Meta:Requests for bot status/SteinsplitterBot 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Getting auto-archiving on stewards' pages on (SN)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): every hour (?)

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): mw:API:Etiquette

Programming language(s): php (quentinv's script from ts-svn)

QuentinvBot is inactive so we need a replacement to do the archiving of the pages which it had done so far (SR/... pages, WM:SBL & WM:CHU (CHU won't be needed in the future?). QuentinvBot didn't have the bot flag due to its low editing rate but it did have the sysop flag for the purpose of editing SRAT. Instead of granting SteinsplitterBot the sysop flag, I suggest to set up an abusefilter to protect SRAT. What do others think? --Glaisher (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, QuentinvBot's sysop flag should be removed? --Glaisher (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Strongly oppose to SteinsplitterBot. Already QuentinvBot is a bot for archiving. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok, the user already a bot running on other wikies and the other bot is not active at the moment. Furthermore, two different people may well share this task. --M/ (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a revanche because i removed userrights of this users on other wikis and banned him from irc channel. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolega2357: did you miss the bit about Q's bot being inactive? We have tried to discuss with him about getting the keys to numbers of tools, and he has yet to respond, so we are doing that manually which is such a waste of effort. So I asked Steinsplitter to see if his bot was functionally capable of archiving those pages, and that is a yes. So that is where we are, and now Steinsplitter has offered his bot to share the task. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kolega can't respond, because M/ blocked him for his oppose (or, as M/ always puts it, "Intimidating behaviour/harassment"). ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. I'll not archive for a day for the rest to see this approval. Matanya (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works. Improvements are difficult, imho it need a rewrite (for which i have no time). --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]