Commons:Bots/Requests/Mike's bot account

Mike's bot account

Operator: – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Somewhere between the two. I will make sure whatever task it's doing is being done right, then set it free into the wild. I will periodically check edits as it runs, and will not be far while it runs.

Programming Language(s): AWB and pywikipediabot, depending on the task.

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Functions: I will use this primarily upon request, and to help clear Commons:Bots/Requests. Planned tasks are harmless, and have been done on other wikis without problems:

subst: various templates as required: user talk: templates, personal license templates
mass categorization upon request, like this or this
fixing double redirects if needed
add/remove/change templates and/or page text upon request in various simple ways

Discussion

Could you please make a test run? I didn't notice bot's contributions with this and your account. EugeneZelenko 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can once User:Mike's bot account is on the AWB checkpage. Until then, you can see the work at v:Special:Contributions/Mike's bot account and b:Special:Contributions/Mike's bot account. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added :). Patrícia ^msg 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some edits for ya. —Mike.lifeguard|^@en.wb 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For ref, the edits are here ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. However I agree with Lar, please handle only requests where consensus was reached. --EugeneZelenko 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about doing recat requests, they can be controversial here, I suggest not handling requests 5 minutes after they've been made, but instead, let them sit for a day or two, and if you have any doubts, ask the requestor if they have consensus or if it's been discussed. With that caveat, no objections, you're clearly trustworthy (as a CU on another wiki, you have trust). ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've been warned previously about categorization here :) The request had been sitting there for about 2 weeks before I completed it today, and seemed to me to be unproblematic. I won't hesitate to clarify or gain consensus before performing such changes in the future when I'm in doubt. —Mike.lifeguard|^@en.wb 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm... I seem to recall that, yes. :) 2 weeks with no comment seems safe to me. Even a day or two is goodness I'd say if it seems relatively uncontroversial. (It's not a race to see which bot can do it first!) As I said, no objections. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Known user - no objections --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]