Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1

ArchiveBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: FASTILY

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: The archiving bot, User:MiszaBot, which performs a useful archiving job on Commons, has been down for the past week. Since the operator is no longer active, I would like to take over this task.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic unsupervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6-10

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Standard pywikipedia, using Manual:Pywikibot/

FASTILY 07:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


  •   Support Would be glad if the archiving bot would be running again. Lymantria (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to see it running again. Vensatry (Ping me) 07:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Make it so  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Revicomplaint? 08:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks a lot if you accept to take charge of this useful job. --Eusebius (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you very much @Fastily for volunteering to take over the job. :D --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support ArchiveBot is really a great feature. Thank you Fastily for reviving it. Liné1 (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support why not -- Bojan  Talk  08:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Raoli ✉ (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if commons uses the |key= feature that had, but just a heads up that you'll need to regenerate them (should be trivial). Legoktm (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support OF.COURSE, PLEASE_continue -- any effort to sustitute MiszaBot's longterm former service should be more than welcome!!! &Best wishes @Fastily -- [w.] 08:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support speedy approval? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support For speedy approval you may need a short testrun to verify everything is working right.--Denniss (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Obviously. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support - a working archive bot would be fine.--Wdwd (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support to approve it in the standard timeframe (in a week or so in my assumption), but not speedy approval & replacement. It wouldn't hurt to see how Misza13 responds. whym (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Added clarification. whym (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support - per Wdwd Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support - keep running :) --Euku: 09:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll be happy with that even though I don't get that many posts. Thanks Fastily. Ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support sure --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Fastily.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Same code? No problem them. :) Diti the penguin 10:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for keeping us updated. --Jwh (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for taking care. Kordas (sínome!) 10:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Always good when active users take over bots. Yellowcard (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Anatoliy (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --aconcagua (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is obviously a result of heavy canvassing. I will, however, change this to support if Fastily gets the backing of Wikimedia Israel, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikimedia Spain and Wikipedia Argentina, and a letter of support from Jan-Bart de Vreede, the Chair of the Board of Trustees. russavia (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Request for statement of support posted here. russavia (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It is absolutely unbelievable that you did not consider requiring WMDE to consent this bot requests. It's a shame … simply incredible. Russavia, did you perhaps miss April, 1 by 20 days or is there a different tradition in Australia? -- Rillke(q?) 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral: No need for a second archive bot, the task should (and could) be done by User:SpBot [ping User:Euku]. See also User talk:Euku#SpBot.    FDMS  4    12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --ST 12:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Your work in taking it over is appreciated. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Both thumbs up for this and, as always, a big THANKS for all you do here at Commons! :) We hope (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support with thanks --Rept0n1x (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support An important function that is often overlooked, so a trusted individual such as Fastily continuing the process is a good thing. – Adrignola talk 14:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Yes, please! JurgenNL (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes please -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk)
  •   Support Bien sûr.—Bill william comptonTalk 14:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, please - and thank you --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Absolutely - thanks, Fastily! James F. (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no reason against the seamless replacement of a malfunctioning bot, if no-one is there to repair it. --rimshottalk 17:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Thanks for volunteering. LlamaAl (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good idea, please do so! --Dirtsc (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Sounds very useful. It Is Me Here t / c 19:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Davidwr (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      Comment on a related note, we need a way to "speedy" such discussions when the code is unchanged and the proposed bot-operator has proven that he is familiar with the current bot-running technology and rules on the Commons. Davidwr (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      Comment There are some requests for code changes in the discussion above. These should be at least minimally discussed. I recommend allowing Fastily to "take over" the MiszaBot as-is ASAP then have a (hopefully short) discussion on the proposed changes. Davidwr (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for taking the initiative on this one, Fastily. It is much appreciated. Michael Barera (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you, Fastily! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensin (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Speedy support. Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for volunteering. My messages need to be compressed. --Nino Verde (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support But I agree with Multichill above that bots like this should run in a shared account on toollabs. --MGA73 (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support But please migrate to shared account. --Jarekt (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support having some replacement activated if the current one is non-functional with no prognosis for being fixed. I'm not in the loop on commons bot policies, so I have no comment on the technical concerns raised. On en.wp, miszabot was replaced by en:User:lowercase sigmabot III back in December (with a note that miszabot would not be returning). DMacks (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support & tnx --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --MagnusA (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • sure - thanks for your offer. Would you take over the existing archival templates or do we need to change them? --h-stt !? 10:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Do we have to change the template name (User:MiszaBot/config)? Revicomplaint? 07:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No need, this can stay as is. If the original operator, User:Misza13 does not return within two or three months to fix his/her bot, then we can talk about moving the template to ArchiveBot's userspace. -FASTILY 07:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Question @Fastily: Which version of are you using? I would like to see bug reports and fixes sent to the "core" version of the script, which should be actively developed and used. (I started using it for my bot) It was not clear when you said the exact same code as MiszaBot, which might or might not be the "core" one. whym (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I downloaded the most recent version of 'core', so presumably I should have the latest version of the bot. -FASTILY 08:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that you are using the core branch, but I also note that it is less tested than the compat branch (only for a couple of months) - you might encounter bugs more frequently. It would be great if you can report bugs (or fix them). :) whym (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Bureaucrat note Please make a test run with about 5-10 edits. Thanks :-) odder (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Fastily: Looks fine to me, but I'm hesitant about flagging the bot until you successfully move it to a shared hosting such as Tool Labs so we can make sure the bot does not die suddenly as was the case with many bots in the past. odder (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Odder: As stated below, I would hope to make arrangements for this eventually (time permitting of course), but for the time being I would prefer to use my personal home server, which is always up and quite reliable. Also, as you probably already know, I'm highly active on Commons, so if something goes wrong I'll be the first to know. -FASTILY 21:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Please make a test run under this account. Also, I would be glad if a bureaucrat could flag this account as soon as this is done as bot to avoid further watchlist clutter. Thank you Fastily for taking this over. -- Rillke(q?) 11:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Where do you plan to run this bot? I would propose you run it in a shared account on toollabs so we can finally tackle the bus factor problem we keep having with the archive bots. Pywikibot is available there and is updated daily so you don't have worry about keeping the code up to date. Multichill (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • My personal home server for now. I do like the idea of a shared labs account, and will look into migrating asap. -FASTILY 05:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Fastily: One thing I have noticed is that I have __NOINDEX__ on my talk page, but when it is archived to a new archive page these new pages are not NOINDEXed. It would be useful to set your bot up so that it is archiving pages that are noindexed, the new archive page is also noindex. Can you set this up? russavia (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Russavia: try adding |archiveheader = {{talkarchive}}__NOINDEX__ to your archive config --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for that. russavia (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Bureaucrat note Sounds good, but before permission is given could you please add to the bot's page the various bits of information required by Commons:Bots#Information_on_bots? Missing at the moment are (1) Whether the bot is manually assisted or runs automatically; (2) When it operates (continuously, intermittently, or at specified intervals); (3) The bot's maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute); and (4) The language and/or program that it is running. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Michael: I have no idea what you are saying. It has all been stated clearly above since the beginning of this discussion. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we all know, those who are following this thread, but the information should also be added to the bot's own page, at User:ArchiveBot so that it's easy for others to check quickly in the months and years to come. Adding the information to the bot page is a requirement, though admittedly not all existing bots comply :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see. :) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  Info OK, approval given and bot flag set. While it would be good to have this hosted on Labs in due course I don't think that permission and a bot flag should be made dependent upon that happening straight away. Fastily has said that he will 'will look into migrating asap', and that seems fine. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)