Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 3 March 2009

• WT:B

This is not the place to request a bot, request approval to run a bot, or to complain about an individual bot To request that a bot be created, see Misplaced Pages:Bot requests. To request approval to run a bot, see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval. Bot operators should be contacted at their user discussion page. If a bot appears to be malfunctioning and the operator does not respond, contact an administrator.

Archives
Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7 · Archive 8 · Archive 9 · Archive 10 · Archive 11 · Archive 12 · Archive 13 · Archive 14 · Archive 15 · Archive 16 · Archive 17 · Archive 18 · Archive 19 · Archive 20 Control proposals Archive policy Archive interwiki (also some approvals for interwiki bots)

Unapproved bot

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I'm not sure this bot is properly approved. If this is not the right place to post this, please tell me where to go (keep it clean). Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked it, as both of it's requests for approval expired, and never approved. Xclamation point 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not quite sure I see the point of blocking it. It doesn't seem be breaking anything (people would have complained long ago if it was). Its a standard interwiki bot operated by someone with bot flags on other projects. While it may not have been the case in June, such interwiki bots are generally approved rather quickly nowadays. It seems like it would be better to just have a crat flag it than to go through the process for process' sake. Mr.Z-man 18:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As so often happens, I find myself agreeing with Mr. Z-man. Chillum 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Jarry1250

I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - relevant discussion is just a click on the link above away. - Jarry1250 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bots in Misplaced Pages namespace

Hello. If I want to do a task with a bot that is entirely in the Misplaced Pages namespace (in this case I want to change parameters in certain AFC submissions using AWB), do I still need to request bot approval? The policy seems a bit unclear on this. Note that the account already has a bot flag for another task. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (You'll lose) 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, I'm new to bots, but I think you'd have to file another task request if the task is substantially different from the task(s) the bot already does. Useight (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep I agree with Useight. BRFAs are needed for all namespaces. ·Add§hore· 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified the policy slightly to make this clearer. In essence, I understand that approval is needed for any task that does not only affect the user's/bot's userspace. Richard 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That has always been my understanding as well. Anomie⚔ 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification. Robert Skyhawk (You'll lose) 03:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I test a bot in my own userspace?

I am looking to install Pywikipediabot on my computer - would I be allowed to test it in my userspace to make sure it works before requesting a BRFA? (A BRFA probably wouldn't pass anyway, because I don't quite know how it's going to work yet). Dendodge Talk 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. §hep 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add amendment to Misplaced Pages:Bot policy

I am proposing to add an amendment to Misplaced Pages:Bot policy requiring all bots active on Misplaced Pages to be able to be easily shut down by any user. Details are at User:Exxolon/BotPolicyAddition - all interested parties are invited to comment/vote there. Exxolon (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposal has failed. My final statement can be read at User:Exxolon/BotPolicyAddition#Final_Statement. Exxolon (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good communication

Good communication

Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general. At a minimum, the operator should ensure that other users will be willing and able to address any messages left in this way if they cannot be sure to do so themselves.

This paragraph is too vague in the definition of "prompt" and "promptly". I've just posted on WP:ANI and at least one admin thinks this means "Prompt response in this...case I would say is 48 hours." This is utterly unacceptable - the terms should be replaced with crystal clear time limits for urgent and non-urgent enquiries so there can be no excuses for not responding to messages in a timely fashion. The exact time limits need to be established by consensus. As a ballpark figure I would suggest

• Urgent queries = Response within 1 hour
• Non urgent queries = Response within 3 hours

All interested parties are now invited to comment. Exxolon (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And in the middle of the bot-owner's night? Or they're taking a couple days away from WP? Or they're on vacation? //roux   23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The time limits are negotiable. My personal belief is no bots should run - period. They certainly shouldn't run when their owners are not online to check them. Exxolon (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)