Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/RegularBot 3

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Not done @GZWDer: This request seems to be abandoned, please reopen it if that is not the case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RegularBot 3[edit]

RegularBot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: GZWDer (talk • contribs • logs)

Task/s: Automatically import articles from Russian Wikinews

Code: Using harvest_template.py, and newitem.py

Function details: Recently some bots created many pages in Russian Wikinews. ~10000 articles per day is excepted (but once the the initial import in Russian Wikinews is completed, it may be 100-300 per day). This task involves: (The following may be done separately)

@SCIdude, Charles Matthews: For this task only, I do not expect duplicates.--GZWDer (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Edoderoo: For this task only, eventually more statements will be added (see "Function details").--GZWDer (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to this task without an approval, but do community have more comment?--GZWDer (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Do you have more comments about this task in particulars? I feel that we should not have issues about this task.--GZWDer (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts about the applicability to your bot/flood/etc accounts of "The bot operator is responsible for cleaning up any damage caused by the bot" (see Wikidata:Bots#Bot_accounts)? --- Jura 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Existing issues are being fixed (please point out). I does not expect issues from this task.--GZWDer (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do a sum up of recently raised issues and provide ways we can check that they are fixed? You can't just open a new bot request and expect people re-repeat every problem you are meant to fix every time. --- Jura 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Inspired by User:Research Bot/issues (another bot making a large number of issues), I have created User:GZWDer/issues. Feel free to expand it.--GZWDer (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Did you identified any other issues?--GZWDer (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Do you have any concern?--GZWDer (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is User_talk:GZWDer/2019#Prefixes_in_labels still not fixed? It was discussed at [1] just recently and yet you still fixed just one type of thousands of problematic labels, check Q75645721, Q76226338, Q75911351. You probably repaired less then the other people who helped you.
Also, the Peerage import lead to the addition of information about countless minors and other not notable persons. As even a supporter of that import brought up, there is no consensus for such publications on Wikidata. These still need to be selected and proposed for deletion.
As you kept running this bot without approval, I think it's better blocked indefinetly. --- Jura 06:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (Repeating what I said in another RFP) This user has no respect on infra's capacity in any way, these accounts along two others has been making wikidata basically unusable (phab:T242081) for months now. I think all of other approvals of this user should be revoked, not to add more on top. (Emphasis: This edit is done in my volunteer capacity) Amir (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that would go too far. But I have thought for some time now that community regulation of bot editing should be put on a more organised footing. And I say this as someone who makes many runs of automated edits (channelled through QuickStatements). We need better definitions of good practice, and clearer enforcement.
Currently, we try to deal with ramifying issues and loose specifications with threaded discussions, spread over many pages. The whole business needs to be taken in hand. Structure is required, so that the community can manage the bots and the place is not simply an adventure playground for them. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, everybody makes errors or might overlook some aspects once in a while, but most other operators are fairly reliable and try to clean up behind them. --- Jura 07:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you say that. Systematic problems with constraint violation is an area where major bots simply ignore the bot policy and good practice. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a sample? --- Jura 07:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I work on cleaning up Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P486. If you graphed the "Unique value" violations over time (first section), you would see that they climbed gradually to over 3.1K. This was largely the work of one bot, whose owner was ignoring the issue. I had those edits, which were over-writing corrections, stopped in mid-2019. No bot corrections were made subsequently: I remove the violations by hand, and they are down to 40% of the peak. There are other properties where similar problems continue, to this day. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the operator's response on User talk:ProteinBoxBot is adequate, I'd ask for a block. It's not ok that it overwrites your edits. --- Jura 08:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't. I discussed the matter at WikiDataCon on Berlin, as a dispute that needed to be resolved. I came to an understanding, face-to-face, and that was the pragmatic thing to do. That is really my point: no principles were documented, no fixes agreed, the whole thing was done with bare hands. Since I have considerable dispute resolution experience on enWP, I could see that was the way to go. There is no formal dispute resolution here on Wikidata, and the problems are complex. There is a two-dimensional space, one dimension being the range of issues, and the other the fixes. While informal dispute resolution is better in at least 90% of cases, the piecemeal approach and lack of documentation is not OK, and something should be done about it. We are talking about the difference between 2015, when people were grateful to have bot operators working away, and 2020 when Amir can talk as above, which is an informed judgement. I don't think reducing the "fix" dimension to blocks and bans is adequate, though: that is my Arbitration Committee experience talking. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are happy with the outcome, why bring it up here? Either the bot operates as it should or it doesn't. --- Jura 08:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was happy. You did ask for a sample. I'm coming from a direction that sees more nuance, more human factors. What is said in Wikidata:Bots is "Monitor constraint violation reports for possible errors generated or propagated by your bot", which implies self-regulation. I think, having dealt with GZWDer also in a major dispute, that language is too weak, and hard to enforce. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read that bot's talk page in detail, but if it overwrites other editors' contributions that fix things, this is a major problem that has nothing to do with constraint violations. In some wikis, the end up blocking the operator over such conduct. --- Jura 09:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well indeed. And if such code is still in use, it is because of inertia in replacing older, Python-based libraries, I would guess, when there are certainly better solutions available. Which is a desirable change. That issue is at least in part about implementing change, and overcoming reluctance to change code whose development costs should now have been fully depreciated. In the case of ProteinBoxBot, there is contract work done here, but not properly declared here as it should be under the Wikimedia general terms of use (IMO). As far as I'm concerned this is all a can of worms. The legacy code issue clearly does apply to GZWDer, too. When I talk about the inadequacy of a piecemeal approach, these are some of the considerations I have in mind. An on/off switch for bot editing really is crude if we want to get to the root of things. We may see things very differently, but this is what is on my mind when I argue for more "structure". Charles Matthews (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikidataIntegrator (as also used by ProteinBoxBot) has plenty of issues and bugs that I applied more than one dozen local fixes (not pulled to upstream as some are just hacks or task-specific), but removing existing statements is a fundamental problem. In the long-term future I plan to get rid of it completely, but I do not know when I can work for an alternative.--GZWDer (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should look at what Magnus Manske has been doing with Rust for the past 18 months. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Matthews: Magnus's rust bot still have many serious issues like Topic:V2fzk650ojg2n6l1 and [2]. Currently Magnus have not brought it to an usable situation. The code can not be used without a substantial fix.--GZWDer (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I said about inertia. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladsgroup: I said this task will not run with more than 60 edits every minute. Do you still oppose?--GZWDer (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladsgroup: Do you have any comment on discussions above?--GZWDer (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladsgroup, Hjart, Sabas88: Do you have any further comments?--GZWDer (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have pinged me three times and posted on my talk page as well. Given that WMDE is going to remove noratelimit from bots, your bot won't cause more issues hopefully but you lost your good standing with regards to respecting infra's capacity to me. Amir (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/RegularBot_3&oldid=1564505280"