Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/ElphiBot 3

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 approved People don't seem comfortable about this task being approved. The Anonymouse [talk] 17:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ElphiBot 3 edit

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

Task/s: Updating interwiki links in WD after moving the category in local wiki

Function details: Because of this discussion we want to move a lot of our categories to correct name in ar.wiki. then we need to update interwikis in WD. I asked user:Reza1615 to share that code has been used in fa.wiki with us. the code is available here. this code moves pages form old category to the new category in local wiki and update the interwiki links in WD --عباس ☢ 07:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Rezabot, MahdiBot and YasBot uses this script now.--عباس ☢ 15:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose you're a good guy and I admire your efforts on Arabic Wikipedia but I prefer someone more responsible and more familiar with technical aspects of Wikipedia (and Wikidata) does this task (like Reza himself). If people doesn't know what I'm talking about, please see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/ElphiBot 2 Amir (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi amir. please see your talk page. thanks--عباس ☢ 04:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answer you here and in English (not Persian):

1-you said that "I'm not familiar with python as much as you or Reza but I'm trying to learn", no doubt! but are you familiar enough to write a code to revert all of certain edits of your bot in case of a bug? I don't talk about fixing the problem, I'm talking about fixing the situation that your bot may cause.

2-you said "The old code had problems": 2.1:why you ran a code that you knew has flaws and you wouldn't been able to fix it? 2.2 why didn't you answer the bug reports? I'm not talking about being technical, I'm talking about being responsible for what you've done

3-you said the code you want to run "has almost no bugs" I strongly disagree, this code is a tool that people use, even if the code is prefect (which is not) people may use it wrongly, I myself revert goddamn knows times because of the misusing of the tool

4-you said this code will do less than 10 edits per week, so why a bot?, change the code to report it somewhere else (in Arabic Wikipedia) and after a human review, you can do it by hand.

5-you said "I was busy when I was running the old code but I'm not busy now", IMO It's not a valid reason to give your bot approval.

Best Amir (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not now but we talk about 10 edits per day. the approval request is about updating langlinks after category moving in local wiki. I'm not able to write a code to solving mistakes that may happens but i ask you pay attention again to the task. In this task edits will not be more than 10 edits per day. If some problem happens we can reverse mistakes manually.
Bugs has been shown after running the bot not before. after that i ask reza to solve problems. I stopped the bot before its flag has been revoked. i agree with you that it was some delay in my response.
I talk about this code history and user experiences with it in fa.wiki. if we (i, you or others) find a bug in this bot i can stop it until solving problem.
this code does a lot of edits in local wiki and 10 (about 10) in WD. for example we want to move pages from category:X to category:Y and category:X has 500 pages. bot does 500 (or more) edits in local wiki and just 1 or 2 edits in WD. Do you think reporting in somewhere else is good idea when we can do it automatically?
dear amir i was busy in second approval request not while running the bot.

Thank you for your questions. Best عباس ☢ 13:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I wrote early versions of that code and I know it very well so trust me, number of edits in a day can vary between 10 and 10K (e.g. someone mass-adds similar categories) you say the number is low, and I'm saying if it's low it's really good to report it somewhere else and after a human review you can change it by hand (because it's low) my idea has two benefits: 1-it protects wikidata from misusing the tool (in case of occurrence) 2-you can check and review edits of your bot. I'm not a contributor in Arabic Wikipedia so I don't say don't run it in your wiki and It's none of my business, but I'm active here and I don't like someone who can't fix a bug, or even revert edits of the bot runs this code. If you weren't busy while you were running the old code, so why you didn't bother to answer bug reports of your bot? (for people who may not know, see the second request of approval) Amir (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We review requests before running the bot then i think no need to another review. there are more than two users runs this code when they are not able to solve any bugs. When i told you i agree with you that was some delay in my response it means i know and i try to be more responsible. in response to your last question i told you that i stopped the bot after second bug report and i asked reza to solve the bug. thank you again.--عباس ☢ 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion. please let me do some edits (50 or 100 ) with or without flag then if there was some mistakes i stop the bot and will ask someone who is able (like you or reza) to solve the bug and if there was no mistake approve my request. what's your idea?--عباس ☢ 17:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Let's put this decision to others Amir (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Elph: Do you understand what the code you are running will do? And if it breaks, will you be able to fix it? Legoktm (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm:Yes i understand but i am not able to fix the problems. this code has been run by more than 3 bots for a long time and there is no bug.--عباس ☢ 08:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel comfortable approving it then. I'll leave it to another admin to decide. Legoktm (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: No problem.I'm in wait for somebody else--عباس ☢ 11:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing how to code a bot is'nt really a requirement to run a bot, but responding in a timely manner and notifing those who can fix the bug about the issue surely is an requirement. Personally, I think that Elphi´s pledge to stop the bot if there are any bugs and report the issue is good enough.--Snaevar (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elph: are you still up for this? Hazard SJ 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hazard-SJ:Yes i am.--Abbas 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  @Elph: Go ahead and do a 100-edit test run then, so we can review that. Hazard SJ 16:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hazard-SJ: 100 edits is very larg number for this task because the bot does just 1 or 2 edit per each request. Today we had just 2 requests and been done before some seconds.Abbas 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hazard-SJ: A little bit more than 100 edits been done.--Abbas 08:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry for the delay. I actually haven't checked all the diffs, but I'm thinking with such a large number of pages to potentially be edited, it would be better having the double edit to each page merged to be a single edit per page. Comments? Hazard SJ 04:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @Hazard-SJ: The bot developer is reza1615. I'll ask him to solve this problem but i think there is no bug in current version of the bot.Abbas 14:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bene*, Vogone, Legoktm, Ymblanter, The Anonymouse: Any 'crat to comment? Ricordisamoa requested it.--GZWDer (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this bot account is currently globally locked, an approval wouldn't make any sense as of now. This issue needs to be fixed by the bot owner beforehand. Furthermore, I share Legoktm's thought and don't feel comfortable to approve this but will leave the final decision to another user. Vogone talk 08:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.