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.

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 06:20, Sunday, December 1, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available: will adapt User:DannyS712 test/Flagged revs patroller.js for toolforge

Function overview: Automatically accept pending changes that have no net change

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a

Edit period(s): No edits outside of user space

Estimated number of pages affected: Lots patrolled (article and project namespaces only)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): N/a

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, but only the pending change reviewer flag is needed (there is no ratelimit on patrolling to worry about)

Function details: Sometimes, there are 2 or more pending changes to a page that leave the page in the same state it was (i.e. result in no "net" change). This can happen if an IP/unconfirmed editor reverts another, or for other reasons (see phab:T234743 and phab:T233561 for some issues). This bot would automatically accept the final state, reducing the pages in the backlog. While this only saves an actual reviewer a few seconds, it allows users with autoreview but not review rights to have their edits shown immediately. A similar task has been run a few times on enwikibooks, which has a more complicated flagged-revs setup, and has been triggered manually. This task, however, would be triggered automatically (probably every 15 minutes). To be clear, it only "accepts" a version that is identical to the last accepted version. Search for "no net change" at [1] to see examples that would be patrolled.

There are a lot of unknowns in here. Where it was discussed. How many pages will be affected. How often this bot will run. Is there any information other than "this is sort of maybe a problem that might save a little bit of time"? Primefac (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, it's not all that uncommon, in fact there was one when I checked just now. [2]. This sounds sensible to me and quite similar to the redirect patrol rules in many ways. It won't save much time in each individual case but with a few a day and operating for several years it will have quite a large impact. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it wasn't sensible, just that I am (as always) of the opinion that we don't need a bot for a task that would only happen once a day. I don't know where "the line" would be, but I suppose even as often as "once an hour" would be sufficient to automate this; however, without knowing how often it happens I can't really make that judgement. I'll likely send to trial but I would like a little more data. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I don't know how often, but there is generally one or two per day when I check (and I don't always check). I didn't open a discussion, because I didn't think one would be needed - this (to me) seems like an uncontroversial task for a bot (accepting content that has already been accepted). Once this is on toolforge and running more frequently the data will be more available, but until then I'm not sure, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Let's see how much time this will save folks. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Okay, this is running. It reviewed Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/8 twice while I set it up, and now runs automatically every 15 minutes. First acceptance: [3], 9 minutes after the edit was made. Full log available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=review&user=DannyS712+bot+IV DannyS712 (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Ran for a bit over the 2 weeks, sorry. Trial complete. - see log at [4] - 98 null edits to articles patrolled in total (7 per day on average). I didn't see any issues DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Haven't seen any issues or objections --DannyS712 (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (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.