Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MahdiBot 2

{{Newbot|MahdiBot|2}}

Operator: {{botop|Mahdi.hajiha}}

Time filed: 15:17, Wednesday May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia: interwiki

Function overview:

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 50-100 page in day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details:

im use the namespace:0/Mahdi.hajiha (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:OK, which interwiki options are going to be used apart from the namespace one? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

::im use the arguments -new and -recentchange. for fawiki,and another project. im hope the answer to your question/Mahdi.hajiha (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• {{TakeNote}} 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⚡ 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

::Yes, why is the bot editing without approval or a trial? Rcsprinter (chat) 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:sorry. im run for a test(but im run for fawiki.) and the robot go away. i stop it.thanks/Mahdi.hajiha (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

::The bot is still running after your message. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:::the reason of the request for flag in en wiki is this. so that i run (pkill -u username) in my account toolsrver.:( i hope not anymore problem with the activity of robot /Mahdi.hajiha (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

::::And it is still running after the last message. Have you read WP:BOTPOL, in particular WP:BOTAPPROVAL? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::It seems to have done a total of 255 edits without approval.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:MahdiBot Blocked.]  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, I don't think the operator has demonstrated an ability to carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines; unless very good assurances or an explanation are forthcoming, I'm inclined to deny this task. — madman 04:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

:Given similar concern was raised on the last BRFA, I tend to agree. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

::{{BotDenied}} I hadn't reviewed the final disposition of the last BRFA; now that I have, I'm going to call not now on this one and attempt to discuss it with the operator on his or her talk page. — madman 13:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

: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.