Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Knedlik-Pod

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

Knedlik-Pod

Operator: Renessaince (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 20:47, Saturday June 23, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Interwiki

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 1-10 per launch

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, but yes on other wikis

Function details: interwiki links, manual mode. templates are processed as well.

Discussion

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

Why was the bot already running before it is approved?
What are the interwiki options to be used?
The name fails WP:BOTACC - it resembles neither its function nor operator, and the word "bot" should be used so people can easily see that it is automated. This appears to be "pod", which is not right.

Rcsprinter (converse) 10:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was my fault.
"-new", "-page:<pagename>" and sometimes "-start:<letter>" (e. g. for processing templates: "-start:Template:M").
Yes, it is so.

--Renessaince (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why?
OK
Well, that's against policy. So it can't be approved like that.

Rcsprinter (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as soon as the bot has an inappropriate name, no need to answer all the other questions. Request can be closed, I think. --Renessaince (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what was the need to create interwikis between template subpages? Max Semenik (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No special need, just usual script work: there was an iw in sv-wiki, so bot created the link on the other side as well. --Renessaince (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. per [1]. — madman 04:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.