From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Ajrbot
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 April 2010 by Calebchiam.
Please also take a look at Forum:Request for bot on Ajrbot

Hello, I am Ajraddatz and would like to request the bot flag, and community consensus, for my bot; Ajrbot. Now, most of you after reading the first line will think "Sweet! Another Yew Grove proposal to oppose". Please keep an open mind, and read the rest of this proposal.

Recently, on my main account, I have been running a semi-automated script that bypasses redirects by fixing links to the article. I would like to do this on my bot account, with community consensus, and in full compliance of the bot policy here. It should be noted that as the edits were supervised and only semi-automated, then did conform with RS:BOTS. Also, since a policy was standing in the way of my benefiting the wiki, RS:IAR also protected me. However, I was flooding the RC, putting RS:CONSENSUS against me, and successfully removing the protecting effects of the other policies.

Here is a nice table of all the things that I am requesting consensus for. If you disagree with one of these, bring it up specifically and I can remove it.

Task Explanation of task How often it will run
Fixing redirects Fixing redirects modifies the links in an article to link directly to an article, instead of a redirect. However, it does this in a way that does not interfere with the article itself, and in a way that makes no mistakes. If the incorrect link was [[link]], but that page redirected to LINK, then the process would change it to [[LINK|link]]. Because of this, it doesn't interfere with the article's content. However, it also leaves any spelling mistakes, wrong names, etc. on the page. These would still need to be fixed manually. The benefits of this are: *When you move a page, you don't need to worry about links leading to a page that redirects to the old page. *No template errors due to redirect pages. *Generally cleaner looking, and cleaner coding at the HTML level. *Removes that annoying (Redirected from UGH!) from the top of the page! Not sure why that annoys me. This would run once every two days, and go through about 1000 pages each day that it ran.
Archiving talk pages Users can opt into this by putting a template on their talk page, describing when they want it archived. This can be after it reaches a certain length, after a certain period of time has passed, or both. They can also decide where they want it archived to. Once again, this is on a strictly opt-in basis, and can also be used for busy talk pages elsewhere on the wiki. This would run at least once or twice per day, or continuously when possible.
Minor fixes Making very minor fixes to a page's markup, changing things from {{Template:Bla}} to {{Bla}}, and changes from html to wikimarkup where needed. (Example, '''lol''' to '''lol'''. Also puts some spacing between lines where needed, to make the article easier to navigate when editing. This doesn't effect the page's appearance. Once every few days.
Changing categories This task can switch one category with another, remove a category from certain pages (or all), add a category to certain pages, all at a rate of around 40 edits per minute. No chance of error here. When required.

The bot can also do basically whatever is needed of it, and I would encourage you to post possible tasks that seem handy to you here on the forum.

My bot has performed both of the above tasks, and has never made an error with either one. You can see my contribs here, my bot's contribs on both [[w:c:farmville:Special:Contributions/Ajrbot|FarmVille Wiki]] and [[w:c:answers:Special:Contributions/Ajrbot|on Wikianswers]].

When I did a short test run of my bot a while ago, I was using AWB on genfixes. Unfortunately, I did not program in all of the exceptions, and that resulted in some unproductive edits. This will not happen again.

Many users are upset about my attitude, and rightfully so. I assure you that it has now changed. I had wanted to start regularly editing here, and thought that I would kick it off by offering the wiki something that not many other people do; a functional bot. Please do not oppose per my attitude, especially since this is a bot request and not an editor review. In the future, I may also ask for other tasks to be approved, but for now I'll just start with these two. Also, for all of you who are going to oppose because it doesn't seem productive, take a look at what some of the other bots do. I'm not suggesting that you should kill yourself just because your friend did, but it applies a bit here. I will be expanding this text here in a bit. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 21:13, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - Because I don't like what the bot would do. I find what you have been doing with the semi-automation be be silly, and I don't want a bot doing that even more-so than beforehand. One of the edits was changing [[player Moderator]] to [[player Moderator|player moderator]] when the best thing to do would have been to change it to [[player moderator]]. A bot doing that does not seam helpful to me. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:20, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what it would do. It would change things like Ring of Life to Ring of life|Ring of Life, so it doesn't interfere with the article. That is a helpful feature.Ajraddatz Talk 21:38, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
This has been withdrawn, so please change your reason accordingly. Ajraddatz Talk 22:31, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Still oppose - Minor fixes are being covered by other bots, so we don't need a new bot doing that. The ability to auto-archive ones talk is kinda handy, but not enough reason to create a new bot (we could tack that task onto a currently existing bot). And as for changing of categories, User:AzBot has done similar tasks in the past, as Azliq has shown to be able to make that particular bot do pretty much anything (as it has admin rights). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment - I see the point in the first one. And I have less of a problem with it being wrong on a bot account, rather than an actual user account without the bot tag. I still dislike the spam of RC. And as Steler said, some of the updates aren't very helpful. As to the second point - Why can't users archive their own talk pages? Some users may not know how, but it's a pretty basic and very useful skill to learn. (I do understand this is optional, but I think it is more important to teach people to do stuff than to do it for them-most of the time anyways.) HaloTalk 21:23, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think the talk page archiving is just a handy little feature, and there isn't really a reason not to have it. It's simply more convenient for those users who choose to use it. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 21:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC) 
We could tack that on to a list of tasks for another bot. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:29, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Or, you could approve this bot which is already set up and ready to go. Ajraddatz Talk 21:38, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Good point TLUL, I agree with Steler. HaloTalk 21:41, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Per below, it is easier to have my bot do it because it is already up and ready to go. Ajraddatz Talk 21:46, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Since this wasn't made clear enough in the opening paragraph, I will make it clear. The archiving talk pages is a handy feature, and nothing more. Also, it is easier to just allow this bot to do it than add it onto another bot, because this is already up and set to go. Ajraddatz Talk 21:40, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral on 1, Support 2 - For #1, see wikipedia:WP:NOTBROKEN. Specifically, this will try to remove links to redirects which use outdated or incorrect terminology. Before changing the redirect, it would've been possible to use Special:WhatLinksHere to find these links and correct the link text. When the links point to the target instead, it becomes harder to find these problems. I don't see why the "Redirected from..." text is so unpleasant, just hide it using CSS if necessary.

Talk archiving would be useful though. It's been in the QBot's idea list for awhile but I haven't actually gotten around to rolling it out Lol --Quarenon  Talk 21:52, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

One actually is a problem, especially with page moves. Every double redirect creates about 100 broken links, but that isn't a problem with this. Please also consider the other points. Ajraddatz Talk 21:54, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Another funny point is that Wikipedia runs this on a few bots daily... Ajraddatz Talk 22:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant task #1, not the first point of that task. Let me address the actual points:
  • Page moves - If a page which a redirect points to gets moved (leaving behind a double redirect), then either way, double redirects have been created, but no links should have been broken. I might be missing something but I don't see where the problem lies.
  • I also don't see how an actual error could result, could you give an example? I do agree that transcluding template redirects is bad practice, though, so is this going to also change {{redirectToT}} with {{T}}?
  • I disagree. On the wikitext level, it's more verbose and a bit less editor-friendly, especially in the cases Stelercus mentioned.
  • See the above about using CSS to hide redirect text if it's really an eyesore. It doesn't bother me.
The proposal changed a bit since I first read it so let me also say Support 3 and 4 and I removed my vote regarding #1. However, could you provide any references of specific enwiki bots that do redirect fixes? --Quarenon  Talk 22:13, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose 1, support all others - The redirect changing seems unnecessary, but the other tasks have merit. Plus, it would be handy to have another bot standing by for maintenance tasks that may come up in the future. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all - And don't you dare tell me that my arguments are bad.

  • Fixing redirects - there aren't that many broken redirects, we can easily do this manually
  • Archiving talk pages - it's much better to do this by hand, because getting a bot to do this is just pointless.
  • Minor fixes - most of the fixes you propose are already being done by other bots. We don't need a new bot just to do this.
  • Changing categories - 15 edits per minute. I can do that by hand.

Arguments good enough this time? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, they aren't. Fixing redirects manually requires an hour just to get through 20 pages, trust me, I have done it. For the fourth time, archiving is a convenience open to those who want it. Minor fixes are not being done by other bots; nothing that I have proposed are already being done. Changing categories: A bot can do this while you are doing something else. Also, bots don't get bored of doing tedious tasks over and over again. Ajraddatz Talk 22:06, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Also, it does do those at about 40 edits per minute; the time I had up there was for a supervised run. Ajraddatz Talk 22:11, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
(to your first reply) That's not true - it can be done a lot faster, trust me, I have done it. Then, I recall supporting multiple threads about getting a bot to do minor fixes. We already have bots like User:FluffyBunnyBot to do things like that. "A bot can do this while you are doing something else" - to put this in your own words, that's not a good argument. And it's not at all boring - I don't mind doing such "tedious" tasks at all. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:11, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, FBB has been inactive for several months. I wouldn't mind incorporating FBB's HTML/wikitext cleanup task into User:QBot, though. --Quarenon  Talk 22:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Can easily be reactivated. My point is, we don't need to create a whole new bot for this when we can just use an old one. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:18, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
First, I wasn't talking about fixing double redirects. I was talking about going into each page's what links here and bypassing the links to each redirect. That is a very tedious task, and it is simply easier to have a bot do it. Also, no, the FBB can not just be "reactivated" like that. It requires the operator to start it, which they may or may not be willing to do. I am willing to do this. Also, simply put, it is easier for a bot to change the categories than it is a human. However, and I say this as a neutral observation, it seems like you just don't like bots, so I won't try to convince you any further. Please though, think about it. Also consider what Aburnett said; this bot is available to take on a new maintenance task basically as soon as it needs to. That convenience is one huge reason to have it around. Ajraddatz Talk 22:30, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
You just fired an uzi into your own foot. this bot is available to take on a new maintenance task basically as soon as it needs to. The current bots can also do that! And don't use an (this is purely in your own words) invalid argument like "it seems like you just don't like bots". Nothing wrong with bots, they're very useful, but we shouldn't get a bot for everything.
Note: I love how you say so I won't try to convince you any further. When I said that, it was immature, but it's all right if you say it. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:34, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Unless someone really wants #1 to happen, consider it removed. Please adjust your votes accordingly. Ajraddatz Talk 22:07, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose 2, Support others - The second one really is too much of a pain to deal with, rest are fine. --Coolnesse 23:36, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support all - Per below statement. --Coolnesse 00:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Er, it really isn't a pain to deal with. As mentioned above, it is only for those users that specifically want it, and take the time to add a template to their page. No guestwork with this one. Ajraddatz Talk 23:39, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't have a problem with the bot doing the 3 tasks listed. I don't think they could hurt to let a bot run them. I do know they could be added to another bot but then why can't a new bot do them we don't have a limit on bots. This bot can help out right now I believe in witch is an advantage to making this a bot rather than adding tasks to existing ones which could take some time. Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 01:49, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Those tasks listed could be quite useful to run. I agree that it'd be more useful than adding on to another bot as this one is already ready to go.BerserkHackr 02:06, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Oli. None of the functions of your bot scream "useful" to me. Redirects are hardly ever broken, and can easily be fixed by a user if the case comes up. Archiving talk pages? That's always been done by the user and is, again, fairly simple and as easy as creating an archive namespace. We have multiple bots doing minor things (such as Smackbot, GEbot, etc), so those too are covered. Lastly, most categories do not need to be switched or fixed, so that just about sums it up. The fact that Recent Changes was constantly spammed up by you semi-automating it also adds to the reasoning, since we had already said you couldn't fully automate your bot if memory serves, and semi-automating with your user account getting the edit count up was just ridiculous. My vote is to shut it down completely. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 04:10, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

It can be fully automated, and with the bot flag it doesn't clog the RC. Also, I am experienced enough to know that an editcount is a meaningless number, so please don't oppose per that. Also, no other bots are doing what I am proposing this one will be. Ajraddatz Talk 04:19, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but your bot is doing minor things, as you said, which users can do easily if they run into it. It is not needed for a wiki with as many users as we have in my opinion, so I stick by my oppose. As for the edit count, I did not say you cared about it, but I do not like the fact you're getting a high edit count in general, it just irks me. Oli summed it up nicely as to reasons why, and I just made points upon his reasons. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 04:30, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Don't oppose a bot on the basis that a user could do it. Anything that a bot can do, a user can do as well. The semi-automated edits have stopped, and they can be made fully automated. Please oppose by the fact that you find nothing useful in what the bot is proposed to do, and take out all of the other comments. Ajraddatz Talk 04:32, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Also, what are you talking about "archive namespace"? And the fixing redirects; that was removed from the proposal. Please actually take the time to read the entire thing, and well, before you oppose. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 04:34, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)My comments will stay as is. The most I could do is strike them out and I do not wish to do so since it is my thoughts and my entry onto this thread. Your bot does (in my opinion) trivial matters, half of which should be done by users, and other things that rarely pop up/can be attended to easily. When you archieve it, you give it its own namespace, such as "Username/Archieve 1". That's how it has always been done here and should always be done here by the user. I have read it before, and yes I've realized that it was striked out, but I felt a desire to comment on it regardless. Please do not doubt my reading comprehension skills. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 04:41, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Then please explain what is wrong with the "minor changes". There are no other active bots that do this, so what is the issue? Yes, a user could do them, but the point here is why should they need to when a bot could go around doing that at 50X the speed? Also, USERNAME/Archive is not a namespace. Exchange:, Project:, Talk:, User: are all namespaces. That is a subpage. Ajraddatz Talk 04:52, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
They are minor, and to me, unneeded at the current time. I've rarely come across a situation that you propose you bot to fix, so I see no need in having a bot who can do it at the current time. I'm a form believer in the philosophies "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" and "Don't trouble trouble if trouble ain't troubling you". I just see the bot as unneeded at the current time, wouldn't mind if you kept the code handy, and I do not seeing myself switching my viewpoint/ideals on this matter. I have my reasoning listed above, and now I have just about every explanation down here as to why I hold my reasoning. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 04:59, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
I apologize I get my terminology wrong from time to time. It's a subpage, yes, and a user can still make one with relative ease, so I see no reason to have a bot do it per my reasons above. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 05:00, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Maybe I shouldn't be saying this, but Ajr, it seems like you are very attached to your bot. Emotionally. Are you sure that, even if you do get the bot flag, you'll be able to handle it maturely when something goes wrong? For example, if the bot makes a few mistakes and is blocked, are you sure you won't rage-quit? I'm not saying this because I want more reasons to oppose, I really don't, but I'm just concerned about it. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:52, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I am not actually emotionally attached to my bot, although I can see where you are coming from. I won't be affected if my bot is blocked (only on a malfunction ;), and I'll live if this request doesn't pass. I was upset (to say the least) last time mainly because of the largely negative reaction to something of mine. Please realize that this doesn't happen often. Because of this, I will permit you to put no more than one "Aww, poor muffin" message on my talk page ;) Ajraddatz Talk 12:18, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Great. Wouldn't want anyone to get hurt Smile By the way, what did you mean with that last sentence? I don't understand it... Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 13:03, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
You could leave me a message saying how stupid it was to get angry just because I didn't get my way ;) Ajraddatz Talk 16:35, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - May I ask in what way this could harm our wiki? I admit that the tasks he listed may seem minor and easy for a user to accomplish, but why not have a bot that can perform that task at a hugely increased speed? It also seems quite clear to me that Ajraddatz is quite capable of programming the bot to perform many other small, annoying tasks. Dark avorian 13:12, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point is, is this bot really that much better than a human? The speed, 40 edits per minute, isn't that great. Honestly, with a good mouse and a good internet connection, a human can also do that. And then, why would we need a new bot for this, if we could also use one we already have? That's pretty much why some of us are opposing this. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 13:16, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
To your first point, I would say that, yes, maybe a person with the right tech could get that epm. But why the hell do we want to force those people to do unnecessary labor that a bot is guaranteed tot be able to accomplish. As to your second point, I see that that is true but might it not be wise to apportion certain categories of tasks among certain bots? Not knowing too much about bots I find myself forced to cede that point. Dark avorian 13:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
1) I don't mind editing as much as that. I'd be happy to do those tasks.
2) Yes, that is true, but we already have some bots that do similar tasks. FluffyBunnyBot for example, has already done one task where it fixed old HTML. We could easily let it do that again. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 14:41, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You seem to really, really want this, almost just for the sake of having a bot flag. As has been mentioned, there are other bots to do the majority of these tasks. Secondly, you seem to have an attitude problem. When, in your last bot request, some of us brought up completely valid points opposing the flagging of your bot, but you defended yourself by saying that we "didn't know what we were talking about". Some of your edits have gone wrong before, as well. Lastly, you have violated RS:B by not running your bot earlier on a separate account. Cook Me Plox 00:52, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Last time, I ran a program that required many exceptions to be programmed in; but I didn't. Please vote on this bot request, instead of the last one again. There are many differences. Ajraddatz Talk 16:35, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I am not just here for the bot flag. That itself means nothing. What I want is community consensus to run the thing, and even that is not a dire need of mine. Ajraddatz Talk 16:56, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
"Even that is not a dire need". Sounds almost like you don't need the consensus, but just want to run the bot. I know you're not, but you might want to reword that a bit. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:18, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed. Ajraddatz Talk 17:28, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose—I spent bits of three days cleaning up the mess Ajraddatz's bot made before. For example, Ajraddatz's bot changed all references of minigames to Activities with no sensitivity to capitalization or context. So in this case, for example, Ajraddatz's bot introduced capitalization errors and made one sentence confusing by turning "they will do other activities like minigames" into "they will do other activities like Activities." I saw no interest on Ajraddatz's part in correcting the errors. I also have concerns about Ajraddatz's motivation. On his talk page, he suggests he is using his bot to run up his edit count: "Just doing some bot stuff, actually. This is more about beating VegaDark's editcount than being active here again." Horsehead Talk 14:34, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I also later said that I was joking about the edit count; which I was. This !vote is not valid, please read the forum and vote on this request. I specifically stated that I wasn't going to be running that any more. Ajraddatz Talk 16:35, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
All votes are valid, regardless of the reason. When the consensus is determined, though, the votes with better reasons are given more weight. --LiquidTalk 17:04, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
I was willing to believe you were just kidding, but then you went on to explain what you meant: "Oh no, I'm talking about global edits. I'm a few thousand behind him." And, Ajraddatz, I am voting on this request. Sorry to have not been clearer: From the lack of care you took in running your bot the first time, you have done nothing to earn my trust. Horsehead Talk 17:24, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the clarification :) Ajraddatz Talk 17:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
It makes no sense to me why on your talk page, if you were joking about using your bot to break VegaDark's editcount, you would actually clarify what you were trying to say to Liquidhelium. It seems to me that you weren't joking.Cook Me Plox 19:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Taking into account the fact that I'm not an idiot, what would be the fastest way to get my global editcount up? Not bot edits. Importing many pages from other wikis would work even better, onto my test wiki. But I didn't, and won't. I am fully aware that an editcount is a meaningless statistic, so please drop this. Ajraddatz Talk 00:00, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
But can you just tell me why you said that on your talk page?Cook Me Plox 00:43, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
I was joking, that is all. Ajraddatz Talk 00:47, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I know that I initially supported your previous bot, but there have been a few things that have changed my mind. First, your previous work with a bot seemed to introduce a fair amount of errors that were fixed by other users, by hand, creating more work for others. I am concerned that this could occur in the future. Second, it's been only a few weeks since you withdrew your previous proposal and while some of the tasks have changed, this seems to be a very similar proposal. It has been too short of a time for there to be much in the way of any pressing need for this bot to run. Third, I am concerned with some of the comments, somewhat in this discussion but more so in the previous discussion, that were dismissive of other editors points of view. While this doesn't directly affect the tasks you have outlined it does send up some warning flags to me that I just can't seem to shake off. You've been very helpful around the wiki and I and many others appreciate your contributions to our community. Lets give this bot idea a rest for now, allow things to cool down, and then revisit it when there is a need by the community. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 23:03, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

This request is primarily here not to get my bot approved, but to get back some of the trust of the community. I am very sorry for my actions with the last forum, and I figured that by doing this the right way, it would help people to not hate me as much ;) Ajraddatz Talk 01:58, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone hates you. I disagree with your choices, but I for one, by no means have any negative feelings towards you as a person. HaloTalk 02:01, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to make up for those bad choices now. Also, because of my work with cross Wikia countervandalism, I get a thorough beating whenever I break the general guidelines. More importantly though, I made myself look like something that I'm not, and I feel that I need to make that up to the people here, and myself. Ajraddatz Talk 02:12, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well I appreciate your apology, and I do recognize that your efforts come from a desire to improve this wiki and others. Being bold came sometimes ruffle some people's feathers, but I see that you're trying to smoothe things out and that sounds good for all involved. Cheers, Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 18:51, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Both per my arguments (helpfully reverted around 5 times) last time and everyone else this time. Hello71 00:39, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Now, please do not take this the wrong way. I find this comment funny, actually, for a rather silly reason. I made this request entirely around your comments with the last one. Per the last request, you should actually be supporting this, or at least neutral. I only chose points that you supported from last time in this request, so you might want to change your comment ;) Ajraddatz Talk 04:36, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Still Oppose and still useless, to be blunt. Hello71 15:27, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, thanks for clarifying Smile Ajraddatz Talk 00:24, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, I've know Ajr and his bot for a while, when he first got pybot (which I guess he's using, cause of the archive bot), he struggled to start it up, and was bugging me on IRC for help :P Also, the archive script only works on wikia cause I reported it and provided the info needed to help get it fixed :P. And honstely, I've seen a load of bots round the wiki that can do all the tasks Ajr offers, possibly, save the Archive script. --Lcawte 17:15, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

In my defense, that's not true. I asked you for help because it wasn't working, although it only wasn't working because it didn't work on my computer :P. I was able to do it myself, without help, on another comp. Ajraddatz Talk 04:14, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to give Ajrbot the bot flag. C.ChiamTalk 04:19, April 10, 2010 (UTC)