Commons:Bots/Requests/タチコマ robot

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

タチコマ robot (talk · contribs)

Operator: とある白い猫 ちぃ?

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: double redirects, Flickr uplaods, category/image replacement, tag/retag all files in a category/gallery Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic (unsupervised for some tasks and supervised for others)

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous for double redirects sporadically for other tasks (when needed)

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 1 edit/sec

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No, already have it

Programming language(s):
Python/Pywikipediabot

  • Redirect.py -double (unsupervised)
  • Flickrripper.py -user_id:someid -autonomous -addcategory:some category (if applicable) (unsupervised)
    • Also marks the image as reviewed.

AWB

  • Find and replace categories, images (supervised)
  • Tag or re-tag files in a category/gallery (supervised)

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The find and replace tasks were approved a few years ago. I am only mentioning them here to verify if there are any problems. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • flickrripper.py seems to be ok and I think とある白い猫 can be trusted not to abuse the bot. Therefore the license-reviewer status should be added to the bot (and the reviewer in the template should be the bot) and とある白い猫 should be allowed to upload files from Flickr using this bot-account. -- RE rillke questions? 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What are criteria for replacing categories and images? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Non-controversial replacements such as if a category is renamed. File replacement would probably be only used if commons delinker is unable to for some reason (such as when images are used inside templates without direct file links). I just want to maintain/verify existing permission for house keeping Find&Replace tasks people may need a bot to conduct. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      Sounds reasonable for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think bot status should be granted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)