Commons:Bots/Requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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
Gnome-system-run.svg

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.

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)

Discussion[edit]

  • Ok, makes sense to me. I assume there is a consensus among you Highway sign folks? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Revibot (talk · contribs) (2)[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:

  1. Maintenance of own uploads - (such as Special:Diff/140039374)
  2. Remove redundant tistory.com LR related notice. (such as Special:Diff/139316325)

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Whenever edit is needed

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): AWB

 revimsg 11:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Test is done using my account. I just need "automatic" edits.  revimsg 11:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I can't imagine this being controversial. I've added the bot to the AWB check page. Have a go of some test edits and we can archive this when we've seen it working. --99of9 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Done some for #2. Currently most of #2-type images are bit controversial so I thought it is not appropriate to remove that line for now. #1 is currently not needed, but that will be mostly category-related things.  revimsg 12:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Will be god idea to use more comprehensible edit summaries. For example, you could specify added category there. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll use more descriptive summaries next time. — Revi 15:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Running another automated test for pictures in Category:Uploads by Revi needing check. — Revi 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Run complete. — Revi 13:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Definitely edit summaries may be improved. Reference to this request is irrelevant. {{int:filedesc}} is repeated twice, but something like Add licensing header is more descriptive. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
First /* {{int:fliedesc}} */ was automatically created by AWB. And this is description header, but anyway, ok. — Revi 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Yet another test ran yesterday. — Revi 03:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then we can close this request? --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

JhealdBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Jheald (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: To add a link to the NYPL Georeferencer for 2900 maps which have been georeferenced there, as per this diff [1]

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run; may run again in future, if more maps from the NYPL are either uploaded or georeferenced.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Once every 5 seconds

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
(though it would probably only be User:Fae's watchlist, if anybody's, that would be affected.)

Programming language(s): Perl

Jheald (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Could we import coordinates directly, so any map services could be used instead of NYPL site? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @EugeneZelenko: Yes. There's an instance of the same map-warper program, which was in fact written by User:Chippyy, already now installed at http://warper.wmflabs.org/ There's a fairly straightforward API that can be used to pull all the data from NYPL, and install the map with the data on our own version of the software. This should happen soon.
However, there at least three reasons why it's still a good idea to link to the NYPL warper.
  • (1) It's a courtesy to link to the original site, which has made the images available.
  • (2) There's some discussion as to whether changes to better integrate the software, and give it a new more pretty look, should be implemented first, with our own version of the warper kept on ice, before mass rollout to the community. See the projected plan for next year with comments, and this thread on the Commons Wikimaps list.
  • (3) The addition of control points is a work in progress. After pulling the data, NYPL users may add more points and improve the georeferencing of the map. Our users should be able to find that better georeferenced map.
In fact, there is also a discussion about whether there is a case for designating a "master site" for each map, which users are directed to to make all georeferencing improvements, which we might then synchronise to periodically -- ie that we might turn off the option to improve the georeferencing here for some maps, and instead send users to NYPL or the BL or wherever is the 'home site' for that particular map. This is a somewhat controversial view however, and eg User:Susannaanas, who is leading the historic maps project, is not convinced by such a proposal.
So the answer to your question is yes, we can import the coordinates directly; but there is still a case for linking to the originating site. Jheald (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Test edit failing with "Error code 0"
I don't understand it. The bot tells me it's logged in okay, retrieves the test page, makes the change to it (which looks fine in an editor); but then when it tries to make the edit, it goes away for several seconds, but then I get "Error code 0", and no edit is uploaded. The code looks about as simple as it could be,
   $bot->edit({
       page    => $page,
       assert  => 'user',
       text    => $text,
       summary => 'Add link to NYPL georeferencer. (Bot test).',
   });
But no edit is made, and no sign as to why it hasn't worked.
Can anyone spot what I'm doing wrong? I thought I was meant to make some test edits. Is it the system that is not allowing me? Or is there something I have slipped up with? Jheald (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • So now I've tried in Python with PyWikiBot, and it's sent me back a Captcha. wtf? It seems to have made the edit (diff) now I've given it the Captcha. But seriously, none of the wiki pages about bots warned me there might be a Captcha to have to solve. Jheald (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so the Captcha turns up because the Bot isn't autoconfirmed for the first 4 days; so in two more days this whole issue should go away. But I do think this is a point that should be flagged up in the page on creating a Bot account; because for many of us it may be a very long time (if ever) since we've been presented with a Captcha to make an ordinary edit.
Also it seems I may have been unlucky because the Captcha code in the version of the MediaWiki::Bot library I installed (v. 5.006000) had been being newly worked on, so I may have been caught by a regression there. Jheald (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Test run completed successfully (now that the bot account is old enough to be autoconfirmed). Jheald (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Looks OK for me. On second thought, coordinates should be to Wikidata-for-Commons which is only in plans yet :-( --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Imho the Bot should be approved only temporary because this is a one time run. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    If you wish. However (1) the georeferencing at NYPL is ongoing, so in 6 months time there may be more maps that should get this template; and (2) of the maps that have already been georeferenced, there are about 2000 maps for which it hasn't yet been possible to trace a Commons equivalent. User:Fae is hoping to look into this when he is back from vacation (see this on his talk page). It's possible some may not have been uploaded, either because they were duplicates; or because there was a glitch in the upload script; or because they simply still remain to be done. So for both of these reasons, it is likely that a bit more tagging with this template will be useful in future. Jheald (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jheald: could you point me to a test edit that inserts a coordinate template. I thought adding those as well was one of the points made above. --Dschwen (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dschwen: It's not clear where the control-point data should be put. One could put extremal North/South/East/West values, but that wouldn't say how the map should be warped. At the moment, control-point data only lives with the map warper on labs, to which it can be added with rather a different API. So I'm not clear quite what you're asking for. Jheald (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, rather than control point data it might be useful to just use one of our location templates to get the map into the coordinate database (center point with a dim parameter maybe for the approximate extent of the map). The warper link should still be there as the next tier of geocoding. --Dschwen (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but let me add the NYPL links because that's easy, then I'll think how to add the centre-point. I probably ought to discuss with the c:Commons:Wikimaps group, who probably have thoughts about this. Jheald (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think we should approve this bot now to allow Jheald to carry on with his work. The location task can easily done with a secondary bot run. --Dschwen (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (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/imagecopy.py 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)

Discussion[edit]

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 http://tools.wmflabs.org/commonshelper/index.php 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/imagecopy.py. 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 ([2] 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)

Discussion[edit]

  • 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)

Restart[edit]

  • 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)

MifterBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Mifter (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: Check newly uploaded images to ensure they have a license tag. Reactivation of a former task Commons:Bots/Requests/MifterBot

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): No more than 2 edits per minute (1 tag and 1 notification)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes, the script I used years ago broke around the same time I had a hardware failure so I stopped running the bot. Recently, I managed to get the script working again and resumed running my bot on the English Wikipedia here. It is the same script that I would use on commons.

Programming language(s): Python - A custom fork of pywikipedia

Mifter (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

 Doing… Mifter (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Bot only updates log page, but not files/user talk pages. Is it intended? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It is intended to update the log when it encounters an unknown template. Once logged I can modify the script to whitelist or ignore the template. This process takes a little trial and error as the bot has to run to see what templates it encounters. All the templates on the log have been integrated to the script (over time the log is rarely used once all the major templates are integrated into the script only catching oddball entries and the like). The large amount of Template:Photograph showing on the log is due to a user accidentally uploading a huge amount of images without a license tag. The user is an established user and uploaded other images around these with license tags so I'm guessing it was an error. However that resulted in a large number of log entries. I whitelisted the template and did a limited run to ensure that it would tag images like this in the future. I then stopped it to prevent inundating the user's talk page. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
See File:«Півострів Меганом» Остоматій Ліна ID 01-117-5005.jpeg and File:The Golden House, Venice, Italy-LCCN2001701053.tif for two examples of correct tags (more are in contribs). Best, Mifter (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Edits looking OK imho. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to analyze user contributions completely (after detecting problematic file) before adding warnings on user page? Just to avoid clutter there. If I'm not mistaken, one of recent bots was modified for such algorithm. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The way the script is written that currently isn't possible. I can look into adding it in the future however if a user uploads multiple untagged files they would need multiple notices so it would add quite a bit to the script to balance past contributions with notification needs. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Bots/Requests/YiFeiBot (13). Please collaborate with owner to improve your code. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I've spent a lot of time looking through the request and then at all of the edits the bot has made in the user talk namespace but I'm not sure the solution proposed there would work in this case. Except in exceptional circumstances a user wouldn't be uploading large numbers of files within a single hour, I'm not sure if it would be feasible to write code into the bot to check previous warnings taking into how long ago they were issued, by whom, any intervening edits, etc. For such rare circumstances I would hazard that rollback or talk page section archiving/removal could be the best tool as the amount of time and effort needed to code for such an unlikely eventuality wouldn't be worth the returns. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999. Could you help, please? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem here. At least imo ~20 notifications in ~1 hour isn't a good idea. Perhaps the bot could group the files by uploaders and make only one notification per uploader in a single run. (My bot achieved that by multiple queries to the database.) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Multiple warnings were my concern too. I think will be good idea to help requester to improve his bot code. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question This bot request appears to be stuck at the moment. Is there anything that we can do here, as bureaucrats, that could help move it forwards? I notice that there are some problems with the number of notifications the bot is currently sending out to users, can this be improved? Thanks, odder (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been exploring the possibility of adding a counter to the bot's code so it doesn't warn people more than X times, however have been extremely busy recently so haven't had the time to move forward with it. For what it is worth, I still am not convinced that too many warnings is really an issue. If a user uploads files without a license they need to know about it, and I am not sure that the technical work required to add a counter is worth the small number of users it would effect. I've been running the bot on the English Wikipedia for a while (see en:special:contributions/MifterBot) and ran an older version of the bot here on Commons in 2008 (see Commons:Bots/Requests/MifterBot) and while the bot does issue multiple warnings where necessary it has only given out a large number of warnings a few times out of thousands of edits (and many of those multiple warnings were over a period of time as a user continued to upload untagged images). The reason that it issued numerous warnings to Fae in a short period of time was because she was uploading hundreds of files with a broken template (that was not a license) and as it found them it tagged and warned her. From my experience most new users don't blindly upload tens or hundreds of images without a tag in such a short period of time as that they would cause the bot to tag a huge number of files and issue a huge number of warnings, most would be blocked fairly quickly and even if there were a number of warnings, removing them is as simple as removing any other talk page message. I would like to run the bot a bit more to see how it performs without the outlier of Fae's images and to gather data on how likely a user is to upload numerous untagged files. Best, Mifter (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mifter: Apologies for the delay in responding to your message on my part. Can you please try running the bot again to see how it works for regular users, ie. what you described in your last sentence? Thank you! odder (talk) 08:12, 28 October 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)

Discussion[edit]

  • 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)