Steward requests/Bot status/2009-02

Thank you! Nikola 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your request sounds reasonable to me, unless I'm overlooking something! We usually let these sit a few days (I let them go a week) before approving them. ++Lar: t/c 07:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this isn't allowed according to Bot_policy#Global_bots. Multichill 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I am failing to see something; please tell us what part of the policy would be violated by grating global bot access to this bot? The bot already appears to be operating as a bot on multiple wikis by fixing interwiki links... Some category fixes as well, but I think that is fine so long as the policy of the host wiki is followed. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 18:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I guess he is refering to [2] ([3]) and the global bot policy demands, that "the bot must already be active on several wikis, with long-term contributions to back up its trustworthiness.", therefore I'd mark it as   Not done too, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I see - so all that is needed are some additional bot edits to other wikis? That seems reasonable. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 19:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not some, but how I understand the policy, with long-term contributions they should be quite a lot and going on for quite some time, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Global bots are only allowed to work on interwiki's and double redirects, see Bot_policy#Global_bots. Multichill 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I guess this thread can be archived as not done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, should I do this without the bot flag, or should I just leave all the links to rot? Nikola 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Status now updated. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interwicket is written specifically for the Wiktionaries. It does not have a lot of the overhead and server load of interwiki.py which was written for the wikipedia. The task on the wikts is simpler, as it only needs to match page titles, not attempt recursive translations with hints. en:wikt:User:Interwicket/code

Has been running for a long time on the en.wikt, with almost 500K edits. I added a function to add the reciprocal iwiki links on other wikts; and then a little birdy (that seems to be following me everywhere ;-) convinced me to add all of the links that it "knows" of, given its reading of the indexes and entries.

Has been tested on pl.wikt (which puts iwikis in the entry differently; and also does not always link to ru.wikt). Follows policy (or default) for links to redirects on all wikts; it does not add or remove links to redirects except where a policy of linking to them is affirmatively known (en, sw, 3 others tbc). Is paced, max aggregate (all wikts) edit rate controlled; uses server maxlag=2 (very conservative setting) backing off when the servers are lagged.

Present status on all wikts: en:wikt:User:Interwicket/FL status

Thank you! Robert Ullmann 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Edits on 9 wikis but 7 of those are not attached to the global account. Please attach as many of those as you can b/c a global bot flag will not help you with those until you do. I'd also like to see you successfully get bot access for the account on more than one wiki and have more edits in wikis other than the English Wiktionary. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please note that the toolserver is lagged 33+ days for most wikts (!). There are 110 accounts attached now; the bot reports its own status in en:wikt:User:Interwicket/FL status if you would kindly refer to that? It has bot flags for (en, et, lt, no, pt, simple, sv), ko approved (waiting for 7 days, 4 Feb), others in discussion. Robert Ullmann 08:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The global account has 0 unattached accounts (see centralauth), please don't rely on the toolservers, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 11:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. How about the other issues I mentioned? --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Asked same question on IRC and birdy and Thogo both agreed that granting access would be OK. Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • I won't be using my bot to add interwiki links to wiktionary pages. I was just testing out how it worked and made 2 edits to the English Wiktionary by mistake and wasn't able to revert it in time before I got blocked. Sorry for the confusion about this. Furthermore, unlike other people, I cannot run my bot constantly as it takes away from my ability to quickly edit pages and because I cannot run my computer all the time as I cannot leave the computer on all the time. Also, my bot is not hosted on the toolserver, so it can't run 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Another point I would like to mention is that I was completely inactive on all Wikipedias for a period of 2 months between March and May 2008 and August and December of 2008, so therefore, I think that 7,200 edits is a decent amount in that period of time with all of the constrictions that are placed against me. I would try to fix the block on the English Wiktionary, however, I would rather let that block stand as I have already told the blocking administrator that I have no plans or intentions of running my bot on that Wiktionary again. Cheers, Razorflame 03:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The block on the English wiktionary was because the interwiki.py bot usually does not link to redirects, while en.wikt policy is to link to them; it is possible to run it with options that work (VolkovBot does this), but I'm not sure what they are. So when iwiki bots turn up (testing is good!) they tend to get blocked quickly. The block does not reflect on the bot operator. In particular, it is not an issue here. (I am the runner of the en.wikt interwiki bot.) Robert Ullmann 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Could other Stewards comment? I'm inclined to grant the request but this seems borderline per Laaknor's comment. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm also inclined to grant the request.--Jusjih 01:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposing the request, but I think the policy should be more clear on this matter, and what "long term contribs" mean. Laaknor 08:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd tend to agree with Laaknor, but he can apply later again. I am quite surprised by the block-options for the bot in the block in en.wikt. why was he blocked like that, they should please uncheck the first two options for non vandals, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 10:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you are reading too much into it; I don't know what EP (blocking admin) was thinking exactly, but I would not have bothered unchecking them either: neither will have any effect on the bot runner. It isn't likely that the bot account will be trying to create another account, and the IP autoblock won't affect the runner with an established login. Since this is some kind of issue that it shouldn't be, block removed. (understanding that it shouldn't be run on en.wikt, but runner knows that) Robert Ullmann 09:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I am not reading anything into anything, I was just saying the block options were incorrect, there is a reason why they exist, and to say that he will not create an account anyway or will not choose to edit there as anon is a bit arrogant imho. He should be free to choose himself to create as many accounts as he likes (if he does not abuse them) or edit as anon whenever he wishes, which is why I was surprised by such block-practice - no offence. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Birdy clarified on IRC that the statement above is an oppose. I'd like others to comment b/c this looks like a borderline case. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'd wait for a while... just for cross-edits amount--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks all for adding in your comments on this situation. I will be able to run my bot for long periods of time in a couple of weeks because I am getting my own labtop computer, which I will be able to run for long periods of time while I am in bed because I will be able to leave it on overnight. I should get the laptop sometime within the next 10-15 days (the latest I will have it will be the 17th of February. Until then, I can't run the bot because it takes away from my ability to edit the many Wikimedia Wikis that I edit. Cheers, Razorflame 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  Is it OK if you reapply sometime after you restart the bot? I don't think we will be able to reach consensus until we see more data. -- Daniel Mayer (mav) 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with other stewards that I'd like to see more edits and a clearer understanding of context before being comfortable with granting the global flag. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  OK - now marked as not done. I encourage Razorflame to reapply once the bot has more edits and time. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Ghaly 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is up with the SUL util, but everything else seems to check out; plenty of edits, local bot flags & time for me. Wait a few more days for others to comment. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks very much , the bot has eleven flags now , looking forward to your approval.--Ghaly 10:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Masti 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Masti, to me it seems that Your bot does not yet meet the requirements as not being active over many wikis for some time (besides creating userpages on many wikis), so I would say not yet atm. Other opinions welcome as always. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

formally speaking You both are right. The bot has a flag on wikis: pl, es, ss, als, szl, pl.wiktionary, pl,wikibooks etc. all togther 242k edits. If you need some edits on any wiki no problem. It;s a standard pywikibot. I can do it. The reason I have not done it before is simple. Do not want to clutter OZ on small wikis Masti 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this requirement is not only to get to know the operators trustworthyness (because we can't possibly know every editor; I know You are trustworthy though, Masti ;) ), but also only if the bot is used in a lots of wikis it makes sense to have a global botflag (imho). Please note, that also with global botflag You will have to respect and fulfill the local wikis requirements for running there.

Since Mav and You seem to agree I mark this as not done now, but You can request this again of course when Your bot spreads to other projects. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK :) Masti 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the last time that I requested the global bot flag, my bot has made more than 10,000 more edits. See the contributions for Darkicebot on en.wikipedia, de.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, it.wikipedia, nl.wikipedia, pl.wikipedia, pt.wikipedia, simple.wikipedia, and several other wikipedias for the complete edit count. The SUL utility tool says that my bot has only made 13,900 edits, but this is actually incorrect. I've made closer to around 30-35,000 edits now. I currently have bot flags on simple, it, es, fr, az, en, de, pt, bs, vec, ca, sv, vo, uk, ru, az, ar, ku, he, nl, hu, fi, eo, sk, ja, gl, vi, zh, pl, oc, id, an, jv, sr, cy, lb, io, ht, mr, mt, am, ro, et, bn, dv, and gl wikipedias, with many more pending. I believe that I would be able to benefit the other wikipedias more if my bot were global bot flag approved instead of having to go to each page and making an individual bot request there. Darkicebot is an interwiki bot only and has been approved on some of the biggest Wikipedias, including en, fr, es, et, it, ro, ru, ja, and many others. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 07:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Pathoschild 23:58:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Roggy 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Local request was made a few weeks ago and nobody has commented either way. Only account edits to wiki are in the last few days and there are not many of those for a bot. Bot on two wikis but not that many edits to any wiki, so global seems out of the question. I don't think this request is ready ; more edits are needed over a longer period to prove effective bot code and execution, IMO. I'm inclined to deny request but will wait for input from other Stewards. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a smaller wiki and the bot owner runs from ru.wikt, which is why the bot simply can't have much traffic, the bot works well, but I would like to wait at least one week of activity or for ~100 contributions before granting it, but generally would not deny this request, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 11:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Will wait a week. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More 100 edits - done. About 1 week is passed. --Roggy 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(no local 'crat) Thank you! Robert Ullmann 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This wiki subscribes to automatic approval of interwiki bots, I have completed over 100 edits so I now qualify. I already have flags on als, an, ar, ba, be, en, eo, es, fr, he, io, it, ru, simple, sw, vec, vo, zh, zh-yue, zu. Djsasso 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. All seemed to check out. Been a couple days since bot edits made and no apparent reverts of them. The edits themselves also look legit. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This wiki subscribes to automatic approval of interwiki bots, I have completed over 100 edits so I now qualify. I already have flags on als, an, ar, ba, be, en, eo, es, fr, he, io, it, ru, simple, sw, vec, vo, zh, zh-yue, zu. Djsasso 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Same as above. This Wiki has a bot quota, so you will need to apply for registration. Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a standard pywikipedia bot running locally. We're using it as a welcomebot and for cat cleanups. We've no local 'crats, unfortunately, but have standardized bot policy implemented, including auto-approval for certain bots. Community is sparse, unfortunately. This bot has already been perfoming these functions for some time on ga.wikpedia and ga.wiktionary and I've just localized it for Manx. Trials have already been successfully completed and the local request has been live a week now -Gura mie ayd!! / Thank you!! - Alison ^❤ 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done.--Jusjih 03:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!! - Alison ^❤ 06:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Artomo, who seems to be the major contributor (;-) has approved.

Thank you! Robert Ullmann 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No local discussion other than request, are (we) in the wrong place requesting on that page in ru.wikt? Should we ask someone specific? In any case, request posted 7 days ago, 191 edits; in compliance AFAIK with ru (and pl) policy. ru.wikt does have a 'crat, but no activity since December. What do you think? Robert Ullmann 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I send the local bureaucrat an email, I think he will respond to that (I believe he did in the past or on requests on his talkpage). Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Interwicket changed its status report to "bot" for ru.wikt about 40 minutes ago, so he got your email. (The bot reads its own user status with the API, just in case that bit of magic wasn't clear.) So this can be closed as done, thanks! Robert Ullmann 13:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, closing this as   done locally, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 17:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks in advance, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one vote so far... I'd personally like to wait a few more days. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not care, but note that this is most likely all there will (compare with the other votes), the request is open for >7 days, so I opened this request to relieve them in the rc. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done. I see no controversial bot edits. The community is too small.--Jusjih 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this Wikipedia has any local bureaucrats, and there is no bot page that I can tell. Darkicebot has already made at least 50 edits to this Wikipedia, if not more. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Local bureaucrat has granted flag. Cheers, Razorflame 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat on my request since January of this year. Darkicebot has made more than 50 edits on the Wikipedia. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 03:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that "prohibition to request bot status to steward" is proposed.--Kwj2772 (論) 04:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll close this as not done then. Sorry to bother you! Cheers, Razorflame 04:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this Wikipedia has any local bureaucrats, and there is no bot page that I can tell. Darkicebot has already made at least 50 edits to this Wikipedia, if not more. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have no desire to have my bot run on this project anymore. Razorflame 06:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this Wikipedia has any local bureaucrats, and there is no bot page that I can tell. Darkicebot has already made at least 50 edits to this Wikipedia, if not more. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Done by a local bureaucrat. Cheers, Razorflame 19:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No burocrats. Thank you! Roggy 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, (please avoid interwikilinking in the usernamespace though, only for Yourself and users who ask You to), best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the 31st of January. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Darkicebot has made at least 50 edits on this Wikipedia and maintains only interwiki links. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done, the bureaucrat has just edited today, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the 31st of December, 2008. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Darkicebot has made at least 50 edits on this Wikipedia and maintains only interwiki links. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 03:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done, there are two local crats, and one of them edited today, the other one a short while ago, please contact them locally, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the 31st of December, 2008. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Darkicebot has made at least 50 edits on this Wikipedia and maintains only interwiki links. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 03:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of local bureaucrats, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the 11th of January, 2009. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Darkicebot has made at least 300 edits on this Wikipedia and maintains only interwiki links. Thank you for your time! This Wikipedia also has automatic approval allowed. Razorflame 07:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the December 31, 2008. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Darkicebot has made at least 200 edits on this Wikipedia and maintains only interwiki links. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 19:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, no objections for a long time and interwikibot only. Note that they don't have any local bureaucrats (even no inactive ones :) )

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the Januar 9, 2009. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Thank you! Roggy 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please don't rely on the toolservers, only editcounts locally, the local bureaucrat is active, please contact him (he is very kind), best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No any admin (sisop). I made more 100 edits. Thank you! Roggy 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please open a local request, e.g. at wikt:az:Wiktionary:Bots, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Request is done. --Roggy 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No community input yet. Let's wait a few more days to a week to see what happens at the local wiki. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I put the date in the status :) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Best wish.--Jusjih 02:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncontroversial interwikibot in Wiktionaries. Opening for 17.2. Many thanks in advance, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done.--Jusjih 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request made 13 days ago, no response? Only one active editor on the wikt in 30 days. Robert Ullmann 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request open for 9 days. (Piolinfax) Robert Ullmann 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request open for 9 days. (Piolinfax) Robert Ullmann 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request open for 9 days. (Piolinfax) Robert Ullmann 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no crats on this wiki. Thank you! Best regards,  Mercy (☎|✍) 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no crats on this wiki. Thank you! Best regards,  Mercy (☎|✍) 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no active crats on this wiki. Thank you! Best regards,  Mercy (☎|✍) 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Local crats are inactive and I could not find recent activity of them in es.wiki either, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this Wikipedia has any local bureaucrats, and there is no bot page that I can tell. Darkicebot has already made at least 50 edits to this Wikipedia, if not more. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No local request, no status, please open a local request first, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

They don't have a local request page that I am aware of. Thanks, Razorflame 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, then You can notify them either at their village pump, with a little clicking around would be mt:Wikipedija:Pjazza or at the page where mt:special:listbots links to. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Can be found at the first link you gave me. Cheers, Razorflame 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the bot requests page to be at mt:Wikipedija:Politika tal-bots/Rikjesti għall-approvazzjoni. I added it to the list at the top of this page. Cheers, Malafaya 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malafaya! I've made a request at mt:Wikipedija:Politika_tal-bots/Rikjesti_għall-approvazzjoni#Darkicebot. Cheers, Razorflame 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  granted locally, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This wiki subscribes to automatic approval of interwiki bots, I have completed over 100 edits and have been editing for over a week. I already have flags on als, an, ar, ast, ba, be, ca, cs, de, en, eo, es, fr, he, ig, io, it, ja, nl, ru, sah, simple, sw, vec, vo, wuu, yo, zh, zh-min-nan, zh-yue, zu. -Djsasso 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done --Thogo (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Malafaya 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard bot policy proposed. Malafaya 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one vote other than your own so far and local request hasn't been up for more than a couple days. I'd like to wait for more community input before we set the bot flag. I'll check back in a few days to a week. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

done, per local voting (and now policy it seems) :) best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the December 31, 2008. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Darkicebot has made at least 200 edits on this Wikipedia and maintains only interwiki links. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some problem with the bots editsummaries, also there are not yet >100 edits, please make a few more to show that the problem had been fixed, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This was already fixed and the bot has already made several more edits that shows that the bot's edit summaries have been fixed. Thanks, Razorflame 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As also said, the bot has not yet >100 edits or edits for 1 week (he edits for three days now) and thus I also asked for more edits because of this, please if something is asked of You don't take that as disturbance, but only as help how to fulfill the policy. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I didn't take that as a disturbance. I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I currently have my bot running, so it should finish making the 100+ edits shortly. Cheers, Razorflame 23:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please mark this request as not done. I will rerequest when I have made the required edits. Thanks, Razorflame 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, (bot fulfilled the requirements today), best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Robert Ullmann 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of 'crat status here, and the approval process; others have been marked "approved" and then flagged by stewards. Robert Ullmann 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

done, local crat inactive for ages, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This request pending 5 days so far, I've have a request on my talk page to get it a bot flag as it shows up in RC, and that is still in test mode; several users have been busy adding new entries and there are lots of iwikis to add (;-) Robert Ullmann 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No action from a bureaucrat since the 31st of December, 2008. Not sure if there are any active bureaucrats on the project. Darkicebot has made at least 50 edits on this Wikipedia and maintains only interwiki links. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per standard bot policy and automatic approval, to which this wiki is suscribed, the bot must either edit for at least one week or have >100 edits, since it fullfills neither, please let us know when it does. Please only open requests when the bot fulfills the requirements, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There are still no edits. Any report on progress there? --Thogo (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, still working on it. Please mark this request as not done, and I'll re-request it when it has made the required edits. Thanks, Razorflame 00:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no local bureaucrat. I would like to approve the bot, but more demonstrating edits without bot flag is desired. With the block log, please be careful not to use unauthorized bots next time, or the recent edit page will be heavily flooded.--Jusjih 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

He has global bot status now and since oswikipedia allows global bots, this request doesn't really matter. -Djsasso 04:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now marked as not done due to account now being a global bot and wiki subscribes to standard bot policy. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request bot status on the mg.wikipedia. They do not have any active bureaucrats that I know of. Thank you for your time! Razorflame 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per standard bot policy and automatic approval, to which this wiki is suscribed, the bot must either edit for at least one week or have >100 edits, since it fullfills neither, please let us know when it does. Please only open requests when the bot fulfills the requirements, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please mark this request as not done. I will rerequest when I have made the required edits. Thanks, Razorflame 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

done, fulfilled the requirements now, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 07:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- Just adding this here in advance - it's not due for another 6 days per standardized bot policy. It looks like the local request was made yesterday, and there is currently no local 'crat. Right now, the bot is a little flood-ish of recentchanges but we'll see how it goes! Maith agaibh! - Alison ^❤ 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alison, since ga.wikty suscribes to the standard bot policy we can give the botstatus as soon as he has made 100 edits, if we don't see it in time, just give us an up here as soon as that is done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 11:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 07:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maith agat arís, Birdy :) - Alison ^❤ 07:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Robert Ullmann 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an email to the local crat, he seems semiactive, giving him one week time to respond, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Had been done locally [4] :) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This a good bot in others wikis as well, it was working according to this settings from toolserver , and the sysop who blocked it is taking a month off, many thanks for your help.--Ghaly 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the list of wiki's that accept global bots wuu is not one. Global bots are not ok on every wiki. I believe the tool you are referring to shows you as a global bot so it will list that you are a global bot for every wiki, however you still have to check the list of which wiki's allow global bots. -Djsasso 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have stopped the bot from working on wuu till I get a wuu bot flag, would you mind unblocking it , please.--Ghaly 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the bot looks not blocked to me: [5], best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it is [6], fixed the username in the request template above now. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Would you mind unblocking it , please.I have stopped the bot from working on wuu till I get a wuu bot flag--Ghaly 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, see [7], I find it confusing that they blocked it at all, because how should it fulfill Bot_policy#Automatic_approval if blocked :S

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

this bot was blocked because there was no contacts. Since the user page je Ok, thanks for the unblocking.

please don't grant the bot flag, it will be managed locally (bot can run on wuu with no flag since they have a user page)

regard

Hercule 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will close the discussion per bureaucrat's request.--Kwj2772 (論) 23:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no active bureaucrats on this project and Darkicebot has made over 400 edits to this Wikipedia. Thanks, Razorflame 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A link to the discussion is still needed. We can only abide by community consensus here. Thus you need to ask the community first. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is done usually on their version of Simple Talk or Village Pump etc if you cannot find a bot request page since I noticed you mentioned you could't find request locations on another request you made. -Djsasso 14:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have linked to the local request made at their version of Village pump. Thanks, Razorflame 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No opposition so far and it looks like other bot requests on that page were granted without the community taking interest either way. So let's wait a couple more days to give the community time to comment if they want. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

done, local crats inactive (contribs&logs) since more than half a year, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Roggy 08:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Under automatic approval policy; this wikt does not permit global bots (as you can see). Robert Ullmann 00:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This a good bot in others wikis, and it's good in here. Thanks ;)--Bengoa (My user talk) 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Two votes for so far. Let's wait a few more days to let others comment. But so far so good. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

done, one week passed, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 03:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are still some bots waiting on li.wikisource. There is no bureaucrat and even no admin.

Thank you! OosWesThoesBes 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There are still some bots waiting on li.wikisource. There is no bureaucrat and even no admin.

Thank you! OosWesThoesBes 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Very long backlog there is so surprising while the community is so small.--Jusjih 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) --OosWesThoesBes 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There are still some bots waiting on li.wikisource. There is no bureaucrat and even no admin.

Thank you! OosWesThoesBes 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, these bots have 0 contributions (except one bot added some interwikilinks to his userpage) since they registered in May 2008, I find it a bit strange to request botstatus for clearly inactive users :S --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can't speak for the two other bots. But I was planning to do some categorial work and fix some things up with OwtbBot, but I didn't want to make a mess of the recent changes page, so I waited. --OosWesThoesBes 18:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello OosWesThoesBes, I have flaged Your bot as bot, but not the other two, I feel a bit uncomfortable with flagging bots that have not shown any contributions, but then there were some local votes for them, if You still think they should be flagged and have an eye on them, let me know, otherwise I would say rerequest if they become active (there should be no waiting time then, since there are already local requests), best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust the operator (user White Cat) and I often show bots in Recent Changes. Also because the other bot (Alexbot) has been flagged, I think it's better to flag WOPR as well. --OosWesThoesBes 08:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello the user got renamed to q:li:User:タチコマ robot, therefore granted q:li:User:タチコマ robot botstatus not q:li:User:WOPR, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you :) --OosWesThoesBes 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No answers for 2 weeks. The only 'crat is inactive since October 2008. Thank you! Rubin16 09:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote the local crat an email because there are a bunch of requests waiting, 1 week, if he does not respond we can flag the bot(s) from meta, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 09:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it seems we crossed... I have already granted this request, as well as the others as far as they had been dated. - Andre Engels 09:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, if he disagrees with the botstatus of any of these, he can remove them locally again, or maybe he does not have the time to get to them anyway, so this is ok, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to remove status per discussion at ig:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_for_removal. This wiki has a bot quota and the bots are idle and the discussion has sat with supports and no objections to removal since July. Admin is not very active on wiki so has not made the needed request here for removal so I am doing so. -Djsasso 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and this particular Bot operator has said its fine to remove his status here. -Djsasso 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to remove status per discussion at ig:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_for_removal. This wiki has a bot quota and the bots are idle and the discussion has sat with supports and no objections to removal since July. Admin is not very active on wiki so has not made the needed request here for removal so I am doing so. -Djsasso 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Kwj2772 (論) 07:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The original request for bot status appears to have followed standard bot policy. Unless there is a community consensus to remove bot status for this bot, then I don't think we can do so. The bot has been inactive for 2 months, so I suggest to wait another 4 months to see if the bot has been inactive for the required 6 months before it is de-botted. Of course, community consensus can be used in the meantime to de-bot. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's his bot. -Djsasso 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

EC'd. I'd think owner-request is a good reason. Kylu 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I missed that part. Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 23:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

ig:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kwjbot wiktionary:io:Wikivortaro:Komuneso-portalo#Uzanto:Interwicket wiktionary:iu:Wiktionary:Bots#User:RoggBot (contributions) sr:Корисник:НСБот