Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HostBot 6

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  Approved.

Operator: Jmorgan (WMF) (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 22:19, Sunday, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Script to gather sample (th_invitees.py); script to send invites (send_th_invites.py)

Function overview: Deliver a template invitation to the Wikipedia Co-op to new Wikipedia editors via the editors' talk page.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 50-100 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Functionally equivalent to HostBot's approved tasks for Teahouse and The Wikipedia Adventure invites. The bot will invite a subset of potential Teahouse invitees to the Co-op instead.

Discussion

So, who is it that wants this? Links. 110.174.86.241 (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. This bot will work for the new mentoring project, WP:Co-op. Being a mentor at Co-op, I support this bot request. Cheers, Jim Carter 09:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As the project manager of The Co-op, there are 27 editors who have expressed interest in mentoring newer editors for our pilot. Invitations sent out for the Teahouse and The Wikipedia Adventure were and continue to be an effective way to make these spaces visible to newer editors looking for help. In order to test out The Co-op as a mentorship space effectively and in a reasonable amount of time (1 month), using this system of invitations to newer editors seems like a sensible approach. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any objections, and you've done this kind of thing before. Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Josh Parris 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks Josh Parris. First invites going out today. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your trial complete? How did it go? Josh Parris 11:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh Parris! I just sent out the last batch of invites. No complications on this end, and I see that there have been about 18 learners sign up over the week. I JethroBT: how has the mentorship been going? Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris and Jmorgan (WMF): Twenty-two learners signed up now! In terms of how mentorships have been going, they've generally been productive thus far. Mentors who are participating have been able to help guide editors in new articles they want to start, informing them about how CluebotNG works, and on how page protection policy works in practice. I should also note that a few learners have come into the Co-op with goals that are not consistent with our editing guidelines. I see all of these as positive outcomes For instance, this editor started an autobiographical article right around the time she was invited to the Co-op. Mentors have also been careful to discern, ask appropriate questions, and appropriately educate newer editors about why their editing may be problematic in these cases, such as when a newer editor uses "we". That said, most editors have come into the Co-op eager to contribute productively, and are getting the help they need. I believe the invitations have been useful for this purpose. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris: Given that there haven't been any real issues with the invitations themselves, I'd like to continue sending these out to newer editors as soon as possible. May we continue to run the bot? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris: It looks like the bot has been running as intended and has been useful for the operation of the Co-op space. Is there any reason not to continue to run the bot? Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be in a happy place.  Approved. Josh Parris 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.