From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Bots(Redirected from Commons:BRFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

English | 日本語 | +/−

Shortcut: COM:BRFA

Bot policy and list · Requests to operate a bot · Requests for work to be done by a bot · Changes to allow localization  · Requests for batch uploads

If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first. To do so, file a request following the instructions below.

Please read Commons:Bots before making a request for bot permission.

Requests made on this page are automatically transcluded in Commons:Requests and votes for wider comment.

Edit the summary table

Requests for permission to run a bot[edit]

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.

Revibot I (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: -revi (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Replace ArchiveBot

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily, at 2:30 UTC.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 per minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): pywikibot_core/scripts/ without any modifications.

Since Fastily has retired and ArchiveBot has stopped, I think this will be useful for Commons Users. No change from user is required (Bot will continue to listen from MiszaBot's link) Bot is already approved on Korean Wikipedia and English Wikinews for same purpose.

— regards, Revi 11:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm not running test for now, because if bot edits without botflag it will trigger email to ALL User talk edits. — regards, Revi 11:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you use the pywikipedia script? I tested it today and it needs some debugging (it is moving around templates o_O). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, git clone && cd core && python archivebot (in short). I've been running this way for +9 months and had no problems. — regards, Revi 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Strange. This. Oh... And i Symbol support vote.svg support this request of course :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
That's just a bot's fix to match the standard forms, if I'm correct. If you think that's a bug, phab is waiting for you xD — regards, Revi 11:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I would rather see 'fundamental' bot tasks being deployed by bot accounts with two or more operators. This is quite easy to set up, and means that bot jobs that everyone relies on are far more likely to have an operator to approach and discuss improvements or bug fixes in a timely way. This means that the bot operator can have an extended wikibreak or not be so concerned when issues flare up during holidays. It also guarantees that bot code is permanently released (along with past test results or experiments) and will not be removed from public resuse should a bot operator retire or rage quit.
It would be neat if the ArchiveBot account could be usurped and reused rather than an operator named bot account.
Revi, though you are welcome to run your bot and get the job done, could you consider the benefits of the above collegiate approach to operation? Thanks -- (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer doing it using my own bot, as I use standard pywikibot without any modifications and (in this case) I don't want to bother retired user. Of course I can give access to tools.revibot-i if someone requests it, as it runs on Wikimedia Tool Labs. — regards, Revi 11:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

PomologicalBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: ParkerHiggins (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Uploading the 7,584 public domain images in the USDA's Pomological Watercolor Collection.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Based on file size, probably no more than 1

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python

ParkerHiggins (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


SamoaBot 6 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: fixing file description pages linking to non-existing users, such as excess quotation marks

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, manually assisted for tricky cases

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): ~10 EPM

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): Python

Ricordisamoa 21:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Isn't your query also listing pages with links to (empty) userpages of existing users … ?    FDMS  4    23:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@FDMS4: No, as you can see after LEFT JOIN user i put WHERE user_name IS NULL. --Ricordisamoa 00:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Then something else must be wrong, it returns files like File:'91 Hermit.jpg which have no links to user pages of non-existant users.    FDMS  4    16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that was caused by the user names using spaces instead of underscores. Fixed. --Ricordisamoa 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

BursztaBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Yarl (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: file upload

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic (supervised)

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): hard to say, depends on file size

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Java

Yarl 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


This request is similar to Bots/Requests/WMPL GLAM Bot. Since previous request stucked for some reason, I created bot account exclusively for Józef Burszta Digital Archives upload. For test run, licensing details: take a look at discussion there. Yarl 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I still would like to see language templates for all text fields in {{Information}}. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: take a look. Yarl 19:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

AbiBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Abigor (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

  • Default maintenance work like fixing double redirects, marking empty categories, etc etc.
  • Mark obvious copyvios

Automatic or manually assisted:

  • Both standard maintenance work will be done unsupervised, all other runs will be supervised.

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 1

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Y

Programming language(s): Perl and pywikipedia Abigor talk 09:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mark obvious copyvios is done by Krd's bot and fixing double redirects is done by -revi's bot. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter but we still find 100+ obvious copyvios daily in old uploads, so the bot seems to miss them? And my but isn't using the google search for images, its using a different technique. So they should be able to find different once together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigor (talk • contribs)
Google image search? Yes please! The other bot is not using google. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
will make sure it uses an technique to make sure my bot will not intervere with other bots :-) Abigor talk 11:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please note that the bot has already done 139.000 edits without any issues. Abigor talk 10:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Please make a test run for marking copyvios. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
EugeneZelenko, sure, will do a test run this week. Abigor talk 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Abigor: Some of the categories it is adding are already added by existing templates, e.g. CC-BY-SA-3.0, and Self-published work. They should not be duplicated like this. Also this doesn't really seem to be in the example scope you listed above - please can you expand that to encompass the tasks you expect to perform. --99of9 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

WMPL GLAM Bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Yarl (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: file upload

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): hard to say, depends on file size

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Java, custom softwate for each upload, here's first one

Yarl 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Tiny test run for you. Yarl 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • In the test run I see accession numbers quoted on the image page, but I can only see a match to this number at the source website when I examine the photo link embedded in the HTML rather than being visible on the page. Is this a true accession number for the archived photograph, or is it a potentially transient identity for the website digital image? -- (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @ Numbers like "000925n" are their inventory number. Numbers in their URL path (like "84") are probably made due to some kind of technical limitations. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • By the way, though there is no consensus on format, putting the accession number in brackets in the filename is not my personal preference due to potential problems with searches and queries on the title. Maybe you could consider the more simple <collection abbreviation><identity> at the end of the name like "<title> AMU000926n"? -- (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Did the original author release these under the CC license? Or is the GLAM somehow claiming copyright and authority to license? --99of9 (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @99of9: These files are under CC license, see footer. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @Yarl: the footer CC appears to apply to "design and implementation" (as opposed to the picture) if my google translate is correct. But you haven't actually answered my question - assuming you are correct about CC, who assigned the license? --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @99of9:: They (Józef Burszta Digital Archives), take a look at this page, Google Translate is good enough to understand. Yarl 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
          • @Yarl: So as I understand it, the photographer Andrzej Brencz donated a hard copy or photonegative to Józef Burszta (or the archive bearing his name), and it was later scanned and digitized in 2014? Usually a donation like that does not transfer copyright (but in some cases it is part of the contract). Is there evidence somewhere that this copyright was transferred at the time of donation, to entitle JBDA to release it under a free license? --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
            • @99of9:: All photos are taken by employees and doctoral students of Adam Mickiewicz University during academic research, so their work is owned by university. JBDA is part of university archives, so situation is clear. More information about project is here (in Polish). Yarl 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
              • @Yarl: At my university, and most others I know, students retain the intellectual property over all of their work. Just giving a copy to the archives does not invalidate that. So the situation at JBDA is very unclear to me. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
                • @99of9: From what I know, everything is legally OK. They will send, however, clarification to OTRS. Yarl 22:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • Ok, please pass on to them the specific concern about whether they own the intellectual property behind the photograph, not just a hard copy of the photograph itself. That's what will determine whether they should assert that they are the copyright owner. --99of9 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We do have bots with multiple operators for pragmatic reasons of maintenance and it is unusual to have a single bot account for indefinite multiple programmes of a Chapter; in fact I think this would be the first one on Commons based on User:Fæ/Userlist#bots, though one may be a less active account.
Other bots devoted to uploads are more often either associated with one operator or a single programme/archive for a donating organization. In this way there is long term accountability and there is more likely to be consistency in approach along with persistent improvement. I am also concerned that having "official Chapter bots" may discourage volunteers who do similar projects in the same country as the Chapter from working on their own "non-Chapter" bots as they might feel they need the Chapter's permission or be obliged to use the group account so that the Chapter gets political credit for future funding applications.
Would it damage anything if the scope of this bot were changed so that it became more specific than being potentially operated by anyone associated with a WMPL project? -- (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Right, so since some time we have official paid GLAM coordinator in WMPL and my task, as a volounteer, is to upload obtained data. I don't want to do it using private bot (YarluFileBot), because it doesn't look professional in my opinion. I also don't want to take attribution, because most of work on upload (meetings, agreements) is done by WMPL employee. Regarding your concerns about bot ownage: I will own this account, no plans to change it. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please use language templates for Depicted place and Photographer fields. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @EugeneZelenko: By language templates you mean templates like {{en|text}}? Depicted place is indeed in Polish, so I'll add it, but photographer is just a name. It still needs lang. template? Just asking, because I've never seen combination like this. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • In theory other Latin-based languages may use transliteration which could be different from Polish original, not talking about other scripts. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It'll be good idea to add template which will request for human help with categorization. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @99of9, EugeneZelenko, : Do you have more concerns guys? Just to be sure. Yarl 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    What is conclusion about language templates? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    No problem, can be added. I'll run second test run in a few days if needed. Yarl 22:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding legal issues: The archive has agreements with authors or their heirs to submit works on CC BY-SA 3.0 or later. They have submitted samples of such agreements. They also sent to OTRS their own agreement with complete list of files for which it is applicable. See (those who have access): [1]. Polimerek (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Polimerek: What the ticket confirms exactly? I don't speak this language, but i can't find something like CC-BY in the ticket. Does not looks like COM:CONSENT for me. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
All documents (signed scans) are in pdf-s or zipped files attached to the E-mails. Agreement is in first and last E-mail (OTRS_UAM.pdf), the lists of works are attached in zipped files in the last E-mail. What do you want more? Polimerek (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Polimerek: I have overlooked the attachment, it never hurts to ask :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
When you say "The archive has agreements with authors or their heirs to submit works on CC BY-SA 3.0", where did you get that information from, is it in one of the documents? Also, "They have submitted samples of such agreements." which zip file has a sample agreement in it? (I also don't speak Polish, so it is hard for me to locate this.) --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Zip files contains only list of files and objects with information who was author and/or donator, however they sent me directly several samples of agreements with authors and their heirs. They contain a clause that they grant copyrights to the University archive under condition that archive will publish it under CC BY-SA 3.0 PL license. The archive already did it already on their own page. Our GLAM coordinator have seen all these agreements in real. Agreements between Archive and authors/heirs cannot be made public as they contain personal data (home addresses etc.) and some donators (heirs of the authors) prefer to stay anonymous. Polimerek (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@99of9: To clarify: WMPL was provided by JBDA with 1. The standard localised Polish consent statement (in the OTRS_UAM.pdf file) 2. Zip files mentioned by Polimerek: For each creator of images, an individual list of files released on a BY-SA license (for example, see file named "Linette Bogusław" for a 34-page-long list of images to which the BY-SA license and OTRS agreement applies); and 3. Scans of standardised license agreements the Adam Mickiewicz University (parent institution of the JBDA) had signed with listed image creators or their inheritors (one sample for creator agreement, another for inheritor agreement) fulfilling all the CC-BY-SA 3.0 PL and compatible license requirements. These have been sent for verification to Polimerek, an OTRS pl operator - and have been successfully verified (I am not an OTRS operator, but being the "WMPL employee" mentioned by Yarl I've been communicating with JBDA and have also laid eyes on this paperwork). So we've got a full set of JBDA permissions, as Polimerek stated above. --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

MarkTraceurBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: MarkTraceur (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding a maintenance category to file pages which have a description, but no language templates (I haven't created this category yet, it will probably be Category:Files missing language templates in their descriptions

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run, though I will need to perform test runs first of course

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): I'll limit it to 5 edits per minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y - would be helpful to increase amount of requests I can do to the API, and number of results I can get per request.

Programming language(s): JavaScript

MarkTraceur (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Please make test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to add the language template in the first place, instead of the maintenance category? --McZusatz (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I suspect that this will affect a huge number of images. I think McZusatz is right that it would be better to get the template right the first time than to edit each of these files twice. --99of9 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • … ping @MarkTraceur. odder (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @Odder: @99of9: Sorry, some other things cropped up and this is no longer a priority for me; I don't think this is a very large number, but clearly there are already mistakes, and we have to find and fix them somehow. This is the best option I could think of. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I propose we close this as declined. --99of9 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

Files that are subject to deletion requests or other deletion processes which may be suitable to remain hosted on other Wikimedia projects (at this time localization is set up for the English Wikipedia, English Wikisource and the Estonian Wikipedia) may use the {{Fair use delete}} or {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} templates so that the bot can perform the localization. When the bot is done localizing, the template is swapped to a speedy delete template.

Note that the bot only localizes images when a current administrator has added the relevant template. See the procedure description on the bot user page.

This bot was successfully running from 2012 through to summer 2014 on the Toolserver. In migrating I have been rewriting the code from mwclient to Pywikibot and have set up the service on labs under commonsfairuseupload. The source code can be found at

Automatic or manually assisted:


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

Hourly run, executed on WMFlabs.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

When the bot was running previously, there was an average of a handful in a day. There is no need for this to be a fast bot and considering what it does (linear local downloads), I would expect a practical maximum of about 2 images processed in a minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python, Pywikibot core.

(talk) 12:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


  • The rewrite to Pywikibot is happening now, so I would expect the bot to remain in trials/testing for a couple more weeks depending on how much wiki-time I find to spend completing the migration. I have put a notice on COM:AN for comment, as the bot is focused on supporting admins who are responsible for assessing if an image is suitable for localization. -- (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
See also enwiki request in processxaosflux Talk 14:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems useful. Let us know when you have done some trials. --99of9 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been delayed on revisiting the code, mainly due to some disillusionment as a volunteer. However I expect to get this running in March and we should be able to point to some tests at that time. -- (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

BotAdventures (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Ghouston (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adds files to a category in Category:Photographs by camera manufacturer based on Exif data. The intention is not to process millions of files, but to populate categories that don't have many entries.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Intermittent. Will probably select files from particular users or categories.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 30-60, with Maxlag=5

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Go, using go-mwclient.

--ghouston (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


  • I prefer to postpone this task until Wikidata-like functionality come to Commons. Just to avoid unnecessary category to property migrations. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposal at Commons:Wikidata? This seems like a great idea, but it doesn't yet cover replacing categories. That would require a new user interface to allow selecting images by property and intersecting matches with the category system, and it may take a long time before it happens. --ghouston (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
EugeneZelenko, do you know if there is a public discussion going on anywhere with ideas for Wikidata-like functionality Commons? If there is I would be interested to read it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I linked the wrong page somehow. It looks like Commons:Structured_data is the current version of the project. The timescale is "next months and years", but if taken to its logical conclusion a large number of categories could be replaced by properties (anything with a date or file format for example). --ghouston (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the logical conclusion would be to replace all categories by properties, but presumably it will start with the easier cases. --ghouston (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see the harm in outrunning wikidata. It would be easy to remove them later with Cat-a-lot anyway. --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Where it may be useful is in the development of a translation table. It would be possible to copy the two Exif fields (camera manufacturer and model) to properties, but probably more useful to translate them to a single property that represents the camera model uniquely. There may be cases where the model values aren't unique among manufacturers, such as File:Big_crane_(3402145416).jpg has just "CX1". There are also cases where the model numbers are just ugly, such as "<Digimax S500 / Kenox S500 / Digimax Cyber 530>" in File:Abejorro_02.jpg. An idea would be to store a translation table in a wiki page somewhere, which would map the manufacturer/model combination to a single string, which would be "Ricoh CX1" and "Samsung S500" in these cases. Initially this bot would use the table, but it would later be available for a bot that sets properties. --ghouston (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've made a test run on some of my own files. The structured data project is on hold for now, so it doesn't seem like it will be taking over this task any time soon. --ghouston (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • and a few more because I just discovered list=logevents. --ghouston (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Probably, Wikidata will eventually do this work better, but in the meanwhile such categories may be useful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Ladsgroup (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding {{Information}}

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 60/min

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): python

Amir (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


It's another step in metadata clean up (Further discussions). It only fixes when the description is one line and consists more than 5 words. The bot detects language of the description (that's why the description has to be more than 5 words) and adds proper information template. I did ~50 edits for test [2] you can check.

I'd rather we don't make up explicit {{own}} claims if the uploader made no such assertion. File:Denmark-Norway and possessions.png, for example, is clearly not the uploader's own work, but based on a pre-existing blank world map. LX (talk, contribs) 10:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at the edits. Can you except certain templates? In this edit the bot added only the template to the description, while this template would be on a better place outside the information template. Other issues were found with this edit were the uploader claims another date, however the exif-date aggressor with you thus some weird edge case you can't possibly watch out for (other one same uploader). Same story for this one (1 year and 1 day of). this edit has the same source issue as mentioned by LX, but I don't see how that's fixable. And finally the most important one: this edit. This file was imported from en-wiki and given a "self" template, however the uploader is not the author of the work! This is going to happen with quite some files and is a big error. Some fixes could be to exempt descriptions with a user name (linked either this wiki or cross-wiki) which is not the same as the uploader. And exempt descriptions which say transferred/en wiki etc. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The source issue is fixable by not making stuff up and instead leaving the source field blank. That will put the files into the maintenance category Files with no machine-readable source, which is where such files belong until they're manually fixed (or deleted, where appropriate). LX (talk, contribs) 13:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@LX, Basvb:For the first issue: I will skip descriptions that consists only template(s). About the EXIF differences: I have no idea how to fix or skip them and IMO corrupted EXIF is not our problem. and about the {{self}} template: I can skip if someone else is mentioned in the text but for other cases I think it's not a problem that should be considered at this level. Honestly I think it's better to mark them with {{own}} because it makes these data a machine-processable data and it will be easier to find errors i.e. Using {{self}} is an error but when we mark them with {{own}}, errors are become easier to find, Specially in the future when new system of metadata is being used Amir (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a self license should hold some form of own work from a Wikimedian (could also be an imported file from another project). I forgot to say in my last reaction that I really like your language determination, that seems to work well. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Amir, what are you using for language detection? --Dschwen (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dschwen: Hey, I use langdetect and accept the result if the number is more than 90% (usually it's less 70% or more than 99.999%). Amir (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are no further issues, I suggest that we close this request as successful. --99of9 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my objection against making up source and authorship claims when no such claims were made by the uploader, which the bot is still doing. (In the linked example, from looking at the user's other uploads, it's probably a correct assumption, but the bot seems to just be guessing blindly.) I don't see how finding errors are made any easier by having to dig through the file description's page history to see that the uploader never actually claimed what we now claim about these files. If you want to make errors obvious, make it clear that these are assumptions made by a nonthinking entity. ("Source: No machine readable source provided. Own work assumed based on copyright claims." / "Author: No machine readable author provided. User:Example assumed based on copyright claims.") LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@LX: Help me understand the issue a bit more. The previous version of that file had {{self}}, which states "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it..." Isn't that a strong statement of both authorship and source? --99of9 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not. There are several reasons why someone who is not the author may be the copyright holder: inheritance, works made for hire and copyright transfer come to mind. A person who takes a work for which the copyright has expired and makes copyrightable modifications to it would also be the sole copyright holder but not the sole author of the resulting work. Also, while it's demonstrably far from a guarantee that people won't wilfully misspeak, requiring users to assert that they are the author, that they are uploading their own work, and that they are the copyright holder has certain practical benefits. It's harder for copyright violators to feign ignorance and claim that they simply didn't understand that at least one of the three claims were false, and it gives the truly ignorant three different paths to enlightenment. As a consequence, it provides a little more security for reusers. I assume it's for these reasons that Commons:Licensing#License information states that author/creator of each media file must be provided on every file description and that "A generic license template which implies that the uploader is the copyright holder (e.g. {{PD-self}}) is no substitution for this requirement." (Original emphasis as used in the policy.) LX (talk, contribs) 01:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I now understand which angle you are working. I agree this will cause trouble when owner!=author. I'm not sure I agree that requiring a further assertion of authorship is realistic now for long-uploaded files with long-gone uploaders. In those cases, either a bot cleans up based on (usually reasonable) assumptions, humans clean up one-by-one based on (better?) assumptions, we leave messy forever, or we delete. I take it you favour one of the middle two options? --99of9 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the first option as long as the assumptions are clearly identified as such, ideally using templates for automatic categorisation and translation. That not only benefits human readers, but it also helps future, more specialised bot tasks, human cleanup efforts and (when appropriate) deletion processes. The statement that license templates do not constitute source or authorship information has been explicit in the licensing policy since June 2007, so while it may not be realistic to expect retired users to come back and improve their file descriptions, files (directly) uploaded to Commons after that date without explicit source and authorship information should be considered more problematic than older uploads. Not being able to automatically make such distinctions is, in my opinion, far messier than the current state of affairs. LX (talk, contribs) 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Highway Route Marker Bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Svgalbertian (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: In addition to existing tasks (see Commons:Bots/Requests/Highway Route Marker Bot) I am requesting permissions to do moves. The rational is that occasionally the signs change to a brand new format. The old signs have value so I do not just want to overwrite them. I want the new signs to have the same name as the old signs as to not break templates. An example that I want to do soon is Category:Alberta Highway shields which need to be updated to include File:Alberta wordmark 2009.svg.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N/A

Programming language(s): Perl (using MediaWiki API module)

Svgalbertian (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


  • Ok, makes sense to me. I assume there is a consensus among you Highway sign folks? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think will be better to upload files under new name which includes year when changes come to effect and then change usage is better idea. I'm not sure about all possible usages, but article about freeways could definitely rely on Wikidata for sign image. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem then is if a route is discontinued it would cause template to break when it looks for File:State route X.svg. It also makes it harder for editors to find the sign they need. Also it then makes the filename File:State route X.svg somewhat misleading. By renaming the old files, I could give them more meaningful names, e.g. File:State route X (1970s).svg. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I support the addition of file-mover to this bot. For a detailed rationale, see my comments at Commons talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Renaming shields explaining a scenario where and how it would be used. Imzadi 1979  19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, questioning the procedures and consensus of the U.S. Roads Wikiproject is beyond the scope of this bot request. These people seemed to have put quite some thought into it. I suggest approving this task. --Dschwen (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest we go ahead and approve this task. If this is the consensus on the Highway projects how it should be handled it is fine for me. The advantage I see, is that templates in various projects all automatically get the updated images. That seems a lot simpler than updating templates across projects. This is especially true, if you have templates that use generated filenames (with route numbers as inputs), where a template change could not be made until every single image is uploaded in a new version first (and if you forget one, it stays broken, rather than get the old version as a fallback). --Dschwen (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Svgalbertian: I have added filemover status. Go ahead with 30-100 test moves, and if all goes well we can archive the request. --99of9 (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

JackBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: JackPotte (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: import only some already licensed files, at least the 280 GFDL and 200 CC-BY-SA-1.0 images from the French Wikibooks.

Automatic or manually assisted: MW:Manual:Pywikibot/ is manually assisted.

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 edits per minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python

I've read Commons:Bots. JackPotte (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


You don't need a Bot with Botflag for 480 files. Pleas use your Main account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this quick answer. JackPotte (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Today I've treated all the French sister projects, but a consensus is now rising to import here the 5,000 licensed images of the English Wikibooks. JackPotte (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please can you run a test batch of ~30 images for this task? --99of9 (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done JackPotte (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. What do you all think about this suggested improvement to the source link? --99of9 (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This should be implanted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This message is a part of so I can't modify it easily. I propose to let this to the formating bots. JackPotte (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I've looked into this particular book a little, and we need even more clarity on the situation. Apparently the 2011 version is cc-by-NC, so we need a clear source with the GFDL. I found this, but I'm not sure how stable that URL will be. --99of9 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
And it gets more complicated. Since it was originally licensed as GFDL "1.1 or any later version", relicensing like this is allowed? Can someone check me on this? --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I could easily remove Category:Videos from the Netherlands from the files which already include Category:Videos from Eindhoven. JackPotte (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this Pywikipedia's standard transfair script? And i don't see the need for a botflag for image upload bots. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've used MW:Manual:Pywikibot/ If the bot is visible it will flood several images per minute, and usually that's why they are hidden. JackPotte (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Uploadbot by magnus has thousands of uploads and no flag. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe because it's launched by different people. Apart from that, a quick look to the flagged bots shows some importers (Andrebot, Autobot...) and Commons:Bots#Bot_flag confirms that it's practiced for any mass editions, like on the other wikis I know. JackPotte (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a standard script which is not the best, I suggest you write a own one or improve the standard one. And no botflag needed here. The upload rate should be keep low because humans need review every upload. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
And please use {{user at project}} and not the "only english" version ([3] example) :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
And please implent a standard cleanup --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, it will take a few days from now. JackPotte (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I've asked to modify CommonsHelper in order to avoid to restart this script from zero. JackPotte (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@JackPotte: Has there been any updates on this subject? The request has been stalled for a month now, and I'd like to move things forwards a little bit in the coming days, if possible. odder (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't make modified the Magnus tool or reinvent it yet. So I propose to remove this vote temporarily from the list, during the time I try to answer to the new specs. JackPotte (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

SamoaBot 4 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: "condense" multiple {{assessments}}-like templates into single ones (example)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic (after test run)

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 8-12 EPM

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): Python, PWB

--Ricordisamoa 04:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Please can you initiate (or point to) a community discussion involving FPC/QIC/VIC noticeboards to confirm that they want this? --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary clutter/fragmentation of the file description page is no option, not now and not in future. -- Rillke(q?) 08:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
@99of9: I'm a bit busy at the moment, could you please initiate (and point to) such community discussion? --Ricordisamoa 17:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@99of9: where should the discussion take place? What are "FPC/QIC/VIC noticeboards"? --Ricordisamoa 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't got around to it either. Here is FPC talk, QIC talk, and VIC talk. Most of the regulars in those communities will have those pages watchlisted. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I have sent them identical messages pointing to this page. --Ricordisamoa 07:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine for me. — TintoMeches, 08:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I endorse the objective of reducing page clutter by having assessment-like templates being shown together in a more consistent manner, and I understand the good intentions from the bot implementer to have a bot do that tedious task. I do have some serious reservations about the {{Assessments}} template itself as I find it adds visual clutter and confusion, especially when used for merging FP, QI and VI into the same template with its current implementation. My concerns are
    1. The visual appearance of the template is for me an eyesore when more than one type of assessment is used, see File:Acrocinus longimanus MHNT femelle.jpg for an example where, the template is used for both FP, QI and VI. There are three frames in different colours and inside the box three logos in different colors and styles. Yak! For the Valued image project we spend a lot of time originally in crafting a nice colour scheme for the frame and background colour, which very nicely matches the logo, on which much time was spend. These colours are a trademark of the individual projects and gives project assessment identity. By putting it all together in one monster templte with frames in frames, as has been done, the project identiity is lost.
    2. The usage for VI is not 'approved' (nor documented) and I would object to using it for VI. For instance the Assessment template does not (as far as I know) support the important scope parameter, which is in the {{Valued image}}, nor am I sure it categorizes the file page correctly as the Valued image template does or correctly supports the subpage parameter (when it deviates from the default).
    3. The implementation for the Assessments template is terribly complicated because it is trying to do way too many things at the same time. As a consequence it is very often broken (see the talk page and archives) for its long and troublesome history. It is only a few users here who can actually edit it and maintain it.
    4. Bots specific to the QI, VI and FP projects will continue to add the old templates. Thus this bot will have to run regularly to merge the templates. It should be checked with the other bot implementers that this merge does not influence any of their bot tasks in unforeseen manners.
    5. Although parameter names for the Assessment templates has improved, I find the 1, 3, etc. values in the template confusing and non-human readable.
  • Due to these concerns, and since there is not community consensus that an all-engulfing template is a better solution than the existing stand-alone templates, I cannot support this template merge as is. And I will revert any such changes made on photos I have uploaded. If there is a community consensus, that we really want to do the merge as suggested, I will respect that (very reluctantly).
  • That said, I also understand that the current situation with the stand-alone templates, placed randomly on the file page and in more or less random order is confusing and improvable. I am just not sure, that merging them into the Assessment monster is the right solution. I would much rather like to see some smart logic by which, when placed side by side in consistent order, the existing templates would render in a neater way, say in in three columns if FP, QI and VI (I do not know if this is technically possible). That would make template maintenance easier (like adding new languages), and it would be easier for the project-specific bots to add them and change them. Something like, when you place a {{Location}} template underneath an {{Information}} template you get a nice consistent view from which it appears when looking at the file page, that it is one integrated table, like here for example. I think a wider community discussion regarding this is needed to get some mockups on the table to understand what is possible in a way, where both a nice visual appearance with project identities are maintained, where the visual clutter is lowered, where it is easy to maintain the template code, and where changes to project-specific bots are minimal.
  • For now I can endorse having the bot order the templates consistently, e.g., first FP, then QI, then VI, under information and location info, but nothing more until a community consensus is achieved.

--Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I used to be sceptical about merging QI and VI into the Assessments template as well. I think condensation into a single template actually reduces clutter and presents a single compact box to the user. I think this is a usability improvement. I have no reservations about adding this functionality to the QICbot (and the VICbot). I've been playing with the excellent mwparserfromhell python module lately and using that module the task of adapting the bot should be super-easy. --Dschwen (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I just had a look at mwparserfromhell. This looks like a most useful python module! So much easier to use than (arcane) regexes. --Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Furthermore if the current implementation of the template is considered an eyesore ;-) I would invest a little time in improving the template layout. The consolidation in wikitext space should be independent of that effort. Actually, the {{Assessments}} template could even be adapted to spit out an old style separate QI/VI box (although I think this would be counterproductive). --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • But it has to support the needed parameters before consolidating in wikitext such that no information is lost in the transition, and currently I do not think the template does - at least it is not documented. If consolidated, I agree it should not spit out separate QI/VI/FP frames exactly as the separate templates does now, but I think some middleground in the layout needs to be found, otherwise the increase in uglyness, outweighs the decrease in clutter IMO.
    • So you are not concerned about the continued maintenance of this monster template? I would much rather solve the issue with composition (make the overall template call the (possibly adapted) individual templates) instead of the current very complicated logic. Will be much easier to maintain. It is fine if you are willing to adapt two of the bots of course. Greatly appreciated. --Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • This template could be made into a well documented easy to maintain LUA module :-). Any takers? Which template parameters are you worried about preserving? --Dschwen (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC) P.S.: Oh, while {{Quality image}} has no parameters the {{Valued image}} template does take a few. Yep, those should be conserved somehow. --Dschwen (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I have never tried coding in Lua, but I had a look at it as used for Mediawiki templates. I looks like it has a low entry barrier. It reminds me very much of Python, which I am proficient in. So as a matter of fact I am tempted to 'take' that task of making a well-documented, easy to maintain and easy to test Lua template, with sensible and logical parameter names and values Smile. Considering how much I have been bitching about the assessments template I ought to take responsibility for improving Clin. However, it will take some time, as I need to understand a couple of things, like how to do internationalization in the best way, how to best structure the code, how to make sandbox mockup templates for testing and evaluation of different possibilities such that extensions with new languages and support for FP programs on different wikis can be done most easily. I need to understand what the possibilities are for making things look visually consistent, with minimum clutter and 718smiley.svg Awesome!. And most importantly, I will need to get consensus from the community about how this shall work, what shall be the scope of the template, by actually taking into account other users expectations and desires, unlike... I estimate this process will take the rest of the year 2013 given the limited spare time I have for this and the rigour with which I will approach this. If putting this bot on hold until then is acceptable, I will be happy to do that. --Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Alas User:Slaunger is on wikibreak. Would anyone else like to have a go at this? Otherwise I'm afraid we are not ready for this bot task. --99of9 (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting discussion, even if a bit too technical for me. As a "basic" user, I think that current templates are not so bad, but it looks sometimes very "random" on the file page (my choice should be: description, assessment templates, before license). I think that awarded pictures are not visible enough in "Commons". And I notice that if FP or VI pictures can be "delisted", it is not the case for QI (QI for one day, QI for ever), this should not been forgotten in case of a "merging" is decided (a template for "former FP" exists too...). No further opinion for the moment. Only my three cents.--Jebulon (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Ricordisamoa, @Slaunger, @99of9, @Dschwen: What's the state of this? Are we waiting for anything in particular, or can we push this request forwards (or else close as stale)? odder (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Bureaucrat note: I'm closing this request as stale given there have been no updates on it for more than two months, and no updates even though I pinged several people a week ago. odder (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Bureaucrat note: I just heard back from @Ricordisamoa, so let's re-open this request and see where it'll get us. odder (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Hello? odder (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The bot could run on FPs that are also QIs, skipping VIs until {{Assessments}} supports them properly. Does anyone oppose simple mergers like that? --Ricordisamoa 00:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. --99of9 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Good; but there is an ongoing discussion on how to handle sets which may affect some previous cases too. Further, a change may be needed for {{Assessments}}. Jee 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And what about the placement of {{Assessments}} within the page? If desired, the bot can adjust its position according to some policy/recommendation. --Ricordisamoa 15:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer it below {{Information}}. Some people prefer/move it above {{Information}}. I think it should be discouraged. Jee 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If a policy about the placement of the Assessments template doesn't exist, I can't enforce it. But I made a short test-run on file description pages that included {{Assessments}} and {{Quality image}} but not {{Valued image}}, according to catscan2. There are about 1850 of them left. Please keep in mind that the script is still in development and far from ready for 'production' use. --Ricordisamoa 15:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @Jkadavoor: Have there been any updates to the discussion that you linked? I had a quick look at it, and it seems to have ended on 30 June, without any further updates or consensus. @Ricordisamoa: Have you managed to finish your work on the script to make it ready for use? If not, how far into the future are we talking? :-) Thank you for your time! odder (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • odder, sets are banned now; and no progress in re-enabling them. But we can conclude that there is no plan to change the way in handling existing sets. Jee 11:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • odder, the script is getting better and better, but since it touches templates I'm in no way going to run it automatically. And we have file metadata access from Lua now! It shouldn't be hard to add a 'wallpaper'-like check to Module:Assessments, make the template use the module, deprecate the 'wallpaper' parameter and remove it while merging {{Assessments}} with {{QualityImage}} and such ;-) --Ricordisamoa 10:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- PLEASE stop the bot and read the previous discussions on this matter before forcing the changes into the image files: in here and also in archives 1 and 2 of the same page. As Slauger, I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of those changes and will continue to revert them. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First of all, I would like to excuse for having been absent in this discussion. I am sorry, but I still have concerns about the merger of all this information in one template and especially the manner in which they are presented. I expressed it previously in September 2013 above, and I feel like we are pursuing the wrong technical solution.
  1. I agree on the objective of cleaning up file page real estate, but there are IMO other, more maintainable and 'prettier' ways to to that
  2. Question: I am not good at wiki-markup, but could an alternative solution be to tweak the current implementation of the FP, QI and VI templates, such that if they are placed in order
    they would render as a table with three columns, the first column with the FP frame and background colour, the second one with the green QI frame and background and the third with the golden frame and background colors of the VI? If so, we would get the saving in file page real estate whilst maintaining the color trademarks/identities for the three individual assessment projects. In that case the main job of Samoabot would be to simply order the templates consistently. It would have the benefit of simplifying template maintenance also, as well as bot scripts. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. I still do not like the incomprehensible arguments to the Assessment templates with giving weird numbers as arguments, which has no clear mneomotecnic meaning, which is a legacy of the old terrible temple. (I am not fluent in Lua, but the new Module looks much more maintainable and better structured). -- Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Slaunger: '1' is a standard and cross-language value to mean the boolean 'true'. In template code it is much easier to check for named parameters with a given name than for positional ones with a given value. In Lua the latter is fairly easy, so Module:Assessments has an option to allow things like {{Assessments|featured|quality}}, but I haven't enabled it yet. Once the module has been deployed, we may choose that form as the preferred one and make the existing FPCBot and QICbot use it. Regarding the UI design, I am happy that you're proposing an alternative, but it doesn't appear to cover parameters like 'enwiki' and I feel it is less machine-readable and not properly suitable for mobile devices. --Ricordisamoa 20:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Rillke (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

Task Status Test edit Approved
Archiving pages like Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking  running Special:Diff/126830384, Special:Diff/126839875 odder (talk)
Removing expired messages from MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice (needs sysop flag)  running Special:Diff/126839605 odder (talk)
Watching recent changes of MediaWiki JavaScript pages, running JSHint over the old revision and the new revision. Reverting to old revision if more issues appear in the new revisionperhaps not for now and generally notifying the editing user about issues, except they opted out; writing full report to a subpage of Commons User scripts (MediaWiki pages go to the message cache) and maintaining a table of scripts and their JSHint and esprima status (needs sysop flag for deleting obsolete error reports of scripts that are valid)  running reports, user notification odder (talk)
Watching recent changes in user namespace and for JavaScript pages, run esprima, jshint; for CSS run PrettyCSS (which comes with a validator) over the new revisions. If issues are found, they are reported to the user.  running user notification odder (talk)
Watching recent changes of MediaWiki CSS pages, running a CSS validator over it and doing the same as done with JSHint, except reverting.  running reports, report page, user notification odder (talk)
Possibly taking over Undeletion Request archiving if we decide to create one subpage per request needs discussion Status Testedit Bureaucrat's name here
Possibly deleting files (considering all the points requested there) needs implementation Status Testedit Bureaucrat's name here
Watching recent changes of Lua pages, running a Lua linter over it and doing the same as done with JSHint, except reverting. Status Testedit Bureaucrat's name here
Updating data source for MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js (MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmin-data.js).  running page odder (talk)
Task Status Testedit Bureaucrat's name here

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, running on wmf-labs.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Archiving Commons:Deletion_requests/mobile_tracking: Once per week

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): No throttle, just following mw:API:Etiquette. Scheduled by xcrontab, job submitted to grid engine.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Sysop flag requested (administrator status): (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): JavaScript. Running on Node.js - source code available on GitHub (On labs: /data/project/commons-maintenance-bot/)

Rillke(q?) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Please make a test run for each task. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @Rillke: Are there any updates on the state of this request? Specifically, did you make test runs for all tasks listed above? Thanks! odder (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a task for tonight. -- Rillke(q?) 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can you provide some more examples for the verification of CSS pages so I can have a deeper look at it? Thanks :-) odder (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you out for specific pages? Then just edit them :) The bot stalks the recent changes so feel free to vandalize MediaWiki:Test.css or any other CSS page in the MW namespace after creating it with good content. -- Rillke(q?) 23:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jarekt, Zolo, Odder: Would a Linter for Lua be something worth consideration? The bot is running and filling Tool Labs with 900 MiB of RAM anyway. (Python needs 300 MiB less but I don't like it.) -- Rillke(q?) 23:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Rillke: If you want to implement a linter for Lua scripts, then it's just fine with me :-) odder (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I have now reviewed the four remaining tasks. They all look fine to me, although I would nitpick and suggest to change the German-sounding css-pages and css-writing into CSS pages and CSS writing — the English equivalents do not use a dash. Except for that, all is fine :-) odder (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you the review and for the hints. No nitpick at all. I appreciate feedback like that very much. For the sysop flag thing, do you believe it would be possible? I guess all maintainers should be administrators, am I right? @Krinkle: Do you store KrinkleBot's password on tool labs? Or it it using oAuth? Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Rillke: I am not aware of any limitations that would require the operator of a bot holding sysop privileges to be a sysop themselves; but it is certainly possible for a bot to hold both the bot flag and the sysop flag, so I don't think it should be a problem here, particularly given the bot's usefulness and role. We can make the bot an administrator any time you wish — once all tasks are done, or as soon as possible if the tasks are time-sensitive. odder (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd be fine with sysopping the bot as well. We grant permission to run the bot for the tasks that have been reviewed in this request. To me this seems like a sufficient procedure for granting the necessary bits. --Dschwen (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the bot is already approved for a few of the tasks, and carrying them out, I set the bot flag. @EugeneZelenko, 99of9: do you agree giving the bot the sysop bit? --Dschwen (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, mainly based on my trust in Rillke's script expertise. --99of9 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done I have flagged the bot with admin rights. --99of9 (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rillke: where are we with the remaining tasks on the list? It says testedit on those. Can you point us to the actual tests? What about the "Possibly" task? Have you decided if you want to pursue this? --Dschwen (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)