Commons:Bots/Requests/Giggabot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Giggabot[edit]

Operator: giggy (:O)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): AWB

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes please

Functions: This bot would make it easier for me to nominate/close mass deletion requests. See [1] for some closure, and [2] for some nomination. The latter was done using AWB anyway, the former could easily be done so (I just found DelReqHandler easier than clicking save every time, but with a bot you don't need that). I have prior experience; see w:User:Giggabot, also used by me for random AWB stuff. Cheers, giggy (:O) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • No objections based on AWB work. Giggy knows what he's doing. Still, be careful. We have enough DR-related bots that make little messes sometimes. - Rocket000 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll be extra careful just for you ;) giggy (:O) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      •  :) - Rocket000 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No objections per AWB contributions from User:Giggy account. --EugeneZelenko 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a little question so I understand better, you would use the bot account for closing mass kept DR using DelReqHandler, as here (no AWB)? But not the ones where the result would be "deleted" because it woulnd't have (and is not requested) the admin bit? Otherwise, Giggy is a competent admin and I have no objections. Patrícia msg 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hi Patrícia, thanks for commenting. You are correct, I only intend to use this for closing keep debates (and for nominating), so I'm not requesting a +sysop (I don't think you can do that with AWB, but that's another story that's not relevant here anyway). And yes, in the example you pointed to above, I didn't use AWB as I found it quicker without, but I would use the bot, with an edit summary and DR-closing-statement clearly explaining what's going on. giggy (:O) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No objections. Edit summs and changes look good. (Linking to the specific discussion noted, all bots should do that) If you think you want to widen scope a lot in future, please come see us again, ok? ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)