Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kolega2357-Bot

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

Denied.

Kolega2357-Bot edit

Operator: Kolega2357 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:49, Tuesday December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (Pywikipedia)

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Interwiki, Writing welcome new users etc...

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Interwiki, Writing welcome new users etc...

Discussion edit

(transcluding this for you) Have you read our policy on bots? I figure you might not have, since if you had read that and related pages you'd know that welcoming users is generally something that we don't do here. As for interwiki links, I'll leave that to the experts, but I'll note the additional issues surrounding interwikis at the moment, and in particular the need to update pywikipedia almost daily as a result. Is that something you're willing and able to do? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover: which namespaces do your bot will edit and which parameters do you use for the interwiki job? mabdul 14:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry, I'm not sure I agree entirely with transcluding this for Kolega2357, personally I always assume that the request isn't actually submitted until it is transcluded (like at WP:RfA, where users can prepare/make changes to their request before submitting it by transcluding). Besides, it appears that Kolega2357 is aware of the issues with this request (e.g. the welcoming users) as he made the request on 4 December, but the problems where explained on 24 December at User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_16#Kolega2357-Bot. Better to ask him on his talk page if he wants to revise this request based on that discussion with MBisanz and then submit it properly. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with RfA is not apt; there is no clock that starts ticking with BRfAs and many receive repeated revisions to their very core, unless with RfAs. Thus, I do not think there is any harm in transcluding it, allowing for centralised discussion (I do not stalk MBisanz's talk page). Kolega2357 seems to still have an interest in pursuing a BRFA anyway. Or would you like it archived Kolega? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Kolega, could you answer Jarry and let us know if you want to go forward? MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to leave this request on hold. Kolega has started other requests on other wikipedia's and I like to see that those are finished correctly before saying yes or no here. Carsrac (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if Kolega doesn't respond here, this request will be marked as expired and closed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Sorry, but you don't seem to have enough knowledge of Wikipedia and our bot policy, which is evident from you filing a non-compliant request and not responding here. Please don't be disheartened and come back when you gain more experience. Max Semenik (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.