Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 15

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

Denied.

PkbwcgsBot 15

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

Time filed: 14:46, Thursday, December 27, 2018 (UTC)

Function overview: The bot will fix CW Error #93 (External link with double http://)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Once a week

Estimated number of pages affected: 10 a week

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The bot will fix the following cases of external link with double http://:

http://http:// will be replaced to http://
https://https:// will be replaced to https://
On rarest occasions ftp://ftp:// will be replaced to ftp://

Discussion

Approved for trial (25 edits or 14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: There are only 21 pages for that error at the moment. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I also put a timeframe. If you can only get 21 edits in two weeks, then post those edits. But, if you only get 21 edits in two weeks, then chances are this isn't a reasonable task for a bot to be performing. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: My bot managed to pick up 10 edits so far in the trial but I think it can pick up more tomorrow hopefully. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bot has picked up another seven edits in the trial today which takes the total to 17. Today's seven are located here and yesterday's ten are located here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bot has picked up another six edits in the trial today which takes the total to 23. Today's six are located here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. The final two edits which make up 25 are located here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} It has been over two weeks since the trial was completed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkbwcgs: Just from a practicality standpoint, I really question whether this is an appropriate task to be performing via AWB bot, which requires an operator to manually start it. This is really more appropriate for something running off Toolserv, which would automatically run every four hours or something to catch new errors. Can you comment on that? I'm just trying to think about minimizing editor effort to correct these errors. As planned, this task is likely to take you about as much time to run each day as it would just manually fixing the errors, whereas a more automated process would take no effort at all. Would this fix be packaged with other fixes you're running as part of other tasks or something like that? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: You raised a good point there. However, I don't know how to make an automated bot. I can only do it through AWB or using the automatic bot tools provided at WPCleaner but I need to repetitively start those bot tools manually as it is not possible to keep them running every hour. Otherwise, I would be quite happy if I could do all these bot tasks automatically. Obviously, AWB is appropriate for supervised tasks but there is a lot of effort involved in running these processes daily. There aren't any other fixes packaged in this task as this is done all automatically but I have to keep pressing the save button which doesn't really make this automatic. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know how to code and use a python bot. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much of a process to get my bot through toolforge. I would rather have an easier way to get an automated bot process. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await Primefac's opinion, but my opinion is that this task is unsuitable for this particular implementation. I certainly understand the benefits of AWB's ease of use; I operate an AWB bot but do not possess the proficiency to put something on Toolforge. Still, that means that some tasks are just not suitable for me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: There is a huge process to get my bot up and running on Toolforge. I also need to give my email address to get an account there and that is something I am not willing to do. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would mostly agree about the necessity of making this a bot task - when sent to trial there were 21 pages, and as of right now there are only about 50. I concur that if it were automated then the small number wouldn't be an issue, but as a manual/AWB process it does seem like more effort than it's worth. If the numbers were higher (100+ per week) then even with AWB a once-a-week process would be reasonable. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the numbers again, and there are still only 45 pages (after 5 days). These could very easily be edited using AWB manually, so it's not really a good task for a bot. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2019 (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.