Knowledge (XXG) talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 1

2972:

a proposed bot. I'm able to support Voice of All because I'm fully aware of his technical knowledge, thanks to interaction and observation, over time. But as for other users, although I can judge whether or not they are trustworthy, it is difficult for me to determine if their level of knowledge would be sufficient for them to join the approvals group. It's simple, Approvals Group member = trustworthyness + technical knowledge. If I'm able to judge only half of this equation, then I can't, in full conscience, support or oppose anyone. I imagine that anyone who doesn't possess some deeper technical knowledge in the programming of bots would have difficulty judging the second half of this equation. That being the case, it would maybe be more efficient if we just had the current active members of the Approvals Group appoint a few new members, without the need for an election in which only a limited number of people can participate appropriately. That's my impression, at least.

3524:, we have the issue of scale. A bot may be doing 50 edits or 40,000+ edits (like a typical rambot run). It makes no sense to spend a week or two approving a request that could have been annoyingly accomplished manually during that time. So without an serious conclusion here, it would seem that new bots and those with longer edit requirements should bear the greatest amount of scrutiny. Right now the policy doesn't differentiate to that degree. Afterall, it is already painfully simple to block bots on a whim and small tasks are unlikely to be that damaging. Besides, it isn't hard to make the owner of the bot repair the damage caused, and if they don't repair the damage it is simple to revoke bot priveledges. 1247:

On the other hand, at least 4 or 5 people, not only this page (important point there) have said they don't think that the bot's edits were good. It is not a wide-enough view of things by far to suggest that people presciently know to comment on a bot they haven't been told about, don't know about, don't know it's coming, never heard of before, didn't think the huge pile of edits were about to be made....and just so this page can churn out any bot someone can knock up a few lines of perl for. This page pays no attention of any useful kind of relevance and appropriateness, or Betacommandbot would never have been approved; it's obvious on applying some categories-experienced thought that it can't be done without

1270:

the members of the bot approvals group mandate on a case-by-case basis how many edits each bot may make during its trial runs. In any case, though, I do not believe the real issue is how many edits bots in their trial runs are making, but rather that no one is closely watching these bots. Perhaps the answer is simply to draw attention to these newly approved bots, through what means I do not know--perhaps we could seek volunteers to closely monitor the edits made by bots in their trial runs and readily block any one that even appears to be editing strangely. I think that if we could gain more eyes closely reviewing bots in their trial runs then perhaps some of these mishaps could be avoided in the futire.

3528:, it is important to respect the bot owners, which is often not considered. An edit is an edit no matter who makes it, bot or human. Bad (and good) edits affect everyone equally no matter the source. This is the reason that unapproved bots are allowed from time to time. We don't require approval from normal users for the same tasks, why should we from bots? I think this third issue is the reason for so much grey area and informality in both requests and approvals. And of course the other two issues affect the acceptance of an unapproved task. — 3011:

less trivial to know whether a bot task violates some written or unwritten wikipedia policy. For example, one of the current bot requests deals with placing WikiProject boilerplates on talk pages. At one point in history this was a very contentious issue. The rambot was once turned down because of trying to do that. However, consensus on that issue appears to have changed. As a result, it's important to have a wide range of skills in the approvals group so that these types of issues can be detected early, rather than later in the process. --

1980:

part of the approval group: I am an experienced Wikipedian, bot operator (~20000 edits), and because I have been a user coming to this page for approval I have seen the problems and have also seen how this page can work and how important this is. As a concerned Wikipedian I noticed that the page needed cleaned up so I made a proposition. That is now being implemented. I have also noted that most of the approval group has been busy in other areas it does take them a while to respond to the page. I have sat back thinking

3053:

neutral, so no one has to say "ok, I'm approved, adding my own name now". As a Bureaucrat who is active in setting flags, I do volunteer to do that if wanted -- however, since I've already pledged my support to one of the candidates, I would understand if the community would prefer to have someone else do it. We could ask Taxman or Nichalp to do it. Just to be clear: this is by no measure a proposal for a new official task for Bureaucrats, just an

1037:

else, a project page, a process page, the pumps, the noticeboards: in short, anywhere but their own back yard. Please, would you apply some sense to the approvals and make sure that those likely to be affected by tens, or in some cases hundreds of these pseudo-trials have actually had a chance to say something about them. This page is a backwater that few people visit, and nodding stuff through here without due diligence is really not good enough. -

35: 3378:

of a better term that I can think of at this time) a user with a support consensus that was well beneath that. But please remember that this is not RfA. Alphachimp, or someone on his behalf, could resubmit his name for reconsideration at any time, even immediately, if they feel that this result might not have been satisfactory -- but this means a new consideration of his name by the community, not a review of this result, which is final.

2942:

bot request. More is better. I think it goes without saying that since there has been no established election process that the standard for removal of a member elected in this fashion should be relatively low, if need arises. If anyone elected here, including myself, violates this trust, they should be removed and discussions initiated immediately. Until we have hundreds of members, we can afford to be a bit more informal than, say,

3679:, though not active enough, I gotta say, I don't like the approvals log page at all, it's clunky. I do like the per page disucssions for bots, a la MFD. Perhaps The MFD archive style would be OK here, but with the per month page seperated into APPROVED, NOT APPROVED? Any thaughts? I am sitll going to make a bot request form, just need to get some uninterupted time to do it! — 3068:

need an impartial third-party, feel free, but I won't complain if you do it yourself. We are all riddled with conflicts of interest here, afterall, a bot owner will always have a conflict of interest when making and applying bot policy and in bot approvals. It's to be expected. Once we have appointed interim members, we can work on forming a more official process. --

3539:

tantamount to a policy change, and should be treated as such, and afforded the same due process. If a bot owner chooses not to listen (or even attempt to solicit) the will of the community, his bot should be blocked indefinitely and de-flagged. I'd also consider sanctions against the user. I don't think the controversialness of the bot function should have any effect.

1627:. I would like to propose a solution I would like to be on the approval group. If there is any concern about a conflict of interest because I may have some request for my bot on this page I will not Approve/disapprove or otherwise use my approval group status with my bot I will let other members handle those as to avoid a conflict of interest. 2755:– (Only if needed). The current number of active AG members is very low, and Xaosflux usually gets stuck doing everything. If there is still a place for another member to help, then I wouldn't mind filling it. I currently operate two bots, a matainence bot for protection related tasks and one for AOL/shared IP RC patrol. 3485:" from time to time. Of course if you don't ensure that your bot follows the appropriate rules while running "unapproved", then you run the risk of being blocked or even worse permanently losing your ability to use a bot. The latter case probably wouldn't happen, but you never know. It is possible. — 3401:

Thank you Redux. Fellow group members, as I said before I'm a bit busy at the moment with programming and testing. I have the page on my watchlist and would like to make sure I'm fully up to speed with what happens here before diving in. So, you'll be seeing me some time fairly soon but not just yet.

3377:

Regarding Alphachimp: I realize that participation in this election was particularly restricted, as well as that the two oppositions raised were weak. However, in light of the fact that all of the other candidates approved had 100% support going in, I viewed it as inconsistent to "promote" (for lack

3168:

There's an easier way - recruit RM and VOA now. Seriuously, is anybody going to oppose either of them? I'm sure the approval of current members would be quite sufficient.; Leave me and the chimp up for consideration as extra or standby members. That way you get two new, capable members instantly, and

3114:

Great. Just one thing: two candidates have commented on this directly, and each has said something different, so I'd like to know if the participating community would prefer that I, Redux, recuse myself from "closing" this. I have no problem with it, since I have supported one of the candidates. I

2941:

I think I speak for others when I say that new members of this group should allow us to balance the approval process with more voices. Ideally, no bot would be approved with at *least* two members voiceing their opinion. Persons have different specialties and may be uniquely aware of problems with a

1640:

just updated some of the bot status, so that's a start, but I agree with your point. There are a few people who have volunteered for this, so all that is needed is consensus to add! I don't think there is such a thing as conflict of interest, except when approving or disapproving your own bot, which

1289:

or some other widely public forum? Since much of the problem seems to stem from the fact that this page is monitored very little except by members of the approvals group and those heavily involved with bots on a regular basis, so anything we can do to get more public input and observation of new bots

1036:

It strikes me, from my unpleasant experience with Betacommand and his bot that those with this rather mystical 'approval' power actually don't apply any test of "relevance and appropriateness". They merely check whether it is technically feasible and fail to see if the bot's owner has informed anyone

214:

It has always stated in the "rules" that the bot must wait a week to gather "rough consensus" before running, but in general they have assumed as unless opposed, then granted. Also, this page is rather new, before the discussion where directly on the bot talk page, so often the requests where lost in

3778:

Ah yes, perhaps someone should update the article to list the correct procedure then since both archival methods seem to be listed. Oh nevermind. It says "New Format", which is clear enough for me. I just never read that section on archiving. I looked at the TOC for something about archiving, and

3391:

Everything is as it should be, IMO. As for Alphachimp, I suspect that we will be forming a more official election scheme in the near future, and as such it shouldn't be hard to reevaluate membership at this point. I can't speculate on exactly how long that might take, but it could be sooner rather

3020:

I think consensus has changed on that issue largely because of WP1 assessments. I've tagged over 100,000 talk pages for WPBio and other large Projects and I've only had one serious objection. That speaks volumes to me as I can remember debate over the very existence of these banners some months ago.

3010:

I've changed my mind on this. Technical knowledge is important, but it is FAR more important to understand general wikipedia policy. When a bot idea is proposed, it is usually fairly trivial to know if it will cause any technical problems. Plenty of us that can determine that. However, it is far

2971:

On the entire election procedure, I don't suppose most of the community would be able to participate in this. In order to be a member of the Approvals Group, a user needs to be trustworthy, of course, but a key aspect is having the technical skill necessary to judge the...well..technical aspects of

2342:

for 10 years+, am familiar with the internals of Mediawiki version 1.5 and to an increasing extent AWB (I'm currently writing a plugin), and with over 10 years of Linux/Unix experience I'm pretty good at regular expressions. I'm able to load and test AWB regular expressions, for example. Oh, and I'm

1333:

Xoasflux says that we do not apply these tests to human editors, but that is an incomplete view. We don't apply a "RfHumanEditing" page to them either, for the very reason that when a bot does something silly it can take a lot of human effort to fix it. Asking the bot owner to demonstrate that their

1269:

I think that creating a hard, inflexible limit on how many edits a bot may make during a trial is a very bad idea, especially since problems with bots often don't present themselves until they've made far more than 250 edits. I would, however, not be totally opposed to, as has been suggested, having

1246:

Three people suggested that they thought the bot a good idea, including its owner. I don't think any of them said anything about what I did to stop the bot messing up, apart from its owner who complained that my blocking it prevented him discussing it (obviously failing the "cause and effect" test).

1180:

Obviously 20000 isn't reasonable, but nor is 250. I think the number of edits for an approval should be tempered by the individual proposal. In the instructions for writing a proposal, we say that you're supposed to state the frequency at which you will run the bot. Why not just hold a user to that?

491:

It would, as long as they link to a decision by an approvals group member. Unfortunately, and I speak from great experience in these sorts of things, most people can't be bothered to follow instructions and you either end up having to say "I refuse to do this until you get it right" or go search for

3119:

ask Taxman or Nichalp to do it. In RfA, participating directly in the discussions, to any extent, would mean a recusation, but since this is not exactly an established procedure for this forum, and the outcome is not likely to be contentious, I would like to get a clear position from the community

3067:

Yes, as a bureaucrat, feel free to close this "election" when it appears to be finished. We'd like to add the new members "as soon as possible", but allow enough time to get enough comments. Setting a date seems inflexible, and it should be pretty obvious when the votes stop trickling in. If you

3030:

Agree with RM, the key to aproving bots is knowledge of wikipedia policies, the rules for bots is not very clear and it not followed very strictly and really is very unconsistant in many cases, and they are really as I see it a legacy that RM started when everyone was 'afraid' of bots and wanted to

1622:

with 19920 edits) I have noticed that there tends to be a lag on this process because most of the approval group is not that active here. As I have noticed some simple task just stall out and there is no decision by the group or even questions. The tasks seem to be ignored. This is probably because

1102:

Although I respect your opinion Splash, it seems like a lot of other users disagreed with your actions, particularly going through and reverting all of the bot's edits (especially since the bot could have done that all itself). I don't feel that the approvals process here ignores the "relevance and

1088:

page, and I've actually found a lot of requests that I've been able to meet (they're usually just find/replace). In the end, however, I usually just wind up fixing the errors manually, because I know that BRFA is entirely unpredictable and drawn out. The last week of that proposal sitting there has

1073:

Yes. If a trial is doing something that is clearly non-controversial, with a given, established piece of software (e.g. AWB), it's silly to expect the bot owner to do 250 edits and just wait. The same goes for limited-scope bot runs. If someone only wants to run their bot for 350 edits, it's simply

3561:

It's again a circular question: it depends on what the bot is doing, and how much of {{whatever}} it is doing. If I log in as a bot and forget to log out, see vandalism and revert it manually while logged in as the bot, I sure hope I don't get blocked because I'm an anti-vandalism bot or something

3538:

Obviously the issue of scale is there. If someone is doing 40 edits, there's a big difference from 40,000 (or even 400 edits). As for your third point, the difference between me and a bot is that I am not (humanly) able to edit the encyclopedia on such a speed and large scale. A 40,000 edit run is

2699:

I agree. I retracted a previous comment on the same issue. There is no reason that someone who doesn't even run a bot can't be on the approvals group. The consensus of Knowledge (XXG)'s users is pretty clear that such experience is not required and it would be incorrect to assume otherwise just

1979:

approved I have monitored this page and have come to an understanding of what kinds of tasks bots can do easily; Subsuting and interwiki. I have also come to realize that some task should not be done by a bot; the anti-insult and the IRC #Knowledge (XXG) topic recording bot. As for why I should be

1755:

Ram-Man: if your question was for me: my interpretation of Titoxd's post is that it means "a policy for admitting new people in the group is needed". The only two ways I can see for this is by cooptation (decision is taken by the people already in the group) or by election (anyone can "vote" as to

1650:

We don't really have a policy for how this "group" is controlled, although the bot policy does require this group. We've had some good reqork on this page recently, perhaps a method for adding to this gorup would be helpful as well. The other cleanup I'm trying to work on (once i get a few hours

133:

User Fetofs responded that the bot is not approved. That it only can be rejected. And also point to the text on the top of that page. That seems strange to me because a request that has received no responds is not rejected. And not rejected is approved by default. But I possibly do not understand

3584:

It is always a matter of common sense, for example, if a bot is doing something similar to a previous task, but has not explicitly been given permission, and no one is complaining then blocking is clearly just going to waste everyone's time. However, even if a bot explicitly has permssion, but is

3476:

I was once blocked when I was running a bot for an unapproved task. It was controversial to be sure, and while the block upset me at first, it was fully justified. There is a huge bias here in favor of persons. If *anyone* has an issue with a bot (within reason), it can be blocked. And I agree

3370:

Concerning my closing of this election, as discussed above, I closed it because the results for the only candidate about whom I commented were uncontroverted (100% support). The majority of the opinions given above were in the sense that I should recuse myself only if there were a controversy in

2610:

That's fine. I've commented on a lot of pending requests for approvals, at least before my 2 week wikibreak. If you'd like I can provide some diffs. It's safe to say, though, that I was fairly active on this page for most of July and August of this year. I argued a bit for the new format of BRFA.

1347:

I wonder if AWB bots ought simply to have a simpler process to go through to get approval. We all know that AWB works and works marvellously, so that's not an issue. The only issues are 1) what settings/regular expressions are you using (XML settings files can even be posted if need be) 2) is the

1255:

such a massive list of exceptions as to be pointless. And yet it has twice been approved with little more than a "yeah, whatever". There is little utility in commenting on "an edit" when trial runs of hundreds or thousands are being approved and when people say "if you don't like the bot, then do

868:

Those estimates (1-2 hours per day) seem a bit excessive. This page seems to have about the same volume that MFD gets, and it's not that much overhead. Additionaly, one could assume that bot operators are more veresed in following proceedures that people requesting checkuser or filling mfd's...

3519:

should be difficult, because the risk of a bad bot is great. However, the task for adding a new task to a bot should not be as difficult, since there should be sufficient proof that the bot owner is responsible, and whenever possible we give editors the benefit of the doubt, especially if using

1595:

It does sound like - according to this thread and the following one - some fresh blood is needed in the approvals group. Seems like we also have some suitable candidates around here. I suppose my arm might be twisted to help too. What say you existing members? Should interested people just start

1051:

We also don't apply that test to normal editors, which bots are extensions of, however without having too much process creep, perhaps we should have some more specific test limits. I started putting arbitray edit counts on some of my approvals, as without them thosands of edits can be made in a

2562:

to see if that would help. I see a lot of good edits, sure, but I'm not positive that this user has enough policy experience other than in dealing with vandalism. If someone can find me evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to change my vote, but for now I'll stick with a weak opposition. --

1329:

The solution, seeing as everyone has missed it, is to require that, before a trial is approved the would-be bot-owner post a link to a discussion on a relevant page showing that the bot is going to meet with agreement before it starts. Then, this page does what it does and checks the underlying

3807:

As subpages discussions seem to be in vouge here now I've made the listing process help enforce them through the use of an input box. This is now shown in the top of the page under operator instructinos. My initial testing looked good, but any feedback and/or tweaking would be appreciated! —

3052:

In order for this election to run and conclude to contention, maybe it would be interesting to set a "deadline" for it, at the end of which a Bureaucrat could assess the result and "officially" add the new names to the Approvals Group page. This would make the definition more transparent and

173:

Sorry if I didn't made myself clear. This second case is pretty clear - that was the place to request bot-status, and by the old rule, as that bot was not rejected, it was approved by default. My hunch is that this rule is also valid for the first bot, due to the lack of votes in that bot and

2982:

This is a rather informal poll, and the lack of *most* of the approval group being active here is sufficient reason to "Be Bold" and add more members, at least in the interim. If approval group members want to comment here (either now or later when they return), they should clearly be given

842:

Unless there are a bunch of people who are going to commit an hour or so a day to keeping up this system, I say leave the requests where they are and avoid the problems that come with subpages; most bot discussions are about two paragraphs long, and there is really no need for subpages.

3626:

Any chance you could get to dealing with mine? Its been up there for well over a month I believe, and all the objections were solved ages ago (simply by having the bot not do the things that people thought were objectionable...) and the coding/debugging is also complete. Thanks! —

783:

I've posted a comment on Essjay's talk page asking that he take a look. I also placed a comment next to my transclusion soliciting opinions on this page. I really think this is a good idea, and, if the community approves, I would be willing to go ahead with this change on the whole

2549:'s comments below) that perhaps it might be more useful if there was a stronger technical knowledge of bots other than the relatively easy AWB. This is such a minor point to me, that I have no desire to push it or even defend it, since policy knowledge to me is more important. — 3693:

I've reworded the wording a bit. I think its fine for approved bots to remain listed hear for a few days, except with the "closed debate" tags. Then it can later be removed from the main page. Bots in a trial period can be removed from the main page and listed under the trial

3461:

If someone complains as to what you're doing, then it is blockable. There's ways to unicodify an article and render it completely useless, so it is not exacly non-controversial. A side edit from time to time may not hurt, but it's always good to just ask here, just in case.

1256:

wring your hands over it, but don't expect us to apply a test of relevance or appropriateness when you ask for one". I should need have no desire to inspect each bot myself: those handing out approvals should make that part of their job, or they are failing in their task. -

1136:

Do you have any edit-based limit suggestions, or should they be allowed up to the (2edit/min) 20000+/week that the time allows for? This page may not be approriate for someone wanting to make 300 edits only, they could run these through AWB manuall assit failry rapidly. —

3158:

Then if *any* results are overly close, just ask another bureaucrat to handle closing the whole election. Whatever the choice, I probably don't care one way or another, so I'll let people who actually has a strong opinion on this discuss this one further, if desired. --

1984:. As for my part on the approval group I will handle the simple interwiki, and subsuting bots myself, when a bot comes along that may be controversial I will still participate but will make sure that the approval group as a whole also has the same opinion. 3494:

Yes I agree with all that. Specifically with regards to blocking, blocking a bot is very different from blocking a human, and if it's misbehaving it's no big deal blocking it and then talking to the operator to get things sorted out (who lest we forget

3148:

That would be an assessment on a candidate-by-candidate basis. I don't see this being closed like that. IMHO, the same Bureaucrat would close the entire thing, determining the results for all candidates and which ones will join the Approvals Group.

2685:

Why do you need to even be running a bot to be suitable? We're looking for gamekeepers not poachers. Sufficient technical knowledge to understand a proposed solution, a knowledge of WP policies, and the ability to read (to check a few diffs), that's

1117:

I agree that the current process is frustrating. Quite frankly, it's eliminated my ability to do the jobs I want to do with my bot. Limiting runs to 250 isn't going to do anything more than hurt the 'pedia. Think hard before you make such a change.

1843:(See comments below). To simplify the procedure, I'll add his name to the group of others, just so if he is needed, he will already be voted on. Any others who care to join should just add their name to the list. The election will be closed by a 1756:

whether one candidate can enter the group). Given the fact that approving a bot requires a degree of expertise, the first choice seems the best to me. I could of course be mistaken. And Titoxd was possibly saying something completely different :-( (

3428:

For instance, if I requested approval to create a bot to substitute templates, I would request approval for substituting templates. I would complete a trial run. If that run was without errors, complaints, or blocks, I would make note of that on

2983:

significant weight in the matter. As for who can vote? Bots affect the whole community, so the whole community should have a say in the matter. I appreciate your self restraint, but we could use all the comments we can get, so just vote with "

3363:

All of these users have received 100% support and are hereby "promoted" (if we can use this term). I will add their names to the Approvals Group page momentarily. Authority to approve bots (and their flagging) is effective as of this post.

3077:

Well, its the job of bureaucrats to determine consensus on local issues, and since there is no clearly defined way now, I'd support the idea of a bureaucrat who did not comment here closing the poll. I'd say a good 7 days from now should be

2062:

for a barnstar that i created with wikicode. just because i dont use plywikipedia framework or other type of bot doesnt mean that i dont know how they work. I dont use them because i find for the kinds of task that i have my bot do

1083:

I've got examples concerning myself. I have a proposal that's been sitting on the BRFA page, inactive, since August 1. It's a simple find/replace job, but it has yet to be approved or commented on. I've been actively monitoring the

435:. 20 different bureaucrat's talk pages are not a centralized location, and having users ask for their own bot flags leaves all the work to the bureaucrats, when it could easily be done by the approvals group. There are two pages, 2450:(I'd really love to help out here, be that the consensus of the community. I've gone through 5 approvals thus far, and have commented on numerous others before my wikibreak. I've expressed interest in helping here before.) 3542:

Getting back to the original question: Does anybody see a problem (I know I don't) in blocking an approved bot that is doing an unapproved function? I personally would like every bot owner to request every thing they do.

2225:

per above. Although he has not been active here until very recently, he did work on the policy here a good deal a while back, runs a very powerful bot, and has enough experience that having him on the group would be an

1006:

I'll be glad to do whatever I can to help out with this as well. It seems like a much better idea than the current method, and it also seems to have become the norm with other similar pages such as RfA, AfD, RfCU, etc.

204:

Thanks for you responds. I find it very disappointing that the EN Knowledge (XXG) is so unclear about it bot policy. Other Wikis do that much better. I will consider nominations without responds as granted by default.

1162:

Fairly rapidly? I'd rather not spend an hour clicking the save button mindlessly when I could just post a proposal here. It just seems entirely illogical. Perhaps there should be a different vehicle for approving such

1330:

technical issues. Clearly, if another bot wants to do a task identical (or nearly identical, use your judgement) to one previously ok'd by a relevant page, then the hoop need not be jumped through again in general.

1107:

on a pending bot request. If you do have problems with the process, by all means, participate in it. Express your concerns about whether an edit is appropriate. If you don't think it's publicized enough...publicize

701:

The flexibility of such a format would be great. We could transclude any relevant discussions to other pages. Overall, I think it would simplify the bot page and significantly increase the exposure of this process.

677:

I sugested that before Essjay cleaned the page up. Essjay doesnt think its a good idea there is aparently a lot of housekeeping involved along with constent monitoring to make sure that the format is kept correct

751:. I think the new format is a lot better, but I only did it to one (it's kind of a big change). If anybody disagrees with it, they can feel free to revert it, but I haven't seen any complaints here (yet). 443:, available for notifying bureaucrats of the need, and permission, to flag a bot. It would be greatly appreciated if "Okay, go ask a bureaucrat" were replaced with a 2 second edit to one of those pages. 1999:

page was done at the suggestion of Betacommand. This to me clearly indicates a level of understanding of the process and bot policy. You can simply scroll up to see some of the discussion on that. --

1358:

As far as I can see, the approval to start a trial period is based on the presumption that the bot works, technically, as described. The idea of posting the exact parameters for AWB is good, however. (

3585:

causing trouble, then it should be blocked. However, one thing that should always be remembered is that blocking a bot will almost certainly auto block the owner as well, as they will share an IP, so

1933:

You've defended yourself as best you can, and I've defended you below to some extent. I've looked more of your edits that you provided me at the link. It's time for my vote to match. I agree with

2991:" instead. It is more about building consensus than voting anyway. I'm not sure there is any rule that says you have to be a bot writer or run a bot to be a member of the approvals group either. -- 533:. during this process I noticed that the procedure for getting the preamble for running a bot can a extreamly difficult and time consuming process. I would like to make a suggestion. Split the page 1219:. If you are planning to save 250 pages you can do it in about 2 hours, provided that you know exactly what is your bot doing. It isn't worth it waiting for the approval on these cases. Really. 3000:

That would be fine by me too, although I'd hope that nobody would list themselves here if they don't have the requisite technical knowledge. For my part, I'll add a brief technical resume. --

2670:

Well I think you are only running AWB bots (which are easy), and I'd prefer if you'd participate in other bot approvals first. But, it seems my standard is higher that everyone elses here.--

824:

You will also have to keep up with subpages that are created but never listed on the main page, which accounts for about half of all subpages that actually end up made, in my experience.

2690:

all this role requires? It's not as if we're going to be debugging other people's code, and I'm sure the chimp knows what the python framework is, knows his PHP from his C#, etc etc. --

3593:

a good idea. Also, AWB always stops when it gets a message, so if a user is known to be using AWB, then a block should never be needed, unless the user is refusing to stop of course.

1651:

uninterrupted) is to have a standard new bot approvals request form, with all the standard questions, perhaps with a autoform field. Keep an eye out for it hopefully this weekend! —

3178:

I agree we don't need to make this overly complicated. I can't see if being a question of the current group recruiting since I don't see that as the correct way of approaching it. --

2050:

I have experiance with wikicode and plywikipedia bot coding I have used some of the plywikipedia framework but for the task that i do i find that AWB works better; IE when i work on

2054:

some of the categories are under the User namespace i have seen that plywikipedia bots tend to parse the pages incorrectly and may make the page display incorrectly. one example is

83: 75: 70: 1824:

The result of the proposal was see below. We have a proposal to add new members of the approval group. It is understood that we have no election process. So this will be an

1718:

I was proposing as an experianced bot operator that i would like to be on the approval group since i watch these pages and have helped in the new orginzation. -- Unsigned by

3115:

believe that I am the only Bureaucrat monitoring actively the bot-related forums (they are all on my watchlist) now that Essjay is away temporarily, but I suppose we can

748: 2558:

I take these votes seriously, and I don't like to oppose without a good reason. So I took another stab at trying to find the evidence that I desire. So I looked at the

3734: 3120:

on this. If my being on top of this will help, great; but if recusing myself is what would be best for all, then that's ok too. Whatever is best for the community.

100:. I ask this in the function as steward. When user comes on Meta to ask for bot-status for EN Knowledge (XXG) it is not always clear for me of he has approval or not. 1181:

A simple find replace isn't going to kill anybody, but, obviously, something like a new counter-vandalism bot would merit a significantly increased amount of testing.

3761: 3757: 1669: 1641:

should be minimized. Bot owners are often the one ones who care enough about this page, so you'd have a hard time finding helpers who are not bot owners who care. —

1502:

I'd like to approve your bot, but I'm not on the approval group. I've requested to join, but I suppose we'll just have to wait until one of them is available. —

778:

In its current format, it's extremely difficult to link to a bot approval. With archivals, the page changes constantly. The new format eliminates this difficulty.

2795:, since I tend to require experience and being an administrator, you certainly have my vote. I just wonder how big the approvals group is going to get soon :) — 1411:

I replied on yours Liberatore, and worked several bots. I've removed the backlog marker, and made fake section subheaders indicating on the TOC what bots are

3477:

with this policy. Nobody's bot is that important. I'd have to agree that the occasional small "side edit" or "side task" is acceptable. Afterall, we all "

2363:. Unless I find evidence to the contrary, support for now. He's received a numbr of barnstars, which tends to indicate community support. Also satisfies my 21: 2495:

Hhhmm, I'm not sure how much I trust a giant yellow chimp to edit the worlds encyclopedia, but based on previous experience, definately competent enough.

838:

RfM has a chairman (me) who tracks it and five different bots (they all operate under one account, but are five separate bots) to keep up with the system.

163:

I like to get some advice so I do not need to ask users to take steps that are not needed but also that I only give bot-status with community approval.

1907:, and there are relatively few, so there may not be enough policy understanding to approve/disapprove bots. Yet my overall impression is positive. — 1996: 598: 534: 127: 2956:

Of course. I personally don't see the problem in 'electing' everyone here unless any serious issues are brought up, but that's just my opinion. —

2028:

Sorry, you don't seem to have any inside knowledge of wiki-code and how manually written bots are run/work. AWB is quite easy to use by itself.--

431:

Would just like to repeat, for those who may have missed it the first time around, that pointing users to individual bureaucrats for flags is a

1623:

the Approval group members are active in other places. As I am an active member and proposed the original reorganization to the current format

2529: 1828:

election process. It is understood that these new approvals are needed because there are not enough active approval group members. Myself (

252:

The approvals procedure is about to be overhauled, hopefully it will be clearer then. Anyway, do you think this talk page should redirect to

2333:"elected" and help out when I can. Otherwise I could be on a standby list or something. Whatever works for you.) - Is also an administrator 3031:

make it hard for him and other to run bots, now we have bots that revert vandalism, we have AWB, but still the same arcane rules for bots.

2532:, also, how could AWB be more "serious"? it certainly has the most number of features and diversity of uses, though is pretty easy to use. 3436:

Let's say I then decided to use my bot to unicode articles. It's not a controversial action, and I'm not specifically hurting anyone.

2389:

Pffft... I can do PHP, Java and some quite serious shell scripting too ya know! I do love my VB though, if that's a sin I confess :) --

3656: 1775: 1515:

Considering that some bot requests got no response from the approvals group for weeks, it certainly makes sense to extend the group (

3129:

My opinion: if it's 20 supports to 2 opposes then you can "close" the discussion, if it's close, we should ask another bureaucrat. —

1465:

Ditto: my bot (Eubot) has been on this page for almost two weeks, with no comments for over a week. Can someone approve it please?

821:

You have to do cleanup for the 25%-50% of people who pay no attention to instructions and will post it directly on the page anyway.

155: 141: 3719:

Pardon my extreme ignorance on this one, but not being on the approvals group until today I had never considered the process of

1771: 215:

the page and forgotten, there was almost no procedure for approving and/or dissaproving a bot, I hope this can be better now.

1900: 440: 110: 3608:

I've just worked to clear some of the backlog, but did not clean up after myself much (did close the pages and sign, noted

1378:

Can someone approve Task 4 of my bot? It's been sitting on the page for a week. I still don't have any complaints. Thanks.

492:

it yourself. If the approvals group member does it, all that has to be done is check the history and see that it is legit.

3439:

Would such an action (unapproved, albeit reasonable), be: a violation of WP:BOT or a reason for an admin to block my bot?

277:

It would be better to leave this page here for organization, etc. However, if there are only a few people watching it and

3478: 1334:

idea is though good by the people it accepts is not only very straightforward, but really should always have been done. -

436: 3187:

I understand. Well, it's only a week so it will have to wait. Thanks for the reply and for considering my suggestion. --

1903:

is a plus. I almost caught myself thinking that 5,000 edits was too low. Ha! I need to get out more. I took a look at

2925:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1819:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2085: 2013:

Sorry but I just don't feel that's enough, but I still feel your help would be welcomed. Just not give the go ahead.--

951:

I'll help out. I'm not sure if you want to preserve histories for individual subpages (which only an admin could do).

2781:, one of the most experienced javascript writers Knowledge (XXG) has, in my opinion – has definitely got my trust. — 42: 3816: 3792: 3783: 3767: 3751: 3727: 3708: 3687: 3664: 3620: 3597: 3575: 3556: 3532: 3503: 3489: 3471: 3455: 3406: 3396: 3385: 3191: 3182: 3173: 3163: 3153: 3143: 3124: 3101: 3092: 3072: 3061: 3035: 3025: 3015: 3004: 2995: 2976: 2950: 2913: 2892: 2880: 2858: 2846: 2834: 2813: 2799: 2769: 2738: 2704: 2694: 2676: 2661: 2639: 2624: 2601: 2567: 2553: 2536: 2519: 2499: 2490: 2474: 2433: 2393: 2380: 2371: 2347: 2307: 2295: 2274: 2262: 2240: 2217: 2189: 2180: 2149: 2130: 2071: 2034: 2019: 2004: 1988: 1963: 1941: 1928: 1911: 1870: 1787: 1765: 1728: 1713: 1704: 1690: 1681: 1659: 1645: 1631: 1608: 1583: 1549: 1524: 1506: 1496: 1469: 1455: 1441: 1423: 1406: 1391: 1367: 1352: 1342: 1321: 1299: 1279: 1264: 1227: 1194: 1145: 1131: 1064: 1045: 1016: 987: 964: 934: 909: 879: 862: 801: 764: 742: 733: 715: 696: 682: 672: 651: 640: 586: 572: 519: 485: 470: 421: 377: 360: 334: 309: 260: 239: 209: 198: 167: 1466: 606: 1761: 1700: 1579: 1520: 1451: 1402: 1363: 1285:

Just a thought, would it perhaps help to, on the day the bot begins its trial run, post a message about this on

1216: 1085: 2059: 1844: 2507:

Previous experience AND an admin is great. Also a strong vandal fighter. But I took some time to look over

2460:. Seems ready and trustworthy for the task, though I'd prefer it have you had a bit more than AWB experience. 394:

about a proposal for notifying bureaucrats of the need to assign/remove bot flags as accounts are approved.

2515:

Obviously I could be wrong, since you can READ policy without commenting on it, but for now I'll oppose. —

1757: 1696: 1575: 1516: 1447: 1398: 1359: 3696: 3651: 3511:

The way I see it is that there are a number of issues. Let's just split bot tasks into a couple realms.

3080: 2757: 2462: 2343:

a Microsoft Certified Professional in VB.NET and if you have a problem with that speak to me outside ;) --

2228: 827:

You have to keep an index of archived pages, as if you don't people don't know where to look for archives.

3570: 3466: 3338:

I have determined that the following users have achieved sufficient support to join the Approvals Group:

1782: 1676: 510: 480: 461: 412: 391: 296: 286: 282: 278: 253: 223: 185: 51: 17: 2126: 347: 2483: 1709:

I don't understand your question. Could you re-explain? Are you asking "does the policy work well?" —

1571: 831:

I have a good deal of experience with these systems, having set up the system used by RfM and RfCU:

603: 257: 160:

According user Rschen7754 this is a community approval for bot-status. For me that is not so clear.

123:

There is a listing about this bot on the correct page. But there was no responds from the community.

3482: 2595:, sorry I don't see enough experience, unless there's anything else you think I should know about.-- 1538: 3442:

Personally, I think it would, but I'd like some feedback from B/AG members and other admins/crats.

1976: 1619: 1304:

We could make a little page with a list of currently testing bots and transclude it in places like

1295: 1275: 1012: 530: 370: 476:

Or replacing "Go ask a bureaucrat" with "Go write your name so-and-so page." That would work too.

3814: 3685: 3618: 2906: 2288: 1657: 1421: 1143: 1062: 932: 877: 694: 670: 146: 2821:. A simple look at my monobook pages makes it abundantly clear why I want VOA as a B/AG member. 2611:

That said, I respect your opinion. I see this only as a chance to help out the community a bit.

2051: 1995:

My comments are no replacement for a statement by Betacommand, but the recent reorganization of

1724:

PS the current group tends to take a lot of time to get to a new bot, task, or respnd at times.

1215:

Alphachimp, I have a bot approved to do work on request of others, due to my past monitoring of

926::) really though, I'm not up for doing this unless the other regulars here are up for it to. — 1308:. It'd bring more exposure to this page and let users know that the bot is currently trialing. 3746: 3628: 3357: 3311: 3138: 2875: 2809: 2733: 2672: 2635: 2597: 2546: 2428: 2257: 2213: 2077: 2030: 2015: 1959: 1934: 1491: 233: 3430: 3422: 2909: 2291: 785: 3789: 3764: 3342: 3248: 2122: 2068: 1985: 1924: 1833: 1725: 1719: 1628: 1339: 1261: 1042: 984: 899: 852: 739: 679: 630: 569: 504: 455: 406: 3676: 3418: 2943: 2064: 1954: 565: 561: 3563: 3544: 3443: 3226: 2822: 2724:

going through the approvals process 5 times shows that he has some experience with this. —

2649: 2612: 2139: 1429: 1379: 1309: 1182: 1119: 1093:. If a request is limited scope, there's no good reason to force a bot owner to hold back. 952: 789: 752: 721: 703: 664:

Does anyone have any feelings on moving individual request to subpages ala rfa and mfd? —

579: 3609: 3371:

need of settling at closing time. Since that wasn't the case, I've closed the election.

2511:

and I'm not convinced there is enough policy understanding as required to approve bots.

1305: 1286: 3566:

without telling anyone, I sure hope I get blocked. It really is a matter of discretion.

3222:, have assessed the following final outcome for the candidates: (in alphabetical order) 1695:

How is "consensus among the current active members of the approval group" as a policy? (

3594: 2533: 2496: 2377: 2186: 1291: 1271: 1008: 178:

For future concerns, I suggest you take every bot in that area as approved by default.

2211:, appears to have been dealing with bots for a while and assisted in the bot policy.-- 1541:

and appoint myself, since the criterion for being on the approvals group seems to be "

3809: 3680: 3613: 3500: 3403: 3347: 3269: 3188: 3179: 3170: 3022: 3001: 2901: 2843: 2691: 2487: 2390: 2344: 2283: 2177: 1838: 1687: 1652: 1637: 1605: 1416: 1349: 1138: 1074:

retarded to hamstring them into going through a lengthy, drawn out approvals process.

1057: 927: 872: 689: 665: 115: 3780: 3739: 3724: 3529: 3486: 3393: 3352: 3290: 3160: 3131: 3098: 3069: 3012: 2992: 2957: 2947: 2868: 2796: 2782: 2726: 2701: 2582: 2564: 2550: 2516: 2421: 2406: 2368: 2250: 2198: 2108: 2001: 1938: 1908: 1829: 1710: 1642: 1546: 1503: 1484: 1479: 529:

I have recently gotten the approval to run and have received a bot flag for my bot

228: 218: 3433:, someone from the approvals group would approve it, and a crat would set a flag. 1982:

I understand that the users are busy but I understand this process and I can help

1604:

to do this at the moment - too busy - so I'd help if needed but won't if not). --

1574:. But I suppose the members of the approvals group are also watching this page. ( 281:

is not cluttered, a redirect would not be harmful. BTW, we should redirect it to

3567: 3463: 3032: 2889: 2304: 2271: 1848: 1779: 1673: 1335: 1257: 1221: 1103:

appropriateness" of a bot proposal. The beautiful thing about this page is that

1038: 892: 845: 817:

My objection is this: It takes a lot of work to keep a subpage system working.

623: 494: 477: 445: 396: 354: 342: 303: 291: 206: 192: 180: 164: 97: 50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1056:. Can anyone think of a reason a trial should have more than say 250 edits? — 3779:

couldn't find it. Guess I'm just lazy or something. That or really busy. --

3515:, you have approved bots and unapproved bots. The process for creating a bot 3382: 3150: 3121: 3058: 2973: 2855: 2842:

Technically knowledgeable, an admin, friendly and helpful. Ideal candidate. --

2513:

There is also the minor point about using AWB instead of a more "serious" bot.

2166:- Lots of previous experience and I am an admin. Also helped write bot policy. 2089: 1867: 835:

RfCU has a group of about a half-dozen clerks who keep up with these problems,

646: 374: 331: 2058:

on my userpage making it display improperly. I have worked with wikicode see

688:

I like the new format, and suggest this to compliment it, not replace it. —

556:

and disscusions that have stalled and are over60 days old without any edits

2329:

May as well allow my name to go into the ring - I'm willing to be on call

3612:, but have not dealt with any of the archives, or the approvals log. — 2545:

I've retracted my comment. I just assumed that it was implied (based on

890:

If you're willing to keep it up, go for it. Hope it works well for you.

1624: 611: 1770:

No, I did mean "we need a policy", whether it is by appointment (a la

772:

B/AG members can simply move 1 line of text to approve a proposed bot.

3425:

is that bots are only flagged and approved for specific functions.

2081: 1618:

As an active member of Knowledge (XXG), experienced bot operator (

2376:

Sensible guy, programs in VB.NET, but I can forgive him for that.

2093: 1482:

has been in a trial period for over 11 days, can it be approved? —

2921:

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

2648:

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea at all what you are saying.

2854:

Has the technical skills, trustworthyness is beyond any doubt.

1852: 614: 550:

Bot that are approved and wish to get approval for another task

2339: 29: 134:

it. That is why I ask clarification about the process here.

3218:

As discussed above, I, Redux, acting as closing Bureaucrat

720:

And, by format, I mean technique. The new format is great.

3723:

discussions. Where do we archive the discussions to? --

2700:

because this subset of users desires such experience. --

2528:

He has recently been doing a good job approving users on

128:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests_for_approvals#User:CmdrObot

92:

Request for clarification : when is a bot approved here?

3756:

im sorry that is not the proper method list them under

2559: 2508: 2364: 2055: 1919: 1904: 1567: 2076:

PS I dont like to brag or even want to brag but given

1813:

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal.

747:

I just copy-and-paste moved the historybot request to

2482:

He's an admin, has process experience and operates a

2080:'s comment i feel it necessary to do so I program in 749:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Historybot

174:

previous bots, but I'd wait a while for confirmation.

3735:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4

3762:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/rejected

3758:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Approved

1863:(results will be posted in a separate thread below) 1670:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship/Ram-Man

769:Here are some more benefits of this new approach: 142:meta:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:Rschen7754bot 3057:role to help this run as smoothly as possible. 1686:Well, give a shout here if you want any help. -- 1778:) or a completely different method altogether. 3381:I hope this has been satisfactory. Regards, 1596:working or do they need to get appointed? (NB 3169:they can get to work clearing the backlog. -- 560:which is something simialar that is uses for 111:meta:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:CmdrObot 8: 156:Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive_13#Rschen7754bot 154:There is discussion about its bot-status on 1997:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approvals 599:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approvals 578:Good suggestion. Looks like Essjay did it. 535:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approvals 3562:similar. But if I start running a copy of 1415:due to non-response of their operators. — 2530:Knowledge (XXG):AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage 547:Bots that are approved and waitng a flag 775:Archival is incredibly simple and easy. 3214:RESULT: New members of Approvals Group 2900:everything seems good here as well. — 2807:, appears to have enough experience.-- 1348:task of benefit to Knowledge (XXG)? -- 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3413:Unapproved Functions on Approved Bots 2185:I'll chime in my support right here. 568:and the use of subpages for each bot 7: 256:, to keep all discussions central?-- 437:Knowledge (XXG):Requested bot flags 427:On flagging requests to Bureaucrats 3545: 3444: 3097:I've added a general deadline. -- 2823: 2650: 2613: 2282:Everything seems in order here. — 1566:According to the version prior to 1430: 1380: 1310: 1183: 1120: 953: 790: 753: 722: 704: 544:Bots that have a aproved trial run 28: 2140: 441:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Approval log 3700: 3520:well-established bot software. 3499:a human with human feelings). -- 3084: 2761: 2466: 2232: 1922:not just from the time you set. 33: 3048:"Election" deadline and closing 1855:, unless otherwise determined. 1290:would seem to be advantageous. 900: 893: 853: 846: 631: 624: 511: 505: 501: 495: 462: 456: 452: 446: 413: 407: 403: 397: 3817:06:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 3793:04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 3784:04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 3768:03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 3752:03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 3728:03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 3709:03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 3407:08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 2308:18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 580: 326:Shouldn't it be "Requests for 1: 3703: 3688:03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 3665:09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 3621:03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 3598:20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3576:20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3557:20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3550: 3533:19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3504:19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3490:18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3472:17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3456:17:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 3449: 3397:22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 3386:20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 3192:12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3183:12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3174:12:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3164:04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3154:03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3144:03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3125:03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3102:20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 3093:19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 3087: 3073:19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 3062:19:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 3036:15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3026:19:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 3016:19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 3005:19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2996:19:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2977:18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2951:18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2914:02:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2893:15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2881:03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2859:18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2847:18:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2835:18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2828: 2814:18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2800:18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2770:18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2764: 2739:03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2705:15:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 2695:15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 2677:17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2662:17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2655: 2640:07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2625:04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2618: 2602:19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2568:16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 2554:13:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2537:13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2520:13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2500:17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2491:17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2475:17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2469: 2434:03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2394:17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2381:17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2372:13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2348:19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2296:02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2275:15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2263:03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2241:18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2235: 2218:18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2190:17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2181:17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2150:14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 2143: 2131:03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 2072:13:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 2035:07:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2020:19:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2005:18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1989:04:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 1964:15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 1942:15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 1937:here that we need to AGF. -- 1929:15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1912:13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 1901:Counter-Vandalism Wikipedians 1871:20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 1788:20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1766:20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1729:19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1714:19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1705:17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1691:16:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1682:16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1660:16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1646:14:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1609:07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1570:, the right place to ask was 1435: 1385: 1315: 1188: 1125: 958: 795: 758: 727: 709: 541:Bots that are being discussed 348: 297: 186: 3697: 3081: 2758: 2463: 2229: 1222: 1217:Knowledge (XXG):Bot requests 1105:anyone is welcome to comment 1086:Knowledge (XXG):Bot requests 392:Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging 355: 343: 304: 292: 193: 181: 3392:than later if required. -- 2056:Cydebot changing a category 1860: 1841:has volunteered *if needed* 1632:18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1584:20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1550:19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1525:17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1507:17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1497:13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1470:15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1368:19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1353:19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1032:Deficiency of consideration 378:09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 3832: 3675:As one of the most active 2560:wikipedia talk space edits 1672:may depend on this issue. 1456:11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 1442:01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 1424:01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 1407:11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1392:08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1343:10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1322:04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1300:04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1280:04:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1265:10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1228:12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1195:03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1146:03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1132:02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1065:00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 1046:17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1017:04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 988:16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 965:11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 935:11:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 910:06:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 880:00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 863:07:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 802:15:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 765:15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 743:14:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 734:13:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 716:13:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 697:04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 683:03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 673:03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 422:15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 361:13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 335:12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 310:13:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 261:01:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 240:00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 210:14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 199:21:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 168:15:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 3243:Consensus in favor: 71.5% 1918:Please look at all of my 1836:have requested to join. 1806:Approval Group "Election" 1446:Thanks from me as well. ( 652:13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 641:00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 597:WHoever re-organised the 283:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Bots 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Bots 3327:Consensus in favor: 100% 3306:Consensus in favor: 100% 3285:Consensus in favor: 100% 3264:Consensus in favor: 100% 2963:18:50, 02 September 2006 2923:Please do not modify it. 2788:18:11, 02 September 2006 2633:Maybe at a later date.-- 2588:18:19, 02 September 2006 2412:18:19, 02 September 2006 2204:18:19, 02 September 2006 2114:18:19, 02 September 2006 2060:User:Betacommand/sandbox 1816:Please do not modify it. 587:02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 573:07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 520:08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 486:06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 471:06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 386:Flagging and bureaucrats 3733:The current archive is 1774:) or by election (a la 553:Bot disscusion archives 3788:No I just changed it. 3589:them to stop first is 1884:- Has over 5,900 edits 1374:Bot Approval Requested 373:changed it. Thanks! – 2509:wikipedia space edits 1920:wikipedia space edits 1905:wikipedia space edits 1428:Thank you, Xaosflux. 46:of past discussions. 22:Requests for approval 3417:My understanding of 2419:- I like VB too :) — 2365:wikipedia space edit 1467:Eugène van der Pijll 2932:"Election" comments 2310:(added after close) 1977:User:BetacommandBot 1543:experienced editors 531:user:BetacommandBot 390:I've put a note at 2581:, has my trust. — 2405:, has my trust. — 2197:, has my trust. — 2107:, has my trust. — 2067:works out better. 645:Yay Essjay! :) -- 621:That would be me. 147:User:Rschen7754bot 116:w:en:User:CmdrObot 103:2 cases/examples; 3743: 3135: 2872: 2730: 2425: 2254: 1488: 904: 882: 857: 635: 537:into five pages. 515: 466: 417: 89: 88: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 3823: 3812: 3750: 3741: 3705: 3702: 3699: 3683: 3663: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3635: 3632: 3616: 3573: 3554: 3549: 3479:Ignore All Rules 3469: 3453: 3448: 3316:Participants: 9 3295:Participants: 8 3274:Participants: 4 3253:Participants: 5 3232:Participants: 7 3142: 3133: 3089: 3086: 3083: 3007:(edit conflict) 2960: 2904: 2879: 2870: 2832: 2827: 2812: 2785: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2737: 2728: 2675: 2659: 2654: 2638: 2622: 2617: 2600: 2585: 2471: 2468: 2465: 2432: 2423: 2409: 2367:requirements. — 2340:writing software 2286: 2261: 2252: 2237: 2234: 2231: 2216: 2201: 2147: 2142: 2111: 2033: 2018: 1962: 1927: 1899:. Membership in 1862: 1818: 1785: 1679: 1655: 1537:Maybe I'll just 1495: 1486: 1439: 1434: 1419: 1389: 1384: 1319: 1314: 1224: 1192: 1187: 1141: 1129: 1124: 1091:waste of my time 1060: 962: 957: 930: 908: 906: 902: 897: 875: 870: 861: 859: 855: 850: 799: 794: 762: 757: 731: 726: 713: 708: 692: 668: 639: 637: 633: 628: 584: 518: 517: 513: 507: 503: 499: 483: 469: 468: 464: 458: 454: 450: 420: 419: 415: 409: 405: 401: 357: 352: 345: 306: 301: 294: 236: 231: 226: 221: 195: 190: 183: 67: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 3831: 3830: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3810: 3805: 3738: 3717: 3681: 3673: 3661: 3650: 3645: 3642: 3639: 3636: 3633: 3630: 3629: 3614: 3606: 3571: 3467: 3415: 3216: 3130: 3050: 2969:General Comment 2964: 2958: 2934: 2929: 2902: 2867: 2808: 2789: 2783: 2749: 2725: 2671: 2634: 2596: 2589: 2583: 2444: 2420: 2413: 2407: 2319: 2284: 2249: 2212: 2205: 2199: 2160: 2138:excellent user 2121:- per FireFox. 2115: 2109: 2029: 2014: 1958: 1923: 1878: 1814: 1808: 1783: 1677: 1653: 1616: 1614:Approvals group 1600:don't have any 1483: 1477: 1417: 1376: 1139: 1058: 1034: 983:I'll help out. 928: 922:Thanks for the 891: 873: 844: 690: 666: 662: 622: 595: 527: 493: 481: 444: 429: 395: 388: 324: 258:Commander Keane 238: 234: 229: 224: 219: 94: 63: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3829: 3827: 3804: 3803:New Header Top 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3716: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3672: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3657: 3605: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3540: 3517:the first time 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3474: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3399: 3361: 3360: 3355: 3350: 3345: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3320: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3299: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3278: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3257: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3236: 3215: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3075: 3049: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 2998: 2966: 2965: 2962: 2939: 2938: 2933: 2930: 2928: 2927: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2895: 2883: 2861: 2849: 2837: 2816: 2802: 2790: 2787: 2773: 2772: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2697: 2680: 2679: 2665: 2664: 2643: 2642: 2628: 2627: 2605: 2604: 2590: 2587: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2556: 2540: 2539: 2523: 2522: 2502: 2493: 2477: 2452: 2451: 2443: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2414: 2411: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2384: 2383: 2374: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2327:Only if needed 2318: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2298: 2277: 2265: 2243: 2220: 2206: 2203: 2192: 2183: 2168: 2167: 2159: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2133: 2116: 2113: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2023: 2022: 2008: 2007: 1992: 1991: 1975:Since getting 1967: 1966: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1915: 1914: 1886: 1885: 1877: 1874: 1865: 1864: 1822: 1821: 1809: 1807: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1722: 1693: 1620:BetacommandBot 1615: 1612: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1510: 1509: 1476: 1473: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1444: 1375: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1068: 1067: 1054:one week trial 1033: 1030: 1028: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 915: 914: 913: 912: 885: 884: 840: 839: 836: 829: 828: 825: 822: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 781: 780: 779: 776: 773: 661: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 594: 591: 590: 589: 558: 557: 554: 551: 548: 545: 542: 526: 523: 489: 488: 428: 425: 387: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 371:Freakofnurture 364: 363: 323: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 245: 244: 243: 242: 216: 176: 175: 152: 151: 150: 149: 131: 130: 121: 120: 119: 118: 93: 90: 87: 86: 81: 78: 73: 68: 56: 55: 38: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3828: 3819: 3818: 3815: 3813: 3802: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3782: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3769: 3766: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3748: 3744: 3736: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3726: 3722: 3714: 3710: 3707: 3706: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3686: 3684: 3678: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3660: 3655: 3652: 3649: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3619: 3617: 3611: 3603: 3599: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3583: 3582: 3577: 3574: 3569: 3565: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3555: 3553: 3548: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3518: 3514: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3475: 3473: 3470: 3465: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3452: 3447: 3440: 3437: 3434: 3432: 3426: 3424: 3420: 3412: 3408: 3405: 3400: 3398: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3384: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3359: 3356: 3354: 3351: 3349: 3346: 3344: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3333: 3332: 3326: 3321: 3318: 3317: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3310: 3305: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3289: 3284: 3279: 3276: 3275: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3268: 3263: 3258: 3255: 3254: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3247: 3242: 3237: 3234: 3233: 3231: 3230: 3228: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3221: 3213: 3193: 3190: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3181: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3162: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3140: 3136: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3123: 3118: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3103: 3100: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3091: 3090: 3076: 3074: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3060: 3056: 3047: 3037: 3034: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3014: 3009: 3008: 3006: 3003: 2999: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2975: 2970: 2961: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2949: 2945: 2936: 2935: 2931: 2926: 2924: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2905: 2899: 2896: 2894: 2891: 2887: 2884: 2882: 2877: 2873: 2865: 2862: 2860: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2848: 2845: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2833: 2831: 2826: 2820: 2817: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2803: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2791: 2786: 2780: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2768: 2767: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2746: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2706: 2703: 2698: 2696: 2693: 2689: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2663: 2660: 2658: 2653: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2637: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2621: 2616: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2594: 2591: 2586: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2569: 2566: 2561: 2557: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2484:very cute bot 2481: 2478: 2476: 2473: 2472: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2435: 2430: 2426: 2418: 2415: 2410: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2395: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2349: 2346: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2316: 2309: 2306: 2302: 2299: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2287: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2266: 2264: 2259: 2255: 2247: 2244: 2242: 2239: 2238: 2224: 2221: 2219: 2215: 2210: 2207: 2202: 2196: 2193: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2175: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2137: 2134: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2117: 2112: 2106: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2046: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2003: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1873: 1872: 1869: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1840: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1820: 1817: 1811: 1810: 1805: 1789: 1786: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1656: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1644: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1621: 1613: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1551: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1493: 1489: 1481: 1474: 1472: 1471: 1468: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1443: 1440: 1438: 1433: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1414: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1383: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1351: 1345: 1344: 1341: 1337: 1331: 1323: 1320: 1318: 1313: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1259: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1196: 1193: 1191: 1186: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1147: 1144: 1142: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1128: 1123: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1106: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1092: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1061: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1040: 1031: 1029: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 989: 986: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 966: 963: 961: 956: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 936: 933: 931: 925: 924:encouragement 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 911: 907: 898: 896: 889: 888: 887: 886: 881: 878: 876: 867: 866: 865: 864: 860: 851: 849: 837: 834: 833: 832: 826: 823: 820: 819: 818: 803: 800: 798: 793: 787: 782: 777: 774: 771: 770: 768: 767: 766: 763: 761: 756: 750: 746: 745: 744: 741: 737: 736: 735: 732: 730: 725: 719: 718: 717: 714: 712: 707: 700: 699: 698: 695: 693: 687: 686: 685: 684: 681: 675: 674: 671: 669: 659: 653: 650: 649: 644: 643: 642: 638: 629: 627: 620: 619: 618: 616: 613: 609: 608: 605: 600: 592: 588: 585: 583: 577: 576: 575: 574: 571: 567: 563: 555: 552: 549: 546: 543: 540: 539: 538: 536: 532: 524: 522: 521: 514: 508: 500: 498: 487: 484: 479: 475: 474: 473: 472: 465: 459: 451: 449: 442: 438: 434: 433:very bad idea 426: 424: 423: 416: 410: 402: 400: 393: 385: 379: 376: 372: 368: 367: 366: 365: 362: 359: 358: 353: 351: 346: 339: 338: 337: 336: 333: 329: 321: 311: 308: 307: 302: 300: 295: 288: 284: 280: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 262: 259: 255: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 241: 237: 232: 227: 222: 213: 212: 211: 208: 203: 202: 201: 200: 197: 196: 191: 189: 184: 172: 171: 170: 169: 166: 161: 158: 157: 148: 145: 144: 143: 140: 139: 138: 135: 129: 126: 125: 124: 117: 114: 113: 112: 109: 108: 107: 104: 101: 99: 91: 85: 82: 79: 77: 74: 72: 69: 66: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 3806: 3720: 3718: 3695: 3674: 3671:Streamlining 3658: 3653: 3607: 3590: 3586: 3551: 3546: 3525: 3521: 3516: 3512: 3510: 3496: 3450: 3445: 3441: 3438: 3435: 3427: 3416: 3380: 3374: 3373: 3367: 3366: 3362: 3358:Voice of All 3337: 3334:Final result 3312:Voice of All 3219: 3217: 3116: 3079: 3054: 3051: 2988: 2984: 2968: 2967: 2940: 2922: 2920: 2897: 2885: 2866:per Redux. — 2863: 2851: 2839: 2829: 2824: 2818: 2804: 2792: 2778: 2756: 2753:Voice of All 2752: 2747:Voice of All 2721: 2687: 2656: 2651: 2619: 2614: 2592: 2578: 2512: 2504: 2479: 2461: 2458:Weak Support 2457: 2447: 2416: 2402: 2360: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2300: 2279: 2267: 2245: 2227: 2222: 2208: 2194: 2173: 2163: 2144: 2135: 2118: 2104: 2047: 1981: 1972: 1950: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1881: 1866: 1847:sometime on 1837: 1825: 1823: 1815: 1812: 1665: 1617: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1542: 1480:User:MetsBot 1478: 1475:Trial Period 1464: 1436: 1431: 1412: 1386: 1381: 1377: 1346: 1332: 1328: 1316: 1311: 1268: 1254: 1220: 1189: 1184: 1126: 1121: 1104: 1090: 1053: 1035: 1027: 959: 954: 923: 894: 847: 841: 830: 816: 796: 791: 759: 754: 728: 723: 710: 705: 676: 663: 647: 625: 602: 596: 581: 559: 528: 496: 490: 447: 432: 430: 398: 389: 349: 341: 327: 325: 298: 290: 187: 179: 177: 162: 159: 153: 136: 132: 122: 105: 102: 95: 64: 47: 41: 3790:Betacommand 3765:Betacommand 3343:Betacommand 3249:Betacommand 2505:Weak Oppose 2248:per above — 2123:GeorgeMoney 2069:Betacommand 1986:Betacommand 1925:Betacommand 1882:Betacommand 1876:Betacommand 1849:September 9 1834:Betacommand 1726:Betacommand 1720:Betacommand 1668:needed, as 1629:Betacommand 985:Betacommand 740:Betacommand 680:Betacommand 570:Betacommand 525:Proposition 369:Looks like 340:I agree :) 98:user:Walter 40:This is an 3564:Tawkerbot2 3402:Cheers. -- 3319:Support: 9 3298:Support: 8 3277:Support: 4 3256:Support: 5 3235:Support: 5 3227:Alphachimp 2888:per above 2448:Alphachimp 2442:alphachimp 2338:I've been 2270:per above 2090:JavaScript 1845:bureaucrat 1758:Liberatore 1697:Liberatore 1576:Liberatore 1517:Liberatore 1448:Liberatore 1399:Liberatore 1360:Liberatore 607:Farmbrough 582:Alphachimp 3721:archiving 3715:Archiving 3677:WP:BAGers 3322:Oppose: 0 3301:Oppose: 0 3280:Oppose: 0 3259:Oppose: 0 3238:Oppose: 2 1861:has ended 1568:this edit 1292:AmiDaniel 1272:AmiDaniel 1009:AmiDaniel 593:Well done 322:Page name 96:Hi, I am 84:Archive 5 76:Archive 3 71:Archive 2 65:Archive 1 3811:xaosflux 3694:section. 3682:xaosflux 3659:contribs 3615:xaosflux 3522:Secondly 3501:kingboyk 3404:kingboyk 3348:Kingboyk 3270:Kingboyk 3189:kingboyk 3171:kingboyk 3023:kingboyk 3002:kingboyk 2937:Comments 2912:member) 2903:xaosflux 2844:kingboyk 2692:kingboyk 2488:kingboyk 2391:kingboyk 2345:kingboyk 2323:kingboyk 2317:kingboyk 2294:member) 2285:xaosflux 2178:kingboyk 2052:WP:CFD/W 1839:kingboyk 1688:kingboyk 1654:xaosflux 1638:Xaosflux 1625:see this 1606:kingboyk 1418:xaosflux 1350:kingboyk 1140:xaosflux 1059:xaosflux 929:xaosflux 874:xaosflux 738:I agree 691:xaosflux 667:xaosflux 660:subpages 612:18 July 328:approval 20:‎ | 3604:backlog 3530:Ram-Man 3526:Thirdly 3487:Ram-Man 3483:Be Bold 3481:" and " 3431:WP:BRFA 3423:WP:BRFA 3375:Note 2: 3368:Note 1: 3353:Ram-Man 3291:Ram-Man 3078:enough. 2989:Neutral 2985:Comment 2959:FireFox 2910:WP:B/AG 2898:Support 2886:Support 2864:Support 2852:Support 2840:Support 2819:Support 2805:Support 2797:Ram-Man 2793:Support 2784:FireFox 2779:Support 2722:Support 2584:FireFox 2579:Support 2551:Ram-Man 2517:Ram-Man 2480:Support 2417:Support 2408:FireFox 2403:Support 2369:Ram-Man 2361:Support 2301:Support 2292:WP:B/AG 2280:Support 2268:Support 2246:Support 2223:Support 2209:Support 2200:FireFox 2195:Support 2174:Support 2164:Ram-Man 2158:Ram-Man 2136:Support 2119:Support 2110:FireFox 2105:Support 2048:Comment 1973:Comment 1951:Support 1909:Ram-Man 1897:Support 1893:Neutral 1859:Voting 1830:Ram-Man 1826:interim 1711:Ram-Man 1643:Ram-Man 1547:Ram-Man 1539:Be Bold 1504:Ram-Man 1413:stalled 1397:Ditto ( 1089:been a 786:WP:BRFA 617:(GMT). 512:Connect 463:Connect 414:Connect 287:WT:BOTS 279:WT:BOTS 254:WT:BOTS 137:Case 2 106:Case 1 43:archive 3760:& 3595:Martin 3591:always 3587:asking 3419:WP:BOT 3220:ad hoc 3117:pester 3055:ad hoc 3033:Stefan 2987:" or " 2890:Stefan 2688:surely 2593:Oppose 2534:Martin 2497:Martin 2378:Martin 2305:Tawker 2272:Stefan 2226:asset. 2187:Martin 1955:WP:AGF 1832:) and 1776:ArbCom 1772:MedCom 1602:desire 1572:WT:BOT 1336:Splash 1258:Splash 1223:fetofs 1163:tasks. 1039:Splash 895:Essjay 848:Essjay 788:page. 626:Essjay 610:20:49 601:page. 566:WP:RFA 562:WP:CFD 497:Essjay 448:Essjay 399:Essjay 285:, not 207:Walter 165:Walter 3698:Voice 3610:WP:BN 3552:Chimp 3547:alpha 3513:First 3451:Chimp 3446:alpha 3383:Redux 3151:Redux 3122:Redux 3082:Voice 3059:Redux 2974:Redux 2946:. -- 2856:Redux 2830:Chimp 2825:alpha 2810:Andeh 2759:Voice 2673:Andeh 2657:Chimp 2652:alpha 2636:Andeh 2620:Chimp 2615:alpha 2598:Andeh 2547:Andeh 2464:Voice 2230:Voice 2214:Andeh 2145:Chimp 2141:alpha 2094:BASIC 2078:Andeh 2031:Andeh 2016:Andeh 1960:Andeh 1935:Andeh 1868:Redux 1437:Chimp 1432:alpha 1387:Chimp 1382:alpha 1317:Chimp 1312:alpha 1306:WP:AN 1287:WP:AN 1190:Chimp 1185:alpha 1127:Chimp 1122:alpha 960:Chimp 955:alpha 797:Chimp 792:alpha 760:Chimp 755:alpha 729:Chimp 724:alpha 711:Chimp 706:alpha 648:Where 375:Gurch 332:Gurch 330:"? – 16:< 3747:talk 3740:Mets 3737:. — 3701:-of- 3568:Tito 3464:Tito 3421:and 3139:talk 3132:Mets 3085:-of- 2876:talk 2869:Mets 2762:-of- 2734:talk 2727:Mets 2486:. -- 2467:-of- 2429:talk 2422:Mets 2258:talk 2251:Mets 2233:-of- 2127:talk 2092:and 2086:Java 1953:via 1853:2006 1780:Tito 1762:2006 1701:2006 1674:Tito 1580:2006 1545:" — 1521:2006 1492:talk 1485:Mets 1452:2006 1403:2006 1364:2006 1296:talk 1276:talk 1013:talk 903:Talk 856:Talk 634:Talk 615:2006 604:Rich 506:Talk 478:Tito 457:Talk 439:and 408:Talk 356:tofs 305:tofs 235:Toth 194:tofs 3742:501 3704:All 3180:pgk 3134:501 3088:All 2944:RfA 2871:501 2765:All 2729:501 2470:All 2424:501 2303:-- 2253:501 2236:All 2065:AWB 1957:.-- 1764:). 1703:). 1664:It 1582:). 1523:). 1519:, 1487:501 1454:). 1405:). 1366:). 1108:it. 3781:RM 3725:RM 3643:ar 3640:ik 3637:Sh 3634:rk 3631:Da 3572:xd 3497:is 3468:xd 3394:RM 3229:: 3161:RM 3099:RM 3070:RM 3021:-- 3013:RM 2993:RM 2948:RM 2702:RM 2565:RM 2331:if 2176:-- 2129:) 2088:, 2084:, 2002:RM 1939:RM 1851:, 1784:xd 1760:, 1699:, 1678:xd 1666:is 1578:, 1450:, 1401:, 1362:, 1340:tk 1338:- 1298:) 1278:) 1262:tk 1260:- 1043:tk 1041:- 1015:) 871:— 564:/ 509:• 482:xd 460:• 411:• 289:. 205:-- 80:→ 3749:) 3745:( 3654:/ 3646:i 3141:) 3137:( 2908:( 2878:) 2874:( 2736:) 2732:( 2431:) 2427:( 2325:( 2290:( 2260:) 2256:( 2125:( 2082:C 1598:I 1494:) 1490:( 1294:( 1274:( 1011:( 905:) 901:( 883:) 869:( 858:) 854:( 636:) 632:( 516:) 502:( 467:) 453:( 418:) 404:( 350:e 344:F 299:e 293:F 230:a 225:z 220:A 217:→ 188:e 182:F 54:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index