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

JeffGBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Jeff G. (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: Using COM:AWB to do mundane things at higher speeds than humans are expected to perform.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Depends on the situation. For really mundane tasks, I could probably hit 30/minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): compiled from SVN, probably C#, using latest version 5800 from on Windows 7.

  — Jeff G. ツ 20:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Please elaborate for what you need exactly botflag. I see no specific task listed above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Replacing {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}{{Wikimedia trademark}}{{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} per Wikimedia Logos Have Been Freed! by Yana Welinder, WMF Legal Counsel, plus carrying out Commons:Bots/Work requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion yet that {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} shall be widely replaced? --Krd 19:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The WMF Legal Team obviously discussed it amongst themselves, and there was notification with no objection about six months ago at Template talk:Copyright by Wikimedia#No longer non-free.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Understood so far, but why do we need to replace the templates in the actual files when {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} already displays the same information as {{Wikimedia trademark}}{{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? --Krd 08:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The appearance of the template call does not specifically mention a free license in the wikitext. What I have been doing is to make the file description pages' wikitext more compliant with both the Legal Team's direction and the spirit of the ShareAlike provision of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, as opposed to the currently disingenuous {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}, and removing the currently disingenuous Category:Copyright by Wikimedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I personally don't think that this is desired, and obviously other users think that way, too. I suggest to decline this request. --Krd 18:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is there a reason why you aren't substituting the same wikicode as the template currently uses, including the mention of the WMF in the license box, i.e. {{Wikimedia trademark}}{{Cc-by-sa-3.0|[[wmf:Contact us|Wikimedia Foundation]]}}? Also, it's probably worth keeping the Category:Copyright by Wikimedia inclusion for the files, or renaming the category to something like Category:Works by the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I was following Ms. Welinder's specification. I could certainly substitute the same wikicode as the template currently uses, and I am willing to do that given consensus. The current category makes me uncomfortable, and I like your alternative, but I think that too needs consensus, as it seems needlessly duplicative of Category:Trademarks and logos of Wikimedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Which category name for files tagged with {{Wikimedia trademark}} do you think is better, the existing Category:Trademarks and logos of Wikimedia or the above proposed Category:Works by the Wikimedia Foundation? I don't think we need both.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that the Trademarks category existed - that probably would make the most sense, particularly since not all of the files currently tagged as copyright by wikimedia will actually have been produced by the WMF (e.g., a fair number will have been created by chapters and community members). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Revising my position to Symbol support vote.svg Support - I particularly like how Jeff's listening to feedback here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The current category makes me uncomfortable Copyrighted doesn't always mean non-free. The true definition of copyrighted is that a material or work has rights reserved. "Some rights reserved" is also there, and even CC-BY and CC-BY-SA is copyrighted. So no need to worry about the category name. So I consider this bot's task redundant and not needed. Poké95 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
What about carrying out Commons:Bots/Work requests? If flagging is not approved, what would be an appropriate maximum edit rate "just for a very simple replacement task"?   — Jeff G. ツ 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I am all for carrying out Commons:Bots/Work requests, but not all requests are good ideas. I can not find request for this change (I did not go through the archive) but it seems unnecessary. Please pick a different one (perhaps the one about {{LangSwitch}} templates?). --Jarekt (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. It is redundant to change the template of an image to another one that is just the same. That will just waste the server's resources.It may be not controversial, but it is redundant. Also, copyrighted doesn't mean non-free. So no reason to replace + redundant = not good. -- Poké95 09:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Declined per discussion. --Krd 14:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)