Commons:Bots/Requests/BetacommandBot 2

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


Operator: Betacommand

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Image renaming per the current behavior. Im seeking formal approval for the current process of maintaining {{rename}}. I use a checkpage to prevent abuse of the bot for non-admins and admins are granted access automatically.

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Maxlag=5

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming Language(s):Python (Pywikipedia framework)


  • Good idea. The current process has caused much confusion. A bot would help alleviate this. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • So I've been informed this is the same bot, just looking for a formal okay with no changes. ;) Correcting above. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I designed spec and requested Betacommand to write the bot. Nice job. Nothing to see here, move along :) Siebrand 04:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Provided Betacommand will be taking full responsibility for every upload the bot makes, I see no reason the bot can't continue working.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. -- Editor at Largetalk 21:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing this here for approval. I hope that long term bots running unapproved choose to do the same. ++Lar: t/c 12:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, there is a tripwire. Commons:Bots#Information on bots asks for certain information to be included on the bot's userpage. I have done it for you :) Other than that, I see no problem in approving this. In fact somebody should do it soon, as the backlog is building up. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • OK for me. Good work, much needed. Yann (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • OK for me too. --Zyephyrus (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Call the question. Barring any objection, since it's been a week tomorrow, we shall mark this as "approved, no flag required" and archive. If anyone has an issue, please speak up now. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It has already been approved, and the flag was granted by Eugene. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Needs to be unflagged then, I think???? ... as it has "N" for "flag". Also I think we need a greying sort of thing like we do with RFAs so it's clear they're closed. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Bot flag or no?... The request doesn't specify (nor does the user page)... I'm thinking no flag, as image renames are not so frequent that it would clutter the recent changes, and it's good to see them, I feel. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • that was my thought but I felt it best that the community decide that. Betacommand 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I've marked it that way then. If anyone disagrees, we can discuss further. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)