Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MCBot 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.

MCBot 3

Operator: MC10 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:17, Sunday April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: pywikipedia

Function overview: Use ~~clean_sandbox.py and~~ interwiki.py

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Runs when I have the chance to do so

Estimated number of pages affected: ~~clean_sandbox.py: 1 page;~~ interwiki.py: around 10 pages a minute, at the quickest

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A

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

Function details: If approved, this bot will run ~~python clean_sandbox.py and~~ python interwiki.py -cleanup -autonomous -namespace:0 -start:!, exactly.

Discussion

It appears User:ChzzBot II already clears out WP:Sandbox on a regular basis (see the most recent one as of today). Why do we need a second bot to do the same thing? —SW— ^gossip 05:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from the tasks. —mc10 (t/c) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's this edit all about? The bot says it removed a link to this page, which does not exist, so it was removed due to the cleanup option being on. However, the actual link that was removed pointed to this page, which does exist, and therefore should not have been removed. Also, it changed the hi link to point to a non existent page, here, whereas it previously pointed to an existing page (and presumable correct) here. Can you explain this please? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that this is related to this SourceForge issue, because I'm using a Python 2.7 version, after the warning showed up also while using a Python 2.6 version, so I gave up using Python 2.6.x. If I need to, I can switch back to a previous Python version, and try again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, um... is it fixed? What version were you using when you made the edit I linked to above? What version are you using now? What version of pywikipedia are you using? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the newest Python 2.7 version. I've been using the pywikipedia from svn trunk usually (I sometimes get a bit lazy and forget to update my version). I'm going to install Python 2.6 as well when I start my bot again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is it fixed then? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any progress? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed; I have switched to Python 2.6. —mc10 (t/c) 02:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} it's been a month since the trial extension - and almost 2 months since this bot has edited, is this request still active? SQL ^{Query me!} 07:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it right now; I was out of town and unable to run pywikipedia. —mc10 (t/c) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I have 51 edits, if I counted correctly. —mc10 (t/c) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Edits look fine. Usual pywiki. Keep an eye occasionally for -cleanup to not mess up. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:45, 24 August 2011 (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.