Talk:Requests for comment/Global Wikidata Bots

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A few questions[edit]

Are there really 1 million fully protected pages? Which namespaces would be targeted? Would this be temporary/permanent? How would "Blanket approval of all WD bots for a particular project" be enforced, would stewards grant local bot flags on large wikis or would this be a global Global Bot group? Savhñ 15:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a global bot group. My question is - if wikis can opt-out of this proposal, what is the point of having it at all? Also, is this much effort really needed to remove now-obsolete links from pages? Surely they could just sit there, being removed by local admins/bots as time progresses. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
@User:Savh: Just spotted this! There are 1 million pages still with interwiki links on them, I am not saying that they are all protected, but a proportion of them will be. The global group and wikiset would be permanent, people will always be able to add interwiki links into test on all wikis and bots will always be there to try and migrate them to wikidata and remove them from said articles. I have tidied up my wording, the proposal is not for all WD bots to have approval, this is a group for global bots and the task of removing global interwiki links only. It is highly likely there will be very few bots actually in the group, this group would function exactly a the Global bot flag does. ·addshore· talk to me! 16:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
@User:Ajraddatz: The point is to make 'blanket approval' across a large number of languages much easier (the same reason we have the Global Bot group). Having to apply to 222+ wikis individually is an absolutely ridiculous task. There are bots already running globally (true globally, not just with the Global Flag) that remove these interwiki links quickly and effectively. Allowing them to edit more pages should decrease the number of articles with interwiki links remaining dramatically! ·addshore· talk to me! 16:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: In other words, this would simply make the whole approval process for bots merging interwiki links to Wikidata globally quite easier, regardless of the additional "editprotected" permission. Vogone talk 16:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-responding wikis[edit]

How will non-responding wikis (i.e. inactive ones) be treated? Qui tacet, consentire videtur? (as usually done for implementing the global bot policy?) Or will they not get included (as probably such wikis don't have more than 2 protected articles either)? --MF-W 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As already stated in the proposal, they will be opted-in. @"as probably such wikis don't have more than 2 protected articles either": This global group will not be for editprotected only. It is for all globally active Wikidata bots as it facilitates the global approval process very much. Vogone talk 17:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.)"But if the project does not decide against being included, the projects will automatically be opted-in." ie. If it doesn't respond it will be included in the wikiset. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Do you also plan to have a general discussion section about the proposed new group, or just "projects lists their decisions to [not] accept this here"? And please clarify the mode of getting the rights. Should it be like currently for global bots, or on SRGP? --MF-W 18:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I would say it should be like for global bots. The general discussion has already taken place on SRGP, so I don't think it is really necessary to open a new one here. Furthermore, this global group would only affect some local projects and I do not think a further global discussion would really help. It's up to the local projects. Vogone talk 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, The same approval process as Global Bots would make things easy :) ·addshore· talk to me! 19:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed start date?[edit]

Is that tomorrow? (Given that the page says "ends on 3 July"). I propose to postpone that a bit to allow for refinement of the proposal & translations etc. --MF-W 21:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If nobody objects I'll postpone it until Monday (10 May). Vogone talk 21:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good ·addshore· talk to me! 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Good, thanks, that makes me feel much more calm about this :P I'll continue to complain about improve the proposal tomorrow. --MF-W 22:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

This is now on the Main Page. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(actually on Template:Main Page/WM News PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC))


I think the format of this RfC is highly inappropriate, not offering any space for global discussion before the project are asked to hold local rfcs we have to establish whether this proposal is or isn't accepted by the Wikimedia community. Before you tell every project to hold a RfC, you need to discuss the matter globally, having notified the projects so they can come in and comment on this. Snowolf How can I help? 14:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see this edit that added a 'round 1' in to the rfc for discussion on meta. Should this be added again in your opinion? ·addshore· talk to me! 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Anybody who thinks that you can establish a global policy without a global consultation is to say the best, highly misguided. The community first has to agree to any policy before local wikis can opt in or out... it's frankly fairly outrageous to put forward a RfC where you don't ask anybody to discuss anything and where, one assumes, a single positive local rfc would force the creation of ad-hoc global group even if the community at large did not want such a creation. Snowolf How can I help? 14:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This is why this RFC is only a draft, the RFC has not been put forward anywhere yet. ·addshore· talk to me! 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This is very true, it appears like there were some confusions over the inital drafting of this RFC whether to do this or not. I have now made changes which hopefully are clarifications towards the right procedure. --MF-W 03:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


Please make an overview of the top 10 Wikipedia's with:

  • Total number of pages
  • Total number of fully protected pages
  • Total number of pages still having local langlinks
  • Total number of pages which are fully protected and have local langlinks

Based on this numbers we can judge if this request makes sense. Multichill (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What has this to do with this request? Vogone talk 18:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, it would obviously show for how many edits approximately we would create this group. --MF-W 18:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The number changes every day and there will always be users who'll use [[xx:xxxx]]. So we could say we have to expect ∞ edits for this group without having any stats. Vogone talk 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The main concern is about the number of protected pages. Everything else can be done without this group as well. --MF-W 19:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Just fetching Recent Changes, my bot found several protected pages with still local langlinks. --Ricordisamoa 12:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I have tried my best to gather some of the figures, these can currently be seen at Requests for comment/Global Wikidata Bots/Statistics. The final and most important ones still yet to be generated. ·addshore· talk to me! 13:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at these numbers I really wonder if this right is really needed. Is it going to be more than several hundreds per wiki? Looking forward to the final results. Multichill (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The numbers so far certainly don't suggest the need for this special group. While the exact number isn't known, the estimation of fully protected articles on enwiki with iw links to be removed is 105 - and that's the most there would be on any one wiki if we look at the estimations of other projects. I don't see the approval process of making this new group being worth the effort, especially since the old iw links don't interfere with anything. I'll wait for the actual numbers to make any final judgement of course, but this really looks like a solution looking for a problem. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
These bots are not only removing links, they are als updating information on Wikidata. Vogone talk 05:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Why can't they update the wikidata pages without removing the IWLs from the page in question? Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Because the old IWLs would hardly be updated anymore (e. g. if one linked page gets deleted, moved, etc.) if no interwiki bots do that job for old links. Vogone talk 10:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"This page will not be used but should be retained"[edit]

What is this supposed to mean? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody knows. I suppose we should ask Addshore. Vogone talk 21:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not going to actively pursue or push this RFC at this stage, though it should probably remain here.. :) ·addshore· talk to me! 21:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And what will happen with this RFC now? I think there should be such a RFC. So, what now? Can we just link to it and start it? --Geitost diskusjon 11:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think it is ready :) ·addshore· talk to me! 11:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I’m not sure, so I asked about it. I’ll read the comments above and see, if anything should be changed. I took a look at the statistics page, and found no data about the total number of pages which are fully protected and have local langlinks. That could be important to know, so is there a possibility to add that data? --Geitost diskusjon 12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Also the data for the other cells (protected pages and pages with iw links) should get new data, cause I think that this data should have changed in the last month. And is it possible to say, how many pages in all of the Wikimedia Wikis altogether have longterm fully protected pages (more than a month from now on) with interwikis? --Geitost diskusjon 12:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really have any time to regenerate the data, I will soon be rebuilding my database of pages with interwiki links (which will also soon include wikivoyage) and I can give you access to that list! ·addshore· talk to me! 13:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Let’s see, how it goes. Anyway, I’m seeing different data about de-wp just for example (I think then the same applies also to all the other wikis). I set up a statistic about that (with remaining interwikis on different namespaces), and it tells me that at this time there are 11.763 pages with interwikis left on de-wp (in all namespaces which are on Wikidata) which are just 9 pages less than at 12:00 CEST, while this page tells me there would be 27.248 pages left which more than double of the real page count. And according to the statistic page here there shall be 29.842 pages at the de-wp (nearly three times as much). So, how often is your labs page actualized?
It would really be interesting, how many pages are protected and have local interwikis left, and in how many wikis. So, it is easy possible to look up the actual data about the left pages with interwikis. But it doesn’t tell me anything about the protected pages within that. --Geitost diskusjon 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Every page in the list I have on labs is checked every 24 hours. Every page that remains there still matches at least once with the regex for iwlinks. :) Hopfully I will be able to get some more detailed info (such as protection status) when I have rewritten my code. ·addshore· talk to me! 19:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)