the bot welcoming users, but it seems the easiest way. I have been waiting for the flood flag for over 36 hours, and it would be easier to log out of my account and log in to the bot account. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well regular users can't have the flood flag, which is why you have been waiting. Admins can only place it on themselves. -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'crats can place it on normal users (that's what NVS said). Griffinofwales (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He probably meant the bot flag temporarily. But anyways its all good. I said my part :) -Djsasso (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Please clarify what you want to do. Is this a one-time mass welcoming of users or a bot that is going to welcome users as they are created? In addition, I am not really for the mass welcoming of users; it is too insincere. Let's see what the others think. Chenzw  Talk  10:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend disapproval of this task. User welcomes, I believe, should not be automated. Remember, this is a living community. However, thank you for you offer on this... you do good work! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the general consensus on this issue (on ST or AN, can't remember) is that it's not needed. EVula // talk // // 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)    Not done - As present, the community disapproves of automated welcomes. Please attempt to achieve consensus for the contrary before making a bot request. Chenzw  Talk  04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New purpose. See above. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be that general in your task request (ie other controversial edits.) What might seem uncontroversial to you might be to others as you have already found out. You need a specific set of stubs you intend to sort or specific task it will perform. Otherwise you should be doing slow speed manual editing. -Djsasso (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will get an admin to approve any actions done by the bot ahead of time. The bot will be completely manual and will not be using a programming language. I can do edits with this account but I have to request the bot flag every time I start, and MC08 said it would be easier to have the bot acc. do the work (I agree). So, give the bot flag to the bot or to me. You pick. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend approval. There is nothing controversial about stub sorting. If there is an issue, I am sure Grif will address it on his talk page and correct it if needed. It is a stub tag. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct there is nothing controversial about stub sorting. But the editor himself is controversial, as can be seen by many complaints about various repetitive tasks he has done in the past without consensus on things he assumed were not controversial. With a bot flag its very easy for him to hide what he is doing. As such I personally would prefer to know the exact tasks he wishes to preform since the comment above says other uncontroversial repetitive tasks which is a pretty wide open definition of what he wants to do. But any other crat is welcome to give him the flag if then think its ok. -Djsasso (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But the editor himself is controversial, as can be seen by many complaints about various repetitive tasks he has done in the past without consensus on things he assumed were not controversial. Once. Not several times. And originally they weren't controversial. NVS gave me the go-ahead on my talk page (or the implication). I can provide diffs if needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Loupeter (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done--Chenzw  Talk  13:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Orango speak! 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Chenzw  Talk  08:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fix and delete double redirects.
  1. Archive discussions. (Redundancy is good.)
  • Description: Misc.

NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. - Chenzw  Talk  14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll report back after some edits. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done--Chenzw  Talk  11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you change the passwords on all of the accounts, if you have not done so already. This is just for security reasons. Exert 21:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, already done. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend very quick approval for the tasks these bots were already approved for. Recommend early close of this request. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend new accounts be created. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned if you intend to use them, use them on new accounts. But it sounds like you won't be from IRC conversations. -Djsasso (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - As passwords have been changed, I don't really see a need for creating new accounts. It's fine if you want to anyway. Tasks approved, please see me for source code. Chenzw  Talk  02:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Bot flags removed. Chenzw  Talk  03:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have re-appeared, bot accounts have been transferred back to me and are running again with secure passwords, i.e. only I have access. I am assuming that it is ok for them to be running, having proved themself in the past, and am asking for the return of the bot flags that they had. Regards, Goblin 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
I recommend that the bots do some test edits before the flags are given back. Exert 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why they'd have to, they were already fine before; but if he has too... why not ;) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the owners were switched back and forth, there may have been some code changes made. If a 'crat wants to give the flags back, I'm fine with it. Exert 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Bluegoblin7 and Yotcmdr say they didn't change the code, then I see no reason to need to have the bots do test runs. That said, GBot4 never had the flag (and still shouldn't) so it may as well be started and run. As for GBot1-3, I'll leave it up to a crat whether test runs are necessary, but I think they can be rather quickly approved. EhJJTALK 23:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No code changes have been made to any of the bots, and GoblinBot4 DID have the flag - part of it's code flagged warnings but not reverts. I'm going to assume that they are ok to run and just wait for a 'crat to make the flags. Regards, Goblin 12:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Rollback and bot flag granted to GB4. I can vouch for the integrity of GB4's code: all code is in an SVN repository. For GBs 1-3 however, please confirm that you want to run the bots as they have not edited for some time. Chenzw  Talk  12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three will definitely be running for delivery purposes once i've migrated it to the Toolserver, so that needs a bot flag. Two is pretty dormant as it runs AWB and that's non-Mac compatible, which is what i'm using atm. It's likely that this will run the updating of Wikipedia:RecentChanges once it's finished. One will be running again updating {{totw}} from Monday, though it's debatable if this needs the flag or not. So, to sum up, flags for 2 and 3, no flag for 1 (as it used to be). Regards, Goblin 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
  Done Chenzw  Talk  08:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: masti
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description: interwiki, fix double redirs. Flag on: pl, ss, als, es, szl, cs, ast, ca, da, en, sk, de, hr, ba, fr, fi, la, nn, it, ba pl.wikt,, pl.books, pl.source (SUL flags and edits)

--Masti (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting)   Done--Chenzw  Talk  02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, regards. --Emijrp (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: User:Dnikitin
  • Programming language: pywikipedia framework
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description: bot has flag at en, de, fr, pl, ja, nl, pt, es, ru, sv, lv, ar, be, uk, commons

--Dnikitin (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do test edits, as described in the policy? Exert 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather! Underway. --Dnikitin (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Chenzw  Talk  08:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Merlissimo
  • Programming language: java
  • Function: changes links in articles/templates/files/categories which are outdated and can be successfully replaced by a new one
  • Description: The bot replaces urls that have to be changed. This can be only a domain change or a more complex page structure change on a website. Links are dectected with the help of the api (and not with regex) and are only replaced if the webserver of the new url returns a 200-status-response for that new resource. Links in “normal article text” are not changed.
  • 2nd Function: Interwikis, but only supervised on single sites (done by py)
  • bot flag at: en, de, some others

I am doing some test edits, as describited by the policy. --Merlissimo (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Chenzw  Talk  01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Merlissimo (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to request a bot flag for Rameshngbot.

  • Operator: Rameshng
  • Operator's home project: Rameshng
  • My Contributions: Contributions
  • Software :pywiki
  • Purpose: Interwiki
  • Have bot flag at: en,ml, bn
  • Description: Hello, I am an admin user in ml wiki and bot flag for my bot in en, ml, bn wikis. I will be running the bot for the interwiki links only. Requesting here a bot flag for my bot user Rameshngbot.

Thank you! --Rameshng (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Speedily approved. Chenzw  Talk  07:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much.--Rameshng (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please complete 50 edits an a 'crat can approve or disapprove the bot. Or complete 100 edits and a steward at meta can approve or disapprove the bot. I have unblocked the bot. -Djsasso (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Chenzw  Talk  07:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. — hiNt (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: X!
  • Programming language: PHP
  • Function: Adds a |date= parameter to certain maintenance templates
  • Description: This bot will go through all transclusions of the following templates (and redirects):
  1. {{wikify}}
  2. {{orphan}}
  3. {{uncategorized}}
  4. {{uncategorizedstub}}
  5. {{cleanup}}
  6. {{unreferenced}}
  7. {{expand}}
  8. {{merge}}
  9. {{fact}}
  10. {{NPOV}}
  11. {{copy}}

For each one of those templates, it will add a |date= parameter to them, filling in the correct time. For example, {{wikify}} would become {{wikify|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}. Basically, this is a clone of . Xclamation point 02:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trials done, [2] and User:X!/smackbot. Xclamation point 03:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - please remember to update the bot's userpage. Chenzw  Talk  04:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Xclamation point 15:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial, 5 admins. Chenzw  Talk  04:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Xclamation point 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approved - No bot flag needed, already has flag. Chenzw  Talk  09:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of issues. This page is for bots that are written and can perform a test run. Also if you don't have an idea about bots, it would not be an especially good idea for you to operate it. Nice idea though, but this request is unactionable at present. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well the idea behind requesting here is that you already have a bot ready to go and then a crat approves it or not. I also do believe we determined in the past that we did not wish a bot to perform this task. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but there is no place on here like w:WP:BOTREQ (Saw it below white ec-ing with DJ.). It was sort of a request. Meanwhile, why doesn't the community want a bot to perform this task? Where can I find a discussion on this? --Dylan620 Autumn leaves 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to find the discussion, but it basically came down to most people didn't even feel we needed to archive it at all, nevermind with a bot. -Djsasso (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism_in_progress#Old_requests might be what i was thinking about. -Djsasso (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was 7 months ago. Do you think we could bring the archival thing to the community for review? Here are the last archives starting in 2008: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. --Dylan620 Autumn leaves 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure bring it up either at the VIP talk page or Simple talk. This page only really gets watched by people who deal with bot stuff I think. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) This is a possible idea, the only change we need to make is probably place VIP requests into a subpage instead of the main page. Chenzw  Talk  06:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly what the bot would do. It waould move requests to a subpage. --Dylan620 Review me 12:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to Chris_G, an experienced bot programmer, on IRC, and he said he'd take a look at it in the morning seeing as Dylan doesn't have any bot experiences. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it working under Chris G Bot 3. How often do you want it run? --Chris 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once an hour should be good. Thanks! --Dylan620 Review me 01:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, as was mentioned in the above linked article some people like to see a history. So I would say no more often than every 7 days. We are not so don't need things removed as fast as you can see we had only 8 reports in 5 days.. We have very different ways of doing things here. -Djsasso (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, set to run once a week. --Chris 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you, please run 50 test edits so we can review and grant or not grant the bot flag. -Djsasso (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have noticed you already had that many edits. Just wait for a 'Crat to review and grant. -Djsasso (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done by a steward over at Meta after this request based on automatic approval. Techman224Talk 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally forgot we do automatic approval now, was thinking we only did global bots... -Djsasso (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we see some test edit? Perhaps 50? Thanks, Goblin 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine :) Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial, 30 reverts. Chenzw  Talk  08:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - I guess this should do. Chenzw  Talk  15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Filnik
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: Testing
  • Description: I'm a pywikipediabot developer, admin on it.wikipedia, it.wiktionary and commons and I code in python since ~ 2 years. I will use this account only for testing some bots that Vector has asked/will ask me :-) (the APIs have some limits when you use normal accounts).

--Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Razorflame
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia and AWB
  • Function: Cosmetic changes while changing interwikis as well as minor changes such as changing categories using AWB
  • Description: I would like to request that my bot be approved for two new functions: Cosmetic changes using the Pywikipedia programming language, and minor changes using AWB. A test run has already been completed for both. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 19:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contributions
  • Operator: SwirlBoy39 (may be on another wikipedia like SwirlBoy39)
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: Interwiki
  • Description: Will work around the clock unless something happens. It will add, fix, and modify interwiki links. It currently is approved at the Simple Wikiquote and has an approval pending at the English Wikquote. Thanks so much in advance. ѕwirlвoy  22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a go for 50 edits or so. Then a crat can say yay or nay. -Djsasso (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Maximillion Pegasus
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia
  • Function: archive and occasional interwiki
  • Description: Archive bot that uses the existing User:MiszaBot/config template to archive when MiszaBot isn't running and occasional interwiki. Should I should do a test run for the interwiki?

--Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really see the need to back up MiszaBot since I don't think I have seen it stop archiving in the year I have been using it. But can't hurt. Will you be using Misza's code? Not sure if it was posted anywhere or not. Since Creol isn't around anymore not sure which crat will start watching this page. But generally they ask for 50 edits to test the interwikis. -Djsasso (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an archive bot script that is part of pywikipedia that I will be using. Ok, I'll do the 50 edits for the interwiki later on today when I get back home. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note: my bot is temporarily taking over MiszaBot's job until it gets out of hiatus (see Wikipedia:Simple talk#Archiving of this page). And yes, the script is available as in the pywikipedia collection (that is Misza's code). I suggest that you discuss with Misza about the job allocation (different namespaces?) so the two bots don't fight over contributions. ;) Chenzw  Talk  13:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, I mainly aim to run it when MiszaBot hasn't archived for several days and ST and AN have topics piling up. Would you be interested in transferring that duty to my bot or are you wanting to keep that job for your bot? Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Yes, I will transfer that task to you as my bot's current tasks are quite memory consuming already for the shell server. Just to clarify, will you be considering to make this a permanent job? (let's say MiszaBot does the Wikipedia namespace while your bot does the user talk namespace) Chenzw  Talk  13:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would be a possibility. Of course, I would have to talk to Misza13 about it. But if MiszaBot hasn't been running for several days, I would still have my bot to archive the other namespace. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and test the interwiki here. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done the 50 edits. Should I also do a test run for the archiving? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't hurt. There are only a very small number of pages that archive here I think. -Djsasso (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done that also. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving looks 100% ok, and interwiki looks good to me. I would support. A 'crat should be able to give it to you. -Djsasso (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Chenzw  Talk  11:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Techman224Talk 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give one of the 'crats a poke (on talk page) when you are ready to begin testing. Chenzw  Talk  13:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Temp flag granted. Chenzw  Talk  01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: TRD (may be on another wikipedia like TRD)
  • Programming language: Python (Pywikipediabot Framework).
  • Function: Interwiki.
  • Description: This Bot for add and modify interwiki links.

--TRD (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Best regards, --Homo (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done--Creol(talk) 12:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Bluegoblin7
  • Programming language: AWB
  • Function: Delivery Bot
  • Description: Ok, interwiki bot was proving to tempramental, so i've scrapped that idea. Something i've been meaning to do for a while is to seperate GBot1 out, so now i'm asking if the task of delivering Simple News and any other newsletters we might get can be handled by GBot3 instead. GBot1 will then be dedicated to ToTW updating (which I am also getting a new script for). Thanks, BG7even 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done --Creol(talk) 12:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Creol! BG7even 12:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled requests

  Not done (for the third time) - Untested bot from a user who's own request seems to indicate they do not fully understand the situation. --Creol(talk) 06:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributions
  • Operator: Mercy
  • Programming language: Python
  • Function: adding/modifying interwiki links and Link_FA templates
  • Description: The bot runs in autonomous continuous mode 24/7. It has 40 flags (cs, en, de, pl, es, fr, no, ja, sk... confirm here). I've recently applied for a global bot flag as well.

Thank you! Best regards, --Mercy (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several testing edits and don't want to clutter your recent changes, therefore I'm stopping the bot and waiting for your comments. Cheers, --Mercy (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done - See global bots. Global bot flag requests are handled at Meta:Steward requests. --Creol(talk) 15:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-status requests