Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/rezabot 3

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.

rezabot 3

Operator: Yamaha5 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 10:25, Friday, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: interwikidata.py

Function overview: I want to move interwikis to wikidata

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: unknown

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

Discussion

Some years ago for old interwiki.py code, user:Rezabot had flag at many local wikis (such as en.wikipedia) also it was global after starting wikidata all of interwiki bots were stopped. now I want to run it with new interwiki code (interwikidata.py) Yamaha5 (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all interwikis had already been migrated to Wikidata; is there really a need for this? — Earwig ^talk 18:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a few edits with your user account, and show the diffs below to more fully explain what you are trying to do? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the old interwiki migrate bot be reactivated, if that were the case, instead of having to go through this process? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 02:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request will soon expire from lack of participation, please review the questions above. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux, Σ, and The Earwig:There are many article and pages which have old interwiki like these or these or these and other 250 langs :). also newbies add oldinterwiki to articles like these which was cleaned two week ago!

for bot edits please check this

Yamaha5 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this task run without approval? — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:Xaosflux asked "Can you make a few edits with your user account, and show the diffs below to more fully explain what you are trying to do?" so I run for few editsYamaha5 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means on Yamaha5, not rezabot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you know my bot doesn't have flag so it is the same as my user at this time and all of it's edit will be visible, any ways for next edits I will do it by Yamaha5. Yamaha5 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please some one take a look on this request!Yamaha5 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/rezabot

Yamaha5 (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} See below: — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This trial was never approved, and should not be running. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These edits appear to be doing harm, by removing what appear to be VALID links such as on Surface_weather_analysis. Please explain why these links SHOULD NOT be present, and "because they are interwiki links" is not an acceptable answer here. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1-why this trial edits are not valid? what should i do?

2-Interwiki links on Surface_weather_analysis was incorrect and should be remove because they had cofilict on wikidata please check d:Q11157129 and d:Q189796 these items have article on enwiki so frwiki, cswiki ,... shouldn't link to both of them.

this code is standard code and it is tested on many wikis. Yamaha5 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) You have to be approved for a trial, before making trial edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2) Unfortunately, I don't read all these languages. For example on this edit: Special:Diff/708263000 you removed the links to many other languages - and these links are not coming in from Wikidata, making this article have less links. Are you saying these other links are not about this subject and that is why they do not belong? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article completely messed and had incorrect interwikis for example these are links which are removed by bot:

[[cs:Meteorologická mapa]] existed at > d:Q865144

[[de:Wetterkarte]] existed at > d:Q865144

[[es:Frente (meteorología)]] existed at > d:Q865144

[[fr:Front (météorologie)]] existed at > d:Q189796

[[ko:일기도]] existed at > d:Q865144

[[nl:Weerkaart]] existed at > d:Q865144

[[pl:Mapa synoptyczna]] existed at > d:Q865144

[[zh:天氣圖]] existed at > d:Q865144

and Surface weather analysis existed at > d:Q11157129 so because of interwiki conflict these links at that article should be removed and bot's edit was correct. these lang-links connected to Surface weather analysis (d:Q11157129) and Weather front (d:Q189796) and Weather map (d:Q865144)

Yamaha5 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so how does the bot actually work? It seems like a process that would require human review, perhaps by merging Wikidata items if there is overlap or figuring out if some articles are misclassified. I know I've manually dealt with this sort of thing in the past. — Earwig ^talk 17:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot checks if there is any conflict on the page's itewiki leave it except case which all items have enwiki link.

for this example d:Q11157129 , d:Q189796, d:Q865144 had enwiki link so we can't merge them on wikidata. bot only works on this kind of conflicts and leave the rest.

For mentioned conflicts it will check if all interwiki links exist on wikidata it will clean locally if one of them doesn't exist it will leave that page.

for this example bot checked wikidata items of cs,de,es,fr,ko,nl,pl,zh if all of them have link to their own items so we can clean that local wiki's page.

Note I can deactivate conflict solver part and only import interwiki from without-conflict pages to wikidata and clean it locally Yamaha5 (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using the pywikibot-core version of interwikidata.py, or is it custom code? Legoktm (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: It is custom code based on pywikibot-core version Yamaha5 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup: already has a bot doing similar things. I would like to hear from them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wrote that interwikidata.py, the current version in master is useless. The modified version actually just deletes everything (causing this). I have another modified version that I will upload it somewhere or try to get that through code review. I ran it yesterday and it is being ran on weekly basis :)Ladsgroup^overleg 08:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK I would prefer if @Ladsgroup: does this task since they have written the code and they are directly related to Wikidata. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: you mean if some one run this bot the other user couldn't!! I am bot developer (now my other codes runs on many wikis and wikidata) and I had global bot so I can manage it. why you do not trust to other users? Yamaha5 (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha5 the script you want to run is outdated and Ladsgroup is the one who has written it and can fix it. If you can write a code that can safely remove the links I am OK either way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I customized that code and it works fine on fa.wikipedia. but here they don't allow me to have test edits! Yamaha5 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, Reza. Let me work on this and once I'm finished with testing and fixing all bugs. I would give you the script (or put in pywikibot) and afterwards it only depends on BAG to decide whether they want several bot operators for this task or not. I must mention, I'm running the cleaning on a daily basis for both Persian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 12:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha5 how many pages do you estimate they will be changed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC) {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}[reply]

@amir. this edited at 6 April 2016 and these pages remained.

@Magioladitis: for pages which contain [[fa: it should be less than 20 per week. for other langs like fr: and de: and it: should be less than 20,000 pages.

Note: I can only run this code on pages which have fa: interwiki Yamaha5 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Check for example: [1]. The link that was actually removed it is not the same with the link in the page. This situation needs user attention. I discussed this with people in Wikimania 2016 Hackathon. This is not suitable for a bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha5 you edited pages with no fa code. Moroever, the pages you edited all had an interwiki conflict. Please do not make any further edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:52, 22 June 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.