Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LostBot 2

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.

[edit] LostBot

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: Lostintherush

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted supervised - I will set it up to start the run and monitor.

Programming Language(s): Will use AWB

Function Summary: 2 additional tasks as detailed below

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily for tagging and monthly for delivering newsletters

Edit rate requested: AWB on 5 second throttle; up to 10 edits per minute

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

Function Details: LostBot was recently approved to tag talk pages of relevant articles with {{WP India}} for assessment purposes. I have now received similar requests from other wikiprojects as seen here. I request blanket permission to be granted for this task for all wikiprojects so that I can help other projects. This will make it easier for Wikipedia 1.0 reviewers to locate unassessed articles. Secondly I would like to use LostBot to deliver the monthly newsletter of WP:India to its members. Request permission for that too.

[edit] Discussion

Support - I was about to ask Lost to make a bot like this, but it seems that I was beaten to it. WP:HINDU is unorganized, and this will stratify things.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The gist of this looks perfectly sensible and in line with what several other bots and semi-bots are doing, but I have a quibble or three about how this is phrased. I assume that's "any wikiproject on request", rather than literally, all wikiprojects. Can you clarify whether, when you say "manually assisted" and "monitor", is it manually assisted in the sense of Wikipedia:Bots#Assisted bots? (i.e., a human in the loop on each edit.) And, mainly to the BAG: on the face of it, this bot is already approved to run with a five second throttle, without any express caveats or qualification, which implies it's an exception to the bot-policy "approximately 10 seconds between edits". (Not that it actually seems to be hitting 10 or 12 a minute.) Alai 09:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats only wikiprojects that request me to do so. No there would not be a human in the loop of each edit. It runs automatically. I only keep monitoring its activity. -- Lost^(talk) 09:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, don't see any reason that would be a problem, as long as the WPJ is "categorically" (or otherwise) clear about its scope. Just trying to be clear on terminology: "manually assisted", I believe by convention on this page is taken to mean, "manually supervised". (I gather, at any rate, after having done a double-take on that when filing my own task-approval-request.) Perhaps the template should link to the appropriate definition, or else tweak the wording to be clearer. Alai 09:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the term in my request. Sorry for the confusion -- Lost^(talk) 09:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have added to the confusion, rather than subtracting from it. :) I had in mind that the BAG might want to change the "form's" terminology from "manually assisted" to "manually supervised", to more clearly indicate a per-edit interaction, rather "assistance" in the broad sense. But that might actually be less clear... Alai 09:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Approved for trial., pretty straight forward. Run up to 150 edits/2weeks and post results. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here I am with the results [1] of the trial. Thanks -- Lost^(talk) 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, do you want a flag w/ that? -- Tawker 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It has already got a bot flag. Does it need one specifically for this task? -- Lost^(talk) 03:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, go ahead and run it, it's approved in my book -- Tawker 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Lost^(talk) 04:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Before this is archived, can we revisit the edit rate? As it isn't even editing at 6 per minute, it seems a needless precedent to have this approved at ten per minute. Alai 11:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Approved. As per tawker this bot is approved. However, there is no compelling reason to allow such speedy editing. Editing should be restricted to 6 per minute (a throttle of 10 seconds). -- RM 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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.