Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Alph Bot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Alph Bot[edit]

Operator: Alchimista

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Py

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia script

Function overview: Interwiki

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): continyous

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): yes, on pt.wp and ca.wp

Function details: Ad interwiki. Alchimista (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

May I start the test period? In the other wikis i'm using standard interwiki.py with cosmetic_changes.py, is it possible to do the same here? Alchimista (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, cosmetic_changes.py may not generally be used here. For just interwiki.py,

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Remember that interwiki.py must not edit the Template namespace (it screws things up), and remember to update your pywikipedia daily. Anomie ⚔ 01:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as notification, the bot was reported at AVI, but no action was taken. I have now blocked it, as it's up to 40 edits, and I can't see approval for more at this stage. I don't usually deal with BAG and bots, so hopefully I've not missed something! Unblock or let me know if I have. Thanks. Ged UK 10:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was reported for removing an iw to an deleted page, as it's impossible to determine when the 30 edits will ocourre, i've choosen the morning for the test fase, in order to cause less problems in recent changes. I've stopped the bot a few minutes after the block, when i've seen that he already had the necessary edits, and just didn't respond here cause my account was also blocked. Sorry for the inconvenience. Anomie, i have another py bot on pt.wp, with more than 14000 edits and no problems, both of them cvs updated at least once a day. Alph will work mustly on mainspace and categorys, without cosmetic_changes. Alchimista (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the AIV report, it was completely bogus and as Ged UK mentioned no action was taken. As for the bot, the edits look good, your explanation for the extra edits is credible, and you've acknowledged enwiki's restrictions.

Approved. Anomie ⚔ 15:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.