Commons:Bots/Requests/ErfgoedBot

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

ErfgoedBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Multichill (talk) (and some others)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Work related to the heritage projects and Wiki Loves Monuments

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continues and clean up runs

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Nothing special

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Mostly python (build on pywikipedia)

The only task until recently was to update Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Monuments database/Statistics. Now that I'm updating Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs a bot flag seems appropriate to not flood watchlists. Multichill (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

If you're going to insult the entire process by having the bot perform tens of thousands of edits before it gets the flag or is even marked as OK, then why bother to even place the request? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks OK for me, but I agree with Magog the Ogre. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably we should re-organize the bot-approval process for trusted users: If you go here and wait, you may loose a lot of time if you don't, you do something against the rules despite your bot is probably making everything correct. And: Bot-operators can change the code without any notice and proving that they've done so in case of errors is not easy. -- RE rillke questions? 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Rillke. On ro.wp there are only a few people who both run robots and participate in the discussions and many requests were trailing for months. So at one time, we decided to approve the bot user the first time it runs and then only ask for the operator to announce the new tasks in another page, where anybody can comment. If nobody does so for a week, the task is considered approved.--Strainu (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I stopped respecting the process after this joke (a change of policy to enforce enwp bot policy on Commons which I always opposed). I try to stick to this version. Multichill (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • One could block this bot according to Commons:Blocking policy just for formal reasons. Someone interested in a policy-change? Where to discuss it? Commons talk:Bots? Bot operators should announce what they (or their bots) are doing but as long as the task is uncontroversial, they should not wait, IMHO. -- RE rillke questions? 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No objections against a bot-flag. -- RE rillke questions? 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a similar request some time ago for Austria related monuments. The comments made there apply here too. In the current way Commons works, it could be an advantage if the bot applied categories rather than templates to the images.
    On the other hand, the template could also be use to generate a dynamic database of images elsewhere (or here at a later stage). Given the limitations of current categories, maybe such templates are the way to move ahead. Thus "support". --  Docu  at 19:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC), edited 19:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I added subcategories to Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs. Images in these could probably use {{NRHP}} as well. --  Docu  at 06:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are any other objections, I propose that we approve this bot for your future uses related to WLM. Other users of the bot will need to list their usernames on the bot page before they use it, to ensure they can be contacted quickly. I take it you are assuming responsibility even for fixing their mistakes? --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to go Given there being no objections in 2.5 months, and multichill being a trusted bot operator, this is being approved, subject to suggestions by 99of9. russavia (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)