Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/dpkbot


 * 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.svgSymbol support vote.svg Speedily Approved.

dpkbot
Operator:

Time filed: 08:40, Saturday October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Interwiki links ( mlwikipedia <<==>> other wikipedia ), Main name space only

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N, flag @ mlwikipedia

Function details: Interwiki linking

Discussion

 * This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should quibble with a little manual testing of a non-abusive sock account that does not yet have a bot flag, though. Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Is this a sock account? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal presumption on the user's usage for sock account, from their context, would be under WP:SOCK for Bots. Albeit not the best way to label it.. + Crashdoom  Talk 10:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of how it should have been labeled, so I had to clarify. "Bot" is a legitimate alternate account, "sock" is a illegitimate alternate account. I don't really see any evidence of socking. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I think it's been mislabelled by the commenter, it seems the logical perspective for it if there isn't any evidence of socking, but that's only my take on it. You're right though, it is only them that can actually correctly clarify the comment. + Crashdoom  Talk 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Be aware that other functions of pywikipedia should be turned off when running this on the en: Wikipedia project. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Currently, the bot should be editing only within it's own or it's operator's namespace (per WP:BOTPOL). It does appear to be operating and linking correctly despite that though from going through it's contributions. Also, make sure you read WP:INTERWIKIBOT. + Crashdoom  Talk 09:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki bot, looks fine, non-controversial. Although in future please wait until you are approved before you start editing outside the user space. -- Chris 11:21, 13 October 2011 (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.