Meta:Requests for bot status/Faebot

Faebot[edit]

Faebot (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

I have a long track record on Commons for bot work with Faebot and Noaabot and would like to set up Faebot for low volume maintenance odd jobs as they occur. The only project at the moment is going to be keeping a WMF staff user rights table synchronized (weekly) as a wikitable mirroring its Google Spreadsheet version. This is at WMF Advanced Permissions, and has been discussed in advance with the WMF. I intend this, and any more meta projects to end up hosted on my Faebot account on WMF Labs (when reasonable, some scripts may rely on local applications or files) along with the code getting openly published.

There's no hurry, I would just like to ensure that nobody gets irritated if regular maintenance jobs like this are not mute-able by the use of bot flags. I am happy to be advised if I'm going about bot approval in the wrong way for meta. --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion a bot flag isn't necessary as the updates will not happen so often that they would disturb the view of the recent changes. Plus seeing updates to the table easier also seems to be better. --MF-W 09:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MF-W. It isn't going to hit the RC hard, and there is probably some value in seeing changes hit the RC. There is no apparent restriction on application of the tool through not giving the rights, eg. api limit. To me its editing in view is not an issue, and the criteria for hiding the edits is not reached, so on balance, let it edit normally. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'm happy to see this closed with a no flag needed result. If interesting stuff pops up on meta and Faebot's rate of doing stuff ramps up, I'll ask again. I have no current plans for this to occur. --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed request without action. --MF-W 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]