Meta:Requests for bot status/LivingBot

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

LivingBot

This is a request to grant my (User:Jarry1250's) bot, LivingBot, permission to make two edits per week on Meta.

The bot uses the Peachy PHP framework; the technical details of the request are simple and I hope the purpose will be clear too.

Basically, I have set about digitising the publication of the process for The Signpost.Before, every week, the editor-in-chief had to perform a long series of edits (see en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Publishing) in order to publish. All of these were entirely robotic in nature (updated dates, etc.) and therefore are best done by bot.

Since the task was approved on the English Wikipedia, I have been able to cut the list of items that must be done manually to 2. Now I would like to cut it down to just one by interfacing with the GlobalMessageDevlivery bot based here on meta automatically. To see what those two edits would be, see Special:Contributions/Jarry1250. The whole script is password-protected.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have queries, a note on my en.wp talk page would be very useful. Thanks, Jarry1250 20:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: Thanks for volunteering. I have no objections to bot authorization. I think that with such a low edit rate bot flag is not needed. If no objections in 48 are raised I suggest to close this as successful. -- Marco Aurelio 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-No issue-^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two edits per week don't justify a bot flag. (Just run the script from your own account, you don't even need a bot account for that.) --თოგო ^(D) 14:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thogo. I personally do every morning some automatic editions, and I'm not flagged. If the bot does not flood the RCs I don't think there is a real need to give him the bot flag. But that's more an advice than an objection. Thanks for the work by the way. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with authorizing the bot, but I don't see why a flag is needed because the edit rate is very low. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not?. Even if it is only making two edits per week, it's a bot, no reason why it shouldn't be flagged. Ajraddatz (Talk)
(bot operator): I should note that I was not necessarily asking for a bot flag; on the English Wikipedia all bots must be approved before editing whether they do so under a flag or not. I guess the above would signify that I can go ahead and prepare to run the task, whilst the community here can decide on whether a flag is needed. Thanks, Jarry1250 17:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meta uses the standard global bot policy. Since this bot is not for double redirect fixing or interwikis it must get approval first. -- Marco Aurelio 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I say, prepare to. I know I have to wait for approval, I was just clarifying that despite the opposes and whatnot above, no-one has yet objected to the task itself. Jarry1250 09:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support permission to run, flagged or not at 'crat discretion. Courcelles 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no consensus at this time for granting the bot flag and because this is not really needed by the owner, I prefer that the bot works without the flag. However, nobody raised an objection for the task itself. Thanks for the work. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 20:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]