Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ceradonbot 2

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.

Ceradonbot 2

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Ceradon (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:01, Wednesday January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): pywikipedia

Source code available: yes, redirect.py

Function overview: fix redirects which point to other redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 100/month

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Idem, options used are -double -namespace:0

Discussion

• Looks good. redirect.py normally works. Good sticking to the mainspace; I'd say ready for a trial or approval. Have you tested it with yet? Rcsprinter (gossip) 17:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, not yet anyway, I am waiting for trial approval to test.--Ceradon ^talk_contribs 20:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Please approve for trial, no problems found. Rcsprinter (whisper) 15:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• After a test, which I am still performing as we speak, I have figured out the parameters. redirect.py double -namespace:0 -pt:30 -api -always. I am not using -always in this test as this parameter lets the bot edit unsupervised. --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Approved. Standard pywikipedia code, already been tried and tested, but Ceradon apparently misunderstood Rcsprinter123's comment as an approval for trial. In any case, the edits which have been done look fine, so no harm done (probably best to keep in in mainspace though, as you appear to be planning). Keep pywikipedia up-to-date. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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.