Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot 10

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

Denied.

HBC AIV helperbot 10[edit]

Operator: ToxicWasteGrounds (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:HBC AIV helperbot/source

Function overview: To help with WP:AIV, WP:UAA and WP:SPI cases as well as being a redundant copy of the original.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Less than 10 per minute

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No but the others do

Function details: Same purpose as the other bots with added WP:SPI capability.

Discussion[edit]

~~Where is the code for the SPI portion? SPI is quite a bit different from SSP. (X! · talk) · @808 · 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

It is on a new version of the source although I'm not too sure if it will work or not at this time. Toxic Waste Grounds 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strike that, just reread the code. I would like to note, however, that Shirik and I are working on writing a replacement for SPCUClerkbot as we speak. SPI is a very complicated process, and it seems more efficient to have a dedicated bot for the process. (SocksBot :)) (X! · talk) · @810 · 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. Anyway, good luck with SocksBot (cool name btw :)) Toxic Waste Grounds 18:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. :) (Never mind the relation to SoxBot...) (X! · talk) · @814 · 18:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. The operator has been blocked indefinitely for socking. I suppose this can be reopened if new evidence emerges and the operator is unblocked. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:33, 3 May 2010 (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.