Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SamoaBot

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.

SamoaBot

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

Time filed: 06:19, Thursday May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: ATM supervised; later it will be totally automatic

Programming language(s): Python, with Pywikipedia and Mwparserfromhell

Source code available: ATM no, but will be transferred and published to Wikimedia Labs soon

Function overview: easing transition to Phase II of Wikidata

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): not known

Edit period(s): intermittently, at the operator's discretion

Estimated number of pages affected: some thousands per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): ATM no, but could be implemented soon

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

Function details: it can remove infobox fields that are already present and equal in Wikidata, to ease transition to the Phase 2 and help users focusing on text instead of data. For example, if {{Authority control}} would be designed to use Wikidata, the bot could remove the LCCN, GND, VIAF, etc. fields, and it can even import missing ones on Wikidata. See a test edit on it.wp.

Discussion

I'm not such a task would be in line with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2. Legoktm (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2013 (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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?!? It is now a global bot, and thus can remove interwiki links as many others. I'll wait for the result of this BRFA to let it running this task, of course. --Ricordi samoa 07:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over the request for comment I find myself agreeing with Legoktm on this one. While I understand that this bot would not change fields to use Wikidata unless they already have identical data in them, I still think this is a bit too far removed from what was said at the RfC. I don't think having a bot automatically change fields to use Wikidata is really inline with "this modification should be done carefully and deliberately, at least at first". I also note that the {{Authority control}} template was used as an example in the discussion as well (not sure if that's where you got it from) to which the response was "If we do start using Wikidata in infoboxes, can we please discourage people from using bots to import it". I would say that judging from that RfC most people feel both that Wikidata is still finding its feet and we are also still working out what works best for en.wikipedia, so I would suggest that this is perhaps a little too early to start considering bots to automate the transition, or at the very least this would need some more community input. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: for those who didn't realize that, the bot is not meant to edit templates, but articles. --Ricordi samoa 22:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was clear on that, I don't see that there was any confusion. Unless you mean that my quote from Kaldari above was commenting on bots editing templates, not articles. Either way, it doesn't really change much, I don't see a consensus for this task presently. I'd say that if you want to go ahead with this task you'll need to get some more input from the community. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Any updates? --Ricordi samoa 18:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to obtain consensus from the community for this task, or show that there is an existing consensus (presently there appears to be consensus that this is not a good bot task, for now at least). If you're not prepared to do that I can mark this as denied. If you want more time to do that I can mark this as expired, or you could withdraw it for the time being. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any chance to get community consensus (even for the future), I'll try to. Where should the discussion take place? --Ricordi samoa 17:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try posting on the Village Pump and chuck an {{rfc}} template on the thread as well. --Chris 12:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. No consensus for the task atm. You will need to start an RfC and establish a consensus for this task before it can be approved --Chris 15:56, 15 July 2013 (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.