Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Innocent iwbot

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.

Innocent iwbot[edit]

Operator: Lavallen (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:59, Sunday July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic, every edit will be checked afterword until I feel 99.99% safe with the code.

Programming language(s): DotNetWikiBot Framework, C#

Source code available: Not yet. DNWB includes functions that are very straightforward for this kind of tasks. That will make the code extremly simple.

Function overview: Remove dead iw-links to Swedish Wikipedia (maybe a few other projects later).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): ~Once a day

Estimated number of pages affected: The log/delete on svwp today counts ~50 pages/day. Most of them will not contain iw-links.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: An adminbot on svwp will collect the content of deleted pages on Swedish Wikipedia. In those pages, I will search for iw-links, and look inside the corresponding pages on other projects, that those pages does not have a dead iw-link to the deleted page. Pywikipedia-bots seems just discovering these broken links by accident. This will, I hope, identify them faster. The adminbot is now requesting adminflag on svwp. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Why no exclusion compliance? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is {{bots}} so frequent that it will be a big problem to avoid such articles? This action will mainly be done on pages were the swedish article has been deleted because it is out of project scope or lack notability. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I interpreting the Q wrong? DNWB avoids pages with {{Bots}} as default. That can be changed by removing a few lines in the code, but I do not see the point. Anal sex and User talk:Anybody is most likely, pages that never will be edited. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it in, it is useful if the bot is breaking on a specific page (there could be numerous reasons, and there is no way to account for them all). I don't suppose this is possible to test until you get the sysop flag at the Swedish Wikipedia? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

No, it's to early for testing. The RfA was opened July 8, and a RfA takes, at least, 7 days.

Regarding "Interwiki sorting order". See how Innocent datumbot (also mine) handle it. 'Innocent datumbot' is not a iw-bot, but clean up the sorting order, when editing for other purpose. (The sorting order was recently changed on svwp.) The sorting order is today the same on svwp and enwp. I follow the updates on meta, since DotNetWikiBot isn't updated very often. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The adminbot has been approved on svwiki and the first scan resulted in three actions here on enwiki. - The source code has been published. Also the DotNetWikiBot-code has been changed in some minor parts, but I cannot publish it because of the license. I have updated the iw-sorting order and made the code "Exclusion compliant".

The botflag is not essential for this bot. The activity-level will, most likely, not motivate it. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits look pretty good (technically you shouldn't be running it yet, but no worries). I just have one other question. Have you got any controls on how quickly the bot removes the links after deletion? I'm thinking in terms of not wanting to remove too quickly, in case the page was just deleted temporarily (e.g. as part of a history merge) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History-merges are extremly rare on svwp. I can easily count the numbers I have seen at svwp the last three years. Pages are normally simply redirected and the users involved are mentioned in the editsummary or on the talk-page. The edit-history of merged pages is considered as to hard to navigate. By the same reason is not transwiki-import activated on svwp. On sv.wikisource I am merging and splitting edit-history on pages sometimes, but I almost never see that on sv.wikipedia.

The bot is checking if the page has been restored or a new page with the same name has been created. If so, no information is collected from the deleted versions. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that sounds okay.

Approved. Basically just a more efficient version of something that pywikipedia interwiki bots are already doing - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2011 (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.