Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PC78-bot

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

Approved.

PC78-bot edit

Operator: PC78 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:40, Friday October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: N/A

Programming language(s): N/A

Source code available: N/A

Function overview: List building with AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Xeno#Bot access for AWB? (perm)

Edit period(s): N/A

Estimated number of pages affected: 0

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N/A

Function details: This account is required for the sole purpose of building lists on AWB with the nolimits plugin. The account would not be used for editing.

Discussion edit

Sorry, if I am missing something, but doesn't apihighlimits merely raise the "up to 500" limit to "up to 5000"? NoLimits plugin is an AWB specific list building tool. I am guessing it does multiple queries in any case, as even setting limit=max has never gotten me past 5000. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to answer you. As I've been told, the nolimits plugin removes the 25000 limit when building lists from very large categories or highly transcluded templates, and the plugin is restricted to admins and bots (though I don't personally see why it shouldn't be made more widely available). Since I'm not an admin, it is for this reason that I need the bot account. This is the course of action I was recommended in the discussion linked above. PC78 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that, but noone made clear the distinction between plug-in limits and actual API limits. So this is merely so that AWB allows you to use the NoLimits plug-in. I have no objections either way, was just wondering, have fun! — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else would have to comment on the API limits, since that is some way over my head. :) But yes, this is merely so I can use AWB with the NoLimits plugin. I don't need the account for editing, assuming that this would require further approval. PC78 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, (have to run) AWB devs placed a limit to the number of request AWB will do, in order to prevent server stress. the default API query is 500 for most items. with highlimits its 5000. (a factor of 10). So to get 25,000 results the average user must make 50 requests. however with highlimits thats down to 5. Which is a lot less stress on the servers. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the limits that have been put in place, they do nontheless impact on the usefulness of AWB, and occasional use by a single user (i.e. me) surely won't place much additional stress on the server. I don't see why access shouldn't be granted on request to trusted users who have need for it. PC78 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Δ seems to be saying that allowing high limits would actually place less strain, as AWB wouldn't need to make multiple requests on the server. –xeno^talk 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it; as I said above, this part of the discussion is over my head. :) PC78 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rev 7235 (i.e. NoLimits 1.3.2.0) allows use of NoLimitsPlugins if the user has the "apihighlimits" right. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a clear reason for this bot, and this is not the place to debate the appropriateness of limits. Please supply at least one example of how this would help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if the operator were to give an indication what the larger lists would be used for, your objection would be withdrawn? –xeno^talk 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to debate the appropriateness of limits (I'm quite capable of doing that at a more appropritate forum), merely to bypass them to assist with my contributions which in turn will benefit the encyclopedia. I'll give a few off the top of my head examples of where I would find this useful:

Finding uses of {{Infobox person}} for individuals categorised as missing or similar. That template has 72,340 transclusions, yet I can only build a list based on the first 25,000. This is pertinent to a current proposal of mine to add new fields to the infobox. If I had a complete list of interections I would have had more data to base that proposal on, and could more thoroughly implement any forthcoming changes in mainspace.
Intersections of {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox Korean name}}. Ideally, {{Infobox Korean name}} should be subclassed inside {{Infobox person}}, but I've only been able to do this in a limited fashion because I can't get a complete list of intersections. Consolidating the infoboxes will improve article layout and appearance in these cases.

There have been other occasions where hitting the limit has stopped me from doing something, and there will certainly be more in the future. Hopefully that satisfies your concern. PC78 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists like these would be rather trivial to generate on the Toolserver. This might be able to do some. You can also request things with the query service. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CatScan is pretty crappy (based on my own experience), and is limited to categories. I'll look into the query service, though. PC78 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support reasonable request. As an aside, perhaps it's time for a separate userright that would grant apihighlimits. –xeno^talk 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (I realize researcher exists, but this is a userright that is not mandated by the community)[reply]
- "Researcher" might not be appropriate anyway, because it also grants browsearchive and deletedhistory. Unless it would confuse AWB, the bot account could be indef blocked to make 100% sure it won't accidentally be used for editing. But either way, I see no reason to deny this request. I say go for it, xeno. Anomie ⚔ 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the only opposition is editor question of usefulness and purpose, I see no problem in giving the bot flag and indef blocking the account for readonly. Although, I would prefer if instead AWB allowed users who request it to build larger lists. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. As it is to be read-only, I'm also recommending that the flagging bureaucrat apply an indef block. Anomie ⚔ 02:40, 11 November 2010 (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.