Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jogersbot 6


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Jogersbot
Operator: Jogers (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: automatic

Programming Language(s): C#

Function Summary: sorts the AWB checkpage

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): daily

Edit rate requested: single edit on a daily basis

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

Function Details: I'd like to use Jogersbot to periodically sort the AWB checkpage so administrators don't have to bother to put a new name in alphabetical order every time which will make the process a bit easier :-) The page is protected so I will need sysop rights for this task. Jogers (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I agree with the task, just i dont know if you would get Sysop rights for the bot... Pages like that, should really have a whitelist for things like this - Extra users that can edit.. I dont know if this would have to be run on your account... Hmm.. Have to wait for input from others. Oh, and i dont AlphaSort manually you know ;) - i pasted the list in AWB, sort it, and fix one minor error it does :) Reedy Boy 16:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's almost guaranteed that you won't get sysop rights for this bot. Sorry.  The task requested is of very, very low importance.  From what I've seen, there's no procedure for getting sysop rights for bots either (though some possibilities have been entertained); bureaucrats have discussed it on BN before, so you might want to post a message there if you really want to go through with it.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.  :( — madman bum and angel 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and there's not going to be a whitelist either... various bugs have been filed in the past requesting similar features and they're just of such limited scope that the developers really aren't interested. The sysop bit does everything that's requested, and having an intermediate level of trust would create nothing but more bureaucracy and a level of redundancy. — madman bum and angel 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I use my regular account to do this automatically then? Jogers (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe so - Im sure there are users in the past that have run tasks on their main account (with SysOp rights) to edit protected pages. I think, as long as you complete a trial, there is no reason why not. Really only needs a quick trial as proof of concept/whatever - ... (I think thats all we need to do!) Reedy Boy 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here you go:       Jogers (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All looks fine. Just need someone like Mets501, Martinp23, xaosflux or ST47 or someone who can confirm the specifics related to running it on your account - I cant see with you doing it as such Reedy Boy 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for the BAG here. But as far as I've observed, if you're only performing menial tasks such as this, you'll be fine. But remember that sysops have been desysopped for running bot tasks on their primary accounts that have caused controversy. You'll be fine as long as you're careful and you heed complaints. :) — madman bum and angel 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh - Well, Jogers is part of the AWB dev team, and so i am (So he's not doing something unwanted/whatever). It looks neater being in A-Z, and seems to be the way its more-a-less always been done. And not having to stick the list in AWB, sort it, remove dupes, and copy back out, would be good. One edit a day, i suppose, isnt going to cause problems. ;) Reedy Boy 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine this task causing much controversy but thanks for the advice :-) Jogers (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

per discussion. — madman bum and angel 21:23, 23 September 2007 (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.