Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/BotMultichill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Approved for the tasks described at the bottom of the page--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

---

BotMultichill

Operator: User:Multichill

Just want to play around with WikiData and bots. For example inputing family data to get pretty graphs like this one. I have some experience with bots. I'm one of the maintainers of Pywikipedia, operate about a dozen bots, global bots, local flagged bots, upload bots, I have several million edits. Multichill (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Support I've been talking with Multichill on IRC and think this bot is a good idea. I also think a "phase-2" blanket approval is a good idea here, so Multichill doesn't have to come back here every time he wants to add a new feature to his bot. Legoktm (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Very useful! For the royal infoboxes it's currently going through, could you add the person property (Property:P107/Q215627) and sex property (Property:P21/Q44148 for fathers and Property:P21/Q43445 for mothers) too? /Ch1902 (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm keeping it really simple for now. So just mom, dad and person. Maybe more later. Let's first see what kind of cool graphs this gives. Multichill (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Looks useful and interesting, with little possibility for any mess-ups. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support for everything you want to bot, we can only gain by that! Bináris (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, this uses always knows what he is talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm against unconditional blanket approval, although I will formulate a policy idea shortly that might work for cases like this. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And I'm allergic for enwp like bot bureaucracy. Multichill (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • What are your thoughts on this proposal then? It seems a reasonable compromise to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Commented over there. Multichill (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Use http://wikidata-test-repo.wikimedia.de as your playground, not wikidata.org.--Snaevar (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? What's your problem exactly? Multichill (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • test-repo is for testing the API or a specific feature, not for testing a bot. Multichill should be testing on the live site, just like all the other bots. Legoktm (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support it is so interesting Mojirian (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I guess good things will come from it. And Multichill is very good able to repear any damage his bot will make. Carsrac (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

please tell me, how it can help users to solve wikidata problems?Mojdeh.h (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose this is a blank check that you're asking us to sign; I'm not comfortable with unconditional approval for any operator, and definitely not on a first bot request. --Rschen7754 08:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So you don't trust me? Multichill (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not that I think you're untrustworthy; I just am not familiar enough with your work. --Rschen7754 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • So what happened with assume good faith? And this is definitely not my first bot request. My bots were approved in about every Wikipedia before we had the global bot thing introduced. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not just technical skill that I'm looking for; what I'm looking for is how a bot operator interacts with the community and responds to criticism. In other words, will the bot operator fix the problem if there's a bug, or will we be stuck with the golden handcuffs? --Rschen7754 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is appropriate to oppose multichill's request without even making a comment at the real policy discussion, where discussion is in fact in favor of open ended approval. Simply making an oppose vote against an operator/task because you do not agree with a specific policy is not helpful in anyway, to the community nor the bot operator. I doubt you disagree or find any fault with the task multichill is running right now, and that is his "track record" on this wiki, which is all that should really matter.
  • You don't oppose someone on an RfA because you're not familiar with their work. Similarly its unfair to do the same for a bot, especially when the operator is trusted globally to run much more complex bots. Maybe rather than saying "oppose, I'm not familiar with your work", you should go to the other wikis multichill has run bots on and look at his conduct there. I doubt you would find anything not satisfactory. Legoktm (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I have commented on the policy discussion. The thing is, I would like to see how this candidate interacts with the local community before supporting such a blanket approval, and possibly a few completed tasks. To be honest, I'm also concerned about what the candidate is asking: "Just want to play around with WikiData and bots" and comments such as "And I'm allergic for enwp like bot bureaucracy" and "Excuse me? What's your problem exactly?" don't encourage me to have confidence in the operator. --Rschen7754 21:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Also, even ignoring the policy question, where's the trial? --Rschen7754 22:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
        • The 7k+ edits the bot has made already??? Legoktm (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, about that: Why has it made 7,000 edits when typical trials are for around 500 or less? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm just going to quote some of the policy/guidelines, I have no doubt in the operator at all but if this were to be approved I feel Wikidata:Bots should probably have a total rewrite.

  "Bot accounts should not be used for contributions that do not fall within the scope of the bot's designated tasks"(This bot doesn't have any designated tasks).

  "Should the bot make too many test edits, then the bot operator should be asked to stop his bot"(7k is rather a lot of edits for a trial and a trial for a task which has not been defined.)

  "Note that each completely new task should be approved separately"(Your current request would essentially allow you to do anything at all.)·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support Will make a great bot. Curtaintoad curtain or toad 04:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support no problems expected with his bots user:Michiel1972

---

There has been controversy over the scope of this request, and I would much rather have Multichill running his bot sooner rather than later, so I would like propose a way forward. This scope of this request will be changed to just include the property type edits that Multichill's bot has already made (AFAIS there has been no opposition to what his bot is doing right now), and discussion about "blanket approval" and formulating a proper bot policy (not guideline) will take place on Wikidata talk:Bots, and if that future policy chooses to allow blanket approvals, Multichill can come back here and request it. Legoktm (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with it pulling from categories/templates on other wikis. --Rschen7754 11:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If that makes you happy, sure. Tired of waiting. Multichill (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will approve it in 24h if there is no further opposition.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.