Talk:Requests for comment/Wikidata rollout and interwiki bots

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

Notice to bot operators length is too short[edit]

I think the current notice to bot operators length (24 hours) is too short. I proposed a week instead. This seems more reasonable. Many people (but particularly bot operators) are busy and some of these bots have been running for years. Before locking these accounts, sufficient warning should be given. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically each individual project can go around and block all the bots locally and avoid locking. enwiki gave each owner 24 hours before implementing a tracking filter to catch bots and block them. In total we probably blocked 3 or 4 bots. I noticed when delivering these messages that most operators had unanswered messages from huwiki and hewiki (deployed before enwiki), and those were the bots that got blocked. I doubt we're going to end up locking that many bots, most operators are very responsive. Legoktm (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Avoid locking? There's no such a thing, if an account is locked it's locked. And this may go against local consensus on some wiki where it's authorised to do something and flagged. --Nemo 06:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see that the length of operation of the bot, nor the business of the operator is relevant to this action. This is to be considered an injunction measure in that we are stopping their operation and it is due to more than redundancy, in that they are now undoing good edits of other bots. This is not a punitive measure.

Bot operators who are running interwikis should be aware of the current situation and each has had months to plan to cease their bot's operations. Bot operators will be able to seek to have their access for their bot released from the injunction when they have nullified the wikipedia interwiki aspects. There is no consequence of the block beyond stopping its activity. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody spoke of punishment. Stopping bot activity is disruption, see Yaroslav's comments. Lock is way beyond policy and commons sense and will hurt all sister projects and some Wikipedias, while of course local Wikipedias can block as they wish and it's not our business. --Nemo 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how stopping the addition of interwikilinks (even if this does affect other projects) for a short period of time is going to disrupt activity on any project. We are not talking of stoping all interwiki bots as many have updated and continue to run correctly, we are just focusing on those which are not updated and are reverting good edits by other users and bots alike. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but actually already most started running correctly, and as we are discussing it all of them will. It went more or less painlessly on the English Wikipedia, and I do not see any reason why it should not go painlessly this time. It was indeed a difficult situation during the (European) night, but now it more or less got normalized.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
yes but the whole point of this was not to lock all interwiki bots, it was to lock any which were not yet updated until a time that they were. Which now was far as I know is done, and was painless as only 2 bots were forced to stop editing, much like on en where I think also only 2 bots were blocked. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks everyone for unreally inconvenient interwiki system. I enjoy.--Tamara Ustinova (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Может быть, имеет смысл научиться ей пользоваться, а потом уже критиковать. До сих пор интервики на ваш вепсский раздел приходилось расставлять в ста разных местах, и, что-то мне подсказывает, не Вашему боту. А сейчас они все в одном месте.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)