Wikivoyage:Nominering av robotar

Från Wikivoyage, den fria resehandboken.
Hoppa till: navigering, sök

Enligt Wikivoyages riktlinje för robotanvändning måste alla robotar godkännas av administratörer. För att skapa en robot och få tillstånd att använda den, lägg in dess namn och orsak under rubriken nedan.

Förklara varför Wikivoyage behöver roboten, varför det inte kan göras manuellt och exakt vad roboten skall göra. Om två administratörer inom sju dagar stöder robotinsatsen och ingen vänder sig mot den under samma period, kommer en byråkrat att flagga roboten, det vill säga ge den officiell botstatus.

OBS: du måste göra en ny ansökan på varje språkversion av Wikivoyage där du vill köra din robot. En godkänd ansökan på denna sida ger dig bara tillstånd att använda din robot på svenskspråkiga Wikivoyage.

Robotar som godkänts förtecknas sedan på sidan för godkända robotar.

For our foreign robot operators[Redigera]

According to the Wikivoyage script policy, scripts have to be approved by the Wikivoyage administrators. To create a script that runs against Wikivoyage, post the name and reason for the script beneath the line below.

Explain why we need the script, why it can't be done by hand, and what the script will do. If two administrators voice their support for the script within seven days, and none oppose it in that period, the script can be run.

NOTE: you must apply for approval on each language version of Wikivoyage. Approval on this page only allows you to run a bot on Wikivoyage in swedish.

Scripts that have passed through this process on Wikivoyage in swedish can be found in here.

Ansökan om godkännande av robot[Redigera]

RileyBot[Redigera]

  • Botmaster: User:Riley Huntley
  • Bot's name: User:RileyBot
  • List of bot flags on other projects: full list
  • Purpose: Fixes redirects (broken and double)
  • Technical details: pywikipediabot, latest versions

Riley Huntley (diskussion) 27 januari 2013 kl. 07.56 (CET)

You would be the first redirect bot here, so could you explain why a redirect fixing bot is needed and make around 10 test edits? Carsrac (diskussion) 28 januari 2013 kl. 13.08 (CET)
Hello, thank you for letting me speak english here. (my sv is very rough) I have made 10 edits, 7 of them fixing double redirects and the other three nominating broken redirects for deletion. (please tell me if you think I could improve the template added; {{radera|Trasig omdirigering}}.) I think that a redirect bot is needed because redirects are often a hassle to deal with and can be easily fixed daily by a bot like mine. Another benefit is that if a bot does it, editors can spend more time fixing the more important things on this project. Riley Huntley (diskussion) 29 januari 2013 kl. 02.13 (CET)
Several bots who makes interwiki, are sometimes fixing double redirects. I do not know how many such bots we have running here. I cannot see such a bot-task can do much damage, and active local users can stop to bother about some special-pages. The software to correct double redirects in pywikipedia is very well tested. I do not know how it looks for the broken-redirect-code, but such delete-requests will always be confirmed by an admin, so the risks are minimal. But there will not be much for this bot to do in this project, such pages will not come live very often. On sv.wikisource, we have only a few per year, here you will maybe have some more. Do you and we think it is necessary to have a bot-flag for such few edits? I do not thinks so, it can be nice to see and follow this bots activity easily at RC. But if it is easier to maintain the bot as flaged, it can be granted anyway. -- Lavallen (diskussion) 30 januari 2013 kl. 21.03 (CET) (And the delete-template looks ok.)
The only bots that should be fixing redirects here are bots that are approved to do so by the community as global bots are not allowed to run on this wiki. As said, the risks are minimal and I have this bot to run at a time I am always online so I can revert any edits made very quickly if it somehow made a mistake. Having the bot flag is not needed but it would definitely benefit (helps with the api, allows editing of semi-protected pages, autopatrol, not trigger the new messages prompt when fixing redirects on user talk pages etc.). Riley Huntley (diskussion) 3 februari 2013 kl. 05.48 (CET)
Regarding semi-protected pages: The bot already has the autoconfirmed-rights. This wiki is currently using new-page-patroll, rather than edit-patroll so that is no big deal. The apihighlimits and nominornewtalk-rights can sometimes be very useful, yes. I think the botflag can be granted, but it's up to the crats to deside! - Lavallen (diskussion) 5 februari 2013 kl. 09.26 (CET)
The bot is now approved. Riggwelter (diskussion) 15 februari 2013 kl. 17.08 (CET)
Approved. Riggwelter (diskussion) 7 februari 2016 kl. 17.08 (CET)