Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArmbrustBot

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.

ArmbrustBot

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

Time filed: 15:50, Sunday March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manually initiated, than automatic.

Programming language(s): AWB's CFD plugin

Source code available:

Function overview: It helps to clean out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working if the Cydebot (talk · contribs) is down.

Edit period(s): Only if needed.

Estimated number of pages affected: It depends, how many pages are in the category.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.

Function details: It uses the AutoWikiBrowsers CfD plugin to recategorise or remove categories listed at WP:CFDW, if the other bots don't do it.

Discussion

Don't we already have 6 CfD bots? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There 3 listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. On 21:52, 16 March 2013 Cydebot (talk · contribs) went completely inactive, and didn't return to editing until 17:50, 17 March 2013, see: there. Also Cydebot has the odd behaviour to do only it's listifying from category tasks, as can be seen there, despite that there are categories to processed on CFDW.CrimsonBot (talk · contribs) didn't edit since 07:14, 13 January 2013 and AvicBot (talk · contribs) was enabled on 13:39, 17 March 2013, but still didn't do any CFD-related edit at all. Which means, that if Cydebot goes down, than no other bot takes it's place. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It uses a generic code, right? I wouldn't mind extra redundancy as long as it's based on a generic code. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you test it with the other bots running or do you need to coordinate a test? I'm inclined to approve a trial to test it out as long as E's in agreement. MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it makes the same edits. Also Cydebot doesn't working on it currently. BTW I previously used this module on my main account, there is a sample [1]. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 23 March 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.