Commons:Bots/Requests/LinkFA-Bot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

LinkFA-Bot[edit]

Operator: Guandalug@de-WP

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic: Unsupervised (after an initial test period)

Programming Language(s): PHP, own Framework (already used for other tasks on de, en, simple, ....)

Edit period(s) daily, one edit per night

Bot flag requested: Yes

Functions: This bot should only makes sure images used on the de-wikipedia mainpage are vandalism-protected using a combination of cascade-protected page with date-depending include, and a gallery created 'just in time' on the include coming up for the next day. The needed framework can be found at User:Bdk/de and its subpages, and is used / updated with Bdk's knowledge and permission.

Example edits will be coming in one per day (as to be expected).

Discussion[edit]

Just for the record: I do not think I really require a botflag for this task, but running a script that flags its edits as 'Bot:' edits once a day at least makes it wise to ask for one. If it's decreed that the bot can do its designated task without a botflag, it will. Guandalug (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

May be this bot needs administrative right for protecting/unprotecting images directly? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It can function without admin rights, as it's writing images onto a page that's not protected, mere minutes before the cascade-protected page gets purged and includes the thus created image list. The former image list then is no longer included and can be edited without admin rights. Bot rights don't help against cascade-protected pages (or at least they should not - it's "edit=sysop"). I do not believe in "Admin bots" except for a VERY selective list of actions... Guandalug (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Bot contributions looks OK to me. May be we need to run it for other projects too? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If other projects want the same service, I'm open for requests. Code is the same, language config can be added, times to run are also free to be chosen. And as the bot only reads in the project - WP, it doesn't even need a botflag there. Only thing I'd need here is an admin setting up the required cascade-protected 'master page' per project (or at least cascade-protect a page I set up). No biggie. Guandalug (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • … just to confirm the above: bot flag would be nice for this task :-) --:bdk: 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the bot will create the page, which then gets included into an already-cascade-protected page? This occurs thanks to a parserfunction, I guess?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The page that IS cascade-protected is User:Bdk/de, the 3 (rotating) included pages are User:Bdk/de/images0, User:Bdk/de/images1 and User:Bdk/de/images2. See the cascade-protected page for the parser function (and my own template that calculates Daylight saving time differences, as the german language WP runs on CET / CEST, and commons runs on UTC). To make sure the page is 'current', my bot calls a 'purge' on the cascade-protected shortly AFTER midnight (german time), so the include switches. THAT part of the bot functionality naturally is invisible, and you have to believe me it does ;) Guandalug (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem in giving you a bot flag, I think this is a wonderful and useful task, but a bot flag is a flood flag, it's just to keep the Recent Changes clean. Unless you're planning to extend this to many other languages and other applications, I think you can just run it without a flag. We can archive this request just as a "formal" announcement of what the bot is doing. Patrícia msg 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We have done this in the past, when we wanted to record that the community approved of the task, but there was good reason for the edits to remain visible in the recent changes list. Is that the case here? Would it actually make more sense to see these changes than to hide them? If so, then yes, close as "approved, no flag" ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As already stated above, I'm okay with that (even expected something like this), I just applied for the flag so nobody could blame me running an unannounced Bot ;) (PS: The bot flag is MORE than just a flood flag: It includes "autoconfirm" right - the bot is older than 4 days, so that doesn't matter any more - and "High API limits", which can be important for bots, though not for this task. As the write-API is available for users as well as bots, that's no reason either. Whether autopatrol is of any importance on commons, I naturally do not know) Guandalug (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Call the question. Anyone have an issue with closing this as "approved, no flag" and archiving? If you do, speak up, this has sat for a week... I'll probably close and archive tomorrow, ok? The bot has been running all this time and I do not recall any problems being reported. Thank you bdk and Guandalug for your patience. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Close - Approved by the community, no flag needed ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)