User talk:RFRBot

Block

I've blocked because there is no apparent WP:BRFA. If one gets approved, feel free to have another admin unblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be approved once I finish testing it - you're certainly on the ball today :) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that that was what the trial period was for. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They told me 'get the bot working', so I wanted to do a quick dry run before I went there. That's how we catch simple mistakes like using the wrong kind of quote ;) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that this is against the policy, but I'll overlook it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have just as easily done it under my own account, and I was watching it very closely. BRFA is already up. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small bug

It seems your bot chocked on the =s in my name, sorry to make your job tougher:[1]. 1 != 2 07:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's right, I forgot about you ;) It's an easy fix for now, at least until we get a user with more than three equals signs. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

timing

Please slow this bot down, the speed at which decisions are getting archive prohibits discussion over decisions being taken. The bot should replicate the bot WP:RFPP where by items are first moved to a seperate section and then later archived. Gnan garra 14:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is welcome, but my understanding was that once it was granted, discussion to take it away should be on ANI or something else. If you aren't ready to end the discussion, then don't do so by closing the request. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we were hoping that perhaps some admin would be able to check certain decisions, and discussion would be back open. This has already happened, and it has led to a decision being undone, with no objection from the original closing admin. It doesn't even have to be slowed down a ton. Maybe even 5, 10 minutes. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

We've had one case of a malformed request that was rejected and then fixed. Because this bot promptly sends a message to denied applicants, we should be careful to follow up with users to avoid misunderstandings. NoSeptember 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I originally posted this on the page where the discussion was taking place, but ran into an edit conflict.

I'm not sure if I can present some clarification here and if not I apologize. TTN has been vandal editing (see the 3RR rfc, ani, and I believe an rfar, cases against him), and because of this I have stepped back from many of the issues surrounding him. I went and read the rules pertaining to the privilege of this feature before I used the few times I had, and I want to state that I would not use it on an established editor. The TTN issue goes way back and probably requires more time than you all have to review it. However, if you all deem it necessary to revoke this privilege, I will (not because I have to) accept that. Please reconsider my edits overall and not just the issue of TTN. --Maniwar (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was fair to just base the decision on this one case. The issues surrounding TTN are vast, but again, I would not use it on him or another user. And my history will show that to be the case. I have made mistakes early on in my editing, but like any editor, I have grown and will continue to do so. Please reconsider if you will the decision. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! RFRBot didn't actually make the decision, that was User:J-stan. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That[2] was rude!

I was in the middle of a funny wikiprank. Some bots have no sense of humour.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say most bots don't have a sense of humor. :) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a chance that they have a different sense of humor than most humans. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving speed

Hmm, is there really any need for the bot to archive requests that fast (4 minutes!)? Couldn't you let it wait at least an hour or so before archiving, so that others might get a chance to see the requests, too? --Conti|✉ 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you archive completed requests every 15 minutes, no matter how old they are. Please leave them visible for whatever time period (I just got edit conflicted with the bot when I tried to comment on a request that was granted a minute earlier). 1 hour should be sufficient. Kusma (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

It says done when it's not. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means "handled", as oppose to done—I haven't seen it say "done" yet. If I'm correct in saying that, then the code should probably be tweaked, to allow for edit summaries that use the more accurate word choice of "request handled", or some variant. If I'm wrong, and it simply misread this request as being done, when it's not, then I'd be interested to know why... Anthøny 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"done", as in, "issue complete". I'll change it to something more descriptive next time I log in to toolserver. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving error

Hello; I am restoring my request for rollback on the relevant page, as my entry was apparently removed by the bot without an administrator's either granting or denying the request. This seems to have been an archiving error concerning an incorrectly formatted request by User:Obaidz96; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied/March_2008#Zahakiel. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it was due to the other user's malformed request. Go ahead and restore your request if you haven't done so already. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rollback request

Thankyou Mr. Bot for letting me now about my rollback request! Good work sir --Wiki-page-protector (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback bug

funny somehow you removed my request from the request page stating it's done but i'm not able to use the fature.Alexnia (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot comments that the request is "done" whether rollback was given (done) or not (notdone)... Suggest changing the summary to say "Removing (xxx), request processed" or something of the sort. xenocidic (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]