Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 3

message: Something relevant that the Bot Approvals group may want to have a look at is being discussed at the Main Page's talk. It may involve the approval of an adminbot (basically, since it would be used exclusively to edit a protected page). Titoxd(?!?) 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting discussion 

message: Moved section to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group. — xaosflux Talk 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BAG]] 

message: Regarding this bot's RFA request, I've added a section that may help assure the community of the willingness of us to stop this bot should it malfunction or be reprogrammed, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot in the section started with "WP:BAG bot policy enforcement:".  Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BAG]] endorsement reqeusted

message: I am almost done a second bot based on the response I got here:Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Possible_bot, and the idea being brought up here: Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_8#WP:AIV-Clearing_Bot.3F. I will remove already blocked people from WP:AIV.
My question is do I create a new account for each bot I make, or can they share an account? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a new account, it makes things a lot easier :) -- Tawker 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a bot that's continuous (i.e. running all the time) it's probably better to make a new account. —Mets501 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second bot 

message: appears to be running tasks outside its assigned function: tagging a category for deletion , listing a cfd , reverting non-vandal edits  and leaving messages on user talk pages .I request a review of dombot's behaviour. Tim! 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything really harmful, it may be outside it's scope but I don't see anything damaging in there -- Tawker 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted this on AN, but maybe I should say it here too. I suspect the issue is simply that Internet Explorer remained logged in after an AWB bot run. alphachimp 09:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is why I use a different set of cookies and my own useragent hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DomBot 

message: To Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/MartinBotII_4, whichis currently in a rather extended trial (which probably should have ended by now...).  I've just got a box set up which can run the bot, and so would appreciate approval :)  Thanks, Martinp23 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mets501. Martinp23 19:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. —Mets501 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request BAG attention 

message: MartinBotIII is currently performing a substing exercise on some of RefDeskBot's edits (which used a template which didn't work).  I'm posting this here in the interests of openess - there should be no more than 1200 edits, at the throttle of 6 per minute.  The bot will then do a very simple text replacement on the pages (after the substing).  To make clear, there are some 600 pages, it of which will be edited twice.  This is all being done in AWB, but the text replacement is outside of the bot's assigned task, so I'm inviting a BAG member to tell me to get approval, if I need it.  Thanks, Martinp23 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically you'll be making edits like  and then replacing 2007 with 2006 and then 2008 with 2007? —Mets501 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - exactly.  It really just cleaning up the bad template, and fixing RefDeskBot's responsibility.  The bot is being monitored, though is in automatic mode (doing substing right now).  Will another BRFA be needed for the find-replace feature (I don't want to break any rules in a big way :)). Martinp23 18:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it  —Mets501 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks Martinp23 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the interests of openness 

message: Can everybody make sure to include in the edit summary of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval that you've approved a bot and that a flag is needed? I don't always load the page, it's much easier to use the history to check if a promotion is needed. Not a big deal, but it can help speed up the process. The latest one waited for 24 hrs just because I didn't see it. Not to pick on you Betacommand, just a request. - Taxman Talk 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: I have made a request to join the bot approval group here: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Request_to_join_bot_approval_group. I was not sure if that was the appropriate venue, so I am posting a link here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to join bot approval group 

message: My bot is approved to tag uncategorised articles of various flavours, and there's a rather large backlog of these in the Jan. db dump.  Many of these are very short articles, so it's probably more pragmatically useful to tag these with {tl|stub}}, rather than with .  The code would be identical (with an extra double-check for length of "live" article), and the effect very similar (unsorted stub vs. uncategorised article), but I thought I'd double-check with the BAG if it's felt that this would need separate task approval.  I've already mentioned this at both WP:WSS and CAT:NOCAT, and I'll of course act in line with what they suggest for length threshold, whether the entire idea is a plan, etc.  Alai 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a BAG member, but I'd recommend that you get separate approval.  is objective and  is subjective, and although I'm not sure whether this is enough of a difference to prevent a bot adding  tags, I think it's enough of a difference that you should at least request approval for the new task. --ais523 09:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point, I'll do so.  If the worst comes to the worst, I can always tag them into a temporary this-is-an-uncategorised-very-short-article-and-probably-a-stub maintenaince category...  Alai 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncategorised short articles, and tagging with {{tl|stub}} instead of {{tl|uncat}} 

message: I wish to implement a new feature, discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Possible_bot_feature.
Does this fall withing my current scope of approval, or should I do another feature request? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about scope 

message: I'm just curious (read: I'm not trying to rush anyone), how long does it usually take before a bot is approved?  I haven't gotten any new comments in a couple of days.  --Selket 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was thinking about your bot, and wasn't quite sure if it was worth all of those edits to move a period, so I held back on responding.  Anyone else have ideas?  (See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SelketBot. —Mets501 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I did try rushing people, and see where it got me. :)  (No comments at all in 5+ days...)  On SelketBot:  that raises the more general point of "when is an edit too minor to be worth doing at all?" (or relatedly, to be worth doing en masse).  I must admit I've made edits by hand just to move a comma or period (typically to MoSify "aesthetic quotes", especially if they're used inconsistently, or in articles using Commonwealth English)).  It's hard to argue that where there's a clear consensus (or painfully hammered-out style guidance, as the case may be) that articles shouldn't be put into conformance with it; but equally, it hardly seems like an urgent matter.  So firstly, is there actually a clear consensus for this particular matter, as a style issue?  Would it be worth testing same with a trial run, and waiting a week afterwards to see if people irately put them back, or complain?  (Acceptance in practice may be a different matter from apparent agreement on the guideline page.)  And, is it worth considering "low priority status" for bot tasks there's general acceptance of being carried out, but are extremely minor in nature?  That is, they'd be subject to tighter constraints on edit rate and times and days of operation.  Alai 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that something that causes great delays in the bot approval process are requests which are very specific and not for a standard task.  For example, Alai, I don't know if there has been consensus for the tasks that your bots wants to do, or really the effects of the task, since I'm not very familiar with that area (WP:WSS and CAT:NOCAT).  Something that would speed those approvals up would be a links to a place where consensus was formed, the task was discussed, and relevant policies, etc.  Simple requests like this get approved in 6 minutes, and other requests don't. —Mets501 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at WSS here, and at NOCAT here.  I linked to both pages in the request, and stated that's where the relevant discussion was -- seems pretty specific to me.  If you feel you don't have the information to make a decision, it'd be more helpful to say so, rather than just quietly waiting.  Alai 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about approval time 

message: the ip address  appears to be a bot.. i don't know what should be done about this, i just thought i should let somebody know. 131.111.8.99 16:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I am not sure, but it looks like a legitimate bot that accidentally logged out, I have blocked the IP for anonymous users only, so if the user's bot logs in properly it should not be effected. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that is the new WP 1.0 bot Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I figured as much, it looked legit, and I remembered the approval for that bot, that is why I did an anon only block, perhaps a loss of session data. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymous bot.. 

message: I've been working on HighInBCBot (with HighInBC's approval), and we have decided that it would be a good idea to rename the bot.  We discussed the options, and I decided to post here for further advice on how to proceed.  In the bot's approval it was determined that it did not need a bot flag, so the account is currently unflagged.  The contributions of the account aren't particularly important, so moving them isn't really urgent, so I think HighInBC's suggestion to just create another account is best.  Is any further BAG approval needed to do this?  Does anyone have any other suggestions for a better way to effect the change?  All input is appreciated.  Thanks!  —Krellis (Talk) 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just ask a b'crat to change the name and update relevant pages, and move the BRfA to the new name. That is the simplest thing. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CHU. —METS501 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that was one of my thoughts, in the discussion on his talk page, HighInBC had mentioned that he was under the impression that CHU was difficult when there was significant edit history involved, so it would be easier to simply create a new account.  If that's not the case, and/or CHU is otherwise simply the "better" way to do it, I have no problem going that route. —Krellis (Talk) 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CHU is a real pain on the servers when a user has a lot of edits (that's why it has an edit cap). Creating a new account and mentioning the username of the old one on the new account would seem to be a sensible thing to do. --ais523 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *HighInBCBot has 349 edits, which is little consequence to load on the servers. Also, there's not been a cap on edit counts for WP:CHU for some time now. There used to be, but it was removed a while back. --Durin 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *:If it only reached 349, then CHU would seem like a good idea. --ais523 09:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks everyone for the input, we've submitted a request on WP:CHU, hopefully Essjay will decide the dust has settled from the clerking debates soon and resume fulfilling requests, and we'll be on our way. —Krellis (Talk) 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, I exist too... :-) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for existing! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of bot username 

message: Does the operator of a bot have to have written the bot as well?  ~Steptrip 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I operate a bot written by Krellis and HighinBC. alphachimp 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But keep in mind that it is the operator who is responsible for any damage done by the bot because of faulty or malicious programming, not the the writer.  So, beware when you accept coding from another person and you are the operator. Cbrown1023 talk 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: is now editing on en:, and has got a lot of edits already (more than the 500 for which it was approved for trials, but it seems to have been approved for editing on en: on Meta, if that makes sense). I suggest that its tasks page be reactivated/reclosed to allow for the new situation, and that it be given a bot flag so that it stops activating new-messages bars when changing images on Talk pages. --ais523 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested the bot flag immediately, so that should resolve the issue.  There has been some discussion on my talk page about the approval, so it could change, but for now this should fix those problems. -- RM 12:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response there, so I've flagged it. Please let me know if anything changes. - Taxman Talk 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CommonsDelinker 

message: When does a bot operator need approval for small one-time jobs? In particular,  was deleted and I would like to use  to remove the templates from the talk page. Gimmetrow 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, if the task is small and similar enough to a task the bot is approved for, then just do it, but here because the bot is entering a whole new field I would request approval. Or just ask another bot to do it at WP:BOTREQ.  Or just do it manually approving edits with AWB. —METS501 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The letter of the law states that all tasks performed automatically must have approval.  Now, in the face of IAR and such, there is clearly some flexibility here.  For example, if you use a bot without approval or for an unapproved task, you might get blocked.  There have been cases where a bot operator was faced with a task that needed to be done in 24 hours, and as such he just went ahead and did it without approval.  In cases like this, you need to judge whether or not what you are doing is controversial and be ready to answer for it if something goes wrong.  Still, we have been reasonable in many cases.  It is not uncommon for operators of interwiki bots to not be aware of the complex approvals process here on en and thus perform operations without seeking approval.  In general if you have never run a bot, you should probably not be running unauthorized tasks ever.  If you have a bot that's been approved and have performed some number of successful tasks, then you can use a bit more judgement.  It's always a good idea to at least notify us of a new task.  If it would be more work to go through an approvals process than it would be to actually do the task, then that may be one of those times.  Of course no matter what you do, if you do it without approval, you do so at your own risk.  Be warned!  Perhaps we need a process for "request for quick approvals" or some such thing. -- RM 20:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you verify that any task is run with manual approval? There seems to be a difference between a bot which runs unassisted, and a bot which is an extension of the editor. How is this addressed in the policy? Gimmetrow 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's based on trust.  You just have to trust that the person is approving all edits and not doing it automatically.  Basically, what RM and I are saying is to use your judgment.  If a task needs doing, generally it's a good idea to seek approval, but if there is an urgent need for a small task and it is clearly, clearly uncontroversial (such as removing a deleted template), then you can go ahead and do it with an already-approved bot. —METS501 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related tasks 

message: My bot, Ocobot, had been approved for trials recently and is now awaiting final approval. During the trial run I realized how many broken links he detects. I don't think I and few other human members monitoring his dead links list will be able to remove/recover dead links as fast as the bot finds new ones. So I thought Ocobot could tag (talk pages) of articles containing broken links if nobody has taken care of the affected links on the dead links list within a week.
Similar requests have already been approved for trials (but expired): BezkingBot-Link, ShakingBot.
Shall I wait for approval of my current request and then request this as a new task or can this be included right now? — Ocolon 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add another new request. -- RM 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I will do so when (if) the original request gets approved. — Ocolon 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A related task for my bot 

message: It's unclear at the moment exactly how much approval  has, which has sparked a threat at WP:BN; could some BAG members take a look at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Another bot deflagging? --ais523 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand -- RM 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betacommandbot's approval 

message: I think BAGBot as down, as his bot table seems to have been last updated some time yesterday. --kingboyk 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAGBot 

message: Hello! This message is because I would like to let my bot run on this wikipedia. Its name is Synthebot. Its main activity is fixing interwiki links. For doing this, it uses the interwiki.py script of the pywikipedia package. It runs on demand, for specific categories based on the Interlingua wikipedia.
Some extra information about myself is that I am an administrator in the Interlingua wikipedia, and I actively collaborated in the Interlingua, English and Spanish wikipedias.
For further questions, do not hesitate in contacting me at my talk page.
Regards, Julian 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please file a Requests for approval as shown on the project page. we would be glad to see it. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot request 

message: Hallo, in oct. 2006 I asked for a botflag for my PortalBot. Now I read, that something has expired (?). I need the bot not every week, but in sometimes, I need it. Is there a way to get the botflag now ? Augiasstallputzer 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your prior request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PortalBot can be reactivated, but the trial expired.  A new one can be granted (there was an outstanding operator question that was never answered).  To reactivate it, remove the closeout tags and retranslcude it on the requests page. — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactivating 

message: In the request template template, where it says ==BotName==, it can just say BotName. The pipe trick automatically puts the same thing but without the namespace, which makes it unnecessary to retype it. You can also do it for the "Operator" part. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that on the input box the tempalte that is used to prepopulate the box already expands the piped link, to avoid this I think we'd have to fill that with nowiki's that would need to be removed, making it harder.  Feel free to try to fix it at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InputInit though! — xaosflux Talk 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Template 

message: Is there any coordination between interwiki bot operators? (Almost a rhetorical question as I'm pretty sure there isn't any, at least not formally). How many interwiki bots do we need? (as many as people apply for, or is there a sensible limit?) We approved one this morning from a French wikipedian, and now have another almost identical application, so I just wondered... --kingboyk 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: interwiki linking is never ending, its kinda like AVB or CAT:CSD. As long as we have growing wikis we need interwiki bots, and due to the size, and relative slowness of each bot I dont see a need to limit the number of bots. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they all have identical scopes of operation?  If some of them are only working on some subset of the wikis, the redundancy might be less than there appears.  Alai 04:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki bots 

message: Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I havn't been able to figure
out anywhere else to ask.
I'm not sure if what I'm doing is considered to be a bot or not.  I'm not trying to edit
articles, but I do want to screen scrape maybe 150 a week.
I have been using PHP CURL to obtain small portions of articles, caching them, and
checking once a week for changes.
This worked fine for a couple of months and then a few weeks ago I
started getting the following message:
 The Wikimedia Foundation servers are currently experiencing technical difficulties.
 The problem is most likely temporary and will hopefully be fixed soon. Please check back in a few minutes.
 If reporting this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the following details:
 Request: GET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_De_Mayo, from 64.202.165.201 via sq24.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE12) to ()
 Error: ERR_ACCESS_DENIED, errno [No Error] at Sun, 06 May 2007 01:04:31 GMT
Because of the ERR_ACCESS_DENIED above, I'm concerned I'm doing this
the wrong way and have gotten blocked; and indeed the IP address above
seems to be blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=64.202.165.201)
but I don't think it's related to me because that's dated last summer.  I've only been doing this a few months
and when this problem started I was on a different IP address (64.202.165.132).
I would very much appreciate it if someone could tell me if what I'm doing is allowable and whether
registering as a bot would solve my problem.
If it helps, this is the PHP CURL function I'm using:
 function getURL($domain, $url)
  {
  $domain = "en.wikipedia.org"; // Force - debugging
  $url = "/wiki/Cinco_De_Mayo";
  $ch = curl_init();
  curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_URL, $domain. $url);
  curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, 1);
  curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION, 1);
  curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_REFERER, "http://DaysUntil.com/");
  curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT']);
  // curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6"
  // curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)");
  $result = curl_exec($ch);
  curl_close ($ch); 
  return $result;
  }
Thanks,
Symmetric 04:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not editing and just viewing articles, then registering and getting approval for the bot makes no difference.  I would recommend however, if it suits your purposes, that you download a database dump or (if you need live pages) use Special:Export, as it is less taxing on the servers.  But 150 hits a week is basically nothing either way, so I wouldn't worry about it :-) —METS501 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, so it sounds like what I'm doing is ok as long as I keep the traffic low.  That's good.  I guess if I can fix it, I'd rather keep it the way it is for now (since it DID work and it's simple).  I may look at the dump or special:export options in the future (might be a lot of work to implement).  Do you have any idea where I can find out what might cause the ERR_ACCESS_DENIED error?  If it's not the blocked IP address I'm at a loss (I did request it be unblocked).  I also found some references to Wikipedia blocking certain user agents, but I haven't been able to figure out which ones, and that seems unlikely too since I'm just specifying a common browser.  But SOMETHING changed in mid-March. Symmetric 06:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Perl's gotten a bit rusty, so pardon me if I say rubbish here, but both lines that set a USER_AGENT seem to be commented out, so I don't actually know what user agent ID does that code send. Anywho, you can have a look at Wikiepdia's robots.txt file, which is located here and search for clues. An "access denied" error looks like a user agent problem to me. Миша13 13:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's PHP, not Perl, and there are actually three lines that set the user agent, with the first line not commented out. It's a bit confusing though, I must admit, and I was about the say the same thing as you. Symmetric; the only advice I can give you is to start debugging and changing things to see what exactly is causing the problem. Jayden54 13:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I left those comments in to indicate a few user agents I've tried.  $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'] transfers the agent from the browser used to access the script, which I think should work if access from my browser works.  I've tried a bunch of others but it fails no matter what I use.  As far as debugging, the script works fine on other sites (google, yahoo, etc.) so it's something specific to Wikipedia.  I was thinking it might be IP blocking, even though the IP I had when this started doesn't seem to be blocked.  I read somewhere that logging in as a bot hides your IP, so I thought if someone else on my shared GoDaddy host was causing me to get blocked with them (or if I somehow caused it), I could fix it that way.  The other possibility I can think of is that there's something else in the header that Wikipedea recently started looking at that I now need to set, but I don't know how to figure out what that might be. Symmetric 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you having the same problem as is mentioned at the bottom of WP:BONB? Does the fix mentioned there (using a unique UserAgent that contains your bot's username) work for you? --ais523 12:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Question? 

message: There is currently a thread at the admins' noticeboard involving Scepbot and Metsbot and the fact that they were having trouble parsing some double redirects in Guettarda's userspace.  While double redirects should be fixed in article and article talk space, I'm not sure why there is any urgency in fixing them in user space.  The only pages that linked to Guettarda's double-redirected pages were other pages in Guettarda's userspace, so the chance of an encyclopedia reader encountering them is virtually nil.  And having bots edit another user's userspace, unless it is urgent, is rude as far as I am concerned.  Will has replied in the thread that he can not stop his bot from editing userspace, which looks like an alarming lack of control, or at least a disturbing unwillingness to deal with the issue.  Will's unwillingless to deal with the problem led to Guettarda escalating the situation by protecting the double redirects, which led to a further escalation when Evula invaded Guettarda's space to delete the pages.
I would like to request a review of both Metsbot and Scepbot based on this report.  Is it appropriate for these bots to edit in someone else's user space?  Have Will and Mets' responses to the complaint met community expectations for bot owners? Thanks. Thatcher131 13:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Double redirects slow down the server, they should all be fixed, userspace or not. What can be benefited by not fixing them? Editing another person's userspace is not rude unless you do it in a rude fashion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can double redirects slow down the server if they are never accessed?  Except for Scepbot, who but Guettarda would be accessing User:Guettarda/Sandbox 4? Thatcher131 14:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you clear the backlog of double redirects without getting these double redirects that are not being used? You pretty much have to get them all. I ask again, what is benefited by not fixing them? What is the harm in fixing a double redirect in someone's userspace? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that several people made bad decisions in this situations, but one of the bad decisions was to forcibly fix the protected redirects without prior consultation in order to make the bot happy.  "What is benefited by not fixing them" is civility and respect.  Sceptre should have excluded the bot from Guettarda's user space as a matter of common courtesy if for no other reason, Guettarda should not have protected the redirects to purposely hang the bot, and Evula should not have manually fixed the protected redirects without first asking Guettarda.  If the protected redirects broke the bot, Sceptre could have dealt with 99.9% of the backlog by excluding his bot from Guettarda's user space.  If the protected redirects broke the bot, and it was not possible to at least temporarily exclude the bot from those pages, then the bot should have been stopped until the situation could have been dealt with calmly.  There are thousands of backlogs on wikipedia and to think that this particular backlog must be dealt with so urgently as to justify this level of bad feelings is to vastly overinflate the importance of the bot. Thatcher131 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How exactly is it discourteous to fix a double redirect on someone's userpage? It is standard maintenance, what is the big deal? You don't need to ask people for every little thing you do, like handling a template rename, or fixing a double redirect, or removing fair use images. This is not rude, I don't see how it can be. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there is an attitude problem here.  When an editor says "please don't edit my user space" it seems that engaging the user in a conversation, including bringing it other respected editors' opinions to gently persuade the editor, would have been a better response than to continue to try to edit the user's space and then post to the noticeboard, "this user's userspace breaks my bot!"  The fact that something may be done is rarely the same thing as saying it must be done now and I am still unconvinced that this was an urgent problem.  Fixing these redirects was never such a critical priority as to demand steamrolling another editor's heartfelt objections, even if the objections were ultimately not founded in policy.  And you have yet to explain why it was impossible to temporarily exclude userspace from the bot's field of operations so it could continue its maintenance task in article space without breaking. Thatcher131 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Cleaning out double redirects is one of the many backlogs that need to be cleared, this really is no big deal. No reason to skip userspace, because it needs to be done too. People do not own their userspace, and this is really not doing anything to userspace that changes anything content wise, it is simply maintenance. I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone probably is making a mountain out of a molehill but I don't think it's me.  It appears that both Scepbot and Metsbot fixed the redirects on May 11, and Guettarda reverted both times and then protected.  When Scepbot broke on the protected redirects, Sceptre asked Guettarda on May 13 to fix them and Guettarda said no.  At that point, Sceptre had two options.  He could have said, "Wikipedia policy is to avoid double redirects even in user space, but since you are an admin I will trust you to do the right thing."  Instead, Sceptre basically replied, "I'm right and you're wrong", was unwilling or unable to exclude Guettarda's user page so he could run his bot, and so found someone at the noticeboard to "fix" the problem for him.  I would like to think that Be nice to other people even if you are right and they are wrong ranks higher on the Wikipedia principles scale than avoid double redirects.  For the same reason I am concerned that you (HighInBC), whom I generally like and respect, seem to be following the He's right and Guettarda is wrong track rather than the "'Be nice"' track.  We're not talking here about disruptive userboxes or vandalism where I'm right and you're wrong really does override Be nice; we're talking about a few extra CPU cycles to serve some userpages that have no incoming links.  If double redirects really are server poison, how many went unfixed for the two days that Guettarda's redirects were protected because Sceptre insisted on fixing them (since both Mets501 and Martinp23 seem to think it is relatively trvial to exclude userspace, the fact that Sceptre had to go to the noticeboard to find another admin to "fix" the problem shows that this was more about getting his way than about fixing redirects).  For me, this boils down to the fact that Sceptre (and some others) elevated his bot's performance of a mundane maintenance task over the principle of Be nice to other people even if you are right and they are wrong.  That may not be a reason to review Scepbot's scope, but it's not the way this place is supposed to work. Thatcher131 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do tend to agree with HighInBC, but admit to not having read the noticeboard post.  If you wish to challenge a bot approval for a task, then I see no problem with you retreiving it from the archive, transluding it back onto the main BRFA page, and starting a discussion.  Either that, or start a new BRFA request page, and transclude it, but rather than request a new bot, request review of another. Martinp23 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted on WP:AN.  In response to your specific question, Thatcher131, a discussion at AN/ANI/anywhere else, which generates a consensus, can result in the removal of the approval for a certain task.  Similar discussion caould take place on the various bot related talk pages, or in a transclusion of a "case page" on WP:BRFA.  HTH, Martinp23 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just stumbled across this discussion, and am sorry that there's been a big conflict.  I'll no longer fix double redirects in User: and User talk: space.  If anything like this happens in the future, just contact me on my talk page, and I'll make sure to address your concerns. —METS501 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, seeing the discussion on the noticeboard, the problem was not that the bots went into Guettarda's user space to fix the redirects, but that after Guettarda objected, Sceptre forced the issue (see above). Thatcher131 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, you're probably right, but still, my comment holds —METS501 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does one ask for a review of a bot and bot operator? 

message: I posted this message on WP:BOT Talk page. I am not sure where the best forum is for getting a response. Crum375 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about exclusion from [[WP:BOT]] 

message: I posted my concerns regarding Android Mouse Bot 3 at this policy page. Has the execution of the bot been discussed? Am I the only one thinking that it creates havoc? If I am not the only one, could one reconsider its approval and discuss it again? Mlewan 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a variety of places.  If the bot is going crazy performing tasks which it is not approved to do and it needs to be blocked urgently, then report it at WP:AIV.  If you disagree with a task the bot is currently performing, then the best places are the bot owner's talk page (if they are around) or WP:ANI.  To discuss the merits of a bot which is not currently running, any places is basically OK; local WikiProject talk pages, the bot owner's talk page, this page, etc.  If consensus has been reached anywhere that a bot should not be running, report it to this page and approval will be withdrawn. —METS501 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does one ask for a bot to stop? 

message: My interwiki bot -- SmeiraBot -- had been approved for trial. I started using it to do automatic corrections in the links from articles on US cities to their corresponding articles in the Volapük wikipedia. In the first few days it went OK (though I always got a message saying: 'Your bot is not listed in the list of bots'); now I get an error message saying the page in question is locked, and I have to modify it manually, from my user account. Have I done something wrong? --Smeira 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because you don't have a bot flag yet (fully approved). When you show the guys at your request for bot approval a few diffs of some edits, and they're happy, it will be approved and given a bot flag - then you should be able to run it smoothly. E talk 10:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You really need to put the request in on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and go through the approval procedure. Reedy Boy 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He already has. It's listed in the Bots in a trial period section. He's asking how to get his trial period approved. -- JLaTondre 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like your bot wasn't logged in[1][2]. You need to do your trial edits under your bot account. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I doing something wrong? 

message: Hey,
I have been asked to post a notification of my request to join the Bot Approvals Group on here. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Joining. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG Joining