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

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.

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.

Mu301Bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Mu301 (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. Batch upload images and maintenance of file descriptive info and categorization of files on behalf of:
    1. Institution:Brown University Library such as historic photos that are {{PD-old}} for example the images at the Ladd Observatory Blog
    2. Institution:Ladd Observatory such as the examples at Commons:Ladd Observatory
    3. Institution:Retro-Computing Society of Rhode Island such as the examples at Commons:Retro-Computing Society of Rhode Island
  2. Upload of dynamic content for learning resources at Wikiversity which could be of interest to the larger Wikimedia community.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Mostly supervised. Automatic unsupervised operation for routine maintenance of file descriptions only or for special astronomical events which I will alert the community about ahead of time.

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

Uploads are mostly one time run. Maintenance of file descriptors on schedule. Exceptions are events where the bot would upload per community approved schedule.

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

Will use standard pywikipedia put throttle and maxlag unless otherwise requested.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):


Programming language(s):


--Mu301 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


RileyBot (talk · contribs) 8[edit]

Operator: Riley Huntley (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: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/06#Request shows consensus for removal of "uploaded by" in the file namespace, as it has caused confusion in the past. I am requesting openended removal of "Uploaded by" and similiar phrases that fall within the same scope. As shown here, McZusatz was doing this job with YaCBot. However, his bot is no longer running the task nor was it approved. I am looking to run it openendly for all uploaders, in order to ensure that external re-users of Commons content are able to attribute Commons materials inline with the stated licences. I have gone ahead and done a trial run of 20 edits.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): maxlag:5

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Pywikipediabot

Riley Huntley (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is consensus to do so the function schould be enabled again in YaCBot. YaCBot is also doing a lot of other stuff (cleanup tasks). Can your bot do the cleanup stuff as well? --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So the bot that runs the task without seeking approval, would get to continue the task after I get it approved for them? Not sure what I think about that. In any case, yes, my bot can do cleanup stuff as well. Riley Huntley (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
YaCBot is approved for doing cleanup tasks (bot operators are not expected to re-apply every time they want to implement a small alteration). Commons sense schould be used. I see no problem if your bot does that task as well, there are ten thousands of affected pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@McZusatz: --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Related discussions about YaCBot on this task: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/07#Redundant, Commons:Bots/Requests/YaCBot_(confirmation), Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_54#YaCBot. Simply removing the tags may raise the same controversy as in the first discussion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I missed those, thanks for linking them. I am more than willing to do the same as layed out in Commons:Bots/Requests/YaCBot (confirmation) as well as offering opt out of the user categories. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I am ok if this task is done by a separate bot. You could even keep your current bot logic and do it without the opt-out (instead ask about opt-in to removal by the uploader on their talk page to avoid controversy). I know that russavia opted in to the removal, so you already got quite a batch of files. --McZusatz (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Opt in it is! Riley Huntley (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I am happy to see a more cautious opt-in approach, which was missed in the YaCBot run. It would probably worth getting a more public consensus so that any account has been inactive for a long period, such as no edits for more than 2 years, could be asked to opt-out if they care. Fiddling about with user categories by bot, will remain controversial. -- (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Public consensus will be gathered if/when it gets to that point. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think task should be approved. @Krd: and @EugeneZelenko: Riley Huntley (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Following the first, second and third bot de-flagging run, an analysis of bot activity has been performed, and provided a list of bots without edits/actions in the last 2 years.

While we do not have a local bot de-flagging policy as of yet, this follows the precedent set in the first three deflagging runs, where we tentatively agreed to remove bot flags from accounts unused for a period as significant as two years.

As is the case with inactivity run for sysops, each and every owner of this request will be informed by posting a message on their talk page and sending them an e-mail.

To do[edit]

  • Create list & start request: ✓ Done
  • Notify users via talk: ✓ Done
  • Notify operators via mail: ✓ Done
    Accounts with E-Mail function disabled: Cactus26, Docu, Stefan2, Wizzard, Marc
  • Deflag accounts: Time2wait.svg 

Affected bots[edit]

The following accounts are flagged as bots and have been inactive for more than two years:

Username Owner Last edit Current status
SieBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Siebrand 20140105 Hourglass 2.svg
LivingBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Jarry1250 20140104 Hourglass 2.svg
SDrewthbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) billinghurst 20140102 ✓ Flag removed
SamatBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Samat 20131218 Hourglass 2.svg
GerWsUpload (talk · contributions · user rights management) joergens.mi 20131217 Hourglass 2.svg User request, flag should stay, new uploads will come --Jörgens.Mi Talk 20:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
CactusBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Cactus26 20131216 Hourglass 2.svg
File Upload Bot (Kaldari) (talk · contributions · user rights management) Kaldari 20131203 Hourglass 2.svg
AvocatoBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Avocato 20131125 Hourglass 2.svg
InductiveBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Inductiveload 20131124 Hourglass 2.svg
BotMyShinyMetalAss (talk · contributions · user rights management) Pleclown 20131119 Hourglass 2.svg
Olafbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Olaf 20131115 Hourglass 2.svg
Legobot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Legoktm 20131114 Hourglass 2.svg
RKBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Reinhard Kraasch 20131112 Hourglass 2.svg
NordiskaMuseetBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Prolineserver 20131107 Hourglass 2.svg
Gabrielchihonglee-Bot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Gabrielchihonglee 20131028 Hourglass 2.svg
WillieBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Mono 20131026 Hourglass 2.svg
BotMultichillT (talk · contributions · user rights management) Multichill 20130921 Hourglass 2.svg
SLQbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) John Vandenberg 20130918 Hourglass 2.svg
Nikbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Filnik 20130830 Hourglass 2.svg
ArthurBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Mercy 20130820 Hourglass 2.svg
O (bot) (talk · contributions · user rights management) O 20130816 Hourglass 2.svg
MerlIwBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Merlissimo 20130809 Hourglass 2.svg
Rybecbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Rybec 20130714 Hourglass 2.svg
TronaBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Coet 20130703 Hourglass 2.svg
Xqbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Xqt 20130521 Hourglass 2.svg
Smallbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Smallman12q 20130510 Hourglass 2.svg
RileyBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Riley Huntley 20130328  User requested that flag be kept
Aibot (talk · contributions · user rights management) A1 20130307 Hourglass 2.svg
Category-bot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Docu 20130302 Hourglass 2.svg
Sz-iwbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Shizhao 20130204 Hourglass 2.svg
Stefan2bot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Stefan2 20130130 ✓ Flag removed
Wizzo-Bot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Wizzard 20121210 Hourglass 2.svg
File Upload Bot (Vonvikken) (talk · contributions · user rights management) Vonvikken 20121107 Hourglass 2.svg
РобоСтася (talk · contributions · user rights management) Lvova 20121024 Hourglass 2.svg
AusTerrapinBotEdits (talk · contributions · user rights management) AusTerrapin 20120721 Hourglass 2.svg
FotothekBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Multichill 20120626 Hourglass 2.svg
ElCarbot (talk · contributions · user rights management) El Caro 20120609 Hourglass 2.svg
MarcBot~commonswiki (talk · contributions · user rights management) Marc 20120418 Hourglass 2.svg
GeographBot (talk · contributions · user rights management) Multichill 20110314 Hourglass 2.svg
MultichillAWB (talk · contributions · user rights management) Multichill 20090906 Hourglass 2.svg
File Upload Bot (Omnedon) (talk · contributions · user rights management) Omnedon 20090605 Hourglass 2.svg

No reaction since last run[edit]

Operators of following bots haven't replied in the request (Hourglass 2.svg) in the last run:


What is the point of this? It seems like it's just a waste of people's time. Yes, I am in fact planning on using my bot account in the near future to do a mass upload from the Folger Shakespeare Library. But I don't get GLAM contributions every year. Who does? Frankly I find it sad that volunteers are having to spend time justifying their bots flags instead of doing more productive work. What is the danger of someone having a bot that is inactive for more than 2 years? What problems has this actually caused? It seems like it is just red tape and bureaucracy that will drive away volunteers. Sorry for posting such a rant, but I really don't understand the purpose of this. Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I also plan on using my bot in the near future again. Tasks, usually mass typo-corrections, come in irregularly, and as long as bot operators are actually competent enough to not destroy the project there should not be any need to deflag. As far as I know we haven't needed strict "policing" per se, and when we do run into rogue bots, they get taken care of rather quickly and without much bureaucracy involved. --O ( • висчвын) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (GMT)
Same, it's convenient to have an already flagged bot for when someone has a request on IRC or some other medium. Legoktm (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this process, and it is sad to see that my bot is inactive for more than two years now (time is running!). I plan to organize photo contests this year again, and I would like to use my bot for this activity. If you decide to deflag my bot, I will accept it, and I will request the flag later, when I need it again. Samat (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I suggest that you remove the bot flag from Stefan2bot. The bot isn't currently editing on this project, and I assume that the flag will be re-added should I ever submit a new bot request. I currently only need a bot flag on enwiki, but not here. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for letting us know about this, @Stefan. Do feel free to apply for the flag again when the need arises. odder (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yah, more red tape to drive active contributors away. User:BotMultichillT is my labs version of User:BotMultichill so I would like to keep that around. For the other accounts, if you want to make sure I never use them again, sure, deflag them. Multichill (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave some positive feedback on COM:BN for the way deflagging of old accounts was being handled. To be honest if you have odd accounts that you leave unused for over 2 years, you may want to rationalize them a little bit, or at least refresh their descriptions before you start operating them again. I would hope that 'crats will reflag bots with a good history, just by the operator informally asking for the flag at BN or similar and not have to jump through hoops of filling out bureaucratic requests. Perhaps someone that does this sort of reflagging could confirm here that the process will be this simple? @Odder: as the most likely respondent. -- (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Commented there. In short: yes, if reasonable and possible per policy. --Krd 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear, sounds like a friendly way of handling flags. -- (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, @. As you might have noticed, our process of approving bot requests has gotten faster and simpler over the past few years, and in particular over the last year or so, thanks to the continued involvement of Eugene and Krd. So while new bot operators already have an easier time getting their tasks approved and their bots flagged, I see no real need to have proven and trusted bot operators to go through this — albeit simplified — process again. I think that a simple request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard would generally suffice to re-flag an unused bot unless there are obvious reasons not to do so (ie. original flag was lost „under the cloud“). We have in the past accepted returning administrators after a 48-hour period for feedback, and I think we could use the same period for returning bots without much hindrance. P.S. For documentation purposes, let's just make sure that such requests are always submitted to the bureaucrats' noticeboard rather than a user's talk page or via private e-mail or any other medium. odder (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • SQLbot hasnt finished its task, however the remaining uploads are much harder to process requiring more software enhancements. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)