Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot II 4
- 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.
ClueBot II 4
[edit]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.
Discussion
[edit]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. SQLQuery 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)
- 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)
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). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. 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)
Done - Can I get approval now? :) -- Cobi(t|c|b) 12:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Can I get approval, please? :) -- Cobi(t|c|b) 13:34, 9 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)
- Unless the header changes, and a revert war gets into place. AFAIK, there are no plans to change the sandbox header, so
Approved. —Reedy 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.