Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EsquivalienceBot

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

Approved.

EsquivalienceBot

Operator: Esquivalience (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:40, Sunday, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (Pywikibot)

Source code available: User:EsquivalienceBot/Source

Function overview: This bot automatically purges Articles for deletion logs under debate plus one day before.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Every 10-15 minutes; 38 purges per hour.

Estimated number of pages affected: 10

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Not applicable

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: This bot automatically purges Articles for deletion logs under debate plus one day before (basically from today to eight days before today), ~~plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/current itself.~~ It appears that it is already handled by another bot. No parameters are given to the purge() function. This is to ensure that the newest versions of AfD debates are transcluded and errors on AfD page logs do not persist. The most recent AfD log is purged every 10 minutes; the remaining AfD logs (8 pages) are purged every 15 minutes.

Discussion

If it's an issue of transcluded templates not updating, then you should be null editing affected pages to force MediaWiki to immediately re-build them. Your proposed bot is neither making surface changes to the Wiki nor is it in need of high api limits, so unless I'm missing something, I don't think you need a bot request. -FASTILY 23:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @Joe Decker: for any comments, as has experience with User:Joe's Null Bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I don't have any particular concerns, and a cursory review of the code looks fine. I've noticed that those logs could use a purge now and then when using them, so there's a valid need as well. I'd support this for trial. --joe decker ^talk 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (0 edits or 7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., please report back findings. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I have deactivated the bot at the end of the trial. Checking the output periodically, nothing fishy is going on with the bot; purge intervals seem to be consistent and I have fixed some bugs (such as the bot not purging the first "old" log). Esquivalience ^t 04:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. This bot is approved for normal operation. As this operation does not make edits or require highapi, no bot flag is required. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note: Flagging was approved in: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EsquivalienceBot. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:26, 1 June 2016 (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.