Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnkitBot

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

Request Expired.

AnkitBot

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

Time filed: 12:53, Monday December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic/Supervised

Programming language(s): pyWikipedia

Source code available:

Function overview: See below.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Occasionally

Estimated number of pages affected: A lot.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

Task 1
I will be using weblinkchecker.py. A note about the dead link will be placed on the talk page of the article. And if required, I may just create a deadlink list in the bot's userspace (manually, after I do get a .txt deadlinks' file).

Task 2 (Closed)
~~Using standardize_notes.py, it will work on fixing citations.~~

Discussion

I don't have anything against this task per se, but we have a lot of dead links. The bot would spam tens of thousands of talk pages that are hardly watched with links that can be repaired automatically most of the time. We have several approved bots to repair links, so I don't see the utility of a talk page notifying compared to them. In short, you will need to demonstrate consensus that the community is fine with large number of talk page messages regarding dead links found. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could run on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis + similar links could be collapsed into a single entry? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(To be honest, I did not imagine it any other way than links grouped, or it would be ridiculous on certain pages, for example, where the same domain is cited 20 times and it's gone. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting idea for a task, I'd firstly ask where has it been discussed that updating the talk page is considered helpful? Secondly, what assessment has there been that updating the talk page will lead to the link repair required for the task to lead to improvement to the article (given that other bots use {{dead link}} on the article itself)? It's only going to be worth it if it leads to dead links getting fixed. Rjwilmsi 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant research was done by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BlevintronBot at User:BlevintronBot/Bot/Experiment, where major article's editors were notified, concluding "About 1 in 5 notified users contribute to the article within a week." I assume talk page would attract less attention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on running this from a server like the Toolserver? Some sites block requests from the Toolserver IIRC.
If you're already contacting the internet archive to check if they have a copy, and the {{dead link}} tag was added by a human (lack of |bot=), can you simply add the |archiveurl= parameter and set |deadurl=yes, and if the [dead link] tag wasn't added by a bot (or not at all) just set |deadurl=no? I think that would be a lot more effective and productive than just spamming talk pages. Legoktm (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I could have that .txt deadlinks' file uploaded on a centralized page and it could get manually checked by some user (i.e. just like User:Ocobot). And as Jarry said, I could do it on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis. So, cutting of that talk page task it's all right (or maybe with even with that). --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 11:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're going to put it on a centralized page, as long as that page is in your userspace, you don't need approval. Legoktm (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, are we sure we will cancel that talk page task (it all depends upon the consensus here, like it did for the same task here). Anyway, shouldn't it be better if all the dead link pages were centralized. If my bot's one, this and this was merged that would be the best. Anyway, there's a new task. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 15:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thats old. There's a reason I never pursued that task after it expired :P I've started developing a script that could do something like this, except it required manual review for each url. But of course, if you can demonstrate consensus at a village pump or something (that people would want the talk page notifications), it would be fine to do your original task. Legoktm (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe what exactly are the details of the second task? First impression is that it violates WP:CITEVAR. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. Afterall all the script does is this. Consensus thread for Task 1 made at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#AnkitBot. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 12:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(This is only about second task.) You still need to list exact detail of what it does. And this is a complex task in a fairly controversial area. We are approving your bot for a task, not a specific code fragment. "it will work on fixing citations" is way too vague and cannot be approved as a task. There are many important questions, like what date format it uses or how does it avoid false positives on titles, etc. What kind of citation does it even produce? Things like "Creates citation entries using citation templates." is too vague and definitely WP:CITEVAR by default, unless, for example, it is specified that the bot doesn't convert from different formats. That documentation page does not mention any kind of details like this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to contact the script author for details but when I just tried a test run I got a syntaxError. So, Task 2's dead. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but if you can't fix a simple error like a syntax one, how would you be able to fix any problems that the bot might potentially create/have? Legoktm (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed. Last night, I didn't care to go through the script. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 06:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear. Do you mind explaining what the task does now rather than just linking to a page on the MediaWiki wiki? Also, would you mind posting your modified version of the code? (If its a bug in pywikipediabot, it would be lovely if you could file a bug and submit your patch for inclusion in the repo!) Legoktm (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed here. I just manually fixed my script. After some hours, (when I thought I should file a bug) I saw that it was already fixed in rev 10792. ~~But then, if the {{Ref}} is deprecated on enwiki so how do I ensure that all aricles this script edits doesn't use the </ref> citing style.~~ (Ok, there's a -except regex parameter) --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 15:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What na useless code. I hate this damn script (i.e. standardize_notes.py). --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 16:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, its one thing to run a script that you didn't write (or don't understand), but its a whole different story when you call someone else's hard work "useless". Do you even understand what the scripts you're running do? Legoktm (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't useless (it actually isn't). It's coz the {{Ref}}'s deprecated on enwiki. I entirely forgot that point (I hereby take back those useless "useless" words). I actually overlooked the comments integrated in that script which actually said that the script only (and only) works on fixing {{Ref}} citations (which means I'm kinda blind?). --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 05:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to approve a bot where the operation of the code isn't well documented. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Task 1 is being built up at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Talk_Page_Deadlink_Tagging and Task 2's closed. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it strange to call that discussion evidence of "consensus". For the record, I oppose any bot spamming tens of thousands of article talk pages to say that there is a {{dead link}} on the page. I am very concerned that these messages will cause people to violate WP:DEADREF by simply removing dead links (rather than waiting to see whether they've been archived), deleting valid sources solely because the newspaper article isn't online, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. Who ever mentioned of of a notice for removing them - it will just be a notification that there is a deadlink on that article and somebody must fix them. It (the script) even mentions the presence (and also not the presence) of that specific deadlink in the Wayback machine. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually matter whether your bot's message says to remove the dead link. If you put a "warning notice" on the article's talk page that says that having a dead link in the article is even a tiny cause for concern, then some people will remove the dead links because they will believe that the bot's complaint about the dead link is identifying a serious problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you gave will differ from person to person depending on their perspective. But then, about that consensus building up here but not there is not a really good idea. Because it makes this page too cluttery and messy. And then even the BAG member actually favoured it that way. It's all right as it is. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 12:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if your bot is already checking the Wayback machine for archived copies, why can't the bot just add that into the article itself? Legoktm (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never actually wrote any .py script whatsoever. I am mainly a JS person but I like running, testing and improving all other scripts. That's what. So, it's like I know how to run .py scripts and improve 'em. (I would like to run your script too, one day). And that's how is the pyWikipedia script (About the feature you mentioned). --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 06:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pyWikipedia script's already been made let's use and improve it. And again a note, before posting a note on the talk page, it will wait for atleast 7 days between 2 deadlink checks and there will be one check within that time. Only then, will a notification be posted along with that Wayback machine thing. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 06:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the future I will consider Legoktm's options. Currently, for the present and some future months I am and will be awesomely busy. (No time for script writing, sorry.) --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 06:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Feel free to unarchive when you get more time. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 31 December 2012 (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.