Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Bots/Archives/2013

< Wikiquote:Bots | Archives
Warning This is a discussion archive created in or until 2011 - 2013 (mostly 2013), though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion or the archives index.

User:BaseBot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: Base (talk)
  • Purpose: interwiki, autochanges per request
  • Script used : interwiki.py; MER-C's Wiki.java framework
  • Already has the bot flag on : ukwiki, ruwiki, ukwikiq, metawiki
  • Note :

Thank you. --Base (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I pestered the bot owner just to make sure they weren't flooding RC with edits. :) But sulutil:BaseBot is already flagged as a bot on several other projects and doesn't have any issues there, so I don't see any issues with getting flagged here too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I'm flooding again - dont like long waitings :) --Base (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not very sorry, since you keep right on doing it.
Do you understand that this is the purpose of the bot flag?~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know what is a bot flag for. But if I dont have it I cant mark my edits as bot :) --Base (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, please stop editing until you get the flag; I understand not liking long waits, but it'd be nice for you to honor the local bot policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will completely stop and wait for a flag. But it seems to me a bit strange policy. I cant understand what are you doing with a request for 2 weeks. --Base (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What is a progress? Nomination has been last for almost decade and I see no new discussion/comments. --Base (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in observing the policy requirements above for the bot's user page? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot about sm point. Is it ok now? --Base (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The User:BaseBot page identifies itself as the operator and redirects to a non-English site; and your User:Base page is a broken redirect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Softredirect is a method to not make broken redirects so I'm not see a problem. I put softredirects because enwikiq is not my home wiki and it is better to communicate me in one of wikis where I'm active. But you still could write at local talk pages - I will get a notification on a email. And of course if I running a bot I monitor wikis where I do it. And since there is many active sysops dont midn if you will use 10minutes block (sure without autoblock) to stop my bot if it will do smth wrong and I will not answer. Could you please tell me what I have to add to bot's or my userpages to do them ok? --Base (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to explain what I was referring to in my post of 24 January above:
  1. The User:BaseBot page says it is operated by BaseBot. If you do not understand the relationship between a bot account and the account of its operator, then I regret that I am unable to explain it in your native language.
  2. A link to a bot page on another wiki is certainly appropriate supplemental information; but redirecting to a page in your native language is not a substitute for providing required information in the language of this wiki.
  3. I said the redirect on your user page is broken because I rather doubt the intended target was an English Wikipedia article about the United Kingdom. Mistakes can happen; but on being advised that the link is broken I expected you could, and would, click the link to see for yourself that it is an irrelevant page on the wrong wiki.
(Note also, regarding your comment about a 10 minute block, that on this wiki it is not unusual for the "many active sysops" to be absent for hours at a time.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed 1st and 3rd items - it was a very small mistakes and such ones is difficult to see. About 2nd - bot's page has all information about it ukpage contains not more. there is a language of bot, a framework and a purpose. --Base (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have double-checked and updated the User:Base page, I assume it was your carefully considered deliberate intent to redirect your user page to the Ukranian Wikipedia's home page, Головна сторінка. This is not consistent with my understanding of how redirects (soft or otherwise) are used to link to another page about the same subject, and does not strike me as a useful or constructive way to communicate information about "User:Base". (Regarding your edit summary "why you dont sayed before", I did say "The User:BaseBot page identifies itself as the operator" [emphasis in original], before.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reckless or heedless behavior, inattention to detail, and apparently limited English proficiency do not inspire confidence in this user's ability to responsibly perform high volume automated edits on the English Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry again for my actions at the start - now I don't do it and waiting for a flag. Yeah I'm not good at writing English, but I could understand it quite well. Also Nemo sayed me on talkpage about a editrate - I'm not a fan of throttle but I will use it if rules require it (for interwiki 100% may be not for other short works but now I have any such here). --Base (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who scans the entire RC log daily (albeit cursorily), I am a fan of throttling automated edits. Anyone who thinks 120 edits per minute is ok (fast enough to hit every single article on this wiki in three hours, fast enough to match this wiki's average number of edits per day in under five minutes), just isn't living in the same universe I inhabit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't understand me well. I know that such speed is ok technically, but if your rulles have a limitation - ok i'm going to do as your rules say. There is a difference between my position to editrate and what I do. Yes I did it wrong at the beginning, but now I waiting a very long time for a flag and still dont know what more you want because I'm going to do as you say. I just cant understand why some wikis need 2 days to approve interwikibot but some need 20+ days for it --Base (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I do understand what "I will use it if rules require it ... may be not for ..." means. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to Oppose this application due to heedlessness (not heeding requests to abate flooding RC and requests to fix identified errors in disclosures and links until the requests are reiterated multiple times), inattention to detail (as detailed above, and repeatedly dismissed as small points), and very limited English communications skills (which may partially explain the previous two issues). These issues (together with repeated expressions of impatience and dismissiveness) do not bode well for resolving any issues that may arise with the bot's operation. I strongly oppose granting blanket authorization for "autochanges per request" where effective communication is difficult. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not Done No reply, and I am guessing Base is not even interested anymore in requesting the bot flags here at Wikiquote. --~~Goldenburg111 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kgsbot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: Kiran Gopi
  • Purpose: Bot running only for interwiki links. The bot is running in manual mode and frequency of updating link whenever new pages are creating on ml wikiquote.
  • Script used : Python wiki
  • Already has the bot flag on : Already bot flag on major wikipedias. Please see the list here
  • Note : (if any) For immediate response kindly contact my home wikiquote.

Thank you. --Kiran Gopi 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support, sounds good. JackPotte 11:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not Done has been left for three years, and no discussion has taken place. --~~Goldenburg111 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mjbmrbot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: Mjbmr
  • Purpose: Interwiki
  • Script used : Pywikipedia
  • Already has the bot flag on : Yes

Thank you. --Mjbmr 09:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the user operates a global interwiki bot with 665k edits and flagged in most wikis, I see no harm in granting this experienced operator the bot flag here. Snowolf How can I help? 01:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now due to inactivity. The bot's SUL account has no activity since November 2011,[2] and the operator's SUL account has none since January 2012.[3] If interest is renewed then consider reapplying. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not Done Has been left for nearly (in 2 days) three years and no outcome, thus, the discussion is not active. --~~Goldenburg111 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:GameOnBot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: GameOn
  • Purpose: Adding interwikilinks
  • Script used : Own / Dot Net Framework
  • Already has the bot flag on : svwp with more than 100 000 edits
  • Note : I ran the bot for test purposes before adding the bot template to the bots user page. Sorry about that. The botflag on svwp isn't for interwiki purposes but a general one, my experience with adding interwikilinks with the bot are from today.

Thank you. --GameOn 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that simple was closed, apparently there are a few links left on svwikiquote that I'll need to remove as well. Thanks for letting me now. I'll rerun the bot after updating the code which will then take care of the faults I've introduced. GameOn 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still interested in this? The bot's SUL account has no activity since October 2011.[6] ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not Done no reply, no bot flag. --~~Goldenburg111 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AvicBot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: -Avicennasis (SWMT)
  • Purpose: Maintain Interwiki links/Fixing double redirects/Cleaning sandbox
  • Script used : Pywikipediabot
  • Already has the bot flag on : sulutil:AvicBot
  • Note : (if any)

Thank you. ---Avicennasis (SWMT) 13:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, bot was used by bot operator without permission locally on this wiki, prior to obtaining permission for its usage from the Wikiquote community processes. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that Avicennasis and AvicBot were editing concurrently today, both using "robot Adding..." edit summaries. The edits by Avicennasis were self-reverted, so this was apparently unintended. However, the reverts by Avicennasis were flagged as bot edits even though this is not flagged as a bot account. Please do not discuss how this is done, but I would like to understand why this unauthorized use of the bot flag happened. ~ Ningauble 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to state how deeply sorry I am. I was changing configurations for AvicBot to include some additional WQs, and added En by mistake. I was doing a lot of coding and testing at the time, and made some mistakes (as evidenced by the bot-like edits on my main account, as well) It was never my intention to ignore community consensus and run AvicBot here without approval. The self-reverts were made to undo my own mistakes, and were hidden from RC not as an attempt to hide my actions, (since the prior edits were there for all to see anyway) but to make the reverts without further flooding RC. I have taken several measures to ensure that these mistakes will never happen again.
  • I completely understand, however, if the EnWq has lost trust in me as a BotOp, and decides to keep AvicBot blocked. I fully accept that decision, as consequences of my own mistakes. Again, I offer my sincerest apologizes. (I would have replied much sooner, but the block settings of AvicBot left my main account Autoblocked, as well.) -Avicennasis (SWMT) 12:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)to[reply]
    Even belated, I think it would be beneficial to give a comment here. @Cirt I am not sure if EnWQ has a rule / convention to have bot operators ask first for permission before they run a bot. They must apply for flag here, but running a bot is not a matter of permission as far as I recall correctly.
    @Avicennasis Thank you for your concerns to EnWQ as well service with your bot. I've come so late that I cannot figure if your then operation was disruptive and hence unwelcome. Hopefully not so, and even that, I assume you did it truly from good faith, so let me say, be bold and please don't be discouraged to get involved into EnWQ life. I hope to see you again here soon or later. --Aphaia (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. operating without the flag: I agree with Aphaia's interpretation of policy. As I remarked on the talk page, "Some projects, such as English Wikipedia, require community approval for both activities. Our policy, like the generic policy at Meta, only requires approval for flagging bot edits."
    Re. unauthorized use of the bot flag: I believe this was an honest mistake, and it was not disruptive. (It raised a red flag for me because it bugs me that there is a MediaWiki bug some vandals have exploited to do this. This was not a case of exploiting the bug, but of using a global rollbacker tool.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not Done has been left for two years with no outcome, positive that the owner is no interested anymore. --~~Goldenburg111 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EleferenBot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

--Eleferen (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to address the reasons why your previous request was declined? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of existing wikilinks to other projects, without a bot flag. This resulted a war bot edits, and cluttering the list of Recent Changes. Besides community is discussed, leave or not these links. (Sorry for my bad english) --Eleferen (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to insufficient proficiency with English. Problems encountered in the previous application may have been a simple matter of not being able to understand or be understood in the English language, which shows the importance of the policy requirement for being able to communicate in the language of the local wiki. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in agreement with Ningauble. I have no doubt that Eleferen is well-meaning, but it is important to be able to communicate clearly here. This is, I think, particularly important where the bot at issue will be making interwiki links based on the correct translation of page names, which is not always so obvious. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you guys think to give a chance to Eleferen by letting him run his bot without flag for a while so that the community here get the materials to examine its usefulness. Native speakers may have different opinions, but for me his English looks not so bad as mine. At least it would be better than his Japanese whose Wikiquote community had granted his bot the flag requested. On the JAWQ I don't see any troubles or language confusion with Eleferenbot's edits: while there are not so many articles interlang linked, all seem to be linked to their proper counterparts. I wouldn't strongly oppose on linguistic concerns of communications difficulty, but that's my 2 cents. --Aphaia (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am swayed by your argument, and would not oppose a test run to see how effectively this bot works. BD2412 T 15:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BD2412 for your re-consideration. 50 or so edits may be enough to examine. What do you guys think to invite Eleferen to run his bot for further review? --Aphaia (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I add links which the boat could add. I can do some test edits, if the community approves the work of the bot. Thanks BD2412. --Eleferen (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support test run - let Eleferen run the bot through 25 or 50 edits, then if there are no problems I see no reason not to give the bot the flag. --Tryst (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not Done left with no discussion for two years. --~~Goldenburg111 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdwardsBot

edit

I request a bot flag for my bot.

  • Operator: MZMcBride
  • Purpose: m:Global message delivery
  • Script used: Python script, using the wikitools framework
  • Already has the bot flag on: en.wikipedia.org, nl.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, strategy.wikimedia.org
  • Note: God bless America.

Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to address the reasons why your previous request was declined? ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize there was an archive. I saw this in the page history and thought that was the full discussion.
I'm obviously not very active here. Most wikis have a process where you drop off a bot request and it gets fulfilled in a few minutes (or subsequently) without much follow-up. The English Wikiquote seems to be a bit of an anomaly.
You previously asked, "Has anyone at Wikiquote expressed interest in subscribing to this Global message delivery system?" I looked at m:Special:PrefixIndex/Global message delivery/Targets/ and didn't see (m)any Wikiquote users listed. There is a separate list at m:Distribution list/Global message delivery that lists Wikiquote:Village pump as a target. Most of the bot's deliveries are opt-in, so there isn't too much concern about spamming people needlessly. Some of the messages are targeted "movement-wide" and the English Wikiquote has apparently been missing out on these messages due to blocking the bot.
Let me know if you have any other questions. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done. I have worked with MZMcBride before and trust his judgment, and his assurance that this bot will not be used to spam talk pages. BD2412 T 05:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:  The flag is ineffectual as long as the account remains blocked. Since the reason given for the block was operating without the flag, it might be appropriate to release the block now that this has been cured. Cf. discussion at meta:Wikimedia Forum#Global message delivery. (Note also that the bot is not currently listed in Category:Bots as required, but this is easy enough to fix.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard-Bot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: Hazard-SJ (talk)
  • Purpose: Archiving talk (discussion) pages
  • Script used: Pywikipedia's archivebot.py
  • Already has the bot flag on: cywiki, enwiki, mediawikiwiki, nlwiki
  • Note: Prior notice was left at Wikiquote:Village pump#Archive bot, though many are still unaware of it.

Thank you. --Hazard-SJ (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per the Village Pump discussion, I see no reason to oppose having this bot. BD2412 T 05:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - could be useful, trusted bot/operator. --Tryst (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done without objection, sorry for the wait. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have it set up and the details out soon. Hazard-SJ (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: -Riley Huntley (SWMT)
  • Purpose: Clean the sandbox every two hours. (time is negotiable) - Also requesting to fix redirects (seems no bots actively do the task)
  • Script used: Python, pywikipedia.
  • Already has the bot flag on: enwikivoyage, frwikivoyage and enwikipedia.
  • Note: While the sandbox isn't very active, a user should not have to be resetting the sandbox every day or two.

Thank you. ---Riley Huntley (SWMT) 01:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding sandbox cleaning:  As the person most often performing this task lately, I would welcome automation. I notice that the bot account has rather few edits globally, and that its (main?) bot page at Wikipedia currently indicates this function is operating on a trial basis. How are the trials going? I lean towards supporting this, and don't see much risk in such a low frequency task, but mightn't it be a good idea to wait for things to stabilize before increasing the number of test platforms?

    Regarding fixing redirects:  What is it that the bot is proposed to do? (JackBot has been actively handling double redirects for a couple years, if something that comes up so infrequently can be described as "active".) ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason this bot does not have many edits is because, like you said, it does low frequency tasks. I really don't see the need to wait until things stabilize out as it runs on a script that has been used for years and the only reason the bot is running so many trials is because many wikis require a bot trial of 10-15 edits (which takes a while with a low frequency task) before a BRFA is filed. -Riley Huntley (SWMT)
This bot will fix double and broken redirects. I wasn't aware of that bot, sorry. I don't think it will hurt to have both bots doing the task though since JackBot only edits once or twice a month (which I am thinking is because the operator only runs it once or twice a month.) -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does it do to "fix" broken redirects? I generally delete them unless I am aware of an appropriate target, and I can't imagine how one would automatically identify targets. Yes, it wouldn't hurt to have redundancy for JackBot; but it isn't slacking: it clears the system generated Special:DoubleRedirects (which runs about once a week here) promptly when the result is not empty, which it usually is. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fix for broken redirects is either 1) mark the page for deletion or 2) if the target page was moved (without leaving a redirect), redirect to the page that was moved. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 02:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't see any issues with granting this bot the flag - especially given the clarifications provided above. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:CarsracBot

edit

I request bot flag to my bot

  • Operator: Carsrac
  • Purpose: interwiki
  • Script used : Pywikipedia
  • Already has the bot flag on : almost every wikiquote project and other wikimedia projects Global bot flag
  • Note : If there something you can reach me on my en.wikipedia.org or nl.wikipedia.org userpage. See also the (local) userpage of the bot. I will run some test edits.

Thank you. --Carsrac 11:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made test edits. I reopen this request and ask if the discussion periode is until 24 may 2013. I ask if the botaccount will unblocked. Please tell if you have any problems with my bot running. Carsrac (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't interwiki editing being overtaken by Wikidata anyway? BD2412 T 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no clue how Wikidata is interacting with the non-Wikipedia projects. I just asked the Wikidata twitter account for some clarification. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, it looks like they aren't sure how Wikidata will behave with the sister projects.[7] As far as the bot flag, I think it's fine to still allow interwiki editing; it'll potentially be a long time until they're made obsolete here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I have no objection. Is there any other word from the community on this proposal? BD2412 T 03:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good for the bot page to identify the operator in the {{bot}} template (policy #2 above). ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 N Not Done Owner has not been identified himself to the bot userpage, thus, not done. --~~Goldenburg111 21:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Bots/Archives/2013&oldid=1706969"