Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

GreenC bot 20[edit]

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

Time filed: 03:12, Thursday, April 15, 2021 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): GNU Awk and BotWikiAwk

Source code available: User:GreenC_bot/Job_20

Function overview: peerr removes the template {{Peer review}} from talk pages where no longer needed. ie. the template was added more than 7 days ago indicating the peer review processes has stalled or was not properly initiated.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:GreenC#Bot_functionality_request & Template_talk:Peer_review#Bot_task

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 0-5 per day month

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Long description: As part of the peer review process, {{Peer review}} are added to article talk pages, but sometimes the process is not done correctly or stalls. A tracking cat was created to catch these (Category:Peer review requests not opened), but still requires manual removal of the template after waiting some time. It is safe to say if the template has been in place for more than 7 days without indication the rest of the processes has been done, the template can be removed. To automate: once a day, the bot retrieves the list of page names in the tracking category, along with today's date ("added date"), and adds it to a text file. If the page name is already in the text file don't add it again, rather check if it has been more than 7 days since the added date. If so, verify there is a corresponding peer review page called Wikipedia:Peer review/PAGENAME/archiveX and if not then remove the Peer review template, and remove the text file entry. Likewise if the page name is in the text file but not in the tracking category then remove the page name from the file.

Discussion[edit]

  • Suggest dropping a link at Wikipedia talk:Peer review, as it has more talk page watchers than the template talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for helping us out at WP:PR with this bot. There are a few tasks at peer review that could be automated and this is one of them that I am thankful for.Tom (LT) (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. To make the edits more obvious please do not mark the edits as minor so that the change ends up on all watchlists. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot is running. Nothing will happen for at least 7 days. The 25 edits might take weeks or months. Feel free to ping me anytime for a list of existing edits. -- GreenC 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused as to why the bot op is edit warring with the bot at Talk:Nightingale College. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were test edits to ensure that when I am not looking (such as sleeping or working) when it begins editing automatically 7+ days from now it doesn't destroy a page. And Nightengale College the template qualifies to be removed, if you want to revert the page to this edit as the first trial edit, though it is kind of cheating; better to wait 7 days when it will do it again automatically which is what the trial is testing. -- GreenC 03:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd just prefer that you not make six edits on a live talk page of an article for testing purposes, or at least that you make it clear that you are running a test on that talk page. I very nearly just shut off the bot because you were just repeatedly reverting it without explaining why, even by edit summary. So, consider this a gentle reminder that bots are here to help the rest of us, and mucking around article talk pages without explaining yourself isn't helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} It's been 7 weeks since the trial started. The bot edited 8 pages. Of these, three were a mistake due to the wrong namespace Example. That is fixed, it now only runs if a Talk page (regex "^Talk:"). So 5 legit edits in 7 weeks, which it does correctly. At this pace, it could take another 8 months to get to 25. Would it make sense to lower the trial target? -- GreenC 04:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess the question becomes this: if there are so few, is there a need for a bot to do this? This is a legit question, for what it's worth, as "making one edit per week" is something that a human can do just as easily as a bot. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There might be dozens in the tracking cat and you'll need to know which ones, and when, to remove it. Meaning you'll have to go through each one, rechecking them continually for a change in status, then deciding if enough time is gone by, then make the edit. A single edit might take 15 minutes or more (or 15 minutes and no edit). I didn't make up this bot idea, I was approached by Tom (LT) who does this work manually. -- GreenC 01:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Truth is, the bus factor at peer review is often one, so this kind of thing often lingers for months to years before it's fixed and what's more, is often forgotten about and has to be rediscovered as an error. It's true that this not a particularly critical error, but having a bot look after this sort of automated task frees up volunteer time and headspace to work on other goals. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the bot doesn't edit often doesn't seem like a problem to me if it's doing useful work. I'm inclined to approve now provided we haven't seen any issues in the existing behavior. — The Earwig (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits to Talk:Jitin Puthenchery are interesting. There are four instances of the peer review template, all duplicates. It thus takes 4 cycles to delete them - delete one, wait 7 days, delete the next, wait, etc.. it works, but takes multiple edits and about 30 days. Alternatively it could delete all instances when they are duplicates. -- GreenC 06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC Is the trial still running? If so, can you verify if the latest edits are all as expected? – SD0001 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: The bot is still running. List.txt are the pages it is watching within the 7 day window, updated weekly. Loguploads.txt are the edits it has made. Everything as expected. -- GreenC 13:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. No issues. The volume of edits is very low, but clearly the bot task is worth having as it is very tedious for a human to keep track of when the template should be removed. – SD0001 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2021 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/GreenC_bot_20&oldid=1046978996"