Commons:Administratorer/nb

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This project page in other languages: Alemannisch | Asturianu | Български | Brezhoneg | Català | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Nederlands | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Shqip | Türkçe | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Shortcuts: COM:A COM:ADMIN

Nåværende administratorer [+/−]

Listing by language Listing by date

Number of Admins: 270 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1 555, pt, en-1, es-1, fr-1, gl-1 ABach, pl, en-2 ABF, de, en-2, la-1, fr-1 Abigor, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fy-1, li-1, nsd-1 Adam Cuerden, en, es-1, de-1, no-1 Adambro, en, fr-1 AFBorchert, de, en-3 Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1 Aka, de, en-3 Ala z, pl, en-2, ru-1 ALE!, de, en-3, es-3, fr-1, it-1 Alhen, es, en-2 Aliman5040, es, fr-4, de-2, en-1, it-1 Alison, en, ga-3, fr-2, gd-1 Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1 Alpertron, es, en-3 AndreasPraefcke, de, en-3, fr-1 Andrew c, en Angr, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1 Anonymous101, en, pt-1, es-2, it-1, fr-1, de-1 Anonymous Dissident, en, de-1, fr-1, id-1, ja-1 AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1 Anthere, fr, en-3 (steward) Aquis, no, en-3, nn-3, da-2, sv-2, fr-1 Aude, en, ar-2 Avraham, en, he-2 AVRS, ru, en-2, eo-2 Badseed, el, en-3, it-1 BanyanTree, en, ja-2 Bapti, fr, en-3, de-2 Barcex, es, en-2, fr-1 Bastique, en, fr-3, es-2, la-2, ga-1 (bureaucrat, steward, check user) Bayo, fr, en-1, es-1 Bdk, de, en-2 Belgrano, es, en-3 Bidgee, en Blurpeace, en, es-1 Bogdan, ro, en-3, it-3, fr-2 Bryan, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 Brynn, en Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1 Captain-tucker, en Cbrown1023, en Cecil, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, fi-1 (bureaucrat) Chatama, ja, en-1 Chris 73, de, en-3, ja-1 ChrisiPK, de, en-3, fr-1 ChristianBier, de, en-3 Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1 Cirt, en, es-2 Cnyborg, no, nn-3, en-3, da-2, sv-2, de-1, la-1 Codeispoetry, de, en-3, es-2 CommonsDelinkerHelper (bot) Cookie, es, en-2 Coyau, fr, en-1 DaB., de, en-1 Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1 Darkone, de, en-1 Davepape, en David Levy, en David.Monniaux, fr, en-3, es-1 Deadstar, nl, en-4, af-1, de-1, fr-1 Dereckson, fr, en-4, la-2, de-1, nl-1 Dferg, es, fr-4, en-3, la-1, ast-1, ca-1 Diti, fr, en-4 D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1 Dodo, es, en-2 Drini, es, en-4, pt-1 (steward, check user) Dschwen, de, en-3, fr-1 Duesentrieb, de, en-2 Durin, en, fr-1 Durova, en, de-2, es-1, fr-1 Ecemaml, es, en-3 Ed g2s, en, fr-1 Edgar181, en, de-1, fr-1, es-1 Editor at Large, en, fr-1, la-1, es-1, it-1 Ejdzej, pl, en-2 Elcobbola en, de Eleassar, sl, en-3, fr-2, de-1 Elya, de, en-3, uk-2, ru-1 EPO, da, en-3, de-1 Esby, fr, en-3, de-1 EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat) EuseBotHelper (bot) Eusebius, fr, en-3, es-2 EVula, en Fanghong, zh, en-2, fr-1 Filnik, it, en-3, de-2 Fir0002, en Flominator, de, als, en-3 Florent Pécassou, fr, en-2, es-1 Foroa, vls, nl, en-3, fr-2 Forrester, de, en-3, fr-2 Fran Rogers, en, es-1, ase-1 FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1 Geni, en GeorgHH, de, en-1 Gizmo II, es, en-3, fr-2, ru-1 Gmaxwell, en Gnangarra, en Golbez, en, ja-2 Greudin, fr, en-2, de-1 grin, hu, en-3, de-1 Gruznov, ru, en-1, fr-1 Guérin Nicolas, fr, en-3, de-2, es-1 guillom, fr, en-3, de-1 (steward) Harej, en, fr-3 Haukurth, is, en-3, da-2, fo-2, fr-2, nn-2, no-2, sv-2, de-1 Herr Kriss, pl, en-2 Hesperian, en High Contrast, de, en-3, fr-1 Howcheng, en, ja-2 H-stt, de, en-4, fr-1 ignis, ja, en-2, fr-1, de-1 Ilmari Karonen, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1, fr-1 Infrogmation, en, es-1 Jacoplane, nl, en, fr-2, de-1 Jastrow, fr, en-3, de-1, it-1 John Vandenberg, en Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1 Jdforrester, en JeremyA, en Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1 Joergens.mi, de, en-3 Joku Janne, fi, en-2, sv-2 jonny-mt, en, ja-4 Juliancolton, en, es-1 Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1 Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat, steward) J Milburn, en J.delanoy en, es-2 J.smith, en Kaldari, en Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1 Kameraad Pjotr, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-2, la-2, grc-2 Kanonkas, no, en-4, nn-3, da-2, sv-2, de-1 (bureaucrat) Killiondude en, es-3 Kjetil r, no, en-3, eo-2, de-1 Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1 Korrigan, fr, en-3, de-1, ht-1 Kved, es, en-3 Kwj2772, ko, en-2 Lar, en, de-1 (bureaucrat, check user, steward, oversight) Leafnode, pl, en-3, ja-2, de-1 Leit, de, en-3, fr-1 LERK, ja, en-2, ko-2, ko-han-3, de-1, es-1, fr-1 Lestath, pl, en-2, la-1 Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1 Loco085, es, en-3, pt-2, de-1 Lokal Profil, sv, en-4, pt-2, fr-1 Ludmiła Pilecka, pl, en-2, ru-1 Lukasz Lukomski, pl, en-4, es-2 Lupo, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, it-1 Luxo, gsw, de-4, en-1, fr-1 Lycaon, vls, nl, en-4, af-2, de-2, fr-2, da-1, es-1, it-1, nn-1, no-1, sv-1 Magnus Manske, de, en-2 Maire, pl, en-4, de-2, fr-2, ru-1 Majorly, en, de-2, fr-1 Marcus Cyron, de, en-1 Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (steward) Martin H., de, en-2 (checkuser) Masur, pl, en-3, de-1 Matt314, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, zh-1 Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1 Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2 Maximaximax, ru, en-2 Mbdortmund, de, en-2, fr-2, la-1 MBisanz, en Mdd4696, en, es-1 MECU, en MediaWiki Update Bot (bot) Melos, it, scn-4, en-2 Meno25, ar, en-4, fr-1 (steward) MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, sv-1, no-1 Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1 Mitchazenia, en, es-2 Miya, ja, en-2 Mormegil, cs, en-2, de-1 MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1 Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Mwpnl, nl, en-4, de-2, fr-1 My name, de, la-3, en-2,5, fr-1 Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1 NEUROtiker de en-3, fr-1 newmanbe, en, eo-1, es-1 Nichalp, en, fr-1, hi-2 Nick, en, sco-2, fr-1 NielsF, nl, en-3, fr-2, it-2, de-1 Nilfanion, en, fr-1 Nishkid64, en, es-2, te-1 notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2 NuclearWarfare en, es-2 O, zh, en-4, zh-wuu-2, zh-hu-3, yue-1 fr-1 odder, pl, en-2, de-2 Okki, fr, en-2 Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1 Oxam Hartog, fr, en-1 Para, fi, en-4, fr-2, sv-1 PatríciaR, pt, en-3, sv-2, es-1, fr-1 (bureaucrat, ombudsman) PeterSymonds, en, de-1 Pharos, en, fr-1 Pimke, pl, de-4, en-2 Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1 Podzemnik, cs, en-2 Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1 Powerek38, pl, en-4, fr-2, es-1, de-1 Pruneau, fr, en-4, de-1 Putnik, ru, en-2 ~Pyb, fr, en-2 Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1 Quadell, en Radomil, pl, en-2, fr-1, la-1 Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1 Ra'ike, de, en-2 Ram-Man, en, es-1 Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversight) Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1 Raul654, en, es-1 Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversight) RedCoat, en, es-4, fr-2, it-1 Richie, de, en-3, fr-2 Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1 Rjd0060, en Rlevse, en, de-1 Rocket000, en, es-1 Royalbroil, en, es-1 Rüdiger Wölk, de, en-2 S1, de, ru, en-2 Samulili, fi, en-3, sv-3, fr-2, no-2, de-2, es-1, it-1, da-1, et-1, ru-1 Sanbec, es, en-1, fr-1 Sandstein, als, de, en-4, fr-3, it-1 SB Johnny, en, de-2, fr-2, es-1 (checkuser) Sfu, pl, en-2 ShakataGaNai, en Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1 Siebrand, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 Silver Spoon, nl, en-4, af-2, de-2, nds-2, Slomox, de, en-2 Spangineer, en, es-3 Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1 Stan Shebs, en, de-1 Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1 str4nd, fi, en-2, sv-2 Sv1xv, el, en-3, fr-1 Szczepan1990, pl, en-2 Tabercil, en Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1 The Evil IP address, de, en-3, fr-2 Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2 Timichal, cs, en-3, de-1, fi-1 Tiptoety, en Tom, en, es-1 Trixt, it, en-2, fr-1 Tryphon, fr, en-3, de-1 tsca, pl, en, da Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1 VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1 Waldir, pt, en-3 WJBscribe, en, fr-3, de-1 Wknight94, en Wsiegmund, en, fr-1, es-1 Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1 Wuzur, de, en-3 Yann, fr, en-3, hi-2, gu-1 Yuval Y, he, en-3 Zirland, cs, pl-3, en-3, sk-2, eo-2 Zscout370, en, be-1, es-1, ja-1, ru-1 Zyephyrus, fr, en-3, la-3, el-2 Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1

Commons:Administratorer gir deg all viktig informasjon om administratorer på Wikimedia Commons, samt avstemninger om nye administratorer. Botstatussaker tas også opp her.

Contents 1 Hva er administratorer? 2 Hva ventes av en administrator? 3 Administratorkandidater 4 Hvordan bli administratorkandidat 5 Nåværende kandidater 6 How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons 7 How to comment and vote 8 Requests for adminship 9 Requests for bureaucratship 10 Requests for CheckUser 11 Requests for Oversight rights 12 Requests for permission to run a bot 12.1 AkoopalBot 12.1.1 Discussion 12.2 TjBot 12.2.1 Discussion 12.3 Lucia Bot 12.3.1 Discussion 12.4 MediaBot 12.4.1 See also 12.4.2 Discussion 12.5 FaleBot 12.5.1 Discussion 12.6 FPCBot 12.6.1 Discussion

[edit] Hva er administratorer?

Administratortilgang gis til pålitelige bidragsytere som er kjent med Commons' retningslinjer. Administratorstatus tilsier ikke at brukeren har noe mer redaksjonelt ansvar enn andre brukere. Administratorer har muligheten til å:

• låse og åpne sider
• slette og gjenopprette sider
• slette og gjenopprette bilder og andre filer
• blokkere og avblokkere brukere
• redigere brukergrensesnittet og andre låste sider.

Administratorer med checkuser-rettigheter kan også sjekk om en bruker har brukt mer enn én konto (såkalte sockpuppets). Byråkrater har også muligheten til å:

• gjøre andre brukere til administratorer
• endre brukeres navn (se Commons:Changing username)
• gi og ta botstatus

[edit] Hva ventes av en administrator?

Du kan bli en kandidat til administrator på Commons dersom du møter følgende krav:

• Du er kjent med Wikimedia-prosjektene. Du må ha vært en bidragsyter i minst to måneder, og forstå prosjektets mål.
• Du har en brukerside på Commons og ha minst 200 redigeringer her (opplastinger eller tekst), og interessert i Commons-samfunnet. Du bør med andre ord ha deltatt på sider som Commons:Deletion requests og Commons talk:Licensing (for eksempel ved å lete etter opphavsrettsbrudd, finne savnede kilder, og hjelpe anre). Folk kan også ha egne personlige standarder som krever mer.
• Du følger retningslinjene og respekterer konsensusen.

Som med administratorpolitikken på Meta, blir inaktive administratorer fjernet når de ikker har hatt noen redigeringer de siste seks månedene, og mindre enn 50 redigeringer det siste året. Inaktive administratorer kan søke om å bli administrator på nytt på den vanlige måten.

[edit] Administratorkandidater

• Nominasjonen er åpen for stemmer og kommentarer i sju dager. Administratorstatus vil bli gitt med en majoritet på minst 75 %, og minst 4 støttende stemmer. Dersom kandidaten møter disse krava, vil en byråkrat gjøre brukeren til administrator.
• Merk at denne siden brukes for å få andre tillatelser også; for eksempel for å få botstatus må man søke her.
• Tidligere kandidater listes opp i arkivet.

[edit] Hvordan bli administratorkandidat

Lag en underside Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/brukernavn med følgende tekst, og inkluder sida øverst her:

===[[User:Brukernavn|]]=== {{custom edit|Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Username|text='''Vote'''}} Grunner til at du burde bli administrator. ~~~~ ====Votes====

[edit] Nåværende kandidater

Oppdater sida

This project page in other languages: Deutsch | English | Español | +/−

Shortcut: COM:VOTE

This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.

[edit] How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons

• Administrator: Commons:Administrators
• Bureaucrat: Commons:Bureaucrats
• Checkuser: Commons:Checkusers
• Oversighter: Commons:Oversighters
• Bots: See Commons:Bots. Request bot permission at Commons:Bots/Requests.

All applications made on the above pages are automatically transcluded onto this page.

[edit] How to comment and vote

Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.

It is preferable if you give reasons both for  Support votes or  Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Purge the cache Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.

[edit] Requests for adminship

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

[edit] Requests for bureaucratship

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

[edit] Requests for CheckUser

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

[edit] Requests for Oversight rights

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

[edit] Requests for permission to run a bot

NEW: Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.

Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.

[edit] AkoopalBot

Operator: Akoopal (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Manipulation of categories like imagerecat.py -onlyfilter.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, but always supervised.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): A single run when needed.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): At the moment 1 per minute. If quicker is allowed, would be appreciated.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): pywikipedia, but only the standard bot.

Akoopal (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• I cant see a problem in the first few edits so it looks ok for me to give a botflag. Huib talk 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any issues so far. You can speed up the bot to do more edits than 1 per minute. Please give us a new edit rate if you want it to be quicker. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit rate is not important. User knows what he's doing so fire it up :-) Multichill (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What I saw from this specific bot, I saw if I would run it without ratelimit, it would reach about 4 edits per minute. The default for pywikipedia is 1 edit per 10 seconds, so about 6 per minute max. Seems to make sense to keep it at the default then? Akoopal (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think will be good idea to improve edit summaries (list added/removed categories). HotCat summaries may be used as example. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Makes sense, but as I said, I only run the bot. This is a bot in the pywikipedia distro, and I only ran it. Will discuss it with Multichill who wrote it, and also have a look at the code myself. Akoopal (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Trusted user and experienced bot programmer on nl:wiki. Glad to have him aboard. Wutsje (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• On which files do you plan running this bot? Do you check the parent and the subcategories of the trees you are filtering on? -- User:Docu at 09:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Currently there are only 7 edits, can you do 100 test edits? -- User:Docu at 10:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am currently on the dutch wikipedia working on mill-project there. From that perspective I plan to work a bit more on the mill pictures on commons. I don't want to do big botwork, but in that work you sometimes find for example a big number of pictures in a category that are left in the top-level categories. A very big one Multichill did for me, and as that appeared very simple I did a test on a small one I noticed after that.
  • Be aware I am not asking for a botbit, only permission to once in a while run a bot. As said only small maintenance work I notice when cleaning up the mill-category.
  • Having said that, I might look around if I quickly see more work, but doing a 100 edits might be a lot, given how I work. Akoopal (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TjBot

Operator: Tjmoel (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: interwikis

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): daily

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): max 5 per minutes, will try to reduce if possible.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Phyton. I am using Pywikipedia

Tjmoel (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

•  Comment - interwiki.py doesn't work on Commons, so it needs to be done manual. Huib talk 13:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No response, probably best to close this one. Multichill (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Notified the bot operator to respond back. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the comments. I didn't know about it, and true that I will then do it manually. Apologize for misunderstanding. Thanks Tjmoel (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lucia Bot

Operator: Béria Lima ^Msg

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

1. Massive upload files made by me

2. Categorize and clean up (put {{own}}, {{filedesc}}, {{license}} etc) files of Portugal and Brazil (have some - a lot - of files in general categorys that can be categorize in more exact categorys)

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, supervised.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Normaly one or two times for week

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): No more of 20 edits for minut

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): yes

Programming language(s): Python

Béria Lima ^Msg 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

1. How massive exactly?
2. Only own files or also other files? Are you combining all the replacements into single edits?

Please do a test run to show some example edits. Multichill (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1. 200 or 250 photos of Portugal that i'm already have, and more 100 or 120 of Brazil.

2. The original ideia is arrange all the category tree (so I edits files of others people too), and of course, the ideia is, in one single edit, make all the replacements. Béria Lima ^Msg 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pass the bot for Category:Files from Porto by Béria Lima as a example. Béria Lima ^Msg 10:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The summaries are often not correct [1] and a task like this [2] cannot be done automatically to pictures that are not from you. And in my opinion no botflag is needed to upload 500 pictures. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To the operator: please address the issues raised by Schlurcher. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The summary say all that the bot can do in a same edit. The bot not put 2 times te same thing just to "make the summary right" and I think that is better say all and the bot correct only one of the problems, then say "put just X" and the bot do X, Y and Z in that edit.

I know that cannot put this in all photos, but I running the bot in one of my categories and just utilize the same edit to do that too. Béria Lima ^Msg 02:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MediaBot

Operator: User:BotInc

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: move videos from OGV files to Ogg Videos, other media related cleanup tasks

Automatic or manually assisted: for now manually assisted only. if required to run regularly i will look into writing a cronjob with pywikipedia

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): so far one time operation, if required more often, depends on discussion here in paris meeting

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): as fast as possible, just replacing categories for now

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y its required should not clutter the logs

Programming language(s): python MediaBot (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] See also

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#User:MediaBot

[edit] Discussion

•  Oppose You need a timeout for running this bot without permission, or even identifying who owned it on the bot's page. You know better. -Nard the Bard 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • sorry new to all this, why should i know better, there is no real explanation as to why bots would need an owner. BotInc (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes there is. –Tryphon^☂ 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That pages lists that bots need to be registered, it does not mention why this is the case, why do bots need an operator, it seams overly restrictive BotInc (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Still no operator specified, or any reaction from the bot's owner. I'm blocking it again until this request is taken seriously. –Tryphon^☂ 07:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Tryphon dot be so serious, one could get the impression i did something wrong, my intention is to help commons and cleanup the categories, of cause if you think this is a bad thing, we can talk about that, also i have other things to do, so dont get all not taken seriously if i do not respond within 10 seconds. BotInc (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, three days, 10 seconds, doesn't really matter. Just don't run an unauthorized bot in the meantime. Also, the previous owner was User:Firefogg, why did that change? Is it really someone else operating it, or is it just a new account? –Tryphon^☂ 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Its just a new account, i dont intend to use the Firefogg account anymore. BotInc (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the bot still needed? It seems SieBot took care of the one time task. I see "move videos from OGV files to Ogg Videos, other media related cleanup tasks", which seems to indicate you do have other tasks for the bot. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• can also leave it as it is and let others take care, will not fight for it... BotInc (talk)

I'm a bit confused. Do you have any other tasks that the bot may perform? Such as "other media related cleanup tasks"? As I said above, it seems you're indicating you do have other tasks. If not I think we should close this as not done, per SieBot took care of it. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont have any other tasks at hand, among other things, because this reuqest is still going on, so go ahead and close it as SieBot took care of it.

[edit] FaleBot

Operator: Fale (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

1. Fix some commons errors(eg: Source=Myself => Source=\{\{own\}\})
2. Move from it-wiki images (this will be an assisted thing, it will NOT operate alone for this task)
3. Mass upload of pictures made by me

Automatic or manually assisted:

• Automatic for #1 and #3
• Manually assisted for #2

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

• One time run or when needed for #1
• When I have time for #2 and #3

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

• 20~30 edits/minute for #1 and #3
• My reaction time (I'm not so fast) for #2

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes (the edits from #2 will be flagged as NoBot by the bot itself)

Programming language(s): C++ (wiki++) and PHP (BotClasses.php) Fale (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

You can find some edits over here. Fale (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• About task #1. We have several similar bots already. Will be good idea to improve existing ones and re-use the code. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of code-sharing. Than, I think, this kind of "code sharing" wouldn't be a problem ;). (I hope to have understood correctly the point, if not, please, let me know ;)) Fale (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as task #1 ist a one time task you can also send my a list (all contributions of Fale I think) and I let my bot do the work. If you are planing to create a internationalisation bot of your own you should add more than just one task, way more. And it is really tricky to avoid all the problems. But as you are a native Italian Speaker you can help me improve my bot in this language or I can borrow you code unfortunately I write in a totally differen language. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal, Schlurcher. I'll send you a message as soon as I'll have the exact match to change ;). Which language do you use? Do you prefer to have the regex or to have a thing like (Myself=>Own work etc)? Fale (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if you translate a couple of statements that my bot uses. I put them here. I know it is a lot but but the uploaders are creative. If you have the time simply write the translation behind each statement. That would help me a lot. Thanks. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I'll find new variant, I'll put them in the list :) Fale (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• About task #2. Please describe image review process (for example about images of modern buildings) and categorization. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would create a sistem like pushforcommons with the advantage of being able to create a "more massive" movement. I will also use a patched version of the commonshelper2 as backend of the bot. In this way all the categorization stuff will work as well as in commonshelper. Fale (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The categorization worked fine. That could use a flag. But uploading new images could be done without a flag so we can see them. How many files are we talking about? 100 a day? 1,000 a day? 10,000 a day? --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

About the task #2 (that, in any way it will not use the flag) as many as I can do, and as #3 I have a total of ~10k images, but I have no clue about how many I'll be able to upload each day Fale (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please make a test run. The test run should consist of task 1, 2, and 3. 30 edits for each task (minimum). Overall, you should get 90 edits or more in total. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FPCBot

Operator: Daniel78 (talk)

The tasks would be the exact process that is described here except the bot can not sort the candidates into categories, but would instead need to put new promotions into an unsorted page like the VI and QI bots do. Currently the bot focuses on the featuring process, but there is also a similar delisting process that this bot could work on.

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

This is the same as mentioned above but more condensed:

• Add voting results to nominations by counting the oppose and support votes
• Edit the title of the nominations, whether they were featured or not
• Add the newly promoted pictures to an unsorted page, that will be manually sorted into categories by humans
• Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|com=1}} to the image description page.
• Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures.
• Add the template {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
• Move the nomination from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2009.

Automatic or Manually Assisted:

The goal is to make it fully automated but obviously it will be fully manually supervised until it has gone through careful testing. The first implementation will have an interactive flag always set that will require you to manually answer 'Y' before each edit is posted.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Once a day (closing all the nominations that are then more than 9 days old)

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Can be low, I do not expect many edits in a day

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming Language(s): Python (using pywikipedia)

Daniel78 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I support he idea of having such a bot. It has been discussed numerous times, but no one has gotten as far with it as you. I have also considered from time to time to implement such a bot, but I realized it that especially the vote counting and closure would be a delicate manner to automate. I therefore appreciate that you intend to get human confirmation for each edit in the beginning. A couple of points/recommendations for you to consider:

1. There are several different voting templates which mean the same thing, i.e., {{support}}, {{sup}}, {{PRO}}, {{Oui}} and several other templates all mean "support". How do you detect that list of valid templates to look for? Personally I would probably start each run by locating all templates which link to the support, oppose, etc vote icons, and if new ones have been defined since the last run, let the bot operator decide if the new ones should be added to lists of valid vote templates or not.
2. Does you vote counting procedure ignore anonymous votes?
3. Does your vote counting procedure check for duplicate votes by the same user?
4. Does your vote counting procedure ignore votes cast after the voting period?
   • If yes, do they strike them out or mark them as being invalid as part of the closing?
5. Does your vote counting procedure handle striked out votes?
6. There may be other delicate special cases which I have not thought of, such as handling the new {{OpposeReasons}} template
7. To test that you voting procedure works well, I recommend that you grind yourself through all closed FPC noms, let it count the votes off-line and compare it with the official results. In case of deviations you should check manually, if it was the manual vote count which was erroneous or your vote counting procedure.
8. When you place the Assessments or FeaturedPicture template on the file page, will it then properly add a subpage parameter to the template for file pages, which have a name which differs from the subpage name of the FPC nomination (to make sure the link works)?

--Slaunger (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the pointers. I have thought about several of the issues here but I have so far just spent two evenings on the implementation. The current state is that it handles the english versions of the voting templates for example both {{sup}} and {{support}} including the capitalized versions. It also avoids counting such votes that are striked out and use of {{withdraw}}. Including other versions of the voting templates is not hard, just about adding them to the current regexps, your tip about which templates that includes the icons sounds good, I will look at that.

In it's current state there is no detection of 2,3,4, and thus it relies on humans to have striked such votes out before the nomination is closed. It could be implemented but making a parser that robustly knows which templates that was added by which users might be a bit tricky, you would have to look at the edit log to be sure it was not another user that added a fake signature. But even the manual process is vulnerable to people who really want to tamper with the votes, we can't guard against everything. One option could be to have the bot close the nominations at one time, then wait 24 hours or something before actually moving it away and thus give some time for human inspection of the result and also some time for others to see the result if they are not watching the nomination.

Another issue that is hard for the bot is nominations that includes edited versions, it's hard for the bot to know which edit to look at as it is not certain that it's the latest or the one with most support. The current implementation will just ignore such nomnations and leave it for humans to sort out. The bot could add a message when the time is up for such nominations telling that this needs to be counted manually.

Your point 7 seem to be a very good way of doing a testrun to check the implementation. I will look into that, that could also be used to gather some interesting statistics about previous results.

I have not yet started with the implementation of moving/parking the finished results. But that should be quite simple, it's just about moving the template to the mentioned pages in a certain format, I will focus on the vote counting first. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two more question, which I forgot in first round:

1. Will the bot be capable of handling the rule of the fifth day?
2. Will the bot be capable of closing noms, where an {{FPX}} has been cast and has not been followed by a support vote less than 24 h after?

--Slaunger (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet implemented. Rule of the fifth day should be a simple addition. {{FPX}} is a bit trickier as I would have to find out exactly when the template was added, if the users follow the example and sign it including the date it should be ok. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please make a test run? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a good test would be what Slaunger mentions above, to actually run it against the old results and list all differences. I would need to implement some missing parts before that though. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with Slaunger on his above points, and make the following suggestions:
  • Use the {{Assessments|com=1}} template, as it means that FP status for other Wikis can be added easily
  • Have the bot notify the creator/uploader, if they are not the same as the nominator. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Info: I have now improved a bit on the count parser and the current results against an old log has been made where I have also explains the reason for the cases where there currently is a difference: TestRun1. This is just a verification test run, thus no edits was made by the bot. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• •  Comment It is overall a convincing test, which shows that your bot handles vote counting with a reliability, which matches human vote counting. I have posted some detailed comments on the test page. I do not think it is a requirement that you parser can handle all the special cases I mentioned originally - at least not for starters - as long as your bot knows which FPCs it should skip (multiple noms in same subpage, FPX, etc.). I would suggest that the bot summarized its results in a template, like {{FPC-results-ready-for-review}}. This template should automatically associate the FPC subpage to a category, i.e., Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review. A human should then check the closure result, possibly correct mistakes in the vote counts and change the template to, e.g., {{FPC-results-reviewed}}, which places the subpage in a new category, i.e., Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure. The bot could then process all subpages in this category, whenever it runs, perhaps changing the template again to a final {{FPC-results}} (which takes it out of the aforementioned category, but renders the result in the same manner) do the archiving, notification on nominators and creators talk pages, and move it to a page for categorization. --Slaunger (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think this makes sense, it lets the bot do the main work but still leaves the control to the users. So in short the bot do a step 1 (count and add the results) and then just wait for confirmation by any user and then do step 2 (move them). I stared with some very simple versions of the templates mentioned here. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Great that you are implementing my idea and can see its purpose. I looked at the templates. I think they look fine. In the beginning the {{FPC-results-ready-for-review}} could perhaps be written out prepared with a category parameter (although this template does not support it), such that the manual work done by the reviewer changing the template name to {{FPC-results-reviewed}} is minimized. Agree that if the human closure reviewer adds the end category in that single step we do not need the {{FPC-results}} also. A later refinement could be some JS wizardry added for the human closure reviewers convenience, which lets this user select the end category from a drop down box or something like that. --Slaunger (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I have now implemented the parking procedure ( that moves reviewed candidates into the specific pages ). I know there are issues to fix, but the main implementation part is now done so I have performed some testing. Yet only of some failed candidates though, I have to wait for some candidates that passes to test that part :). I also mentioned it here. I agree that some JS in the template to make it even easier would be great. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• The bot has now been doing manual runs for a while and I have ironed out a few issues, you can see it's recent changes. Although there are still things to improve I think it handles most common situations by now. I will continue to look after it of course but I think it could be time to let it run as a cron job and as I understand it I need this request accepted before I do that. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This is looking good to me. This bot is ambitious and if it works, very nifty. How about giving you tentative approval for automation with a view to making that permanent after a few more runs? Would the community see the need to do that? Presumably you are prepared to clean up any messes and enhance the code to avoid them happening again. Else I think just go to approval and call this done. ++Lar: t/c 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I can set it up for automated runs this weekend, and yes if something goes wrong I will of course fix it :) I also have some improvements on my todo list so I will continue to improve on the code. The code is also public so if I for some strange reason would leave commons, it would be available for anyone else to pick up. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Please be far more exact about when the bot may do something. I might agree that the bot may do most proposed actions once, after the mentioned picture has indeed been promoted. I probably will not oppose anymore if that "once, after" are made clear. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean that you want some clearer statements like, "if condition A the bot does B, ... , if condition X the bot does Z" and so on ? /Daniel78 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I have little time left. Yes, like that. It already says "the newly promoted image" for one action and I assume other actions are also only done once for that same picture, but that isn't clear. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I have added more detailed information at the bots user page User:FPCBot. For even more detailed information the source is also linked from the bot page. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer if the bot would only do the organising bits. A human editor should be the one doing the tallying, instead of the bot. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot is doing both, but as can be seen on the bot page there is the human verification step so nothing is closed before that has happened. Thus mostly you can just accept the bot count after checking it. Besides the bot has already been working now for over 2 month with around 2000 edits without any issues raised from the users involved in the FPC process. In essence the bot is already running as if it already had the bot flag except that I check on it daily which I would probably do anyway. So all in all can this bot be accepted ? Of course many improvements can be made, but is not that a separate discussion from this request as long as it does not cause any trouble ? /Daniel78 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea of this bot, even with basic functionality it helps with a labourious and error prone task. I think that image nominators watch the progress of their nominations like a hawk and errors (eg in counting due to strange support/decline templates) will be quickly picked up. There are many additions and refinements that can be added as we go, we could delegate discussion of their exact implementation to the FPC talk page if they fall within the general guidelines for operation approved here. My only real concern is support of this code: FP is a long term project, people come and go, the last thing we want is to become dependant on this bot (and its master) and suddenly find that it is unsupported. Can we stipulate that at least two people are familiar enough, and have access to, the code so that it will always be maintained (need some sort of handover to a new person if one of them leaves the project). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I will never leave :) Just kidding of course that could happen, but the bots user page already points to the source code in a publicly available git repository that anyone can make a clone of. And hopefully I have documented it well enough both on the bots page and in the source code for someone to pick it up without too much difficulty. But of course if anyone feels like being "co-owner" of the bot code that is perfectly fine with me. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The code looks reasonably documented to my unfamiliar eye :-). I have only just scanned through the code, but I am wondering whether it strips out html comments and nowiki blocks and any other comment types, before counting templates. I can think of a couple of ways that extra votes might be seen by the bot, but not apparent to the human eye ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just considering ways that the striked out template detector might be fooled, but think it is ok. But I just realised that the "ImageNote" block can contain templates (one current nomination contains a support template I seem to recall) which I expect will happily (incorrectly :-) counted. Also I presume you leave it to humans to notice unsigned/anonymous votes. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The vote counting implementation is currently very simple, it skips votes that are striked out but do not skip any other votes. Accounting for all uncommon ways of using the templates would probably just make the code more complex than necessary. Nice example with the image note though, I had not though of that :) But as long as we have the manual review step this should not be a big problem. I have no statistics but the rate of counts that are incorrect seem to be very low. I think the next improvement to focus on is how to handle closure of candidates that contain multiple images and not the vote count, because it's the closing that is a lot of manual work, not the counting. But I say it again; to me all these improvement discussions does not feel to belong in this bot flag request, they belong in a place where visible to people involved in the FPC process. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that people expect computers to be able to count (who checks the adding up of cash-registers?), I waited to see the outcome of the imagenotes example, and sure enough [3] everything looked in order and the ghost vote was included in the count, and confirmed manually - and I don't think any other confirmer would have looked any harder . No effect on the outcome this time, but incorrect never-the-less. Would doing a pre-pass to strip imagenotes, html comments, and nowiki blocks be too difficult? --Tony Wills (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

People probably look more carefully when it's a borderline case but still reducing the probability of errors by getting the bot count better would be nice of course. Filtering out the cases you mention would not be too hard, it's basically just doing the same check as for the <s> tag. I will have a look at it soon as I have now also implemented some basic support for handling candidates with several edits as mentioned on the FPC discussion page. Double votes, anonymous votes and late votes are a bit tricker though. But might happen later also, I have never thought about making this perfect from the start, but it's progressively getting better and better. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have now implemented such that the bot filter out the following content before counting votes: The <s> tag, the <nowiki> tag, ImageNotes and HTML comments. Thanks for the suggestions. I used this nomination for verification. If you can think of more tags or templates that needs to be filtered out tell me and I'll add it. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it is almost perfect ;-). Some ghost voting might have been quite subtle, eg if I had added a comment:

 Comment Please use {{support}} or {{oppose}} when voting.

I would have effectively negated one other persons support vote. Yes the confirmation process should have picked it up, but as time goes on people would start to trust the bot to count and easily miss such a mistake. So on behalf of generations of FP nomination to come, thank you :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Daniel, please take a look at two voting templates in a single vote with a single signature. Could the bot handle it?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There is not yet any check for such issues. It's up to the reviewer to determine which vote to use if one person has specified several. But in the future the bot could at least get the ability to detect ambiguous votes. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • One strategy to resolve such votes is to simply accept their last vote, but that doesn't resolve entries like that where templates have been used as comments (I would say his vote is Neutral, and he is dithering about whether to make it an Oppose). Strictly it would also mean you would have to look at the timestamps of each vote to see which was posted last. Easiest stategy is to just discount all multiple voting. But with both these strategies you have to make a list of all voters as you go and tally their votes and add lots of complication to handle these exceptions. There are lots of other stuff ups that voters can make, some of which haven't been thought of yet :-). I think it is sensible to just have humans confirm the vote, but give them exact instructions on what to look out for that the bot doesn't/can't handle. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes even though it would be nice if the bot detected such issues it is quite complicated for the bot to handle it, thinking about it; perhaps too complicated. For example to be absolutely sure about which vote that was cast by which person you can't just parse the text for signatures as one can easily add another signature than ones own. Thus to be sure the bot would have to go through each edit/commit to the candidate and keep track of who really added each template (similar to the annotate feature that many version control systems have). And as mentioned even if the bot handled this perfectly and actually detected double votes correctly there are as mentioned no clear solution, one could use the first vote or the last one or discard all of them, so a human preferably have to investigate anyway. A wiki is not really made for voting, imagine how much better this voting procedure could be if we were not locked to parsing a wiki page. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• By the way as already mentioned before, it would be nice to get this request approved. The FPC process is getting quite dependent on it as this "test"-period has been going on for so long now. At least from now on I will not discuss any further improvements/changes to the bot on this page unless it is an absolute requirement for getting the bot flag. Improvements that does not effect the outcome of this bot flag request should be discussed elsewhere. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)