Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteveBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

SteveBot (nee SteveCrossinBot)

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Steve Crossin (talk) (review)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming Language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Function Summary: Delivers project collaboration notices, project welcome templates, adds new articles to project categories, and delivering newsletters. It would also tag all articles in the ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:24 (TV series) with the {{24 Wikiproject|class=}} template, and would also be used to do cleanup of infoboxes, ie, ones that have had categories in them removed, or that are redundant, such as the |spouse field from the Template:Infobox 24 Character. All these tasks would be manually assisted. Additionally, I would use the bot account to aid with Wikipedia:ACC, as non-administrators cannot create more than 6 accounts in 24 hours, however a bot account can.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Whenever project notices need to be delivered. When I would create accounts at Wikipedia:ACC, logged in under the bot account, the edit period would vary.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details:

Discussion

I feel this is a bot, while it has a limited range of tasks, is still useful, and would also aid me at Wikipedia:ACC, an area that does get backlogged at times. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well i see no reason why this bot shouldn't run. And i don't really think many people can discuss this either. I may as well not have said anything but i would just like to give my support! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I really dont think that Wikipedia:ACC should be tied to a active bot as its not really a bot action. see the discussion on Wikipedia:BN β^{_{command 2}} 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Betacommand, I saw that, but might I note that was discussing an administrator getting a bot flag on an alternate account, purely for account creation? Non-admins still have the 6 account per 24 hour issue, where administrators don't. Additionally, this wouldn't be the bot's primary use, I just felt I should be honest that I'd also use the bot to help out with the ACC backlog. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have an issue with non-admins using a bot account to get around ACC restrictions. WODUP agreed to have his ACC bot indef blocked from editing to prevent confusion between username creation and an editing bot. And I did feel that ACC alternate account bots should be for existing admins only. As far as newsletter delivery and project tagging, I don't see an issue. MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree active bots should not be creating accounts. β^{_{command 2}} 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see all of your point. Striking that from the bot's task. I won't use the bot to create accounts. Period. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Noting that this bot won't be used for account creation, what do the Bot Approval Group members think of the actual functions of this bot? Could I get more opinion on this? Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• (not BAG) No issues from me with newsletters/WikiProject tagging, if you know what you're doing with AWB (which a trial should show). What do you plan on doing re. infobox cleanup?...aah, manually assisted. Why not just do that with your normal account then? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, doing this completely manually would be very time consuming. There are over 60 articles at the present time, all with infoboxes, and I feel that the infobox cleanup would be a lot easier to be done with a bot. I hope that helps answer the question. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's manually assisted, the only difference is the username that the edit is made as. Why not do it with your normal account, but still in AWB (you're AWB approved, right?)? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm AWB approved, I suppose I could use my regular account for infobox cleanup, it really could be done either way. I'm not really fussed to be honest. I'll leave it up to the BAG whether that task the bot can be approved to do, or if I'm to do it myself. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have no objections to the "actual bot tasks" (newsletter, tagging), but for the other task it's probably best to use your account (so you can start now!). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 10:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I completed the bot trial, the bot's edits are here. 50 exactly. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Ill just update the page and say that the bot has made 100/100 total trial edits now [1] I hope this bot gets approved =]. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated contributions, 100/100 are here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 Approved. - Bot will run with a flag. —Reedy 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reapproval

 Approved., task reapproved post unblock. —Reedy 08:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.