Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Q23679
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--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Q23679 (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: U+1F360 (talk • contribs • logs)
Task/s: Creates claims for items that have a reference to wikidata in the Who's On First (Q57967241) dataset.
Code: https://github.com/whosonfirst-wikidata/bot
Function details:Downloads the entire Who's On First (Q57967241) dataset. Takes the references that are in that dataset and adds them to wikidata (for items that do not have existing claims). --U+1F360 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Do we readd the trouble New GeoNames-sourced locality records this way? --Succu (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. U+1F360 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- See Special:Contributions/Q23679 for example edits. U+1F360 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @U+1F360: Could you please explain that why are you running the bot if it's not approved yet? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @1997kB: Based on other requests, having examples is necessary. I thought I'd run it, but it's obviously going extremely slow because of the rate limiting. I was under the impression that getting approval for a bot, wasn't approval for using the API, but was approval for having the user moved in the Bot group which reduces the rate limiting. Did I misunderstand? U+1F360 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @U+1F360: As the details of bot user group says it also provide you Use of write API right. Apart from that if someone will need examples they will ask you, constantly running it indicates you just treating it as formality and also bot is now producing hundreds of unpatrolled edits. Until it's approved you should stop it. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @1997kB: I killed it, but just to be clear it seems that there isn't anything blocking anyone using the write API (with or without an account). Is that a bug? U+1F360 (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @1997kB: Indeed, according to Special:ListGroupRights the
writeapipermission is granted to all users. U+1F360 (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)- Not a tech-savvy person, I noticed this bot while patrolling recent changes. But according to Wikidata:Bots, first they are approved for tasks and then operated. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @U+1F360: As the details of bot user group says it also provide you Use of write API right. Apart from that if someone will need examples they will ask you, constantly running it indicates you just treating it as formality and also bot is now producing hundreds of unpatrolled edits. Until it's approved you should stop it. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @1997kB: Based on other requests, having examples is necessary. I thought I'd run it, but it's obviously going extremely slow because of the rate limiting. I was under the impression that getting approval for a bot, wasn't approval for using the API, but was approval for having the user moved in the Bot group which reduces the rate limiting. Did I misunderstand? U+1F360 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @U+1F360: Could you please explain that why are you running the bot if it's not approved yet? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
*If it's going to add 26,000,000 ids, could you use the bot flag? --- Jura 22:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Seems to happen. Nevermind. --- Jura 22:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@U+1F360, Ymblanter: Please can the bot's username be changed so that it clearly indicates that it is a bot? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)