Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot7


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

HBC AIV helperbot7
Operator: Will (aka  Wimt  )

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Redundant copy of User:HBC AIV helperbot.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Edit rate requested: Will not exceed 6 per minute.

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

Function Details:

This is a clone of the User:HBC AIV helperbot, originally written by User:H and now being maintained by User:Krellis. This bot monitors AIV and UAA to remove reports of blocked users with an appropriate edit summary, as well as various related tasks on those pages. See Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot3 for the approval of previous clones of this bot. The bot was designed to run with multiple redundant instances for best performance, and to reduce the chance of there being no bot to perform the task if one were to fail. However, for the past few weeks now, User:HBC AIV helperbot3 has been the only one of the existing clones running. As I have some free space on a VPS in London, I approached Krellis over this to see whether he thought another clone would be a sensible idea, and he agreed. He has provided me with the latest code, such that this bot will be running exactly the same code as helperbot3 is. For those unfamiliar with the role of the helperbots at AIV, the full purpose can be seen outlined here. Regards. Will (aka  Wimt  ) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * These bots have been extremely helpful in saving administrator time on WP:AIV and WP:UAA. Any reliable and bot-savvy user who wants to run one of the bots should be welcome and encouraged to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no serious issues please start a 5 day trial. βcommand 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be the template wanted :  ~  Dreamy  §  21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything looks fine to me and the FUBAR possibility seems low. I don't think there would be any harm in approving and giving it a flag - any thoughts to the contrary (bot has made 620 edits since it started on Feb 5th - no faults seen)?  Martinp23 19:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only issue I saw was one with the bot account's date preference causing it to not specify the lengths of blocks in its edit summary, and that was my fault for not specifying it when I sent over the details of how to set things up. That's been corrected, and it all looks good to me! —Krellis (Talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Martinp23 02:29, 12 February 2008 (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.