Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 76

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.

AnomieBOT 76

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

Time filed: 01:20, Monday, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/PeerReviewArchiver.pm

Function overview: Archive expired peer reviews.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#VeblenBot

Edit period(s): Twice daily.

Estimated number of pages affected: Depends how many peer reviews people file.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will collect the list of peer reviews from Category:Current peer reviews pending closure and Category:Requests for peer review pending closure. It will then verify that it has been at least one month since the peer review page was edited. Then, per Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review, it will replace {{Peer review|archive=$index}} with {{Old peer review|archive=$index}} on the talk page and {{Peer review page}} with {{subst:PR/archive}} on the peer review page.

Discussion

Note this will probably be in trial for quite a while, as the rate of expiring peer reviews isn't particularly high. Anomie ⚔ 01:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 21 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. OK to trial, please update this page with status. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first two reviews were just archived: 1 2 3 4. Looking at open peer reviews in Category:Current peer reviews, it looks like there's a maximum of 13 more that could need archiving before the 21 days are up. Anomie ⚔ 16:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three more reviews archived: 5 6 7 8 9 10. Anomie ⚔ 23:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven more: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 (apparently someone deleted the talk page template for this one, so no corresponding bot edit) 20 21 22 23 There are two more reviews (probably four more edits) that might be archived before the deadline. Anomie ⚔ 02:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. The last two expired peer reviews didn't get updated into the necessary categories before the trial ran out. Anomie ⚔ 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look fine. Does the bot do anything with {{Article history}} and should it? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The closing instructions don't mention that template, I don't know if it "should". Anomie ⚔ 23:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Everything looks good, requested task, low edit rate, trusted botop. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:28, 18 February 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.