Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WoodwardBot


 * 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 keep vote.svg Approved.

Whip, dip, and slide
Operator: MZMcBride (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Overview: Updates only two (related) reports: Database reports/Broken redirects and Database reports/Orphaned talk pages.

Edit period(s): Daily for broken redirects; twice weekly for orphaned talk pages.

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

Function Details: The source code for brokenredirects.py is available here. The source code for orphanedtalks.py is available here.

Both contain a delete parameter that is set to false. If set to true, it would not output the affected rows and would instead delete the pages before posting the report to the wiki.

However, this request is not for an adminbot. This request is split off from my previous request in the case of wanting to file a future request to have this bot also delete the pages. However, that would not happen without a subsequent BRFA.

Discussion
Looks ok to me, will wait a day or two for comment.  MBisanz  talk 07:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Per, Bot policy, must make the nature of the account clear by incorporating the word "bot". Is there a reason not to apply that here? [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 08:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the better question is whether or not there is a reason to apply it here. I'm more than happy to clearly identify the account as a bot account on its user page (and if requested, in the edit summaries as well). However, a little creative license with regard to user names seems perfectly acceptable to me. For all of the serious issues discussed and debated here, I think it's important to remember that this is supposed to be a hobby, so being entitled to a little harmless fun seems reasonable. Your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be very much inclined to agree with you, for my part, so long as it is abundently clear that the edits are bot edits. My own habit is to include a link to the BRFA in the edit summary (e.g. BOT ).   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 09:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is "Whip, dip, and slide bot" really less creative? Especially if you can come up with a good explanation of how "Whip, dip, and slide" describes what the bot does. ;) Anomie⚔ 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, substantially less creative. And, obviously the bot whips (gathers?), dips (checks each of them?), and slides (posts to the wiki?) broken redirects and orphaned talk pages. Or something. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the better question is whether or not there is a reason to apply it here. I think the reason is because it is policy.  Aren't policies typically followed unless there is a reason not to?  I would suggest that if possible, the bot use "bot" in its name.--Rockfang (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Completely ignoring the naming debate above). Here's your 'official' trial approval: . —  xaosflux  Talk  02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot's name should be taken under consideration for final approval or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Xaos MZMcBride, is this producing what you expected? Are you happy with the results so far? – Quadell (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Working as expected. Quite happy with the results. I made a minor tweak to some of the language used, per user request. I'm all set. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's working great. – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 24 April 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.