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.

Operator: Noommos (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:06, Saturday February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: [1]

Function overview: Housekeeping. Replaces the broken link http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04731.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04731.pdf across multiple articles.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#External_link_to_UK_Parliament_website

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~150

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N (see discussion)

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

Function details: Uses exturlusage to get the list of articles making use of the dead link, cycles through them all (checking if the bot can edit each one) and does a replace of the old link with the new link.

I would recommend ignoring nobots for this. I can't imagine any situation where someone would want a broken link. Mr.Z-man 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, changed the bot to not bother exclusion. Updated the online source to reflect these changes. ^Noom _talk 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. This is probably a task that could've just been hacked out in AWB or similar as from a regular user account, but go ahead with trial. –xeno^talk 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting confirmed status for trial. Does not meet creation date requirement. Also, I'm having an issue with the API on a particular article. I had to dig around for a bit (originally, I thought the bot was failing to edit due to this weird bug, before I noticed it was being prompted by the captcha) but the server returns a ERR_READ_TIMEOUT with no errno. I had to adjust my timeout settings because it would take approx. 60 seconds for any content to be returned by the server. Is this a problem with my request or the server? Noom _talk ^contribs 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed added. I had some read errors this morning as well - probably the servers. –xeno^talk 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must of cleared up, the edit for the read error got through (at a snails pace) but came up after the bots 2nd edit. Noom _talk ^contribs 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Accidentally did an extra edit to total 11 edits. It might be that the one that caused the read error was delayed? Unsure because the bot shouldn't of exceeded 10 edits in one run. Either way, all edits look fine, checked the diffs and the link replace worked. Noom _talk ^contribs 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This task looks both entirely innocuous and desirable.  Approved. Please wait for the bot flag to be granted before you continue. –xeno^talk 19:26, 7 February 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.