Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotdeSki


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

BotdeSki
Operator: VanBrooken

Automatic and Manually assisted:

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: For en:wikipedia it will only be for interwiki. This Bot have already a botflag on fr:wikipedia. His principal purpose on fr:wikipedia is doing maintenance on winter sport project and some interwiki related to winter sport.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): On fr:wikipedia the bot run every two days.

Estimated number of pages affected: Firt task will be to correct bad interwiki between fr and en. After that, standart interwiki.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: For en, interwiki

Discussion
Please let this page know when the bot has completed the trial. @harej 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You approved it for a trial in 5 minutes without discussion? Why? -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  05:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If interwiki bots are going to be blanket approved, let's just alert bureaucrats to flag them, and not bother with posts and requests here. It takes the requests off my watch list, and certainly it will cut down on edit conflicts occuring while I'm trying to ask a question but the bot has already been approved. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  05:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trial withdrawn pending further investigation. @harej 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (nothing): your link to your French wiki webpage is not correct, can you please post a correct link? Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is: . -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  05:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct link to fr:wikipedia is fr:Utilisateur:VanBrooken. I thought the fr:wikipedia edits count. Do Should I add en:wikipedia on the next interwiki cycle of BotdeSki to show some edits ?. Salutations. --VanBrooken (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just wanted to see the French wikipedia edits. They look okay, it looks like you're communicating routinely with editors on fr.wiki, although you've only been using the bot for a short time. Task is appropriate. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  18:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct link to fr:wikipedia is fr:Utilisateur:VanBrooken. I thought the fr:wikipedia edits count. Do Should I add en:wikipedia on the next interwiki cycle of BotdeSki to show some edits ?. Salutations. --VanBrooken (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just wanted to see the French wikipedia edits. They look okay, it looks like you're communicating routinely with editors on fr.wiki, although you've only been using the bot for a short time. Task is appropriate. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  18:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just wanted to see the French wikipedia edits. They look okay, it looks like you're communicating routinely with editors on fr.wiki, although you've only been using the bot for a short time. Task is appropriate. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  18:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that interwiki bots, that already have a flag on another wiki, were indeed usually speedy trialled. Has this changed? A le_Jrb talk 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my impression as well.  MBisanz  talk 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the case is they are speedied without any discussion, then by all means, don't require them to post BRFA. I would like to see the community consensus for that. However, my impression was, from a prior interwiki bot that was denied last year, that BAG members actually looked at the contributions on the other wiki, and that approval was not guaranteed. If this is wrong, again, please link to community consensus, and then make it clear in the rules that BRFAs are not required. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, there are no problems, so I will approve it for trial now. @harej 00:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

--VanBrooken (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All looks to be fine. @harej 03:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.