Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:BOWN)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Wikipedia (also including other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software). Although its target audience is bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. It is also not the place for general questions about the MediaWiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.), which have generally a best chance of being answered at WP:VPT.

Too many sections on User talk:Andrzejbanas[edit]

Can you move sections (February 2014 - present) into archives? Because it's too many. (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, it's up to him if he wants to archive his talk page. It's not a task for a bot either. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Some users choose to have a bot archive their talk page, such as User:lowercase sigmabot III. If you think the user should archive their talk page, it would be best to post a kind note on their talk page explaining why. GoingBatty (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Nothing to do here, there are no bots set up to archive that page. — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting apihighlimits flag for AnkitAWB (talk · contribs)[edit]

Well, it's bit hard to go through categories one by one, it'd be better if I can load a category at once and roll on it. For what it's worth, my bot's had a mentionless history and has registered 2 complaints throughout it's running time and they were not even his fault (caused by putting the articles in the wrong stub category). Also, I've made a few changes, now it integrates with BannerShell and fixes alternate templates (Custom Module) instead of skipping them. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, when I filed my BRFA, I put in a value of 3 epm. Now, I've tried to clock my bot between 6 - 12 epm generally (it's working right now at 7 epm). I hope that's not too much of an issue. Also, what's the general roof limit? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • User:AnkitAWB is already a member of group Bots which contains permission apihighlimits. — xaosflux Talk 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as rate, what are your batch sizes? Moving up to say 20epm is fine for bursts, but may need some consideration if you are going to run 1,000,000 edits. — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I think I got an error dialog box when I tried to load pages using the plugin (NoLimitsPlugin.dll). I'll try again on its next run. I don't think that epm will be an issue because well, I'm running the bot with a 0 second delay and it hasn't capped 14 epm. Thanks a lot. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be working fine. Probably logged in from wrong account. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Breaking change[edit]

In a month or two, they're changing the login system for bots. You can read more here: phab:T121113 and

If you expect any problems, please reach out to mw:User:Anomie or mw:User:Tgr (only you have to be nice to Tgr, because he did me a favor last week.  ;-) This was in Tech/News today, and it's easy to miss an announcement like this, so please also check in with your friends and other wikis and make sure that none of them will be surprised by this. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like lazy botops (me) will just use Special:BotPasswords and fancy botops can transfer to OAuth (already possible to start using after enabling it, as far as I understand). Tool makers with logins (hi, AWB) will have some work to do as they will need at least some OAuth support. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
OAuth is easy enough to set up, especially considering bot ops are meant to have some experience with technology... ;) even I managed to do it the other day! Mdann52 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Having experience with technology, and unlimited free time to deal with these changes are two very different things. SQLQuery me! 15:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have much time myself, but I managed to setup OAuth for my bots. It also gave me the opportunity to further secure my bot accounts, to prevent unauthorized access. Peachy uses OAuth by default now, and anyone using it will likely have discovered that I have forced the usage of OAuth on that framework, so for them it's a matter of giving Peachy the 4 tokens it needs to run.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Anything where I'm going to have to dive in and mess with 10+ year old legacy code isn't really as simple as it sounds, however. SQLQuery me! 16:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
OAuth was a bit difficult to setup in Peachy. That code is old. But the underlying mechanics is pretty simple to understand and implement.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up! — xaosflux Talk 22:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My bot broke yesterday ("There was an unexpected error logging in."). I presume this is related? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Same. Apparently, I get a response for needing token after sending the first token. I set up a Special:BotPasswords and it's the same. So I tried to pass the new token and it just asks for another (probably repeating this forever). It sounds like something like a bad cookie container would cause, but I am using a proper one (as far as I know), so I don't know. I might just set up OAuth to avoid all the hack-around. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a common issue when switching login methods. Delete the cookie the bot uses. That should fix you problem in most cases.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
PS switching to OAuth will likely have the same issues in regards to token retrieval. You need to delete the existing cookie the bot uses. Then your bot will work if you switched to a new method.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That's the thing -- there are no cookies stored between running the bot, I create a new container each time, for each run. It sure looks like a cookie issue, but I can't figure out what. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Me, too. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore this if it is totally irrelevant, but seeing that these are very recent login problems, could they be related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#No longer able to log out (thank you, WMF!)? Fram (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Funny you should post that, as that happened to me while switching accounts and I was like "oh, come on" before just logging in the bot in a different browser. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It does appear that a cookie "forceHTTPS=true" is being given. I'm not using a secure connection, so that may be why it fails. I wish the API actually said something to that effect instead of endless "NeedToken" responses. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that seems to have done it. Switching to https passed the login as normal (with the new bot passwords thing). I can't find any place where I am specifying that I want to force the account to always use https, so it's probably some logic in recent updates that disabled non-https. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia moved to HTTPS ages ago and using simple HTTP was highly discouraged.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for posting about that, Hellknowz. It led us to spot that the cookies were being served with the "secure" flag even if the API was being accessed over plain http, which was apparently causing problems for a lot of people. At some point we should fix it so the API requires https like index.php does; I had thought it was that way already. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • On the topic of being logged it, I find my self persistently getting logged out. It's rather annoying. I almost typed a response here logged out.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh dear Unicorn. This means I have to figure out how to login with my bots again. It's been years since I've done that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Good luck, Headbomb. I hope that you've written down the process and passwords somewhere. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The normal password reset process will work if the bots have email addresses set. Otherwise, it's possible for developers to manually reset the passwords as long as we can be sure that the request is coming from the bot's actual owner. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How is it even possible to login any more without HTTPS? See m:Talk:HTTPS#Bots for the scrambling I had to do after my bots were knocked offline by the mandatory switchover to HTTPS. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Aaaand the login failed again. I guess because of the login/out issues, they rolled back the recent changes and Special:BotPasswords is gone for now too. So back to old credentials. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    Unless you're using OAuth like me. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    I was going to set it up, but the bot didn't have the unified login and so it's a non-confirmed account on Meta and I cannot create an OAuth entry for the 4 days until auto-confirmed triggers. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This highly technical discussion is mostly over my head, and I have no idea whether I need to change anything to keep my bots running. So far they seem fine and unaffected. This is not a good way to notify me, as I don't even have this page on my watchlist. I just happened to stroll by because of #Archivebot? below. If someone would take a glance at my bots' code and tell me if I need to change anything and if so, what I should change, I would be grateful. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's relatively simple. The explanation of the change is complex. You have 2 options before your bots will break. The first option is to implement OAuth, and have your bots interact with the API with OAuth. This method is more secure and should avoid any future breaking changes, including this one which will be deployed once the security bugs have been fixed. Your second option is to wait until your bot breaks, which will also be the time when Special:BotPasswords becomes available for use, where you create a password for your bot, and then change your bot's login credentials accordingly.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I don't know what "OAuth" is, much less how to implement it. My bot already has a password (another name for "login credentials"). Surely "Special:BotPasswords" wouldn't be a page where administrators can go to look up all the bots' passwords? "The explanation" still needs to "use English" ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No, BotPasswords is a place where you can create new type of password for your bot, and can also place restrictions on it (such as 'read only' or only from certain ip address). You can look at the interface at testwiki; you can NOT retrieve other peoples passwords with it. — xaosflux Talk 17:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. So once I use this interface to set up a new PW, it should just work with no changes to my bot's PHP code other than changing the values of password constants to the new password? Are there any special considerations for running the bot from multiple computers, say, for redundancy? What if I want to run the bot from a laptop with a mobile connection? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know the answers to most of those questions, but one subtlety you should be aware of is that, if you use "Special:BotPasswords", the "username" value you send to the login action will be of the form "somename@somethingelse" and will not be the same as your bot's "username" as displayed in Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@C678: Normal logins shouldn't break yet (if anything breaks, it's either bugs in bots' cookie handling or bugs in the new SessionManager code that need fixing). The rollout of OAuth owner-only accounts and of BotPasswords is intentionally being done sooner to give people more time to change over before AuthManager does start breaking things. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: FYI, it was also announced on mediawiki-api-announce, wikitech-l, and in the Tech News posted to WP:VPT. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't subscribe to any of the email lists; my email is already a spam-disaster and I don't open 90%+ of the emails I receive (and I'm talking about those that do make it through Yahoo's spam filter). I do look at the Tech News, but not religiously, and that doesn't do a great job of differentiating the important changes from the trivial in a way that catches my attention. So, glancing at the emails I see more jargon that I don't understand. Can you disambiguate the term Consumer (disambiguation) for me? I don't know what that means in this context. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
In OAuth, the program that uses OAuth to connect to a website is called a "consumer". Anomie 13:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I find myself fighting very hard with that everything is installed, I keep getting:
Is usage on tool labs require the consumer to be non-owner only? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In an owner only consumer, you should already have the access token and secret. You need to feed the bot with those keys too.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots broken again[edit]

I moved my bots to use OAuth, to avoid any breakage in the change. Well now they're broken, and I don't think it's my fault. Using OAuth I get persistent badtoken error regardless of how many times I delete the bot's cookie. I have made no modifications, and other bot scripts that were working are now broken too.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We talked about this on IRC yesterday, and it turned out to be a bug in the (non-SessionManager) handling of sessions in the OAuth extension when Setup.php had already started a session due to a session cookie. For Cyberpower678, it was worked around by restarting his bot to clear the bad cookie. The fix for the extension is gerrit:268702, although SessionManager coming back in wmf.13 should fix it too. Anomie 12:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I knew I should've made the "have you tried turning it off and on again?" joke... —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot user rights at Metawiki[edit]

  • According to mailarchive:wikitech-l/2016-January/084501.html, I should log in as my bot and go to m:Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration/propose in order to switch my bot from password to OAuth mode. However, that page doesn't work since my bot account isn't autoconfirmed on Metawiki. This looks like a stupid restriction since most bots probably only make edits to one project but still need to visit that page. Will the bot account automatically become autoconfirmed in a few days, or is mw:Manual:$wgAutoConfirmCount set to a nonzero value on Metawiki? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • When I first went to the page with the bot account, it said I needed auto-confirmed, because I had never visited meta:. I just logged in to check again and now it shows the full page. So it seems just waiting the day limit is sufficient, though annoying. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • A brilliant idea would be to go to the OAuth form, and directly login to the bot there to create the owner-only consumer, without actually logging out from your own account, that way you can easily setup OAuth without being blocked from the restrictions.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

SineBot kaput[edit]

SineBot (talk · contribs) has not signed anything since last Friday. I have left a note on Slakr's talk but don't know if he's around to reboot it - can anyone else get hold of him? I'm sure I've said this before, but since this is such an essential tool, shouldn't the WMF be taking care of it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been down a lot recently, not sure why. You can also try pinging him on IRC. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


This is getting quite embarassing too:

... failing (and still awaiting) an adequate response by the botop in question: are there any other bot owners that can explain a bit (at Jimbo's talk page preferably)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Magioladitis is blocked again.I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Magioladitis to explore ways to resolve the issues. Anyone is invited to comment there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Murph9000 Bot[edit]

Murph9000 is right. I see no indication of bad faith here and I think this conversation has been chewed up enough. Murph9000 is advised to open a BRFA if using a bot account or when in doubt, and is also advised to throttle their edits when using assisted scripts on their main account. Also please observe WP:COSMETICBOT because, it is not allowed, assisted or not.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Murph9000 Bot (talk · contribs) an approved bot? There is no entry "changed group membership for Murph9000 Bot from (none) to bot" at their logs, and I can't find a WP:BRFA. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It is not an approved bot. According to the tag on its userpage it's used for WP:ASSISTED editing, not fully automatic bot editing. The template removal appears to be somewhat quick, though; pinging @Murph9000: about this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • It was an WP:ASSISTED edit. Every single edit was reviewed and approved manually, with regular spot checks of a significant number of the diffs post-edit (both while it was ongoing, and at the end of it) to ensure that they were as desired. I'm happy to answer any questions. Murph9000 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • If "every single edit was reviewed and approved manually", why was there any need for "regular spot checks"? Wouldn't you have already reviewed every one? Anomie 01:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Precisely the same reason why I routinely review diffs after editing without any assistive tools. To confirm that the change I intended to save actually applied correctly. It is one thing to review a pre-save diff (or preview), and a quite different thing to review a post-save diff. Regardless of the interface or tools used, I do not solely rely on checking prior to saving, because MediaWiki has a non zero failure rate at the point of saving. In the case of removing those templates, it was trivial to tab focus between windows, refresh the contribs page, mass-check the size of 100% of the diffs, and spot check a few of the diffs in detail. Being a small change, I could review several post-edit diffs to confirm intended changes in just a few seconds. Using the standard web interface, without any extra tools involved, I've had multiple instances where MediaWiki's server-side edit conflict detection has failed, so I always try to pay attention to actual changes after the save is complete. Occasionally, the actual change does not match the change which was intended. Technology is fallible. Why would I take any less care, or pay any less attention to post-edit checking when using assistive tools? Per WP:MEATBOT (the preamble to WP:ASSISTED), I was taking maximum care to pay attention to the edits I was making, ensuring that the net result was no less reliable than an unassisted normal edit. The pre-save review could reliably be performed quite quickly for the diff of a 27 byte change involving a single line (with decades of experience of reviewing Unix diffs), prior to approving the change. That left plenty of time (while waiting on the save to complete, and the next change to be shown and prompted for approval) to use another window in parallel and double check things. I am responsible for the edits that I make, and I take that very seriously. The habit of checking and then double checking diffs pre-dates the existence of MediaWiki by multiple decades. It pre-dates the web itself! I did it quickly, but with considerable care and attention. After I save this edit to add this message, my next and immediate action will be to go to the page history and check the diff for it. Murph9000 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
As a bot operator myself I see two troubling concerns:
  1. Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes), unless the account is of that type. from WP:IU
  2. A bot process operating without getting a BRFA and documentation as to what tasks it's doing (and where the consensus/authority for such a change stems from).
  3. Even assisted edits still require a BRFA due to the nature of fait acompli issues.
For these reasons I suggest that the bot be blocked until Murph9000 completes a BRFA (along with documenting the consensus for the task) and properly Bot-izes the task. Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
From OP's explanation above, my only issue would be having "Bot" in the name and not actually being a bot. As long as every edit is checked, then it's pretty much like using any other assisted tool/script. I think blocking and demanding BRFA for this many pages is way too harsh, considering we have editors making edits in batches of hundreds without any BRFAs or secondary accounts. To be safe, we can speedy approve an assisted editing account if the OP wishes to pre-state their intentions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hasteur and Hellknowz: If I misinterpreted the username policy, I apologise for that. My interpretation was that it was actually required to be "… bot", due to WP:ASSISTED (aka WP:BOTASSIST) falling within the bot policy. I'm happy to request rename, but will not do so without clarity on that issue. I feel that the policy, as written, requires that naming for an alternative account used or assisted editing. I'm not entirely sure what you would like from me in terms of an "assisted editing account" request. Do you mean to submit a bot approval request specifying WP:ASSISTED, or something else? My intent was (and is) to occasionally use semi-automated (with manual review and approval of individual changes) tools to perform occasional ad-hoc WP:ASSISTED editing, on a small scale; while avoiding cases which do not appear to be supported by consensus or appear to have possible controversy. Never fully automated. Never unattended. It felt borderline whether I actually needed to use an alternative account, but I chose to do so for transparency, taking care to properly link it an place the suggested notices, and wanting to avoid any chance of being accused of trying to operate an unapproved bot. The nature and scale of the intended task felt safe and small enough to not need formal approval even as an assisted edit. Murph9000 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Enacting the outcome of a TFD is a normal bot task (and I think there is a bot already authorized to do that). Post facto stylizing of your user signature via a bot is against WP:COSMETICBOT policy, and outside of bot involvement should only be done in the cause of some other change. For these reasons, I reiterate that this user account should be blocked from making any edits until a BRFA has passed and there's a consensus for the bot to do work. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I mostly agree. If it's not an approved bot, the username policy states that it should not have 'bot' in the name. At the same time, I know I've never "spot checked" my contribs for accuracy unless it was a bot run. It's running consistently about 1 edit per 10 seconds. On the 22nd, we see the bot account make 158 edits consistently at the pace of about one every 20 seconds for 38 minutes without a slowdown or break. It marks its edits with "Bot:" [1]. Blocks are not punitive, and the unapproved process does not seem to have been running for almost a week now, so I would suggest there is no real need to hastily block at this time. I would suggest that @Murph9000: seek approval / trial via BRFA if they would like to make automated edits. If you are just clicking 'save' blindly, and "spot checking" them later - I would argue that this is really no different from having a script do it for you. SQLQuery me! 13:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@SQL: As I explained, I routinely check my edits post-save, no matter what tools are involved, or if it's a simple and entirely unassisted browser edit. It's a decades old habit, and it will likely never change, as it has served me well over the years. I consider not doing such checks to be a bit reckless. The 10 second pace is trivial to explain. I had it throttled to that rate to avoid creating excessive server and database load spikes, as well as to avoid me slipping into a blind rapid fire mode where something unintended would be more likely to slip through. The precise nature of the edits I was making meant that I could safely and reliably review and approve each pre-save diff in around 1–2 seconds (I was performing those diffs client-side, so no network round trip to add delay). For a more complex change, I would certainly take longer to approve each change. I actually spent a fair amount of time patiently waiting on the throttle timer (I only tabbed to the contribs window to spot check once every few edits, after queuing up a couple of saves. If I had run at roughly maximum rate (still with full manual approval, but without checking post-save diffs in parallel), I could have easily and safely completed the task in around 15 minutes (if the server accepted the changes at that rate). I most certainly was not "blindly" approving the changes, there was just very little time required to actually look at them with a highly experienced eye. If you look closely, you should see some gaps in the timing where I paused to take a drink or respond to something else, as I distinctly remember there being a number of points where I paused and the throttle timer had expired (some cases longer than others). I am more than capable of working solidly at a task without a break for longer than 38 minutes, when I have my tools properly setup and set myself about getting the job done.
I was simply trying to help out another editor (who asked for assistance on WP:HD) with an ad-hoc task which seemed uncontroversial, small scale, looked to have consensus clearly established through proper process and without objection for around 48 hours post-closure. I am now starting to sincerely regret offering assistance, and trying to contribute to clearing one of the many backlogs.
I have no interest in operating a fully automated process at this time. There is no specific process to approve, no trial to perform, as it was an ad-hoc assisted edit session. It was never my intention to run a fully automated process. If that changed, I would certainly seek prior approval.
Murph9000 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
So, then per the username policy, that account should be blocked, as it is unlikely to ever be a bot account? SQLQuery me! 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the OP means (per reply to my comment) that they thought it had to be "Bot" even for assisted editing, because assisted editing falls under BOTPOL too. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Throwing all the other odd coincidences out the window - the OP speaks as well of somehow 'throttling' their 'manual edits'. How exactly is this accomplished? Why does the 'editor' in question mark edits as 'Bot:'? What platform are we using to accomplish these 'manual edits'? SQLQuery me! 16:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no way an account could ever mark edits as bot edits if they don't carry the bot flag.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Unless they are in trial ;) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I find myself in the situation where I feel quite significantly offended and insulted by a combination of certain remarks made here; particularly those remarks which which basically indirectly accuse me of lying, and in a generally hostile and bad faith tone. Much of the conversation was kept perfectly reasonable, and I thank you for those portions of it. I do not see anything useful being achieved by trying to convince particular individuals who have clearly jumped to their own false conclusions and whose language leads me to believe that they are extremely unlikely to change their minds. I simply do not want any more stress from this, and it has already consumed an absurd amount of text over a successful good faith change which totalled 4,266 bytes. I apologise for anything I did that was wrong. My intentions were always to try to be fully transparent and stick to the published policies, which I believed I had done. I only ever intended to try to make a useful good faith contribution that was consistent with policies, guidelines, and consensus. As far as I am aware, the WP:ASSISTED edits I made were 100% successful, precise, and did what needed to be done without causing undue disruption. I will direct my efforts towards something else which does not cause me stress and offence, most likely outside the Wikimedia Foundation (that is not to say that I am retiring from WP, only that I'm scaling back my efforts, for a while at least). I have no desire to provide voluntary effort and assistance where it is not wanted. Murph9000 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks like I came here too late to change anyone's mind, but I was just going to say that you could easily rename the account to something like "Murph9000 (Assisted)" and be done with it. The edits do not look problematic. The sig-cleaning wouldn't be an appropriate bot task, of course, but as only 30 edits done using some (admittedly unspecified, but I'm going to guess pywikibot) assisted program is not worth fretting over. Seriously.

  • @SQL: I only see two edits marked as "Bot:", which looks to be an archive script; there's nothing against running that in your userspace. For the record, I spot-check my edits all the time—my bot's edits too—I don't see why anyone would contest that.
  • @Hellknowz: Cyberpower was referring to the bot RC flag, which wasn't involved here; i.e. the technical feature as opposed to putting the phrase "Bot:" in an edit summary. Of course, anyone can do the latter, but shouldn't outside of their userspace unless trialed/approved—which wasn't violated here.

— Earwig talk 19:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hellknowz and SQL: Who is "the OP"? Nobody contributing here seems to have those initials. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for confusion, I meant OP as in "operator", a shorthand I've gotten used to in BRFAs. (I realize it conflicts with "original poster".) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Being a global renamer, I can rename that account for you.—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)