Wikipedia talk:Bots/Status

Archives: Archive 1

List of all Bot's UserIDs

Does anyone know how to produce a list (xml file for example) of all the Bots on Wikipedia (active or not) containing their UserIDs that do NOT have a bot-Flag yet? Are there many active Bots without a bot-flag anyway --Fabian Flöck (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fabian Flöck. Did you ever get an answer regarding this? I'd be interested in that data as well, so if you heard something, kindly let me know. Thanks! UOJComm (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Does anyone currently have any opinions on merging Wikipedia:Registered bots to this page? It looks like it was agreed upon above, however that was years ago. If no one has any objections, I'll look over both pages and merge them myself soon. (Should we keep the Wikipedia:Registered bots page? Delete it after the merge? Redirect it? Thoughts/opinions appreciated.) ^Avic _ennasis @ 14:27, 10 Elul 5771 / 14:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rcsprinter (orate) 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Bots from this list

I am currently reading through all of the [Policy Discussion Archives], and I've noticed that some bots from the past are totally missing from this list. For others, it looks like I'll be able to add some data on dates of approval and tasks, but I'm wondering if I should add entries for the bots that aren't on this list? Or is someone else working on this? Any info would be helpful. UOJComm (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addbot is now back to attempting to maintain the list, as you can see many of the bots you are probably talking about have been added. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_25. If you have any further suggestions as to little tasks that can try and keep the list more up to date then please just say! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

feedback

epic fail for usability, i mean where is there a link to add a bot ? transclusion is often used to keep vandals away from pages they shouldn't touch, is that what is going on here ?

A header stating what the purpose of the list is would be cool as well.

Sorry to be negative, but this page has a Windows software (frustration) feel to it. Penyulap ☏ 02:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knedlik-Pod

This bot (if it is a bot) is on you list and has been editing Wiki-cy. Should it not have the word "bot" in the name, otherwise we have to check every one as to their bona fide! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently blocked for not being approved. If it were ever to go through the approval process, the username issue would probably come up. Legoktm (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another rethink about this page

SO! Back in 2008 this page used to be a bit of a mess and massive in comparison to the number of bots it contained (mainly due to the table) (link). I 'had a rethink' back then and devised the templates which the page currently used. Since then the number of sections that were used have also been reduced to just active and inactive (although the inactive list is now to be to be transcendental onto a page...

My question is, How can we make this page better? Should we:

Remove some of the information on the page (especially that which is hard to keep up to date) and simply have a more up to date page
Remove the inactive bots from the page entirely, allowing the active bots to have a more prominent position
Something else?

All comments are welcome! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This tool can help us figure out the inactive ones. I see atleast 13 of them that have been inactive for more than a year. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose getting rid of the owner and the date of approval (both can be found in other ways using the list) The link to the rights log, although usefull could be accessed easily or in another way (perhaps just after contribs after the bot name, potentially BRFAs also) This could then remove 3 collums. The Status of the bot could be expanded to include the month and year of the last edit (if the bot hasnt edited in 2 months it is considered inactive) Description is usefull although I think we need to come up with some rules to limmit the size and make it more usefull. Maybe even allow the template to have options for repeated tasks i.e. interwiki, archive e.t.c ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd known about that tool a few months ago; I could have avoided a block. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 16:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this

I just came up with a sort of plan while make tea! What if rather than have all of the information in a massive list we have a page somewhere for each bot with a large template which will format all of the information in a way that is both readable and accessible by a bot.

This could be done on a bots user page, Using the template would mean we knew where it was, also this is probably the first place somebody would go to if they had questions about a bot
This could be done on a subpage of Wikipedia:Bots maybe Wikipedia:Bots/Status/Addbot for example (in the same way as above)

Information could include

Name
Description
Operator
List of BRFAs as seen at User:Addbot/Tasks-Active
Bot flag Yes or No
Sample Difs for each task
Fixed bugs

And the list could go on and on... Thoughts? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's do this. 69.255.179.102 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]