Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 5

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

Withdrawn by operator.

User:ArticlesForCreationBot 5

Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:34, Monday January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): c#

Source code available: yes

Function overview: remove the "under review" parameter if no one changed the page within 24h

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): not needed, maintaintask

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: one or two a day, maybe less

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: notify user after 36 hours if started a review of submission and didn't finish it, repeatedly every 36 hours N times.

Discussion

How it's possible to retrive the username of reviewer? Petrb (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simplified the task, let me know if it's not possible to do that this way Petrb (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)By searching the history similar like the wikiblame tool does: You have to check which contributor did add (by searching the diffs) the r in the template and then check if that user did/does another edit with in the last 24h. If that's too complicated, use simply 24h not edited. mabdul 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I prefer the simple way, I am lazy, you know. Petrb (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, can we have some links so we can judge if this has consensus please? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I described by filling this BFRA: this is a maintain task: a review is normally really fast (within a few minutes) and only for complicated/good articles this needs a longer time period: sometimes a reviewer forgets that he/she has marked a submission for review and thus the user doesn't get a review - and at our backlogs at the moment, this can last very long until somebody recognize that anybody missed that draft. mabdul 15:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying it sounds unreasonable, but it would be good to see even a guideline page that implies "stealing" other people's reviews is acceptable and/or desirable, and in what timespan. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe such a task is needed. If an article has been marked as under review for over 24 hours, it is common practice to consult the reviewer who marked it. On occasion, there are special circumstances where it takes over 24 hours for a reviewer to give an article a full review, or where the reviewer is doing some heavy work on the article over the course of several days. If it is going to take longer than 24 hours, reviewers usually leave comments on the submission. If a bot were tasked with this, it would not be able to evaluate the reason for the delay. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk)

Might it be better to simply notify reviewers of older reviews (over 72 hours, perhaps?) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. It would save other reviewers the trouble of asking about the submission. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But 72h is rather "late", do inform the user all 24h please. mabdul 14:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about 36 (48?) hours. It gives the reviewers some time, in case they plan on completing the review in a few hours. 24 hours is a fairly short time window. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

36h (1.5days) sounds good. Keep in mind: it's only a notice which can be ignored/removed easily of everybody's page. It should only a notice that a page shouldn't get abandoned because of a big backlog (if Chzz is taking again a break XD) mabdul 12:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, before a trial, perhaps someone could draw up the text of the intended notification? In addition, perhaps someone could comment on whether there's a backlog or not and, if so, how large a backlog? Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make it a template bot can subst to user page. Petrb (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a wording at User:ArticlesForCreationBot/Stale and also added already a new edit summary at User:ArticlesForCreationBot/Config.

So to sum up the task again: The bot should check AFC submissions which are marked as review, if the review is stale, the bot should inform the reviewer after 36h. I think it wouldn't that bad if the reviewing user gets again a notice if he still marked the draft. (all 36h?) I added to that proposed talk page message a parameter {{{3}}} so that it could easily changed on a (new?) configuration file...

mabdul 13:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about followup notifications, but I've proposed a change in your wording for the message in the meantime. I hope you don't mind. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Update? MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think we should change 7 days to 10 edits, or like, because it's probably going to take a long time to have some submissions which are waiting more than 36h in this status. Petrb (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to 10 edits is fine. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} How many edits are you at now? Josh Parris 22:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. will look in this later Petrb (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to reopen this whenever you're ready. Josh Parris 15:06, 30 March 2012 (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.