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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Operator: Allmightyduck (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): PHP using the Peachy Framework, and one direct API query.

Source code available: http://debugwiki.bot.duckydude.com/index.php?title=Source

Function overview: Notify sysop who has last event in block log of any WP:AIV backlogs.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Probably not more than 10 a week, AIV doesn't backlog that easily.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details: This bot, every 5 minutes, will scan WP:AIV for the category Category:Administrative backlog, and if it is on the page, will read the block log from an API query. The sysop who performed the most recent entry in the block log will be given a template message on their talk page politely asking them if they would mind clearing that backlog.

Discussion

Is there consensus for this? I doubt a bot that "spams" (I realize it isn't spam, but it's an unrequested message) random sysops would have consensus, so it would be nice to see more discussion on this. It would be nice if instead of looking for the last blocks from all sysops, it looked for the last action from a list of sysops that have opted in to being notified by the bot. This would ensure that only administrators interested in clearing the backlog get the message, instead of for example a checkuser who happened to block someone last but is not involved in AIV getting the message. Ideally the list should be an on-wiki protected page, so admins can add and remove themselves easily as they wish. By the way, if you need any help with the programming, feel free to contact me on-wiki, on IRC, or by email, I've done a fair bit of programming with Peachy, so am able to help out or review your code. - EdoDodo ^talk 19:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs wider discussion. I'll go ahead and post to WP:VPP and WT:AIV. —I-20the highway 01:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would this bot only inform one admin per backlog, or every admin that makes a block until the backlog is cleared? For example, say Admin A blocks a user, and then a backlog appears at AIV. Bot informs Admin A. While Admin A is clearing out the backlog, Admins B, C, and D all make blocks as well. Do admins B, C, and D also get notices? And will Admin A get a duplicate notice for every block he makes while clearing out the backlog? (This scenario assumes that A-D are all on any opt-in lists.) I would find that more than a little annoying, especially if these four all end up tripping over each other's feet trying to block everyone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I suggest the bot send the message to another admin only if the backlog isn't cleared after a specific amount of time, perhaps one hour, that the first message has been sent. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the urgency I placed is because AIV reports can grow stale. Also, Hersfold, right now it informs the most recent admin every 5 minutes. So, since from what I have seen it doesn't take that long to clear an AIV backlog (from what I have seen!) only Admin A will get a notice. BUT, if the backlog isn't cleared within 5 minutes (changeable per discussion, obviously) it will notify the most recent admin AGAIN, which could be any admin, A, B, C, or D. It doesn't run every time a block is made. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the bot should keep a log of which admins it has notified recently, so that it doesn't notify the same admin a bunch of times in one day. At the very least, it shouldn't be notifying the same admin two times in a row, but personally I would suggest not notifying the same admin more than once a day. - EdoDodo ^talk 20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless restricted to opt-in list As urgent as WP:AIV reports are, bot-notifying administrators who have previously responded to them is a bad idea, because it could encourage admins to prevent unwanted notices by ignoring the area altogether. If Template:Admin backlog isn't attracting enough attention, editors can post requests for administrative action at WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Consideration should also be given to approving RFAs of trusted editors who are willing to block vandals, even if they are not considered to be qualified for other areas of administrative activity, provided they agree to restrict their tool usage to anti-vandalism activities until they have sufficient experience and understanding of other administrative tasks to perform them correctly. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why would any admin who regularly performs blocks want what could end up as hundreds of templates on his or her talk page? This sort of spamming technique isn't helpful (it would only make me block the bot if it kept spamming me every five minutes there was a backlog, and I was busy trying to block a load of sockpuppets or something). We need to encourage more admins to check AIV, not have a bot annoy them so much that they end up doing it. —fetch·comms 01:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This should absolutely be an opt-in system, if its done at all. AIV was listed as backlogged at least 5 times in the last 500 edits to the page (going back ~33 hours), so a more accurate estimate would probably be something like 25 per week. In all but one case, the backlog was cleared in under 10 minutes, frequently under 5. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Status? Mr.Z-man 04:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still going on, just working on code for subscriptions and other additions. Is there a template to put this on hold temporarily while I finish? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 12:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just let us known when you're done coding and I'll be happy to approve a trial. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless restricted to opt-in list. I perform admin AIV duties regularly and would not want a bot notifying me. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, the Wiki::logs() function does what you need instead of the API query. Wiki::logs( array( 'block' ) ) should work fine. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Either an opt-in or opt-out list is definitely needed. At the very least it should adhere to {{bots}} tags before posting to the admin's talk page, as this gives a universal method of opting out. --slakr^\ talk / 05:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be consensus against this task or at least strong opposition to it. Any further thoughts would be helpful in determining next steps. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that, and definitely using an Opt-In list, versus opt out. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. I'll come back when I have a better task. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 16:36, 27 October 2010 (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.