Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Community Tech bot 4

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.

Community Tech bot 4

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

Time filed: 18:32, Tuesday, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Ruby

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Database report listing the top new page reviewers of mainspace pages (by number of reviews) over the past 24 hours, 7 days, 30 days, 90 days and 365 days.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Bot report of top reviewers (permalink)

Edit period(s): Twice daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This task is currently running as MusikBot in it's userspace: User:MusikBot/TopPageReviewers/Report. We'd just like to move it to the more centralized database reports (specifically Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new page reviewers), and have it run as User:Community Tech bot, who will assume control of the task.

Discussion

Approved for trial (100 edits or 10 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please report trial results here. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. See the revision history. I've scaled it back to only run twice a day, which should be plenty sufficient. It only ran once on 30 January due to Tool Labs issues (I think), and I shut it off early which is why it only ran once on 2 July. Otherwise there are no apparent issues — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: so just did a quick check against my self to this list. I made 1 patrol on 2017-06-29T11:24:51; however on the 16:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) version where there are less than 100 editors in the last 24 hours I'm not listed. Why not? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: likewise the report from 04:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC) lists RHaworth as making "1" action in the prior 24 hours, however the linked report shows 4 actions between 04:45, 1 July 2017 and 04:45, 2 July 2017. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Only mainspace reviews are counted since these are the numbers the new page patrollers are most interested in. Sorry this was not clear! I will update the language accordingly.

For RHaworth, indeed the report claims there was a single review in that time period. Checking the logs you see 4 reviews, but these are all in the userspace. Turns out the mainspace review was of a page that is now deleted, see revision history (admin only), where their PROD'ing using Twinkle would have marked it as reviewed. I have no idea why this doesn't show up in the logs. I see that reviews to other now-deleted pages are shown...? Perhaps it is a bug within Special:Log. The record is there in the database (see quarry:query/20021), and again the revision history shows he reviewed the page via Twinkle. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: ok that seems fine - perhaps renaming this from "Top new page reviewers" to "Top new article reviewers" would be better? In any event, the task is fine and will be approved. If you want to move it to a different title within the bot's userspace do so as you see fit. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 5 July 2017 (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.