Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StormBot

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

Approved.

StormBot

Operator: STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!}

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: This bot will deliver WikiProject messages/notification templates/newsletters to users in the project.

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

Edit rate requested: 5 or 6 edits per min.

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

Function Details: StormBot will use AWB with manual assistance from me to deliver messages/notification templates/newsletters to users involved a WikiProject. I know many projects do this, but I know this is very hard to do by hand (I have had experiences with this).

Discussion

Does it have a working exclusion list? — Werdna talk 05:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps better, a subscription/opt-in list. (Though either would suffice, if you project markedly prefers one over the other.) Which WPJ? Alai (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an opt in list. No projects have signed up, yet, but any of them can. I know many projects send mass-notices to all of their members sometimes. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd misread the proposal somewhat in that regard. While this sounds pretty straightforward, if there's no task to currently run, can't really be trialled and flagged. May I suggest that it be approved to run at some modest rate, appropriate for unflagged, manual operation, until such time as volume of work requires a flag? (At which point, re-file.) Alai (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want this to be manually assisted? -- maelgwn - talk 04:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You should only need to manually assist on the first edit, to make sure everything is ok, then the rest would be automated. If you were doing this as just manually assisted, no bot flag would be needed/given.... Not even AWB "Bot" —Reedy Boy 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, but since that's not requested, and there's no work to even trial, we'd either have to leave this open until it's actually required, or contrive some work for it to do in the meantime. Hence my suggestion above... Alai (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to test, one project is ready. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it all back, then. I see no reason why this shouldn't be approved for trial, or if you really only want/need unflagged manual operation, approved as such. Alai (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Werdna talk 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A </small> tag was forgotten at the end of their posts. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The small tag should be an extremely trivial fix in AWB.

Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.