Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheMagikBOT 3


 * 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

TheMagikBOT 3
Operator:

Time filed: 17:53, Thursday, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: On request

Function overview: Will replace www.www. with www.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 3-30/day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Will replace all instances of www.www. with www. Request at WP:BOTREQ.

Discussion
You expect this bot to only update three pages ? I don't think that would require a bot. — xaosflux  Talk 23:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Its just a guess about how many pages per day. I don't have any good data, but I would guess between 3 and 30 per day, so I put he lower bound for safety. There is currently a backlog of 90 to fix. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * can you describe how you will check links, and what you will do based on the the responses? e.g. What will you do for http://www.www.org ? —  xaosflux  Talk 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The bot will locate www.www. in the text of a page and replace it with www. . What comes before/after the bot does not do anything with.  It uses the   from python. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , what namespace(s) do you plan to run this in? Where are you souring your target list from?  A quick live wikisearch (  is generating hits around 10x your estimate. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The current code will run in the main namespace only, which is throwing about ~100 pages to be changed at the moment. Once that backlog is clear, I see between 3 and 30 pages per day being changed. I use the MW:API:Search_and_discovery to locate the pages - but looking at Cirrus I may see if there is a significant difference between to two. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the capability to enable link checking as well (that the link you leave after your edit actual is live?) — xaosflux  Talk 16:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I can easily put that in with a few lines of code - do you think that it is worthwhile? I could set the bot to only correct the link if a HTTP 200 code comes back else skip the page. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you are touching the links anyway it is, that would at least rule out legitimate www.www entries. The bot request linked above mentioned doing link checking - that's what got me asking. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah no worries - I shall put that in now! TheMagikCow (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As the original requester: Many thanks.--Oneiros (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * — xaosflux  Talk 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We has 2 initial edits that blanked a page, this was caused by a small bug in the code deploying text to a page, which is now fixed, These bad edits were quickly reverted, as for the first few edits, one a a time was made then reviewed and any unintended edits were reverted, and the bot halted. After this small hitch, the remaining 28 edits were all successful and exactly as intended and the bot performed as expected. A typical example is and this is an example of multiple fixes. I can only apologise for the damaging 2 edits, but am very confident that the issue is now firmly resolved. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit the edited address does not appear to be responding with status 200 - did you implement that check already? — xaosflux  Talk 20:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I implemented the feature to check that the www.www. link is not live - to rule out removing a valid link. I guess I misunderstood the second point you made about ruling out valid www.www. links - it was in addition to checking the edit we live is live. Do you want me to add this feature in? TheMagikCow (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I get the approval here? TheMagikCow (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit leery of false positives. As far as links - if the existing link is good - you should leave it, if your new link is dead - you should skip it. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No false positives as far as I have seen. Edits on 28 Feb as well as these:     and . TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Task approved. — xaosflux  Talk 14:15, 14 March 2017 (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.