Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/TTObot

1171:

nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written. –xenotalk 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)" Then let's allow the community to write the policy, before a bot is created and approved to implement it. This is more in line with long stated community workings on wikipedia, rather than requesting approval and granting trials for an ever expanding ill-defined task where the bot operator pre-dismissed community input. ("The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.")

708: 598:. It is not approval, it's a check of technical implementation. That's why the BRFA is still open, I have no intention of closing it quickly and the operator can start a wider discussion. A trial does not prevent discussion, in fact in majority of cases most discussion takes place after a trial as that tends to invite broader input. I haven't even posted the issues I can see yet, like subst'ed template pages needing <noinclude: --> 1612: 440:

post links to pages that show that this task is something that either does not require any community discussion or approval, or links to pages that show this task is such a no-brainer that a 4 minute approval for a trial is reasonable? I don't think that any sort of bot mass tagging for deletion of anything has broad community approval. But I could be wrong, so please help me out by posting links. Thanks, --

2158: 393: 48: 2054:

template to document the nomination. The operator added both of those functions. These haven't been added to the overview yet, but that just came up as a concern in the last few hours. If the main objection is a discussion showing some people's vague discomfort with large nominations in an area that the bot isn't even expected to cover, then I would think it should be approved. --

1170:

And the new guise demands community participation, as it appears, also, that the community guidelines for this task have not yet been written. "Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass

947:

in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations." It doesn't say after someone initiates the discussion, but "following mass XfD nominations" in the functions overview, and it says "when mass nominations are being carried out in the details." Maybe you could provide me with an example of an XfD that

714:

Anyway, folks, the trial is over. 42 taggings were made (I couldn't quite fill up exactly 50). 23 of those have already been deleted, as the author ended up approving of their deletion. I also made 2 edits to the bot account's personal CSS and JS, while logged in as TTObot (since I am not an admin, I

278:

that interested members of the community are made aware of impending deletion of a given page, and of any discussions that are taking place to that effect. For the XfD processes, this is done by way of tagging each page being considered for deletion with a particular template (in order to give notice

1907:

and links posted by Xeno, it seems the bot is destined for more than simple template deletions, namely, it is also intended for AfDs. I think the AfD community will be interested, and failure to notify the wikipedia community is reason enough to put a halt to this BRfA. Again, if the guidelines need

1502:

Without expressing an approval or disapproval of this bot process, I must point out that "a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep"" is a necessity before full implementation. If say 700 templates are tagged and then the templates are kept,

911:

It's clear to me that this bot is meant to run after someone (maybe the operator, maybe someone else) initiates an (batch/mass/group) XfD to tag the pages that are to be discussed. Do you object to pages that are nominated for deletion having a tag placed on them pointing to the deletion discussion?

1992:

That discussion is about whether or not bundled deletion nominations are a good idea, and/or if they are not often being used correctly. There is no discussion (which I'm aware of) where editors are saying that every article in a bundled nomination shouldn't be tagged with a clear notice that it's

1166:

this bot task. It appears to have morphed into something completely different from what was originally requested. ("It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks," versus adding

1051:

is labeled), just occasional lapses in practice. Sometimes a nomination with a large number of pages will not have all the pages tagged, and most often the result is people in the XFD complaining about that fact that they aren't all tagged. So I would say tagging all the pages in your nomination is

2053:

The bot operator has been very responsive to the legitimate issues. There was a concern about the potential usage being too non-specific, so the operator clarified it. There was a request that if it tagged, it should de-tag. There was a request that if it de-tagged, could it also add the talk page

1101:

This bot is not a current request for approval; according to the BRfA board, this request for approval is not current. So, has it already been passed? The discussion dead and over? That appears to be the case. And, the reason this bot is no longer up for discussion is that 4 minutes after the BRfA

2035:

That discussion is inconclusive at best. Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of large nominations, but there are also examples given where they would be reasonable. The proposed bot usage isn't for AFD nominations anyway. As to policy, editors will object if a nomination is too broad or

816:

It is my understanding that the bot's purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated for deletion. Prior to this bot, sometimes pages would be mass nominated but not actually tagged for deletion, because it is such a tedious task to do so - this bot seeks to remedy that. Not to mass tag

439:

You didn't notify anyone or discuss this with anyone other than one admin? And you got approval for a trial in 4 minutes? Who's your buddy! I would like a detailed explanation of why this bot task should go to trial approval immediately, without any prior discussion in the community. Can you just

492:

Showing that TfD discussions are dismissed when templates have not been tagged for deletion is not a community discussion about the need for a bot to tag templates for deletion. JPG-GR's comment that there "may be an automated" way to tag this many templates for deletion is not a community bot

637:

72.201.210.130: First, you are obviously quite familiar with Knowledge. What is your account, or what IP addresses have you edited from in the past if you are one of those who refuses to register an account? And second, do you have any actual objection to this request, or are you just here to

1968:

etc. These templates notify anyone who visits the page that it has been nominated for deletion, and provides a link to the deletion discussion page. If you are nominating multiple articles for deletion, then it logically follows that you will add the appropriate tag to each article you are

1174:

This task should be discussed first, by the community; relevant policies/guidelines written, then approval for a defined task requested rather than trying an end run around writing guidelines by implementing a bot that does what some person wants without prior community input/discussion.

349:

The script makes a large volume of edits using the edit API, one after the other, with a 4-second delay between the last server response for one page and the first server request for the next page. (This throttling is not implemented yet, but this would occur prior to the bot's first

360:

This bot is not exclusion compliant because (a) the bot performs a simple, reliable task that only adds to the page content, and does not modify any existing content; and (b) the bot will most likely not operate in userspace (the place for which the exclusion system is intended). —

1861:

Also, others in the discussion asked the operator to add the tag removal and Tfdend functions after the bot request was first made, as shown in the comments above. It would make sense for the overview to be updated based on the latest version of what the bot is supposed to do.

963: 282:

However, when mass nominations are being carried out, it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes impractical.

791:

Bot finished the trial and no further edits are approved. This discussion will not be closed until the issues are adequately resolved. As a side issue, it is a good point that trial/trialed bots do not have their discussions transcluded. I'll bring this up on the

892:

It is not clearly explained in the function details anywhere that this is only about pages that have already been mass nominated until you added this. Please make sure the bot operator understands, because it does not appear that this was his/her intentions:

838:

It's not clear the the purpose is to tag pages that have already been nominated. It's not taking the pages for tagging from a list or category or anything that indicates these are pages that were already nominated. This was it's initial function, "Tag pages

2107:: BRFAs like this aren't a place for the discussion of consensus on underlying wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this instance, there is firm consensus that multi-page nominations are clearly in-line with policy, and have been performed numerous times. 2078:

describes how bundled nominations should be done. They are commonplace. To suggest that they're not valid because they're not explicitly listed on a policy page (or to suggest that they're not valid on TfD's because they're not specifically mentioned on

1969:

nominating. If you are nominating 500 pages for deletion at once, you can either go through and spend 3 hours manually adding these tags to each article, or you can talk to this bot owner who has been nice enough to write a bit of code to help you out."

1993:

being considered for deletion. If bundled deletions eventually get outlawed (quite unlikely), then this bot script will have no more use. However, until that time, there is no policy which prevents this bot from performing its stated function.

1849:

It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks. I think that would be clear to anyone remotely familiar with the process.

621:"). Whether this board routinely gets community input or not, please act as if it matters; going forward with a trial without allowing time for community input is disrespectful of the community. Not all bots are solely about technical issues. -- 455:

Well, I didn't approve it within 4 minutes... You should probably ask H3llkn0wz - he clearly thought it was worthy of approval. In my view, it is just a way of following process - I would certainly prefer not to do it, but it seems that the

642:"? Do note that this request is for a bot to tag templates for deletion that a human has already decided to nominate; it will not nominate anything itself, and will not tag anything without being specifically told to by the operator. 336:. It will run as needed by me, and as requested by other users. The script does what it is told, and does not edit without user permission (i.e. clicking the "Submit" button), so the operator is entirely responsible for any mistakes. 1572:

Probably it could only be trialed with mocked up test pages, unless there happened to be a large TFD that resulted in "keep" around the time testing was needed. One additional note: It would be nice if, in addition to removing the

1028:

Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written.

519:

We shall see what happens. However, I note your suggestion that I "try the automated editing thing". That is precisely what this task is - an account specifically for automated editing, not your average "bot". I asked at

1692: 1503:

that's a LOT of work (just like tagging 700 templates is a lot of work). The likelihood of a particular TfD being closed with that much baggage and cleaned up properly without a bot is relatively small, I would think.

796:. May I also suggest we make a separate heading for the issues related to the task itself (as opposed to process/trialling), as it is my experience this will quicken the discussion and make outside input likelier. — 1688: 1214:, to allow the notification tag to appear on pages where the nominated templates appear without being too prominent or breaking page layouts. Will the bot be able to place those parameters when appropriate? 1421:

Note that deletions are high-tension venues, so you should specify exactly which namespaces/templates the bot will work with and under what circumstances. For any additional ones, you can drop a note at

902:

it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes

1317:

Those are all pretty much what I thought the answers would be. I believe the redirect situation will need to be addressed, however. If you just want to delete the redirect, then it should be listed at

1589:

to the talk pages. I wouldn't see it as a showstopper if it can't, but if we're going to facilitate making mass nominations, we should try to facilitate as much of the closing as we reasonably can. --

654:

Is there some rule that RfBA does not allow IP input? Please provide I link, and I will then comply with your shut up demand. See my actual objection below. I did read what the request was for. --

1286:

If creators are to be notified. I will do so manually myself. (The script outputs a list of all initial contributors of the templates it tags, whom I can subsequently notify manually.)

2004:

If it's not even decided that bundled deletion nominations are approved by the community, then it can't be decided that using a bot to make them is appropriate and should be approved.

1144:

to be not listed, then do comment on the proposal to "list" all the BRFAs, pre-trial and post-trial. And how can you claim the discussion is dead if two users have asked questions? —

1735:

examples appeared to be adding it where the talk page did not exist previously, as opposed to a talk page that already had other content. Given that you've shown the bot can add the

1908:

changed, Xeno, change them, then create a bot to implement the changed guidelines. This end run around community policies is nothing that bots were ever intended for on wikipedia.

1044: 469: 461: 2219: 505:

And, I request the bot approval for a trial only be granted after the RfBA has been posted for long enough for community members to comment here. 4 minutes is not long enough. --

1217:

Alternatively, sometimes it will be best to wrap the notification with 'noinclude' tags. Will the bot be able to do this in the (relatively rare) cases where it is appropriate?

1234:

In theory this seems like a reasonable use of a bot, but I think all the questions above deserve consideration first, and I didn't see those situations in the trial edits. --

735:

Edits look fine. As usual, leaving the BRFA open for a week or more for more input. Personally, I'll probably recuse myself from closing this for the sake of bureaucracy. —

1289:

Redirects are not followed (hence, the redirect would be tagged - I might need to look into this case); protected templates are necessarily skipped (it's not an adminbot!).

1348:)". Are there other tags or categories of tags that might need to be added that we can explicitly list here, to narrow the scope of this request to a limited set of tags? 465: 999:

How about you go find someone else who also disagrees with the bot's proposed scope? Mass/batch/group nominations happen all the time, and this task is, imo, desirable. –

1129: 1102:

was posted, it was apparently granted, or at least the discussion on it was apparently closed (hence it's almost immediate removal from "Current requests for approval).

1098:

Meanwhile where is this bot's discussion under "Current requests for approval?" The only bots currently requesting approval are Lightbot 16, Fbot, Pause! and BOTijo 10.

2115:

for the discussion of the technical aspects of the aforementioned script, because the underlying deletion policy is solidly established. If you'd like to propose an

139: 1616:

Approved for extended trial (1 batch of detagging kept templates). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.

1283:, I will specify that when I run the script. (Essentially I input the wikitext to be tacked onto the beginning of each page. So I can add whatever is needed.) 1047:

is a relatively recent example of a mass nomination at TFD. I don't think there is really a gap in the policy (or to be finicky, guideline, since that is how

574:

During the request for approval, a member of the Bot Approvals Group will typically approve a short trial during which the bot is monitored to ensure that it

279:

to users who have added the page to their watchlist), as well as notifying the creator and/or major contributors to the page with a talk page notification.

2036:

poorly defined (I've done so myself in specific cases), but there is no policy or guideline against nominating multiple pages in one discussion. There

1105:

If it is no longer a current request for approval, because it was removed from that category in 4 minutes, then what is it? An already approved bot! --

1137: 357:

At a later stage, a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep" may be added to the script.

1292:

I am happy to open it to requests from the deletion-nominating public. Of course, I would consider the merits of each request before carrying it out.

1194:

Per HellKnowz's suggestion, I've put this in a separate subsection (and added a subsection header for the trial above). I saw the note about this at

287: 176: 1252:

Please remember that I specify all parameters of the bot. It is "dumb", so to speak (except for the fact that it skips speedy deletion candidates).

1539:

I completely agree - would it be possible to roll this functionality into the bot? Even, perhaps if isn't initially - or even always turned on.

1136:

granted to the bot was a 50 edit technical trial. And I already brought the fact that trial(ed) bot BRFAs are not transcluded on the main page (

773:

The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion.

2022: 1978: 1974: 1877: 1836: 1176: 1106: 1015: 986: 949: 852: 777: 689: 655: 622: 506: 441: 21: 685: 1876:

Yes, if the task is modified, function descriptions should reflect that. It allows the community to discuss what is being requested. --

1767: 1713: 1665: 1560: 1480: 1409: 1321:, not TFD or MFD or whatever, and if you want to delete the target, then presumably the bot will need to follow the redirect to it. -- 1305: 723: 556: 532: 480: 426: 369: 133: 1534: 2040:

a guideline saying that the nominated pages should be tagged. So the proposed use of the bot appears to be entirely within policy.

1552:

Good point; I will implement this functionality shortly. It will need testing, but I cannot foresee how a trial would operate. —

397:

Approved for trial (50 taggings). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.

2174: 617:

There's no need to rush into a trial without any input, particularly for a bot that is being designed to tag 100s of pages ("

594:

say that multiple templates are to be tagged and this is what I have seen done before. So that is enough reason for me for a

88: 877:

It is clearly explained in the function details. It will tag pages that are involved in mass TFD or mass MFD nominations. –

1761: 1707: 1659: 1554: 1474: 1403: 1299: 717: 550: 526: 474: 420: 363: 129: 1759:

I was aware of that outlying case, and have kept it in mind. So what needs to happen now to move this request forward? —

851:)," then an elaboration about it being for mass nominations, not for tags on templates already nominated for deletion. -- 83: 1977:, does not give a strong indication that the policy has changed in a way to favor creation and running of this bot. -- 215: 158:

Manually invoked to begin with, then automatic (without user review of each edit) while performing the requested task

985:

User subpages? Not the same level of concern as TfD and now, the examples you raised of mass nominations for AfDs. --

580:" 50 edits are to see that the bot can handle all the common cases and does not imply the bot will be approved. Both 2108: 1048: 118: 1647:

For the tag removal function, I made a few sandbox edits on my account (not TTObot's account). I'm yet to write

2026: 1982: 1881: 1840: 1180: 1019: 990: 953: 856: 639: 1110: 781: 693: 659: 626: 510: 445: 103: 1030: 1628:(taking into account documentation pages). If you cannot find any, then just do a sandbox edit or two. — 1125: 2187: 2148: 2135: 2093: 2063: 2030: 1999: 1986: 1885: 1871: 1856: 1844: 1774: 1754: 1745:

tag to a page with content, I doubt it would be a problem, but just noting the unverified test case. --

1720: 1672: 1641: 1598: 1567: 1547: 1527: 1512: 1487: 1439: 1416: 1355: 1330: 1312: 1243: 1184: 1157: 1114: 1061: 1039: 1023: 1009: 994: 980: 957: 922: 887: 860: 827: 809: 785: 748: 730: 697: 679: 663: 649: 630: 612: 563: 539: 514: 487: 449: 433: 412: 376: 502:

until a community discussion is had in an appropriate place, or at least community input is requested.

1052:

the guideline, whether by bot or not, and I don't see anything about that needing to be rewritten. --

162: 2201: 1637: 1435: 1423: 1153: 805: 793: 744: 608: 408: 40: 776:

I requested that this trial approval be revoked. I ask that this request be answered directly. --

2170: 2070: 1227:

Is this bot programmed to handle situations where it encounters redirects or protected templates?

1195: 545: 521: 418:

Whew, that was quick! I'll find a task for it to do sometime during the next few days. Thanks, —

226: 221: 98: 93: 2164:

Utterly uncontroversial and policy compliant, despite troll's claim to the contrary. Approved.

1928:

etc. They all instruct you to add a template to the top of the page you are nominating, e.g.

1230:

Is this bot just for your own use, or do you plan to accept requests from the editing public?

964:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures

762:, initially with tfd, but if BAG gives approval for this bot, what unspecified other tagging 2182: 2075: 2059: 1867: 1750: 1622: 1594: 1584: 1523: 1508: 1352: 1326: 1239: 1057: 676: 646: 496:

A nomination for deletion is not a maintenance edit. Please initiate a community discussion.

78: 2088: 1994: 1851: 1783: 1729: 1699: 1681: 1651: 353:

When the run is finished, the output is dealt with, and I log out of the TTObot account.

334:

tag (for userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations)

2178: 2084: 1630: 1428: 1385: 1146: 1037: 1007: 978: 920: 885: 825: 798: 737: 669: 601: 401: 17: 2111:, for example, has been in existence for over 4 years, alone. Therefore, this page is 1611: 1467:

tag to userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations.

472:

for instances where TfDs have been dismissed because the templates were not tagged. —

2213: 2166: 2124: 2116: 2080: 1932: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1545: 1318: 766:

is this granting permission for? So, yes, I disagree that a personal bot for tagging

591: 275: 244: 1962: 1952: 1942: 1827: 1817: 1806: 1739: 1576: 1461: 1451: 1395: 1375: 1365: 1342: 1274: 1258: 1221: 1205: 1198:, so thanks for placing that. A few questions about what the bot will or won't do: 941: 931: 846: 584: 328: 318: 307: 299: 202: 192: 346:

I invoke the masstag.js script, supply the correct parameters, and click "Submit".

1220:

Will the bot also notify template creators as is typically done by tools such as

2055: 1863: 1746: 1590: 1519: 1504: 1349: 1322: 1235: 1053: 673: 643: 343:

I log out of this account, and log in to the TTObot account using a web browser.

171: 59: 47: 2141: 2128: 524:

whether a BRFA was required, and H3llkn0wz thought it would be a good idea. —

2007:"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: 1224:, or will it just place the tags? In the trial it seemed to just place tags. 1000: 971: 913: 878: 818: 572:

You seem to be overlapping a technical trial with a bot approval. BOTPOL: "

1426:. I'm afraid we cannot approve a bot with a vague "with a certain tag". — 1014:

In other words, it's not policy, it's just that you support it. Got it. --

2021:. Not just the tacit non unapproval that you and Xeno are arguing for. -- 1540: 2140:...so from the technical standpoint, I see no problems with this bot. -- 1975:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Multiple_articles_in_a_single_AFD

1693:

Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:This, that and the other/sandbox/masstag

1338:

This request is for tagging templates with "a certain tag (initially

668:

Where did anyone ever say "shut up"? Anyway, the link you request is

1725:

The examples all seemed good to me. My only caveat is that all the

1912:"Read the instructions for nominating an article for deletion at 1689:

Special:PrefixIndex/User:This, that and the other/sandbox/masstag

2194:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1128:. This request is open until it is archived. It is still in the 966:. The pages to be tagged were moved since that nomination, see 2200:

To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at

149: 39:

To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at

758:

My objection is the blanket request for approval for tagging

948:

has been initiated where this bot would be run afterward? --

460:, as determined by admins at TfD, is that it is needed. See 1457:

tag to templates involved in mass TFD nominations, and the

548:. (I admit I probably should have done that earlier.) — 1904: 967: 113: 108: 73: 1120:

You are again overlapping approval and trial. This is

224:, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there. 1793:

include that isn't listed in the function overview? "

770:

should be given permission to operate on wikipedia.

670:WP:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts 212:Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): 2010:performs only tasks for which there is consensus" 1268:, then I will specify that when I run the script. 1130:Category:Open Knowledge bot requests for approval 208:in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations 500:I request this bot approval for trial be revoked 33:The following discussion is an archived debate. 234:As required. Most likely, fairly infrequently. 227:Knowledge talk:TFD#Bot for mass TFD nominations 1691:for the results of the tag removal trial, and 218:, an admin active at TfD, about this matter. 8: 2220:Approved Knowledge bot requests for approval 2087:complaint which won't be entertained here. 927:"Function overview: Tag pages en masse with 899:when mass nominations are being carried out, 493:discussion. Try the automated editing thing. 2119:regarding the underlying deletion policy, 324:tag (for mass TFD nominations), and the 177:User:This, that and the other/masstag.js 1211: 1779:The function overview does not cover 1498:A Caution about de-tagging kept pages 1381:being added using this bot. Possibly 1140:). If your issue is that the request 1138:WT:BRFA#BRFA discussion transclusions 7: 2015:This is pretty clear in bot policy: 817:pages as the whim of the operator. – 1789:. Why? What else does this tagging 1264: 1093:Moved from wrong discussion section 686:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations 238:Estimated number of pages affected: 1202:There are optional parameters for 28: 1657:tagging functionality, though. — 715:cannot do it from my account). — 45:The result of the discussion was 2156: 1610: 706: 391: 339:Operation would be as follows: 46: 2121:this is not the place to do it; 544:Additionally, I have posted at 148:11:10, Saturday July 30, 2011 ( 2109:Template:AfD footer (multiple) 908:--23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 843:with a certain tag (initially 638:complain about the perceived " 1: 1167:TfD and MfD tags." Really?) 1124:an approved bot, please read 286:This bot account, running my 1581:tag, the bot could also add 1518:That's a very good point! -- 290:user script, will tag pages 2188:03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 2149:03:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 2136:03:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 2094:03:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 2064:02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 2031:02:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 2000:01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1987:01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1886:00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1872:00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1857:00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1845:23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 1775:10:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 1444:Well, let's just say this: 1185:01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1062:01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1040:23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 1024:23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 1010:23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 995:23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 981:23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 958:23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 923:23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 888:22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 861:22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 828:22:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 274:It is a requirement of our 240:Between 10 and 800 per run 2236: 1973:A discussion at AfD talk, 1755:22:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1721:00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 1673:11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1642:08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1599:06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1568:06:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1548:05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1528:05:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1513:04:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1488:03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1440:07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1417:10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 1356:19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 1331:04:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 1313:10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 1244:16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 1158:07:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 1115:05:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 1049:Knowledge:Deletion process 810:14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 786:14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 749:12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 731:11:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 698:05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 680:19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 664:14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 650:10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 631:14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 613:08:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 564:07:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 540:07:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 515:03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 488:02:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 1803:a certain tag (initially 450:21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 434:11:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 413:11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 377:11:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 2197:Please do not modify it. 1535:OperatorAssistanceNeeded 1447:This bot will apply the 130:This, that and the other 36:Please do not modify it. 2125:village pump for policy 1695:for the results of the 1618:If possible, placing a 1249:Here are some answers: 1266:...</noinclude: --> 1132:. The only thing that 258:Already has a bot flag 22:Requests for approval 163:Programming language 156:Automatic or Manual: 1297:Hope this helps. — 245:Exclusion compliant 220:The TfD talk page, 2127:, for example. -- 2018:there is consensus 1795:Function overview: 1677:I have now tested 1265:<noinclude: --> 576:operates correctly 296:templates such as 276:deletion processes 182:Function overview: 2147: 2134: 2074: 1833:in limited cases) 1771: 1717: 1705:tagging trial. — 1669: 1640: 1564: 1484: 1438: 1413: 1309: 1156: 808: 747: 727: 611: 560: 536: 484: 430: 411: 373: 270:Function details: 2227: 2199: 2186: 2160: 2159: 2146: 2144: 2133: 2131: 2068: 1967: 1961: 1957: 1951: 1947: 1941: 1937: 1931: 1832: 1826: 1822: 1816: 1810: 1788: 1782: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1744: 1738: 1734: 1728: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1704: 1698: 1686: 1680: 1671: 1667: 1662: 1656: 1650: 1633: 1629: 1627: 1621: 1614: 1588: 1580: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1543: 1538: 1486: 1482: 1477: 1466: 1460: 1456: 1450: 1431: 1427: 1415: 1411: 1406: 1400: 1394: 1390: 1384: 1380: 1374: 1370: 1364: 1347: 1341: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1282: 1278: 1267: 1262: 1213: 1209: 1149: 1145: 1035: 1005: 976: 946: 940: 936: 930: 918: 883: 850: 823: 801: 797: 740: 736: 729: 725: 720: 710: 709: 604: 600: 589: 583: 562: 558: 553: 538: 534: 529: 486: 482: 477: 432: 428: 423: 404: 400: 395: 394: 375: 371: 366: 333: 327: 323: 317: 311: 303: 207: 201: 197: 191: 50: 38: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2195: 2165: 2157: 2142: 2129: 1965: 1959: 1955: 1949: 1945: 1939: 1935: 1929: 1830: 1824: 1820: 1814: 1804: 1786: 1780: 1766: 1760: 1742: 1736: 1732: 1726: 1712: 1706: 1702: 1696: 1684: 1678: 1664: 1658: 1654: 1648: 1631: 1625: 1619: 1582: 1574: 1559: 1553: 1541: 1532: 1500: 1479: 1473: 1464: 1458: 1454: 1448: 1429: 1408: 1402: 1398: 1392: 1388: 1382: 1378: 1372: 1368: 1362: 1345: 1339: 1304: 1298: 1280: 1272: 1271:Likewise, if a 1256: 1203: 1192: 1164:Strongly oppose 1147: 1031: 1001: 972: 970:for the list. – 944: 938: 934: 928: 914: 879: 844: 819: 799: 738: 722: 716: 712:Trial complete. 707: 640:lack of process 602: 587: 581: 555: 549: 531: 525: 479: 473: 425: 419: 402: 392: 389: 384: 368: 362: 331: 325: 321: 315: 305: 297: 232:Edit period(s): 205: 199: 195: 189: 124: 63: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2233: 2231: 2223: 2222: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2083:) is purely a 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2023:68.127.234.159 2013: 2012: 2011: 2005: 1979:68.127.234.159 1971: 1970: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1878:68.127.234.159 1837:68.127.234.159 1777: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1361:I can foresee 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1284: 1269: 1253: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1225: 1218: 1215: 1191: 1190:Some questions 1188: 1177:68.127.234.159 1161: 1160: 1126:WP:BOTAPPROVAL 1107:72.201.210.130 1096: 1095: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1016:68.127.234.159 987:68.127.234.159 950:68.127.234.159 906: 905: 904: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 853:68.127.234.159 831: 830: 813: 812: 778:72.201.210.130 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 690:72.201.210.130 656:72.201.210.130 635: 634: 633: 623:72.201.210.130 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 542: 507:72.201.210.130 503: 497: 494: 442:72.201.210.130 437: 436: 388: 385: 383: 380: 355: 354: 351: 347: 344: 123: 122: 116: 111: 106: 101: 96: 91: 86: 81: 76: 74:Approved BRFAs 71: 64: 62: 57: 56: 55: 29: 27: 18:Knowledge:Bots 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2232: 2221: 2218: 2217: 2215: 2205: 2203: 2198: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2163: 2150: 2145: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2132: 2126: 2123:consider the 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2103: 2095: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2082: 2077: 2072: 2071:edit conflict 2067: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2039: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2014: 2009: 2008: 2006: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1964: 1954: 1944: 1934: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1903:According to 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1829: 1819: 1812: 1808: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1785: 1778: 1776: 1772: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1741: 1731: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1709: 1701: 1694: 1690: 1687:tagging. See 1683: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1661: 1653: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1624: 1617: 1613: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1586: 1578: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1565: 1556: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1544: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1497: 1489: 1485: 1476: 1471: 1463: 1453: 1446: 1445: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1425: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1405: 1397: 1391:. But mainly 1387: 1377: 1367: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1344: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1310: 1301: 1296: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1276: 1270: 1260: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1207: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1197: 1189: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1046: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1036: 1034: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1006: 1004: 998: 997: 996: 992: 988: 984: 983: 982: 979: 977: 975: 969: 965: 961: 960: 959: 955: 951: 943: 933: 926: 925: 924: 921: 919: 917: 910: 909: 907: 903:impractical." 901: 900: 895: 894: 891: 890: 889: 886: 884: 882: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 862: 858: 854: 848: 842: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 829: 826: 824: 822: 815: 814: 811: 807: 803: 795: 790: 789: 788: 787: 783: 779: 774: 771: 769: 765: 761: 750: 746: 742: 734: 733: 732: 728: 719: 713: 705: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 682: 681: 678: 675: 671: 667: 666: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 648: 645: 641: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 615: 614: 610: 606: 597: 593: 586: 579: 577: 571: 565: 561: 552: 547: 543: 541: 537: 528: 523: 518: 517: 516: 512: 508: 504: 501: 498: 495: 491: 490: 489: 485: 476: 471: 467: 463: 459: 454: 453: 452: 451: 447: 443: 435: 431: 422: 417: 416: 415: 414: 410: 406: 398: 386: 381: 379: 378: 374: 365: 358: 352: 348: 345: 342: 341: 340: 337: 335: 330: 320: 312: 309: 301: 293: 289: 284: 280: 277: 272: 271: 267: 265: 262: 259: 255: 253: 250: 247: 246: 241: 239: 235: 233: 229: 228: 225: 223: 217: 213: 209: 204: 194: 187: 183: 179: 178: 175: 173: 168: 166: 164: 159: 157: 153: 151: 147: 143: 141: 138: 135: 131: 128: 120: 117: 115: 112: 110: 107: 105: 102: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 85: 82: 80: 77: 75: 72: 70: 66: 65: 61: 58: 53: 49: 44: 42: 37: 31: 30: 23: 19: 2196: 2193: 2161: 2155: 2120: 2112: 2105:General note 2104: 2089: 2085:bureaucratic 2037: 2017: 2016: 1995: 1972: 1902: 1852: 1813: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1615: 1609: 1501: 1337: 1233: 1193: 1173: 1169: 1163: 1162: 1141: 1133: 1121: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1092: 1032: 1002: 973: 915: 898: 897: 880: 840: 820: 775: 772: 767: 763: 759: 757: 711: 618: 595: 575: 573: 499: 457: 438: 396: 390: 359: 356: 338: 313: 295: 291: 285: 281: 273: 269: 268: 263: 260: 257: 256: 251: 248: 243: 242: 237: 236: 231: 230: 219: 216:asked JPG-GR 211: 210: 185: 181: 180: 170: 169: 161: 160: 155: 154: 145: 144: 136: 126: 125: 68: 51: 35: 32: 684:Take it to 172:Source code 167:JavaScript 146:Time filed: 1797:Tag pages 1762:This, that 1708:This, that 1660:This, that 1555:This, that 1475:This, that 1404:This, that 1300:This, that 1210:, such as 896:"However, 718:This, that 551:This, that 527:This, that 475:This, that 458:status quo 421:This, that 382:Discussion 364:This, that 288:masstag.js 184:Tag pages 174:available: 114:rights log 104:page moves 2162:Approved. 2076:WP:BUNDLE 1768:the other 1714:the other 1666:the other 1561:the other 1481:the other 1410:the other 1306:the other 1263:requires 724:the other 557:the other 533:the other 481:the other 427:the other 370:the other 127:Operator: 109:block log 2214:Category 2175:contribs 2167:Headbomb 1799:en masse 1791:en masse 1279:needs a 841:en masse 768:en masse 764:en masse 760:en masse 619:en masse 599:tags. — 292:en masse 186:en masse 140:contribs 84:contribs 52:Approved 20:‎ | 2202:WT:BRFA 2179:physics 1623:TfD end 1585:TfD end 1424:WT:BRFA 1222:Twinkle 1142:appears 794:WT:BRFA 41:WT:BRFA 2081:WP:TFD 2056:RL0919 1926:WP:CFD 1922:WP:MFD 1918:WP:TFD 1914:WP:AFD 1864:RL0919 1784:tfdend 1770:(talk) 1765:, and 1747:RL0919 1730:tfdend 1716:(talk) 1711:, and 1700:tfdend 1682:tfdend 1668:(talk) 1663:, and 1652:tfdend 1591:RL0919 1563:(talk) 1558:, and 1520:RL0919 1505:JPG-GR 1483:(talk) 1478:, and 1412:(talk) 1407:, and 1350:Anomie 1323:RL0919 1319:WP:RFD 1308:(talk) 1303:, and 1281:|type= 1236:RL0919 1212:|type= 1196:WT:TFD 1054:RL0919 962:Sure: 726:(talk) 721:, and 674:Anomie 644:Anomie 592:WP:TFD 559:(talk) 554:, and 546:WT:TFD 535:(talk) 530:, and 522:WT:BAG 483:(talk) 478:, and 429:(talk) 424:, and 372:(talk) 367:, and 350:edit.) 222:WT:TFD 60:TTObot 2183:books 2143:slakr 2130:slakr 1835:." -- 1801:with 1634:KNOWZ 1432:KNOWZ 1386:sfd-t 1255:If a 1150:KNOWZ 802:KNOWZ 741:KNOWZ 605:KNOWZ 596:trial 405:KNOWZ 387:Trial 294:with 261:(Y/N) 249:(Y/N) 188:with 89:count 16:< 2171:talk 2113:only 2090:—SW— 2060:talk 2027:talk 1996:—SW— 1983:talk 1933:Afd1 1905:this 1882:talk 1868:talk 1853:—SW— 1841:talk 1823:(or 1751:talk 1638:TALK 1632:HELL 1595:talk 1537:|D}} 1524:talk 1509:talk 1436:TALK 1430:HELL 1401:. — 1371:and 1327:talk 1240:talk 1181:talk 1154:TALK 1148:HELL 1111:talk 1058:talk 1045:Here 1033:xeno 1020:talk 1003:xeno 991:talk 974:xeno 968:here 954:talk 937:(or 916:xeno 881:xeno 857:talk 821:xeno 806:TALK 800:HELL 782:talk 745:TALK 739:HELL 694:talk 688:. -- 660:talk 627:talk 609:TALK 603:HELL 590:and 511:talk 470:here 468:and 466:here 462:here 446:talk 409:TALK 403:HELL 314:the 304:and 198:(or 165:(s): 134:talk 119:flag 99:logs 79:talk 69:BRFA 2117:RFC 1963:Cfd 1953:Mfd 1943:Tfd 1828:mfd 1818:tfd 1807:tfd 1740:tfd 1577:Tfd 1542:SQL 1462:mfd 1452:tfd 1396:tfd 1376:mfd 1366:tfd 1343:tfd 1275:tfd 1259:tfd 1206:Tfd 1134:was 1122:not 942:mfd 932:tfd 847:tfd 585:TfD 329:mfd 319:tfd 308:mfd 300:tfd 203:mfd 193:tfd 150:UTC 94:SUL 2216:: 2181:/ 2177:/ 2173:/ 2062:) 2038:is 2029:) 1985:) 1966:}} 1960:{{ 1958:, 1956:}} 1950:{{ 1948:, 1946:}} 1940:{{ 1938:, 1936:}} 1930:{{ 1924:, 1920:, 1916:, 1884:) 1870:) 1862:-- 1843:) 1831:}} 1825:{{ 1821:}} 1815:{{ 1809:}} 1805:{{ 1787:}} 1781:{{ 1753:) 1743:}} 1737:{{ 1733:}} 1727:{{ 1703:}} 1697:{{ 1685:}} 1679:{{ 1655:}} 1649:{{ 1626:}} 1620:{{ 1597:) 1587:}} 1583:{{ 1579:}} 1575:{{ 1533:{{ 1526:) 1511:) 1472:— 1465:}} 1459:{{ 1455:}} 1449:{{ 1399:}} 1393:{{ 1389:}} 1383:{{ 1379:}} 1373:{{ 1369:}} 1363:{{ 1346:}} 1340:{{ 1329:) 1277:}} 1273:{{ 1261:}} 1257:{{ 1242:) 1208:}} 1204:{{ 1183:) 1175:-- 1113:) 1060:) 1022:) 993:) 956:) 945:}} 939:{{ 935:}} 929:{{ 859:) 849:}} 845:{{ 784:) 696:) 672:. 662:) 629:) 588:}} 582:{{ 513:) 464:, 448:) 399:— 332:}} 326:{{ 322:}} 316:{{ 310:}} 306:{{ 302:}} 298:{{ 266:N 254:N 214:I 206:}} 200:{{ 196:}} 190:{{ 152:) 142:) 2204:. 2185:} 2169:{ 2073:) 2069:( 2058:( 2025:( 1981:( 1880:( 1866:( 1839:( 1811:) 1749:( 1636:▎ 1593:( 1522:( 1507:( 1434:▎ 1353:⚔ 1325:( 1238:( 1179:( 1152:▎ 1109:( 1056:( 1029:– 1018:( 989:( 952:( 912:– 855:( 804:▎ 780:( 743:▎ 692:( 677:⚔ 658:( 647:⚔ 625:( 607:▎ 578:. 509:( 444:( 407:▎ 264:: 252:: 137:· 132:( 121:) 67:( 54:. 43:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.