Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JackieBot 1


 * 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 Symbol neutral vote.svg Request Expired.

JackieBot 1
Operator:

Time filed: 08:12, Tuesday, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia bot

Function overview: simple and complex replacements

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): none

Estimated number of pages affected: about 20 per day, depending on the number of occurrences (for regular task)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: regular run for replacements invalid url (see latest edits and fix error with manual control or by request. — Jack 08:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
This bot is already performing this task in article space? I thought that was not allowed. Maybe I missed a previous discussion.

Please post the source code and describe the edits that are proposed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Code - it is standard script replace.py from Pywikipediabot package. Or what are you want? It for search weblinks, which contain 1 - 3 wrong prefixes with hhtp, http, Http, HTTP, https, Https, HTTPS writing and replace to the http. Correct links with http / https not applicable. Uncertain weblinks (to the unknown for me internet services) I check manual before saving. Example. — Jack 19:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Running the bot without first obtaining approval was an issue already brought up in this bot's last BRFA. ~ RobTalk 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's... bad. Please don't run unapproved bots. Regarding the actual task: it looks fine, but I'd like to see the actual regexes or code involved. There is potential for some issues. For example: in cases like 1 and 2, a link that is ambiguously https or http is made to be http. It's arguable that is not the best behavior. — Earwig   talk  05:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Final links is correct and such replacement is more universal between cases if a few mixed prefixes are present in URL. For the popular internet services I stay http (if knew, that http is supported; else I check it before saving by bot). You want to offer "https" as result? Or if incorrect url contain mixed prefixes - what prefix is correct? For bot's edits I select same option as in cases manual edits. — Jack 19:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So, looking at the bot's edits, I have a few problems with it.
 * To me, not a bot guy, it seems like adding a check to see if the website supports https should be trivial. Python has SSL libraries, all you'd need to do is have it check if it can connect to the site over https, and if it can, if the certificate is valid. I could be way off here, but in any case, I don't like that it assumes http over https. You could also have it get rid of the "http:" and "https:" all together - that wouldn't be ideal, because it wouldn't do much over having "https://http://", but that way there's a better chance the link will actually work.
 * The bot edited in other people's userspace. Not only on their userpages, but also their talk pages. I just don't like bots changing the userspace unless there's a good reason for it. If I want to put a broken link in my userpage, I'll put a broken link there, and I don't want a bot "fixing" it for me.
 * The bot edited without approval. Not only a handful, but well over 50. Not even a few days, but for *two and a half years*. That makes me seriously question whether or not you know, or care about, the bot policy.
 * Just my 2¢. Frood 20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you respond to the above concerns? — Earwig   talk  06:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now only on main space. For check links via SSL libraries - I try, but then it will not standart pywikipediabot. Bot's work is useful or broken links prefer? I ran the bot for useful work, not for fun. — Jack 06:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think the task is useful, but it requires a more sophisticated implementation with regard to deciding which protocol to go with, as others have noted. ~ RobTalk 14:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the proposing editor posted the source code, as requested above, helpful editors could make suggestions about how to improve the protocol detection and decision-making. I don't think that would help with the editor's dismissive attitude toward the bot policy, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the task is useful; that's not my concern here. You still haven't addressed the fact that you've run this task unapproved for over two years. Without some assurance that you understand the bot policy, I am not comfortable moving forward with this. — Earwig   talk  15:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Source code - standard replace.py script with arguments for 1-3 replacements and I run it under incorrect pages, which I see via 1 or 2 or 3 etc. linksearch pages. And put for replace such protocol prefix as I do replace manual. Bot does not choose protocol, only tool for fast load/saму pages with wrong links. Upload replace.py to the any file exchanger? — Jack 06:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So I think the main current outstanding issue is what is going to happen if there's ambiguity in http versus https? (e.g., https://http:// ? How does it choose which to use or what is the behavior? If the bot is incapable of testing, it might be better to just deal with more obvious cases (e.g., http://http//). -- slakr  \ talk / 00:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping -- slakr \ talk / 17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Between prefixes choose I am, operator, NOT bot. Bot only load->replace->save pages. Neither knows about replace.py from the pywikipediabot engine? Its not smart script, but for semi-automatic work. — Jack 06:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Although there's a clear language barrier here, the task is supervised, and, from what I can tell, is going to be essentially manually run. The bot's prior edits don't appear to be woefully wrong, so let's see how this goes. -- slakr  \ talk / 04:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any news? — Earwig   talk  20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No response from bot operator for almost 2 months and to assistance needed ping, so marking this expired unless the op wishes to reopen and pursue this further. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.