Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4

message: Hi. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3 is a request for bot approval that's been open for about a month now. The last time a BAG member edited it was June 16. It's been tagged "attention requested" for about two weeks now, but no action has been taken. It has had unanimous approval from those who have commented. I'm considering withdrawing the request and just running the bot. This seems to me to be an "Ignore all rules" case: there seems to be community consensus to run it, the bot will help the encyclopedia, and the only thing stopping it from running is a rule. Are there any objections to this? If so, what do you recommend I do? (I mean no disrespect to the BAG members, by the way.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawn. It's not broken, this one just fell through the cracks. It's been taken care of. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In case it helps, I made the original suggestion for a bot to handle this sort of stuff, and would gladly help monitor the edits this bot makes, at least in a trial period, to help get any bugs out of the system. I could also help handle any complaints, if there were any. On a more general note, is this lack of timely responses a seasonal thing to do with summer, or people being out of/in school/university? Or is it just that the BAG members all happen to be busy? Carcharoth 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
"Request for Bot Approval" seems to be broken
 

message: Those links displayed as [1], [2], etc. seem to be the same as the flag log links. Why do we have two links to the same thing? Andre (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those links in the list of approved 

message: Do I have to requests for approval to make edits to my own userspace like updating the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim or the list of album covers without fair use rationale? Jogers (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No ∆ 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing one's own userspace 

message: Freak gave me approval but it's still listed under "trial", can this be remedied? Adam McCormick 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do; he approved it but didn't use the template.  — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BoxCrawler 

message: Per , I would like to get an idea, before I actually go to the trouble of writing the bot, of the likelihood of a bot that updates scores and team records on individual sports team season pages (2007 Indianapolis Colts season, for instance) being approved in principle.  I realize that a large part of whether or not my bot gets approved would depend on the particular details of its implementation, but before I go to the work of writing it I'd like to know whether or not the general idea of such a bot is acceptable.  Kurt Weber 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is that it is OK to have scores on those type of articles, then yes, I would approve a bot that automatically updated the scores. —METS501 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it wouldn't just update scores, either--it'd also update standings, won-loss records, etc.  Kurt Weber 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, same goes for those as for scores. —METS501 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feasibility study before I actually do all that work 

message: I'm interested in creating a crawler just to copy all the page content of the translated pages on Wikipedia:Translation/%2A/Completed_Translations, and I think I have the same question as Symmetric above.  If I'm just screen scraping this small section of Wikipedia (maybe 200 pages), do I need to get permission?  I might use the "edit this page" button, but just to get the wiki-style page text (not the full HTML).  I wouldn't actually edit anything.
Thanks! Sedatesnail 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you don't need permission.  I would recommend Special:Export, however. —METS501 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To get the wikitext, use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?action=raw, as it reduces output and load. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!  Thanks for the info and the Special:Export page. Sedatesnail 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, ?action=raw and ?action=render are useful. There's also ?action=raw&templates=expand to also include the wikicode of the transcluded templates. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on whether I need approval 

message: As part of the BAG policy when joining, I must notify certain pages about my request for BAG membership. Please see my request at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Nomination to join the BAG. Thank you for your time, — E talkbots 12:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining the BAG 

message: I would like to get a higher EPM for ClueBot or perhaps just use a maxlag= value.  I was told by Wikihermit that I would need to get the bot flagged before I could have a higher EPM.  Can I get User:ClueBot flagged?  -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually don't give flags to anti-vandalism bots, so just feel free to go ahead and edit faster.  You've got my permission to edit as fast as you need to revert the vandalism and warn the users in real-time. —METS501 (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I think that the maxlag value isn't necessary here because reverting vandalism is of the utmost importance at all times. —METS501 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 03:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagging [[User:ClueBot]] 

message: Can someone add my bot to the page, I can't edit the page for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandalstopperbot (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're editing from the bot account. Since the page is semi-protected, the new account cannot edit it. You need to switch back to your actual account. It would be better for you to add it from your account & confirm that Cobi is the actual owner of the bot on the approval request. At the moment, the request & user page have only been edited from the bot account so there is no confirmation from the owner. -- JLaTondre 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
c|b|cn) 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked by ST47. MaxSem 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Vandalstopperbot]] 

message: Can someone add  to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval? Alpta 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . ~ Wikihermit 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group. Thanks. CO2 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BAG|BAG]] Joining 

message: Can someone add  to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval? Thank you. --ChandlerMap 11:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . — E talkbots 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request, too 

message: I've asked for assistance in getting a stable solution to the Sandbox reset problem, at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Critical - intro and sandbox bot missing. Please help. --Quiddity 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance requested 

message: What is the policy on approval for assisted bots? Like if I want to run solve disambiguation.py only, with no modifications at all, do I need approval? Thanks. :) - cohesion 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't run a bot script on the main account (ie your account). Best to get a bot account (like user:CohesionBot), get it flagged, then run it. Carbon Monoxide 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need approval for the bot account, but in such cases a speedy approve is reasonably likely. --ais523 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: How does one make a request for removal of bot status?  :User:JAnDbot has been making questionable removal of valid iw links, such as this one.  On following to the owner's talk page (on the Czech WP), it turns out that others have been noticing and commenting on the same problem across several languages. --EncycloPetey 13:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If talking doesn't work, then WP:BOWN, WP:AN or WP:BN may be in order. —METS501 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resquest the bot status be rescinded 

message: There is a bot that is clearly flouting Wikipedia:Bot policy#Spell checking bots - GurchBot. Look at this diff to Golden West Network - I suggest something is done if it is an 'unattended fashion' per the bot policy. Auroranorth 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Gurch on the bot's BRFA, Yes, I check every edit before I save it, so the bot's manually attended, which a permitted way to run a typo-fix bot. It would be nice if it had the standard template on its userpage to make it easier to block in an emergecny, though (although that seems unlikely to happen), rather than a redirect that means that an inattentive admin might accidentally block its operator instead if they weren't paying attention... --ais523 13:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's not really that handy if a bot userpage redirects to its owner's page, but talk pages are OK IMHO. Auroranorth 13:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad bot! 

message: Do I have to run it from my computer? Thanks in advance.--Tasc0 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you do. Just install the software, get approved (only applies to Wikipedia) and go for it. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. But I don't think I'm going to create the bot, at least using WP:AWB because I relly don't feel like installing .NET Framework. If I could do it without running the software from my computer, I might.--Tasc0 20:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I run a bot using [[WP:AWB]]? 

message: Is there a bot that can crawl a subject's lists (basic topic list, topic list, etc.), and check the talk page of each article listed on those lists for the existence of the subject's wikiproject banner, adding it to those pages where it doesn't yet exist?
If not, would there be any objections to the creation of such a bot?
The Transhumanist    06:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah similar bots exist. Should be no problem. You should support the Banner shell. :: maelgwn - talk 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kingbotk/P may be useful. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking here before I take the plunge: bot idea... 

message: To make it easier for my bots to remove images, it would be useful for the bots to canonicalize image links in the articles they edit: remove unneccessary spaces, convert underscores to spaces, and convert percent-encoded characters to UTF-8.  Do I need to get approval for this? --Carnildo 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR and just do it, its not a big deal. βcommand 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not say that IAR applies, but I would say there's precedent.  Almost all AWB bots do general fixes like these in addition to their requested tasks.  Have at 'er.  — madman bum and angel 22:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor new task for OrphanBot and ImageRemovalBot 

message: Hi! I'm thinking about building something called User:ChoreBot. It's a way for users to pledge to do some regular cleanup task and get reminders. A few questions.
:# I'm going to start out with just emailing users who register with ChoreBot. Although that's not quite a page write, I figure that's still enough to require  approval. Is that the case?
:# At some point (perhaps in a couple of weeks) I'll probably add an option for talk-page notification. Would you like me to include that in this request? Or leave it until I'm sure I'm going to implement it?
:# Any other suggestions? I'm an experienced developer, but this is my first Wikipedia bot.
Thanks, William Pietri 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the feedback. In this case, I'm inclined to start with email notification, as the goal is to lure people back to work on Wikipedia even when they aren't on the site. But I'd like to include both eventually. I definitely agree about not revealing email addresses, though, and do plan to use the "Email This User" functionality from the get-go. Thanks, William Pietri 06:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Since nobody else has any strong opinions, I'll fill out the bot request for both email and talk page writes. Thanks! William Pietri 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepwise approval and other questions 

message: I would like to be able to help out another administrator who has requested that AMbot be permitted to remove a number of user talk pages from a category, which they were put in through an improper template substitution.  As this is a one-time task, and it is very similar to what is approved  in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AMbot, I was hoping to seek simple approval though this talk page rather than submitting a new formal request.  For more details, please see the request at  concerning Category:User-specific Welcome templates. --After Midnight 0001 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'll speedily approve this as being close enough to your bot's scope, I think it would be better to have :Category:User-specific Welcome templates go through CFD before mass-depopulating it, unless a clear consensus (not just a request) to remove these pages has been established. — xaosflux Talk 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do think that the user talk pages found there way here in error, through an error.  The other pages in the category would still remain there.  The category is only meant to contain the templates, not the pages that have been "templated".  I'll ask the requestor to come here to comment also. --After Midnight 0001 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor that made the 'error', or a link to where they admin it was an error would be sufficient as well.  This should use very clear edit summaries as well, as it will trigger "New Messages" flags to flip on all those pages. — xaosflux Talk 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) My request was to remove all pages in the user talk namespace from :Category:User-specific Welcome templates, which is designed to include subpages in the user namespace. The user talk pages are in the category due to the mass substing of  in late September. See, for instance,  and . Since the template did not have <noinclude> tags around the category, every user talk page was categorised during the process of substing. I've added the <noinclude> tags to User:Anonymous anonymous/welcome, which is where the template was moved, so this should be a one-time task. I hope this explanation sheds more light on the purpose of my original request. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sounds good enough to me. — xaosflux Talk 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One time request for AMbot 

message: A patch of mine to MediaWiki has just gone live which enables bots to mark their edits as non-bot.  ClueBot is already set up to do this, so it should start working as soon as it is flagged.  ClueBot needs to be flagged because unflagged rollbackers are limited to 5 reverts per minute, which ClueBot regularly goes over during morning hours.  Thanks.  -- Cobi(t|c|b) 06:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... but it also has the option to hide them?  Wasn't the original reason consensus to grant it to ClueBot and VoABot done under the rationale that their edits will always be shown?  Wasn't there a discussion about the potential for abuse?  And, no offense, but it seems a little strange that you would propose the policy, and, within a few days of it changing, propose an expansion off that same policy without posting for consensus at WP:VP/T or similar venue, but rather on the talk page of B/RFA (instead of opening a new permission request for the bot like most people have to do?  --slakr\ talk / 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, how do we handle the edit summary when using rollback issue.  Previously the grab each version of the page was used to attempt to prevent multiple vandals from injecting vandalism and having a bot revert to a vandalized state.  Do we want bots using rollback calls directly? -- Tawker (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you misunderstand, Slakr.  It will look like a normal edit, whether or not it is flagged with this new patch.  Appending &bot=0 to the edit page or to the rollback link (which ClueBot currently does) will make it look like a normal edit, in both Recent Changes/Watchlists and in the page history.  If &bot=0 is appended, it is exactly as if it weren't flagged at all, except rollback limits aren't so strict that they hinder the operation of the bot during peak hours.  And, Tawker, ClueBot already does use rollback.  But, it uses its own edit summary so it looks exactly like the bot's manual revert.  Rollback is just more efficient.  Thanks,  Cobi. (At an untrusted computer, thus the IP instead of logging in)  24.211.185.44 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that the patch has gone live the only issue against giving a flag to Cluebot is that it may revert vandalism too quickly for each edit to be manually checked.  Obviously, we could apply the same standard to every bot that it not be given a flag because we can't manually check every edit.  Ludicrous of course, so I fully support giving a flag to Cluebot and don't honestly feel "community input" is needed on this issue, seeing as I expect a lot of the masses would immediately oppose without fully understanding how it is implemented (probably I'm just full of bad faith ;)), and as this is a form of bot flagging where the only thing that changes is the max rollback rate - recent changes is still used (which is desirable).  Very little change is actually made to the status quo.  Martinp23 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should other anti vandal bot operators be asked to move their Bots to this system? Flag the Bots but have them mark their edits as non-Bot ones so they show in recent changes? WjBscribe 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please flag ClueBot. 

message: I'm wondering, do I need approval to use this bot?  It's listed on the semi-bot pages and I did not understand if the software listed there need always approval from the community.  Please confirm.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pywikipedia needs approval. βcommand 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: pywikipedia can be used to create user assisted tools as well, I don't see why that would need approval. BJTalk 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I meant in the sense of using it to help clean up vandalism in the English Wikipedia.  Sorry for not making that clear.  Alright, I'll be asking for approval later in the future.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a python library, you need to code something on top of it to do anything(it does include some scripts). BJTalk 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the [[meta:Using the python wikipediabot|Python Wikipedia Bot]] 

message: I've only just started using AWB, but I was wondering if it was possible to set up a bot account to use it to do some tasks for WP:COMICS.  Could a bot account using awb run through the comic stub categories and unstub long articles automatically, and could it replace  with ?  I don't want to request a bot account until I understand what I can do with it and if it is neccesary. Appreciate the help, this is all a bit new to me. Hiding T  13:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the +bot flag does it hide the revisions from the recent changes list, which is needed if it operates at high speed. BJTalk 13:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would also allow AWB to run automated?  Am I wrong on that score? Hiding T  13:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kind of right yes. To use AWB in an automated way you have to be added to the bots list on the AWB checkpage; to get so added on EN you need to have a bot approval (mostly). --kingboyk (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comics bot 

message: I've removed it on WP:BRFA, because I found it intensely annoying.  Why was it added?  I can see potential ugliness from the new "first section" edit headers, but can they not be disabled in each transcluded request rather than making it far more difficult to do anything with WP:BRFA? Martinp23 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, that was annoying. I did not notice that magic word. βcommand 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm I expect the original reasoning was to stop users pressing the (+) button to make a new request.  I expect we can just revert and educate in cases where that happens though. Martinp23 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOEDITSECTION 

message: This is just to run an idea past you guys before actually doing something about it. :-)ProblemSome of the Country Projects have huge numbers of Unassessed articles - Spain has 14030, France has 10857. France has another 11610 Stubs waiting to be assessed for Importance. Past experience has shown that noone's much interested in doing anything about that when there's 1000's to be done - I've assessed several 1000 articles myself, it's tedious, back-breaking work - but that if you can get it down to zero, then people are quite good at keeping on top of it after that. Assessing for Class greatly slows down assessment, as you have to grab the article before moving to the Talk page, whereas you can assess for Importance just based on the article name. So a way of assessing for Class automagically would help considerably. When you look at them, you find that most of these Unassessed articles are transwiki'd communes and villages.ProposalTwo bots, to be run as a one-off per Project. The first is a read-only bot that reads in a list of the Unassessed articles in a Project, and counts article length, number of .jpg links, <ref tags, headings, stub templates and looks for a "town" infobox such as Template:Infobox_CityIT - if present, it extracts the population of the place. Then I would manually set up lists to feed into auto-mode Kingbot for assessment in the Project banner on Talk pages thus :
*Redirects - <100 bytes, would be handled manually as they quite often represent article moves gone wrong, it's worth catching them
*Stubs - anything <1750bytes, anything <2250 bytes without a .jpg (gathered material), anything <2750 bytes without either a .jpg, 3+ headings or 4+ inline refs.
*Starts - between 5000 and 10000 bytes with 3+ headings and <10 inline refs, or between 3500 and 5000 with a jpg, 3+ headings and <10 inline refs.
*Low importance - population <5000 people
*Mid importance - population >20000 people but <100000
:Based on my experience with the Italy Project, I'd guess that those rules might assess about 60% of Unassessed articles by Class and about 30% by Importance - so a useful amount of work, but still leaving large grey areas for human assessors, I think the above rules are pretty conservative and could be tweaked upwards with experience. Manual intervention should allow me to catch any articles that are obviously of >Mid importance - and I like to just eyeball things anyway. ;-/
:My main interest in this is for one-off Project assessment, so it would be a non-mainspace bot, but a logical expansion would be to use similar rules to apply "Project" stub tags on the article itself, perhaps with more convervative rules (<1250 bytes?, <1000 bytes?). I know the stub sorters get a bit twitchy about that kind of thing, and it wouldn't be my main focus, but how would people feel about that? FlagSteward (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessmentbot 

message: Hey, is it just me, or, is the bot that normally maintains the table near the top of the BRFA's MIA? (You know, the one that shows when blah was last edited, and, then, when blah was last edited by BAG etc etc) SQLQuery me! 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRFA table... 

message: User:AtidrideBot registered on Dec 10, 2007 and thus far as made a single drive-by edit of the editabuse template .  2 things, one the edit itself seemed to target a bot owner, two the user's name looks like a bots, even though it isn't flagged as such. MBisanz talk 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Block and point to WP:BRFA βcommand 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I notified, but did not block since I wanted to see what would happen.  They've repeated the edit to the template (and I've reverted) .  They've also told me "why" on my talkpage  and gone and moved the BC subpage to a formal noticeboard title .  Could the owner of the WP:SPA please stand up?  Only registered users would know of BC and BCB's image work.  I agree a block is called for BC, but I'd like a less involved user to confirm it for me. MBisanz talk 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unregistered bot 

message: I posted this on the main talk, but could someone go ahead and approve this? Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kddankbot 

message: I'd like to suggest reopening it.  It really wasn't open for long enough at all.  I'd suggest a minimum term to guage community consensus of 7 days.  If the bot fails, then so be it - clearly the community doesn't want it.  We should therefore, perhaps, get over it and not try to push a bot which seems to have support within BAG through the system.  Thoughts? Martinp23 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that is not a good idea. most of the issues have been addressed. its just a simple BCBot clone. βcommand 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe my questions can be dealt with without reopening it.  1. Will it respect a NoImageBots tag once I create oen on the model of NoBots? 2. Will you consider adding a tagging notification feature for the phase 4 implementation. MBisanz talk 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking about the questions of the community at large.  Whether or not it is a clone, if they don't want it we won't run it. Martinp23 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats one I don't have an answer to.  I guess its just not an issue we've faced that frequently.  I see there is a debate on the boards about Cambridge U's computer security dept having a role account.  And I think there is some BOCES-style program that operates what I can only guess is a role account.  And I discovered that User:WP 1.0 bot can be run by anyuser from a web interface.  MBisanz talk 07:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with re-opening it, but, I'd prefer not to have another tarpit-slugfest. Would you be OK with me (I'm not sure I have to ask -- I'm not BAG, so, in theory, I shouldn't be editing closed discussions) cleaning up the proposal a bit, to get rid of any offensive terminology? I'd also like to make it clear from the get-go. This is a discussion on if or if not the bot should run on the English Wikipedia. While feature requests are often nice, and very helpful, ofttimes, the operators are not the bot developers. We never ask people running interwiki.py, if they'd please have the bot leave a message on the talkpage of the article it's modifying, for instance. In this instance, I'd like to treat this bot in the same manner, as a feature-frozen program. Now, this is not to say, that bugs can't be addressed, by the upstream developer (Betacommand), as in any other normal software package (AWB, Pywikipedia, etc). Also, I would like to keep discussion about betacommand to a minimum, should this discussion be re-opened. While yes, he is the developer of this software, this isn't about betacommand. If we can stick to these points, I see no issues with re-openening the BRFA. SQLQuery me! 11:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I think, at this time, any serious concerns about the bot's username, would probably be best discussed in a username RFC, as the bot is, at present an existing user, and, so far as I can tell, not a blatant violation of the username policy. SQLQuery me! 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This request should NOT be reopened because it will simply become another flame war which none of the bot operators are interested in dealing with. This bot is the same as BCBot. It is a clone. This is why it was speedy approved. Certain members of the community have proven that they are not capable of discussing BCBot in a reasonable way or allowing it to be discussed reasonably by others. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The request definitely needs to be reopened with a minimum amount of time for community discussion. The "approval" for this bot was simply ridiculous, the account was given bot status almost immediately and despite ongoing discussion. When someone attempted to add more discussion (something that should never be discouraged on Wikipedia), they were reverted and the page was protected. This just screams to be done again. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Re-opening it would be a minimum. Regarding the current WP:RfAr#BetacommandBot, one of the Arb's comments involves having "too many issues" for being able to make a manageable RfAr case out of it. Re-opening the BRFA would at least split off one of these issues, via normal community process. And please, BAG members take some time to give those raising concerns the impression that their concerns are heard. I'm not talking about that that didn't happen, but maybe there was a perception problem. Concerns were heard at WP:ANI, but when looking solely at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot it gives the impression that for a hot issue, those making decisions preffered not to give too much attention to objections, and went straight for the "speedy" decision. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this bot was approved 10 months ago. the NFCC bot is just a clone of that. there is no reason to re-open it. βcommand 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. "there is no reason to re-open it", there is: that reason is WP:RfAr#BetacommandBot, and the suggestions given there by arbitrators. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: so your saying FT2's comments about supporting the actions of BAG is a reasion to re-open? this is just a clone of an existing bot, and BAGs actions where made to avoid a flamewar. βcommand 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Bypassing community discussion is unacceptable. That alone is reason to re-open it and allow for a reasonable amount of discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If BAG will not permit re-opening the discussion, there is a simple solution:create a separate place for such discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFCC BRFA 

message: KevinBot is no longer active and can be de-flagged. I may reactivate it sometime in the future but I'm just too busy these days. Kevin Rector (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KevinBot