Commons:Bots/Requests/Larbot

Larbot

Operator: Lar

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manual or assisted manual.

Programming Language(s): AWB (if I do any bot code in anything else I will seek reapproval)

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Functions: misc housekeeping tasks that may from time to time arise, mostly shifting categories around.

Discussion

Larbot (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) is an account I've had for some time on several wikis, I use it when I have significant amounts of AWB work to do. I've never gotten a bot flag for it anywhere, the volume of work is not that large and I view AWB assisted edits as just that, assistance, rather than a bot per se. But based on discussion at Commons_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots where it was suggested I get it flagged, I'm requesting a flag. We shall see how easy or hard actually getting a flag approved by you lot of weisenheimers turns out to be. :) There are no particular "test runs" to refer to but if you look in the contrib history you will see what sorts of things are done. I'd characterise them all as housekeeping, the category shifts done are hardly controversial. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't see why this shouldn't be flagged (and it should be flagged, I think). Only thing is, you haven't used it really since October - do you plan on using it again more often? Majorly (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I honestly have no idea when or how often I will use it, I've used it as the need has arisen to do things I didn't feel were worth asking another bot or person to do. As I say, if it's anything other than AWB work, I'll seek approval for expanding its remit. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is rather open-ended, but Lar has proven extremely trustworthy. I trust him to seek reapproval for anything that might be controversial, so I think this should be approved. Quadell (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well... ok, but only because you're a nice guy :D. Seriously, independently of the amount of work done by the bot, the flag is a level of trust. The operator is trusted, and the bot account is not for file upload, so no reason to not give the flag. Patrícia ^msg 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • He's totally not a nice guy. I oppose this request. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • We apologise for the above interruption. Those responsible have been sacked. Although it IS said that møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti... ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll say... A Møøse once bit my sister... No realli! She was Karving her initials ... Møøse 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • We apologise again for the interruption. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah, Monty Python. Now, I'm off to town to purchase some shrubbery. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yep - flag it as far as I am concerned. I prefer bots accounts flagged --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think I can trust this user a lot to have a approved bot, he's a nice guy, also the fact that he's a Steward, Sysop, B'Crat and check-user also shows that he's very trustworthy to have an approved bot.....--Kushan I.A.K.J 11:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• A bot flag is a sign that we trust the operator because its edits are not visible on recent changes. I see no reason why we won't trust this operator :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)