Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WT:BRFA
WT:RFBA


Contents

[edit] Threshhold for Bot Flag?

DaNumber1Bot bot was approved by Tawker to perform some fairly simple text replacements using AWB in NYC Subway related articles. Tawker said that a flag was unneeded (see [1]). My guess is that this bot will do a minimum of 200-300 edits within it's approval period. What's considered the threshold for the assignment of a flag? I've gotten some comments about the unflagged bot messing with watchlists. alphachimp 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally the "rule" on bot flags was to do with edits a minute rather than total edits. I was told 2 edits a min + flag it, otherwise it's not really necessary and likely more work for our 'crats.
I don't see any harm in flagging the bots, so either way works - the no-botflag thing was to reduce work for the 'crats. -- Tawker 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Right and if this will only be a single-run bot no need to really flag it either, as long as it isnt flooding the rc lists. — xaosflux Talk 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well bot flagging is incredibly easy for us. You guys in the BAG do all the work, and it's your heads on the line if you make a mistake :), so if you'd rather be more liberal in giving them out to save RC flooding go ahead, within reason. - Taxman Talk 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Can everybody make sure to include in the edit summary of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval that you've approved a bot and that a flag is needed? I don't always load the page, it's much easier to use the history to check if a promotion is needed. Not a big deal, but it can help speed up the process. The latest one waited for 24 hrs just because I didn't see it. Not to pick on you Betacommand, just a request. - Taxman Talk 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to join bot approval group

I have made a request to join the bot approval group here: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Request_to_join_bot_approval_group. I was not sure if that was the appropriate venue, so I am posting a link here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorised short articles, and tagging with {{stub}} instead of {{uncat}}

My bot is approved to tag uncategorised articles of various flavours, and there's a rather large backlog of these in the Jan. db dump. Many of these are very short articles, so it's probably more pragmatically useful to tag these with {tl|stub}}, rather than with {{uncat}}. The code would be identical (with an extra double-check for length of "live" article), and the effect very similar (unsorted stub vs. uncategorised article), but I thought I'd double-check with the BAG if it's felt that this would need separate task approval. I've already mentioned this at both WP:WSS and CAT:NOCAT, and I'll of course act in line with what they suggest for length threshold, whether the entire idea is a plan, etc. Alai 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a BAG member, but I'd recommend that you get separate approval. {{uncat}} is objective and {{stub}} is subjective, and although I'm not sure whether this is enough of a difference to prevent a bot adding {{stub}} tags, I think it's enough of a difference that you should at least request approval for the new task. --ais523 09:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair point, I'll do so. If the worst comes to the worst, I can always tag them into a temporary this-is-an-uncategorised-very-short-article-and-probably-a-stub maintenaince category... Alai 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about Jogersbot

discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

While I don't disagree that the discussion on the bot function is better discussed at the talk page for the relevant MoS, I am concerned that there has been no discussion about whether or not a bot should be allowed to continue when editors have raised concerns. The bot has currently been suspended by its operator :-) (31 Jan) but was not when concerns were first raised:

  1. Whyaduck 00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC) at WP:AN/I
    1. drawn to Joger's attention by Cowman109 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC) at User talk:Jogers
  2. MoRsE 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC) at Talk:Timeline of aviation
  3. Golden Wattle talk 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) at User talk:Jogers and Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#More on dates
  4. Askari Mark 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft
  5. Akradecki 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC) at User talk:Jogers

When there are objections to the edits a bot is making, why is approval not suspended pending resolution?--Golden Wattle talk 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not on the approvals group, though I imaging the approval will be suspended if and when there is a clear consensus to do so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No one in the approvals group has responded to my or other concerns despite my comments here and also on the bot approval page. There is no apparent procedure for objecting to a bot's activities or for obtaining consensus to suspend. If the bot had not stopped voluntarily ... these edits will be hard to reverse, particularly the longer the discussion takes about the MoS and none of the date discussions have ever been quick or conclusive.--Golden Wattle talk 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it, this is not a problem with the bot, but a disagreement with the function the bot is serving. Since the bot operator has stopped voluntarily, what action should the group take? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The bot carried on for more than 24 hours after objections were raised - ie voluntary cessation was not nearly quick enough. The operator even carried on ignoring queries altogether at one point until blocked for the purpose of drawing his attention to discussion querying his activities. This is a problem with the bot if it is not carrying out a universally agreed function. The MoS does not say for example that years must be linked for date preferences to work - for yearless dates, the MOS only deprecates the same because context might be lost (ie the date refers to this year but next year that might not be clear. The MoS does not mention date preferences as a reason for including the year. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Yearless dates. As Akradecki has pointed out, there has been discussion about piped dates - I do not think there is concensus to deprecate the piped year link one recent discussion. Moreover, I note that Wikipedia:Piped link is not even a guideline, it is a how-to. Akradecki also points out that some preferences are overridden in some contexts, for example resizing of thumbnails. Another user (in another discussion) has pointed out that mass edits to change dates are deprecated.
My question is though, what does it take to stop a bot? Where are the instructions to seek suspension so that a discussion can be had? As an admin I did not feel comfortable bout blocking the bot, I felt I had to to get the user to respond, having responded he kept on his merry way and I see no opportunity under the blocking policy to stop him again - what would stop him?--Golden Wattle talk 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop saying that I was ignoring queries until you blocked my bot. I already explained to you that the bot run in automatic mode. I wasn't around at that particular moment. Jogers (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A bot can be blocked for many reasons, by any admin. While the approvals group's permission is needed to run a bot, this permission does not guarantee community acceptance. I don't see how the bot approval group revoking permission to this bot would have helped this situation, considering any admin has the power to stop the bot, and the community has the power to agree to stop it. I still am not sure that the consensus is against this bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how you can see consensus one way or the other. At Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jogersbot all I can see is an application by Jogers, discussion from three other editors, only one of which was really addressing the function itself. In the discussion Jogers notes potential for controversy "There is a long-standing guideline on WikiProject Music saying that piped links to "years in music" shouldn't be used at all. This seems to be somehow controversial though." Jogers has only dealt with one project, there are other projects which use the year in xxxx format, he did not consult with them. Above I have noted 5 overt objections. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#"Year in aviation" vs. reader's date preference conflict 8 editors on the project have commented, not one in favour.
The blocking policy states Bots must have prior approval on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and may be blocked if an admin thinks they are malfunctioning in a damaging way - I am not sure that my views = malfunction in damaging way, hence I do not see I have authority to block.--Golden Wattle talk 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That is an additional justification to block a bot, the standard reasons for blocking still apply to a bot. If you think it is going against consensus, talk to the human in charge, if they don't respond a block may be in order. It seems you talked to the human an the bot stopped, not sure what the approvals group can add to that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As the approver of this bot, I think it is best to temporarily suspend operations of this bot until consensus can be reached by all relevant WikiProjects about whether they want the change for their particular "xxxx in yyyy" series. Jogers, I recommend you go around to the different applicable projects and attempt to gain consensus, and then on your userpage post a link to the consensus for each project. Once consensus has been reached for a particular project, then you can start changing their "xxxx in yyyy" links. I should also mention that blocking a bot is no big deal. Look at some of the best bots; they've been blocked numerous times, sometimes for very trivial reasons. —Mets501 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I've already suspended the bot activity. I'm not sure if I have enough patience to discuss it over and over again at different WikiProjects as I'm already quite tired with this. We'll see if anybody else comments the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jogers (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about scope

I wish to implement a new feature, discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Possible_bot_feature.

Does this fall withing my current scope of approval, or should I do another feature request? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example in my sandbox: [2]. It is already coded. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Close enough, APPROVED. — xaosflux Talk 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about approval time

I'm just curious (read: I'm not trying to rush anyone), how long does it usually take before a bot is approved? I haven't gotten any new comments in a couple of days. --Selket 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about your bot, and wasn't quite sure if it was worth all of those edits to move a period, so I held back on responding. Anyone else have ideas? (See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SelketBot. —Mets501 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I did try rushing people, and see where it got me. :) (No comments at all in 5+ days...) On SelketBot: that raises the more general point of "when is an edit too minor to be worth doing at all?" (or relatedly, to be worth doing en masse). I must admit I've made edits by hand just to move a comma or period (typically to MoSify "aesthetic quotes", especially if they're used inconsistently, or in articles using Commonwealth English)). It's hard to argue that where there's a clear consensus (or painfully hammered-out style guidance, as the case may be) that articles shouldn't be put into conformance with it; but equally, it hardly seems like an urgent matter. So firstly, is there actually a clear consensus for this particular matter, as a style issue? Would it be worth testing same with a trial run, and waiting a week afterwards to see if people irately put them back, or complain? (Acceptance in practice may be a different matter from apparent agreement on the guideline page.) And, is it worth considering "low priority status" for bot tasks there's general acceptance of being carried out, but are extremely minor in nature? That is, they'd be subject to tighter constraints on edit rate and times and days of operation. Alai 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that something that causes great delays in the bot approval process are requests which are very specific and not for a standard task. For example, Alai, I don't know if there has been consensus for the tasks that your bots wants to do, or really the effects of the task, since I'm not very familiar with that area (WP:WSS and CAT:NOCAT). Something that would speed those approvals up would be a links to a place where consensus was formed, the task was discussed, and relevant policies, etc. Simple requests like this get approved in 6 minutes, and other requests don't. —Mets501 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
See discussion at WSS here, and at NOCAT here. I linked to both pages in the request, and stated that's where the relevant discussion was -- seems pretty specific to me. If you feel you don't have the information to make a decision, it'd be more helpful to say so, rather than just quietly waiting. Alai 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anonymous bot..

the ip address 128.97.70.155 (talk • contribs) appears to be a bot.. i don't know what should be done about this, i just thought i should let somebody know. 131.111.8.99 16:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am not sure, but it looks like a legitimate bot that accidentally logged out, I have blocked the IP for anonymous users only, so if the user's bot logs in properly it should not be effected. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
that is the new WP 1.0 bot Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I figured as much, it looked legit, and I remembered the approval for that bot, that is why I did an anon only block, perhaps a loss of session data. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of bot username

I've been working on HighInBCBot (with HighInBC's approval), and we have decided that it would be a good idea to rename the bot. We discussed the options, and I decided to post here for further advice on how to proceed. In the bot's approval it was determined that it did not need a bot flag, so the account is currently unflagged. The contributions of the account aren't particularly important, so moving them isn't really urgent, so I think HighInBC's suggestion to just create another account is best. Is any further BAG approval needed to do this? Does anyone have any other suggestions for a better way to effect the change? All input is appreciated. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just ask a b'crat to change the name and update relevant pages, and move the BRfA to the new name. That is the simplest thing. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:CHU. —METS501 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that was one of my thoughts, in the discussion on his talk page, HighInBC had mentioned that he was under the impression that CHU was difficult when there was significant edit history involved, so it would be easier to simply create a new account. If that's not the case, and/or CHU is otherwise simply the "better" way to do it, I have no problem going that route. —Krellis (Talk) 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
CHU is a real pain on the servers when a user has a lot of edits (that's why it has an edit cap). Creating a new account and mentioning the username of the old one on the new account would seem to be a sensible thing to do. --ais523 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • HighInBCBot has 349 edits, which is little consequence to load on the servers. Also, there's not been a cap on edit counts for WP:CHU for some time now. There used to be, but it was removed a while back. --Durin 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    If it only reached 349, then CHU would seem like a good idea. --ais523 09:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input, we've submitted a request on WP:CHU, hopefully Essjay will decide the dust has settled from the clerking debates soon and resume fulfilling requests, and we'll be on our way. —Krellis (Talk) 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Done Hey, I exist too... :-) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for existing! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Does the operator of a bot have to have written the bot as well?  ~Steptrip 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I operate a bot written by Krellis and HighinBC. alphachimp 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
But keep in mind that it is the operator who is responsible for any damage done by the bot because of faulty or malicious programming, not the the writer. So, beware when you accept coding from another person and you are the operator. Cbrown1023 talk 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CommonsDelinker

CommonsDelinker (tasks • edits • actions log • block log) is now editing on en:, and has got a lot of edits already (more than the 500 for which it was approved for trials, but it seems to have been approved for editing on en: on Meta, if that makes sense). I suggest that its tasks page be reactivated/reclosed to allow for the new situation, and that it be given a bot flag so that it stops activating new-messages bars when changing images on Talk pages. --ais523 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested the bot flag immediately, so that should resolve the issue. There has been some discussion on my talk page about the approval, so it could change, but for now this should fix those problems. -- RM 12:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No response there, so I've flagged it. Please let me know if anything changes. - Taxman Talk 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Approval time

A question about the approval time has already been posed earlier (Question about approval time). But I don't think the question was really answered there, so I am posting it again. How long does it take to approve/disapprove a bot? I'm particularly interested in the maximum time it takes after all questions were answered.

The Requests for approvals page describes the time as reasonable which is a poor statement in my opinion, because it basically doesn't say anything. It's unprofessional and intransparent.

The bot policy article says, it might take up to one week. This would be a good time span, I think, and nobody will be angry when you're faster than that. Well, the reason why I'm writing this is that I posted my request for approval ten days ago and didn't even receive a comment from an approval group member yet. So, unfortunately, the goal to decide within a week seems unrealistic at the moment. I'm personally a bit disappointed but I hope my criticism here is constructive and my tone neutral anyway. Here are some suggestions:

  • The bot approval group should define a reasonable, realistic maximum decision time. This time can of course be exceeded when further discussion on a request is needed and done. I think that everyone will understand that.
  • Once defined, this time span should be the only one named at all relevant pages.
  • It seems to me that the group members currently look at the requests individually and comment on what they are interested in. Please find a way to make sure all requests are reviewed adequately. Assign the responsibility to one of your group members, if a request didn't get an answer after a few days. Or make a bot that notifies all group members if a request hasn't been reviewed within a certain time…
  • The approval group should appoint new members (I saw that some already applied) if you feel that that you cannot answer all requests appropriately within the defined time.
  • The bot approval group could profit from someone with management skills — there's no reason why all group members must be bot experts themselves. You might be able to improve the coordination of approvals with someone focusing on managing the procedure.

I'd be happy to hear the opinion of more than one approval group member. Please don't comment on my bot here (I'm just adding this because that's how the discussion about the approval time went off-topic last time). — Ocolon 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If everything worked perfectly on this project, we'd be done. :) It's not so anything that needs doing needs someone to do it. If you can help with any of the above please do. The suggestion on a bot to track requests isn't a bad idea, something like WP:RFASUM that lists the last time each bot request has been edited and perhaps the last time edited by a BAG memeber. Other than that, you can't really enforce deadlines on volunteer work. - Taxman Talk 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Echo much of Taxman, note though that although BAG doesn't have official "clerks", anyone is welcome to help with the clerk work. Some bag members only have expertise in some types of bots, and don't weigh in on other kinds, so that can lead to delay until they are reviewed. Although there are "time limits" in many project areas, such as xFD, RFA, etc; these are not "rules" and mroe reflect the community standard. Often bot requests are not out there to serve an urgent need of the community at large, and when they are (such as the replacement of recent high profile archiving bots) they are usually sent to speedy trials. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Anyone at all who is familiar with a certain area can weigh in on a bot approval; confirmation from someone familiar with that area is very helpful in bot approvals. —METS501 (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with you on this point. I didn't mean to belittle comments by non BAG members, they are as valuable as those of BAG members. But someone has to decide finally and the decision is made by a bot approval group member. I also see your point on the problem with enforcing deadlines on volunteer work. You're right. But when there's a chance to have a new, qualified BAG member, please take it. It will most probably reduce the approval time and the amount of request reviewing everyone of you has to do.
I'm going to add a bot tracking approval requests as described by Taxman to Wikipedia:Bot_requests. It sounds good. :) — Ocolon 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is interest, my services are still available in this area. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I too would be glad to take on a role, if required. Martinp23 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought we could use more people. If another BAG member seconds the motion, I have no issue with adding more members. We just lost Essjay permanently (although perhaps he didn't do much with bots recently), and I myself have done little this year, so more members would be welcome, so long as properly qualified, but that's easy enough to check. -- RM 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, more people overseeing this page would be helpful in catching more potential issues. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a very quick look at the recent edit history of Martinp23 and HighInBC to see who has been active in discussions on bot approvals, and it seems that Martinp23 has done quite a lot recently. HighInBC had a recent request to join and the advice given at that time was to become more active commenting on bots. After a cursory look, I'd say that there have probably not been enough edits since then to merit a change. Now I have not looked in major detail, but I'd at least be willing to endorse Martinp23 for candidacy/consideration, but I'd suggest that HighInBC take the previous advice and become more active. Hopefully some BAG members will comment here soon. -- RM 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the last month of edits by Martinp23 and I'm happy with the level of contribution. Let's wait a while and see if some other BAG members bother to comment, but if not, I'll just make the appointment without discussion. Again, HighInBC needs to comment more on bot proccedings or else make a strong case for why such experience doesn't matter (due perhaps to other knowledge). -- RM 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you need my help let me know. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your help is appreciated at any request that you review! The request for approval page now features a fine tabular summary of the current approval process maintained by BAGBot. Just check were you are able to help. :-) — Ocolon 08:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related tasks

When does a bot operator need approval for small one-time jobs? In particular, {{BFT}} was deleted and I would like to use GimmeBot (talk • contribs) to remove the templates from the talk page. Gimmetrow 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, if the task is small and similar enough to a task the bot is approved for, then just do it, but here because the bot is entering a whole new field I would request approval. Or just ask another bot to do it at WP:BOTREQ. Or just do it manually approving edits with AWB. —METS501 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The letter of the law states that all tasks performed automatically must have approval. Now, in the face of IAR and such, there is clearly some flexibility here. For example, if you use a bot without approval or for an unapproved task, you might get blocked. There have been cases where a bot operator was faced with a task that needed to be done in 24 hours, and as such he just went ahead and did it without approval. In cases like this, you need to judge whether or not what you are doing is controversial and be ready to answer for it if something goes wrong. Still, we have been reasonable in many cases. It is not uncommon for operators of interwiki bots to not be aware of the complex approvals process here on en and thus perform operations without seeking approval. In general if you have never run a bot, you should probably not be running unauthorized tasks ever. If you have a bot that's been approved and have performed some number of successful tasks, then you can use a bit more judgement. It's always a good idea to at least notify us of a new task. If it would be more work to go through an approvals process than it would be to actually do the task, then that may be one of those times. Of course no matter what you do, if you do it without approval, you do so at your own risk. Be warned! Perhaps we need a process for "request for quick approvals" or some such thing. -- RM 20:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
How would you verify that any task is run with manual approval? There seems to be a difference between a bot which runs unassisted, and a bot which is an extension of the editor. How is this addressed in the policy? Gimmetrow 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's based on trust. You just have to trust that the person is approving all edits and not doing it automatically. Basically, what RM and I are saying is to use your judgment. If a task needs doing, generally it's a good idea to seek approval, but if there is an urgent need for a small task and it is clearly, clearly uncontroversial (such as removing a deleted template), then you can go ahead and do it with an already-approved bot. —METS501 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A related task for my bot

My bot, Ocobot, had been approved for trials recently and is now awaiting final approval. During the trial run I realized how many broken links he detects. I don't think I and few other human members monitoring his dead links list will be able to remove/recover dead links as fast as the bot finds new ones. So I thought Ocobot could tag (talk pages) of articles containing broken links if nobody has taken care of the affected links on the dead links list within a week.

Similar requests have already been approved for trials (but expired): BezkingBot-Link, ShakingBot.

Shall I wait for approval of my current request and then request this as a new task or can this be included right now? — Ocolon 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add another new request. -- RM 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I will do so when (if) the original request gets approved. — Ocolon 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommandbot's approval

It's unclear at the moment exactly how much approval BetacommandBot (tasks • edits • actions log • block log) has, which has sparked a threat at WP:BN; could some BAG members take a look at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Another bot deflagging? --ais523 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand -- RM 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAGBot

I think BAGBot as down, as his bot table seems to have been last updated some time yesterday. --kingboyk 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot request

Hello! This message is because I would like to let my bot run on this wikipedia. Its name is Synthebot. Its main activity is fixing interwiki links. For doing this, it uses the interwiki.py script of the pywikipedia package. It runs on demand, for specific categories based on the Interlingua wikipedia.

Some extra information about myself is that I am an administrator in the Interlingua wikipedia, and I actively collaborated in the Interlingua, English and Spanish wikipedias. For further questions, do not hesitate in contacting me at my talk page. Regards, Julian 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please file a Requests for approval as shown on the project page. we would be glad to see it. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reactivating

Hallo, in oct. 2006 I asked for a botflag for my PortalBot. Now I read, that something has expired (?). I need the bot not every week, but in sometimes, I need it. Is there a way to get the botflag now ? Augiasstallputzer 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EBots_Requests_for_approval_5816.html"