Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 16


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

MadmanBot
Operator:

Time filed: 00:27, Friday September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic.

Programming language(s): PHP.

Source code available: No.

Function overview: E-mail activation codes to contributors who signed up for free 1-year Questia accounts.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A. (I was asked to do this via e-mail.)

Edit period(s): Once a month or so.

Estimated number of pages affected: 0.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes.

Function details: Basically the same task as Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 15, which has run without any issue at any point, but for Questia accounts instead of HighBeam accounts. Maybe this should be extended to The Wikipedia Library in general?

Discussion
Cheers! &mdash; madman 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked Madman to do this and I just want to say that having codes be emailed by a bot has literally enabled The Wikipedia Library to flourish. Manually emailing hundreds of codes would be soul-crushing.  So I obviously support the need for this, and I believe the editors who receive their account information by email are also appreciative of the work Madman and MadmanBot have done.  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 01:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Unlike stub creation, a speedy approve is appropriate, similar task, technically competent proven bot operator, responsive to input about bot and task. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's say 5 emails or 1 email cycle.  MBisanz  talk 20:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * – Redacted e-mail confirmations are here: . Sorry it took me a while to get this trial off the ground; I was trying to figure out why MediaWiki was telling me there were less user links than I could see, but of course it was completely right as one user was listed twice. I need more caffeine. &mdash; madman 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 MBisanz  talk 00:46, 19 September 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.