Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot

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.

Dexbot

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

Time filed: 16:05, Tuesday July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): python

Source code available: it's based on pywikibot

Function overview: Fixing broken section link or redirect

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): monthly or once in every two months

Estimated number of pages affected: about several thousands articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes as pywikibot does it by default

Adminbot (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes in here and lots of Wikis

Function details: It makes a list of broken section link or redirect and goes though them and fixes anything that can be done (e.g. name of the section has changed and the bot fixes it) I have ran this in Persian Wikipedia and now and I did 50 edits for test (to get the approval) in Italian Wikipedia as you can see them in here

Discussion

Best :)Ladsgroup^بحث 16:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup Do you know if this is similar to what User:FrescoBot does? Have you written the script? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis I don't think it works the way that the bot works because It checks if the section link (or redirect to section) is valid and if it goes to a changed section, e.g. someone changed name of the section. It fixes it. I wrote that script :)Ladsgroup^بحث 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup, first off, cool program. I like it. I'm not sure about fixes like this. The link works before the fix. I'm just not sure what policy says about italics/bold. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite yes this is one of the first things I observed too. I wonder if bot becomes too sensitive in vandalism or improper MoS changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite and Magioladitis: I already fixed link issues and references in sections but I didn't notice the "'" character in section, I fixed it now. Thank you for notifying. I haven't started it yet because the databse is really huge and my bot is still readng the dump. :)Ladsgroup^بحث 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basilicofresco what do you think of this bot? I would like your comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting approach, it will fix a lot of links that Frescobot is not able to repair. I just try to guess the new section name using a large set of plausible variations (so I fix also mispellings), but Dexbot will be (hopefully) able to fix all the broken links due section renaming. It's definitely worth a try. Just start slowly and check if everything is going well. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

52 edits are done. :)Ladsgroup^بحث 13:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Ladsgroup please provide link to diffs, comment your edits and report any errors you think were done during the process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is list of edits done by bot [1] and I checked some of them and there weren't any issues that I can detect. Usually because it's already fixed during past runs in other wikis :)Ladsgroup^بحث 14:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty I would also like your opinion on this bot. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Conceptually, I like the idea of fixing links that are broken. Technically, I'm curious how Ladsgroup can detect which links are broken and what the correct fix should be.

In the only edit I checked, the bot made three changes:

Although change #1 is correct, changes #2 and #3 are incorrect. I have reverted the bad edit so Ladsgroup can tweak the bot and try again. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty:Talking technically, It goes through history to find out when was the last time that the invalid section had been seen before it was changed, so it gets two revisions, the last one with the invalid section and the revision after that, and analyzes the differences between them to see what happened and fixes the link if the new section still exists (my next step of development will be tracking down section title changes through history to fix more broken links) and about the edit, that was a stupid mistake in the code, I replaced "#oldsection" with "#newsection" so it changed all of them, and as my bot can't work on page.title() because of redirects but I will find a solution for it :)Ladsgroup^بحث 21:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fixed :)Ladsgroup^بحث 01:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup: Thanks for fixing that edit. Next issues:

this edit, where adding the italics broke the link.
this edit, where guessing the new section header was "See also" was incorrect.
this edit was also incorrect.

That's four incorrect edits out of six. Could you please check each of your edits and make the appropriate fixes to the bot?

@Magioladitis: Would it be appropriate to ask Ladsgroup to do another 50 edits, once the bot has been fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except the second error, all of them had been fixed before you mentioned them in here. :)Ladsgroup^بحث 03:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup: For each of the four bot edits I mentioned, I reverted the bot edit so you can try again. I hope your fix means that you have fixed your bot code and are ready to try again. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: I checked the second edit. the issue happened because of this edit I can't say what fix would be the best solution, any comments is welcome :)Ladsgroup^بحث 21:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup: as I write before. This show sensitiveness to vandalism. Let's ask for feedback. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Magioladitis I pinged you because GoingBatty pinged and asked you to give me another trial period (see above:"Would it be appropriate to ask Ladsgroup to do another 50 edits, once the bot has been fixed?") Best :)Ladsgroup^بحث 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I slept and the bot made 82 edits, sorry :)Ladsgroup^بحث 03:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. (for the bot organising WP:BRFA. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup please provide as a link to diffs and comment your edits. Did you notice any problems? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll check them :)Ladsgroup^بحث 10:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup Please also tell us how many edits were reverted after the 2 bot trials, if any. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on first run

For example I think this is inappropriate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This created a non working link. Bold/italics should not be added. In fact, bold should not be expected in headers but sometimes it is added by editors not familiar with the Manual of Style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup Anchors should not be added. -- Magioladitis (talk)

This is the most worrying. Obviously, the correct section was removed. I found one more like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup there is also something important: You should review your own edits too and revert if there are any problems. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on second run

Now reviewing. Here is the link with the diffs of this run. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for answering late, I was traveling and got stuck in other things, I reviewed some of them and they were crazy, I'm rewriting the whole code to make it precise and okay. It worked okay in lots of wikis but in here people do all sorts of crazy things :)Ladsgroup^بحث 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I reverted the bot edits, Rewrote some parts of code and now it only fixes similar section names (to prevent errors) I run it for about 50 edits and checked about ten of them, they were okay. you can check them (the third run) Best :)Ladsgroup^overleg 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on third run

Here is the link with the diffs of the third run. Everyone who wish to comment please do so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite, GoingBatty, Meno25, and Josve05a: I would like your comment of this third series of edits. You all have experience on fixing section links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I picked five of the edits to review, and they all looked good to me. GoingBatty (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all edits. Much better this time. This one does not look good since the old section still exists in the page or there is something I do not see. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the only thing changes was a space. Still the bot picked the section below. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup there was a single mistake. Can you do anything to fix it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the part for checking if the old section exists in the current target article (and skipping if it's so) is broken, I fix it :)Ladsgroup^overleg 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I checked explicitly in this particular case and now It skips it correctly :)Ladsgroup^overleg 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. OK! Let's go for the fourth and most probably last round! I start to enjoy this! -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: 52 edits are done :) :)Ladsgroup^overleg 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on fourth run

Here is the link with the diffs of the fourth run. Everyone who wish to comment please do so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not spot any errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2014 (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.