Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baffle gab1978 (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 22 September 2019 (→Trial period at BRFA: struck). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible Search talk archives

Harrison Wells

Hi all; I made a mistaken attempt (I hadn't finished to one above it yet!) to c/e this a few days ago. Since then, it has undergone much revision from two editors whom I seem to have stirred up, (courtesy pings @Brojam:and @Kailash29792:) including the requester (article history). I've put the request on hold and I propose the article is currently unstable and that a major c/e would be quickly wiped out with the rapid changes. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

When I submitted the article at the GOCE, I had no idea it would go through such substantial changes. If Brojam is done, you may resume the c/e Baffle gab. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kailash, but the article was unchanged from 17 June to 28 June, then the major edits started whilst i was working on it. I'd rather the article was stable (no substantial changes) for a few days before a c/e begins but the hold note doesn't prevent anyone from accepting the request; it is purely an advisory note from the Guild. I should not have accepted the request anyway as I was halfway through another c/e; a d'oh! moment if you will. Baffle☿gab 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Baffle gab1978 you did grab my attention to the article and when I saw you had put your review of the article on hold to finish your other review, I wanted to try to clean up the plot sections as much as possible before making another editor review sections that would have to be significantly reduced if this article was ever nominated for GA. Sorry, for the unstability of the article. I am finished and the article should hopefully return to a stable state in a few days. - Brojam (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Brojam; I'm glad you understand the reasons for the hold notice, etc. We do like articles for which a c/e request is made to be stable enough that a substantial copy-edit is not quickly erased by subsequent or ongoing edits. I'll happily remove the hold notice—unless someone beats me to it—in a few days after checking its stability; hopefully someone will get to it soon afterwards. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've removed my On hold notice; copy-editors are advised to check the article's history before proceeding. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

IPv6 requests and sockery

I noticed we've just had another IPv6 requesting c/e for an article about India diff. We already have two of these interesting diff and (also interesting) diff, all three of which geolocate to the same country, city and ISP. The second diff includes the sig of a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user LastBreath64 (talk · contribs) and the third diff includes the sig on a new-ish user, St.teresa (talk · contribs). I'll be adding to the SPI forthwith. I won't object if another coordinator removed these three requests; I'll probably do so myself when I'm a little less tired. Update: SPI done. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle. I declined the req for West Bengal yesterday and have now declined Bengal, Bengali language, and Bangladesh. There were no edits by the IP address and the articles had not been expanded and/or nominated for GA as stated by the request. The IP req for Sasha Grey appears legitimate, with edits to the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries; the SPI found no evidence of St.teresa being a sockpuppet so the IP was using a fake sig, which was removed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Santos Rodriguez

I've just placed this request (diff) On hold; this article has maintenance tags {{very long}}, {{essay-like}} and {{overly detailed}}, all dated July 2019. It may not be suitable for a full copy-edit, which may be quickly wiped out by improvements, and GOCE is not Cleanup. Courtesy-pinging the requester @Centehua:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Good call. All the best, Miniapolis 13:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've declined; no further comments here and no response from the requester. Feel free to undo in necessary. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Should we decline this request made by a now-banned user? I always want to decline requests from permanently banned users, but in the past others have argued for reviewing the requests on a case-by-case basis, so does anyone want to argue for keeping this one? I note that we already did a review of it about two years ago. Also, it's really, really long. :) Tdslk (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Since they were blocked for socking, I see no reason this should be done again so soon; thought the article rang a bell . In addition to its length, it's been the subject of an educational assignment (edited by newbies) and is under discretionary sanctions; in my experience, South Asian articles (like the one I'm working on now) often have POV issues which are time-consuming to resolve. All the best, Miniapolis 18:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline; this is the same person who used four IPv6 addresses to request copy-edits for this and other Indian subcontinent-related articles last month earlier this month, and did some joe-jobbing into the bargain; see my SPI report. I see no reason to honour this request. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Tdslk (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify Tdslk's point above; I believe you refer to this incident, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm fine with good faith c/e requests made by an account that is temporarily blocked for reasons unrelated to the requested article; for example for edit-warring, minor incivility, self-block requests, topic-ban violations, etc. I'm less fine with the scenario that happened here; sock accounts or IPs that are used by blocked users to evade blocks or bans. Except in obvious cases, like the Philippine model who pops up here sometimes, I think discussions should take place before a decline. Having said that, I wouldn't stop anyone from improving the prose of any article; our hold notices are advisory but they don't mean "do not copy-edit this article". A case-by-case approach is needed because sock accounts aren't always obvious to editors who rarely get involved in backstage areas of Misplaced Pages. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of a slightly older incident, but it was a similar story. I would argue that anyone who is permanently blocked should get their requests declined, whether or not they were blocked for the reason of being a sockpuppet. I like to think that there is at least a hypothetical collaborative component to requests. Usually the requestor is actively revising the article, and will review our work when we are done and answer questions we may have. Otherwise, there is nothing different from the articles in the request list and any of the millions of other articles. So if an editor is permanently blocked, we should remove the article in preference to requests from editors where there is at least a possibility that they can respond. Tdslk (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009/The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland

This article is a draft in userspace that is still under development and not ready for mainspace. I've placed this request on hold with a view to decline. Courtesy ping to requester; @Dawid2009:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not ready for a copyedit, IMO. All the best, Miniapolis 22:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) Request declined; GOCE is not the "fix up my article" department. Baffle☿gab 06:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009/The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland

CC-BY-SA declaration; text below moved from Requests page here by me. Baffle☿gab 06:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

English language is not my native. Is this possible to find here help for correcting this page until will be redirected to main page? Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 On hold; Article is a draft in userspace and is still being developed, thus not yet suitable for c/e. Discuss on REQ Talk. Baffle☿gab 18:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nihil novi and Piotrus: and other participants of Wikiproject:Poland have good thoughts about translations from Polish to English. How you two see current form of this article? What at least should be superfically corrected until this Draft go to main space onto copyedit? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I dislike draft spaces as they cause problems like this. Move it to the main namespace, and see what happens. Fix or delete, all better than the stupid draft limbo. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Dissolution of United States

I've moved this c/e request from our main talk page to the Requests page, and I'm putting it on hold for discussion here. This article was created within the last 24 hours of my timestamp, lacks references and looks like an essay. This article's text is readable and doesn't seem to need a c/e. I've added the relevant maintenance templates to the article. Courtesy ping to requester @Vyacheslav84:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggest that we decline; it's a new article, and a copyedit wasn't requested by its creator on WP:GOCE/REQ. We have enough to do as it is . Miniapolis 22:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And where should I go? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your article seems in good shape, in terms of being written clearly; it does need to be divided up into sections, especially separating the first paragraph from the rest, to be the lead. Unless I misread Miniapolis, you did not make a proper request; and that link given is where you would go. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vyacheslav84:, your first steps should be to read and understand the tags atop the article and deal with the problems noted. From my viewpoint those problems are:

• The article doesn't clearly describe the theory's origins, history, significance and influence. It reads like an essay or personal reflection; instead of a focussed piece of prose we have a collection of opinions and quotations from various writers; "according to X, According to Y, in the opinion of Z", etc. Compare this with Slavery in the United States.
• Only three sources have been used; one is The Wall Street Journal (paywalled), one is a personal reflection about the ideas of a crackpot Russian political analyst in The Washington Post and one is an L.A. Times opinion piece about George W. Bush's legacy that was copy-pasted into a forum on a personal website; none of which credibly show the subject's notability. If three sources—two of which are personal reflections—are the best you can do, the subject's notability looks uncertain.
• The article smacks of original research (see my previous point); you took three writers' opinions and smooshed them together to try and make a cohesive article. This is known as synthesis.
• The article was created from scratch on 30 July 2019‎, meaning it's had little time to develop. Most GOCE copy-editors prefer working on mature, stable articles that are being prepared for some process or otherwise need prose work. The GOCE is not Cleanup or Article Rescue Squadron.

These points indicate the article may be either deleted, rewritten or stubified in the near future. Copy-editing (improving grammar, spelling, flow, layout etc) won't fix these problems and would be wiped out, wasting volunteers' time and effort. If you are unsure about improving the article, you may ask for help at the Teahouse or Article Rescue Squadron. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll think it over! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) Note for archive; request declined without prejudice. Baffle☿gab 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 in Singapore

Since this list is by definition unstable until the year is over, I'm declining this and will notify the requester (who seems to be having a problem with another editor). Miniapolis 16:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree; we don't need to involve ourselves in other editors' battles for that way lies madness! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've just removed two more year in Singapore requests; here and here because the IP user has already listed two such requests. I can't yet comment on the merits of the requests but I'll be looking at them in a bit. I think we may have some CIR or IDHT issues here... the requester doesn't appear to have read our instructions for requesters. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

According to our rules, IP users can't request articles that they haven't been working on, which this one hasn't: i can't do anything as the article have been constantly updating in rapid speeds, even if I do so. So either the article is unstable, in which case it's a problematic request, or they're nominating articles they haven't worked on, which is a problematic request for an IP. Sounds like we should be removing them and letting them know on their talk page why; perhaps they should cultivate patience and wait until the articles are being updated less frequently, at which point they can do their own work. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; I think they should be declined. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) Note for archive; 2018 in Singapore and 2017 in Singapore declined per above. Baffle☿gab 23:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Bot integration?

Is there any way to get a bot to automatically archive completed requests? Manually archiving requests seems unnecessary and tedious. I often see bots archiving old talk page discussions and the like, so I was wondering if there was any way to get a bot to do the same for completed requests. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bobbychan, I expect it *could* be done but I wouldn't know how to do it. I'm in favour of bot archiving providing it can be set up properly, it works consistently and it can handle subtleties like declines and multiple reasons, i.e. "DYK / GAN". Thanks for all the archiving and gnoming you do, it's most appreciated. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I'll definitely look into this. I have an offline friend who happens to be a Wikimedia Commons administrator and a prolific coder. Perhaps he will have free time to help us out :)

I'm a WikiGnome secretly pretending to be a WikiOrge :) Don't tell anyone :o —Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It does seem like a nontrivial problem to determine reason-codes from the text. Would there also be a possible issue with completed requests being archived too quickly, where a coordinator might otherwise notice a problem? – Reidgreg (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Perhaps it could be semi-automatic? Similar to IABot, where you have to launch or run it for it to automatically do something. A whitelist of coordinators only could certainly help. I'm visualizing an interface where reasons are selected from a list of options, including FAC, GAN, DYK, Declined, and "Other: _____". It could be one of those checkbox lists to allow for multiple selections like Baffle mentioned. Thoughts? Bobbychan193 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A barebones approach might be like signing up for Blitzes and Drives, where the editor is presented with a template to fill in with their rollover words, but where much of the work is done automatically. In this case, a requester could be presented with a similar template, which would have, say, article= and reason= (e.g. GAN, FAC, etc.) fields, as well as a comments section, with requester and date being gathered from the usual signature–timestamp. Copy editors would have a similar template with their particulars, as well as a status= field (e.g. "working" or "done"). A start would be to design a script that keeps the requests archive sorted, something that isn't being done without laborious editor intervention, at least not when I attempt it. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Automatic archive system similar to WP:FFU can be set up using Cluebot III. See User:Cluebot III for documentation. Masum Reza 00:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested on proposed bot

This is a follow-up to the previous discussion. I am courtesy pinging users who have previously replied to this topic, as well as all GOCE coordinators: @Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, Dhtwiki, and Masumrezarock100. All GOCE members are welcome to discuss or provide feedback.

I recently reached out to the offline friend I mentioned previously. He agreed to help out, and we discussed some details/functions of the bot he plans to code. They are as follows:

• Fully automatic bot: The bot will be fully automatic, not semi-automatic. According to my friend, a semi-automatic bot requires an external site and is more difficult to implement; implementing a functioning whitelist can be difficult; and it is easier to abuse or make mistakes when using a semi-automatic bot. Therefore, a fully automatic bot is preferred. The bot will scan each request and look for certain templates, such as {{done}} or {{declined}}. It will archive requests based on the template it identifies.
• One-day delay: There will be a one-day delay before the bot archives a request. This prevents vandalism (i.e. a user spamming {{done}} or {{declined}} templates on every request). This also provides room for GOCE coordinators and users to double check things before the bot archives them.
• Reasoning templates: if requesters can add a reasoning template for each of their requests, it would significantly reduce the room for bot error. Instead of scanning text and variations (i.e. "GAN" vs "GA" vs "Good Article", etc.), the bot can simply look for reasoning templates to identify whether the request was for FAC, GAN, DYK, General Copy Edit, Other, etc. (or a combination). (Note: we would probably have to create entirely new templates for this.)
• Inline icon templates: GOCE members should use inline icon templates, such as {{declined}} and {{withdrawn}}, when reacting to changes in the status of requests. This will help the bot identify these requests and archive them accordingly.
• (Optional feature) Text archival: my friend was curious as to why the text of requests gets deleted. If desired, the text can be archived alongside the tables. They can be put in a separate section, or placed within the table. I personally think the former makes more sense. However, I do recognize that this would substantially increase the file size of the 2019 archive page, and would probably force it to be split into multiple pages (possibly by month). I'm curious to see everyone's stance on this.

My friend wishes to remain anonymous at this time in case there are any major objections. He will not begin working on the bot until there is a general consensus here. I will eventually be co-nominating the bot to WP:BRFA with him. The approval process may take several weeks. If the bot gets approved, I will be the primary point of contact. (To reiterate my rationale behind the bot: manually archiving requests is unnecessary and tedious, and there are hundreds of requests every year. The bot would reduce room for human error and save the GOCE a lot of time, especially in the long run.) Please let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions at this time. Discussion is not mandatory from anyone, but I would definitely appreciate feedback. Thank you. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does require an external site. I suggest using Wikimedia toolforge. Masum Reza 04:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. The bot will be fully automatic, not semi-automatic. My friend does not want to set up an external site. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO, I don't see any need to archive the request texts. The detail in the table is enough. @Reidgreg: did a lot of analysis of 2018's requests. I suspect the table is fairly large even with the succinct detail it now holds. I imagine splitting the table into pages might make analysis a much trickier job? Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Didn't get the ping, and must check my notification preferences . I agree with TT that the current system isn't broken, and am puzzled by the anonymity; we don't bite, and often agree to disagree on the way to consensus. Although I'm not knowledgeable about bots, I would heed Masumrezarock100's advice about Toolforge. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm 'that friend' and also Toolforge admin here. The reason developing a web interface is so much extra work is regarding the interface design (I would have to make it look nice don't I?), and security (anything that is passive, i.e. respond to an outside event instead of actively checking status could be an attack vector and must be secured; and authentication is a PITA that opens up a whole new lot of issues; and no, OAuth only solves part of them). Anonymity is because I don't want to be too involved in this besides technical help (code writing and running); Bobbychan remains the point of contact for its functionality. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: and @Bobbychan193:, we only archive requests' text when there's been some discussion about it, such as a decline or hold discussion (example here). Future coordinators can then see how we handled that particular problem and it's also there for the requester to review. Text of straightforward requests doesn't need to be archived; it's in our tabled archive for all to see. Thank you both for working on this; although the current system isn't broken and serves us well, if we find a better way to do some chore that's going to benefit the Guild in the long run. It represents a major change in our practises though, and needs to be thoroughly discussed and reviewed before it's made permanent. Good luck. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978: Thanks for your responses. It seems that the general consensus on text archival is that the text is only archived when there was a non-straightforward discussion around it. In this case, would the use of a template after the discussion ends be appropriate? I imagine if someone wanted text to be archived, then inserting a template can help the bot identify that the text needs to be archived rather than deleted (in addition to archiving in the table format). Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's any kind of controversy about a request, that's going to come up before the request is completed, so there should be plenty of opportunity for discussion to be moved to the Requests talk page. If the 'straightforward' text is desired after it's been 'deleted', we can always use the 'completed' date to find the text in the page history. (I've sometimes done that when there are typos in dates or missing request reasons.) When I do the annual report, I export the archive tables into a single spreadsheet; extraneous data could make that a little more difficult but not an insurmountable problem. I'll review extant inline icon templates. We should probably create an edit notice like Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders so that requesters and copy editors can view the available templates (and I'm sure our kind coder friend would also like to know the ones we'll be using). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

One place where preserving the request text might be useful would be in a 'log file' of the bot's actions, showing the original text and then the data added to the archives table, so that we can verify that the bot is doing what we want it to do. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contribs exists for exactly this reason. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Sounds good. Are you willing to help create the icon templates (or find existing ones we can use)? Also, could you or someone else handle creating the edit notice as well? To be honest, I am not familiar with either template creation or edit notices. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I should be able to code an edit notice. If we want it to show for every edit, rather than just when using the Submit a Request button, an admin may have to move it to a special location (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests).

Thinking about implementation of the edit notice, I feel that request reason templates might be unnecessarily complicated. We'd have to list more than a dozen cryptic templates like {{GOCEGAN}} along with what they represent in the edit notice, so why not simply list the established acronyms instead? Simpler instructions are usually easier to follow, existing users of the request service wouldn't have to learn a new system, and newer requesters wouldn't have an additional burden (keeping in mind that some are referred by DYK or GAN reviewers, and may already be dealing with a lot). I'm wholly in favour of the inline icon "status" templates (will list some in a subsection below.) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Created an edit notice mockup at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/RequestsIntro – Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: why not simply list the established acronyms instead This is a really good idea actually. I'd imagine it will work, but I'll ask Zhuyifei to be sure. Nice mockup BTW. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That is fine, and probably easier than templates. However, if someone typos then it's a typo. The person might not notice it and the bot won't recognize it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We typically have 20 days to catch a typo before a request is completed. About a quarter of requests don't have a stated reason (or are for "general copy edit") in which case the field should be blank. Sometimes there will be two purposes like DYK and GAN or GAN and FAC. Is there anything else that we should track, like "grammar" or "translation"? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I can match against multiple acronyms, until the first timestamp right? Also they must be capitalized. I don't want to match 'far' when it means something different ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Status templates

This is a list of templates to be used by copy editors to indicate the status of a Request, and to point out data for the proposed request archiving bot.

• {{Done}}  Done – Copy edit completed. This would trigger the bot to archive after a certain amount of time. The bot would use the signature/timestamp following the template to give credit on the "Copy editor's username" column of the archives table and list the completion date.
• {{Working}}  Working – undergoing copy edit.
• {{Declined}}  Declined – trigger archival – copy editor "n/a"
• {{Withdrawn}}  Request withdrawn – trigger archival – copy editor "n/a"
• {{Partly done}}  Partly done – to be used when deferring a request to another copy editor. When this is used, we would want the bot to credit each "partly done" copy editor and the "Done" copy editor on the "Copy editor's username" column of the archives table.
• {{Not done}}  Not done – as partly done, but no credit given (ie: bot can ignore). Alternatively  Deferred to avoid the trauma of a big red X?
• {{On hold}}  On hold – if a request must be held for a period but not so long as to decline.
• {{Discussing}}  Discussion ongoing...
  – talk page discussion. (links to Requests talk; link doesn't appear on talk pages)
• Maybe something like Not sure if a copy editor wants their work to be checked? The reviewer could check it and the original copy editor then use Done so that the bot gives credit to the original copy editor's signature. I think copy editors normally ask for reviews of their work – or raise other questions – on the Requests talk page, though, so maybe this isn't needed.

Please jump in with any other useful templates, and suggestions for their use (to be listed in the edit notice), as well as how they should be interpreted by the proposed bot. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

One minor thing that could be added:

• {{Unapproved}}  Not approved – similar to  Declined, but more specific: if a user makes a request outside of the scope of what the GOCE allows. Examples: IP user making a request on an article they did not contribute to, a user making more than two requests, etc.

Other than that I think the list is solid. I like the idea of giving multiple editors credit in scenarios like the ones you mentioned. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In the case of out-of-scope requests (e.g., "please fix / save / develop my article") we place the request on hold and discuss at REQ talk. In the case of excess requests, we normally ask the requester to remove the excess requests and wait 24 hours or so then, if necessary, remove them manually ourselves without archiving (see the Year in Singapore thread). The bot shouldn't get to remove anything other than dealt-with (completed, declined, abandoned etc.) requests discussed above. I'm sorry I sound like a broken record... :| Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. That makes sense. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it redundant to have both On hold and Discussing? All or nearly all On hold situations are going to have discussion, so maybe that should be assumed? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess since the bot doesn’t react to either of those templates either way, it doesn’t really matter if we have one or both. Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Timestamps

Regarding signature / timestamp, because a lot of people uses fancy signatures, there is no generic 'regular expression' to extract such information, does it make sense to require that one and only one link to a user page and timestamp may appear on the line with a status template? And for the requester, find the first timestamp and require only one and only one link to a user page and the line with the timestamp? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't imagine there will be multiple timestamps. For the lines where a username has to be extracted (initial post, partly done, done), it's possible an editor might ping or backlink someone (like the person who referred them here). Can the bot check the last userlink on a status line (i.e.: search the status line working from right to left)? To strip fancy signatures, say for ]] can't the bot take everything between

How about requiring the timestamp on the status line and the last user (or talk) link before the timestamp is taken? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)