Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Community Tech bot 2

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

Withdrawn by operator.

Community Tech bot 2[edit]

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

Time filed: 19:15, Monday, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised (possibly automatic later)

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Yes[1]

Function overview: Replace links that are tagged as dead with a viable copy of an archived page. Same as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 5.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): here and here

Edit period(s): Irregular. In the long term, potentially continuous in tandem with Cyberbot II (which is already approved)

Estimated number of pages affected: Short term: Several hundred. Long term: 130,000+ (if we decide to run continuously in tandem with Cyberbot II)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This request is identical to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 5 (which is already approved). It's just a request to run the same code (basically) from a different account. The Community Tech team is planning to collaborate with Cyberpower678 (the operator of Cyberbot II) to experiment with and improve the code used by that bot for rescuing dead links. During this process, we will want to test the code periodically against real articles (in a supervised mode). Once the code is stable, we may want to run the bot continuously in tandem with Cyberbot II (if it improves the speed of clearing out categories like Category:All articles with dead external links). As we are mainly just interested in doing supervised testing for now, we are open to requiring a separate bot approval for running in continuous mode if that makes more sense to everyone.

Discussion[edit]

@Cyberpower678: - can you provide any feedback/background for the good of all; any collision risks with the existing bot that need to be addressed here? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Kaldari is running outdated code there, I wouldn't advise this bot to operate. Cyberbot's code has been considerably updated since the version Kaldari is using. If Kaldari runs the same code, the bot's will be running in collision with Cyberbot. I wouldn't advise it to edit Wikipedia. On top of that Cyberbot is capable of running much faster than it is currently running. Also, Cyberbot II's IABot task may move to InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs).

@Kaldari: I didn't realize you were wanting to parallel my bot. I don't believe you mentioned this in our emails.—^cyberpower_{Happy 2016:Online} 19:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C678: I don't have any intentions of running in parallel at the moment, I just included that possibility in the bot request in case we decide we want to try that out in the future. If you'd prefer that this bot request be limited to testing purposes only, that's fine with me. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Testing is fine. The bot can be set to not edit by pointing the page to a page that does not have the word enable. In such case a BRFA will then be unnecessary. I also recommend you download the latest code from my repo, which updated a few hours ago to fix some serious bugs.—^cyberpower_{Happy 2016:Online} 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Cyberpower (on IRC) it isn't necessary to get BRFA approval if you're running the same code as a bot that is already approved. If that's the case, I'll just withdraw this BRFA. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan Kaldari (WMF): I'm not seeing any policy exemption that any bot using the same code base is automatically approved, though it should be a speedy approval process. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a request is not needed if NO EDITS will be made. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: After talking further with Cyberpower, we've decided that the best course of action will actually be to move the dead-link functionality from Cyberbot II to a shared bot account, User:InternetArchiveBot. That account already has a bot flag and is already approved for the task. The only change would be adding me as an operator (and possibly 1 or 2 other WMF developers in the future). I'm not sure if that needs official approval from a BAG editor, but if so, can we handle that here (or do I need to close this BRFA and start a new one)? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not document it here, let move this one to withdrawn. Suggest opening a new task request for User:InternetArchiveBot and list the updates there, just to be well documented. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, may want to reconsider how user_talk options, right now all the user talk gets redirected to User talk:cyberpower678. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary developer, I would be the logical person to ask related bot bugs and related questions.—^cyberpower_{Happy 2016:Online} 21:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. As above, we're going to use another account for this task. InternetArchiveBot already has technical approval to run per this discussion and I don't see any issue bringing on a second maintainer. I am not clear why a second BRFA would be required if we're not changing functionality, but if you are doing substantial code changes then one might be a good idea as a formal trial and code review (since this is going to hit a lot of pages in important ways, I would support that). However, you should:

Create a unique and clean userpage for the bot that clearly explains its single task and lists its maintainers.
Have a non-redirected talk page that the operators should watch. This keeps bot-specific issues clearly identified and doesn't place all of the burden upon one maintainer.

Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 22:24, 6 January 2016 (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.