Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot 3

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.

Joe's Null Bot 3

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

Time filed: 14:43, Monday April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: Y

Function overview: Purge Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Protection once per week. Basically part of the TAFI infrastructure.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I got a request here: User_talk:Joe_Decker#Small_task_for_Joe.27s_Null_Bot

Edit period(s): 1/week

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): n

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

Function details: Purge a single file, once per week, as part of the transclusions of TAFI material on the Main page. Once a week the articles involved change, around 00:00 GMT, and apparently a single weekly kick would be of assistance. Famous last words: I imagine this is de minimus and should be uncontroversial. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. One or two cycles. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In place, I'll check in after Sunday, 0015 GMT. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle 1 appears to have functioned correctly, about an hour and a half ago. Had the requesting editor from TAFI double-check that everything looked right after the purge, got a thumbs up. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably sufficient if the requesting editor checked test run. Did you run through any yourself? Not overly concerned. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look around myself, of course, and that looked fine, but given that it's a single purge, I took additional "belief that it was working" from other evidence (e.g., I'm using code that's only a few characters different from something known to previously work, it logged success in my log file at the right time, the diagnostic code shared with tasks 1/2 is known to correctly diagnose failures, etc.) Here is the discussion with the requesting editor. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds fine. Folks will tell you if otherwise. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 30 April 2013 (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.