Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot II 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

[edit] ClueBot II 4

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: -- Cobi^(t|c|b)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, unsupervised.

Programming Language(s): ClueBot Script

Function Summary: Clean the sandbox.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): In crontab notation: 0 */3 * * *

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function Details: Clean the sandboxes. Source here, should be easy enough to follow.

[edit] Discussion

We just approved a sandbox cleaning bot. Isn't 3 minutes too short? — Werdna talk 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail at reading crontabs. It's every 3 hours. — Werdna talk 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, with two bots working well, why do we need a third? OverlordQ bot ran well alone for a long time. But I run my bot on a crontab for 3 minutes, and only save if the header is removed or 12 hours have passed. Soxred93 (u t) 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree we don't have to approve this second, but, disagree that redundancy is bad. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could approve, if Cobi agrees to run it only when one of the others is down or MIA. MBisanz ^talk 07:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to allow this to proceed without a trial period. — Werdna talk 10:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should still do a short trial. Just to make sure everything is working and then approve, I can't see the bots conflicting with each other so it should be fine just to have an extra one on hand --Chris 10:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the header changes, and a revert war gets into place. AFAIK, there are no plans to change the sandbox header, so

Approved for trial (25 edits). I'm still agreeing with MBisanz about only running it when one bot is MIA. Soxred93 (u t) 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually since a true "null" edit won't save and we're not supposed to worry about WM-performance, I'm happy to leave it to the bot op to decide whent o run this. Note: if a bot ran on the TS, then I would worry about issue redundancy. MBisanz ^talk 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)