Meta:Requests for bot status/Thehelpfulbot
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
Thehelpfulbot[edit]
- Thehelpfulbot (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
Hi all. I'm requesting the bot flag for my bot, User:Thehelpfulbot so that it can conduct double redirect fixing as it has done in these test edits, this will be using pywikipedia's redirect.py script - a very well tested script.
It will also do other maintenance tasks as and when required such as find/replacing, substituting templates, basically anything that is non-controversial through AWB. The bot already does many of these tasks on the English Wikipedia, and I believe it will help speed up tasks, especially with tasks such as Category renaming/recategorisation which seems to happen often on meta.
User:VVVBot which does double redirect fixing and User:MenoBot which substitutes templates don't seem to be active, last editing on 10th July 2008 and 1st October 2009 respectively.
Thank you for your consideration. :) The Helpful One 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections from me. I'll wait few days and if nobody objects I'll flag it. -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no double redirects that need fixing. In fact, there are some intentional ones that should be left as double redirects. I have no problems with trusting you, but I really don't see a need for your bot to be flagged. If it is, I'd ask that you please ensure that the exceptions are respected (they are all of the double redirects which are not fixed here). Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The four you point out as "intentional" double redirects are all fully-protected, so this bot won't be able to "fix" them. Courcelles 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You see no double redirects that need fixing because the bot already ran through the list as some test edits to show you how the script would work, see the contributions. I also run the bot on en.wiki and it misses out the fully-protected pages just as it will here on meta, as the bot is not an admin bot and therefore will not be able to "fix" these double redirects. Please note, that this will be a general maintenance bot as well as and when required, not exclusively for fixing double redirect, as I agree, this would seem pointless for a bot flag. The Helpful One 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well what other tasks are you going to do? Even the demo that your bot did only fixed a number that could have been done manually (though I'm not one to say that we shouldn't have bots because things can be done manually). I still don't really see a need; if you could provide more concrete examples other than "general maintenance", and the example-less tasks mentioned in the nomination, I'd appreciate it. It should be noted that this isn't an oppose, however, since I'm sure you'd use the bot well. Also, thanks Courcelles, I didn't bother checking that (obviously). Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I understand completely. Currently users have been carrying out tasks such as categorising pages, see here. This would be done much more easily and efficiently using a bot. Sure, I could run such tasks using AWB Bot Mode on my own account, however this would mean that I would need to enable the flood flag, and per the policy located at Bot_policy#Bot_account, A bot must be run using a separate account from the operator, as no human editor should be granted a bot flag... No user is permitted to make use of automated answering scripts. I could also re-run the task that MenoBot used to do, see contributions, where by templates such as those on Category:Warning_templates or those templates tagged with
{{Subst notice}}such as Template:Test and Template:Test2 as necessary. The Helpful One 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for clarifying, and I'm sure that you bot will make a nice addition to the collection of bots here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I understand completely. Currently users have been carrying out tasks such as categorising pages, see here. This would be done much more easily and efficiently using a bot. Sure, I could run such tasks using AWB Bot Mode on my own account, however this would mean that I would need to enable the flood flag, and per the policy located at Bot_policy#Bot_account, A bot must be run using a separate account from the operator, as no human editor should be granted a bot flag... No user is permitted to make use of automated answering scripts. I could also re-run the task that MenoBot used to do, see contributions, where by templates such as those on Category:Warning_templates or those templates tagged with
- Well what other tasks are you going to do? Even the demo that your bot did only fixed a number that could have been done manually (though I'm not one to say that we shouldn't have bots because things can be done manually). I still don't really see a need; if you could provide more concrete examples other than "general maintenance", and the example-less tasks mentioned in the nomination, I'd appreciate it. It should be noted that this isn't an oppose, however, since I'm sure you'd use the bot well. Also, thanks Courcelles, I didn't bother checking that (obviously). Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You see no double redirects that need fixing because the bot already ran through the list as some test edits to show you how the script would work, see the contributions. I also run the bot on en.wiki and it misses out the fully-protected pages just as it will here on meta, as the bot is not an admin bot and therefore will not be able to "fix" these double redirects. Please note, that this will be a general maintenance bot as well as and when required, not exclusively for fixing double redirect, as I agree, this would seem pointless for a bot flag. The Helpful One 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The four you point out as "intentional" double redirects are all fully-protected, so this bot won't be able to "fix" them. Courcelles 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections here. Contributions on enwiki and commons look good, and the task doesn't seem particularly controversial. Jafeluv 07:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved and flagged for the tasks requested: double redirect fixing, template substitution and general non-controversial maintenance. -- Dferg ☎ talk 09:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]