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

SreeBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Sreejith K (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Transferring images from other Wikipedias to Commons. We already have Commons Helper for this task, but I have made my own custom scripts which seems to be doing a better job. Till date, I have uploaded a lot of media from regional Wikis to Commons using this tool, but under my own name. Now I am not able to distinguish between my own uploads and the ones transferred from other Wikis.

I will not be sharing the new commons mover tool with others unlike the commons helper tool, so every upload or edit this bot makes will be done by me.

Automatic or manually assisted: Semi-automatic. Its similar to Commons Helper tool. I will have to fill out a form manually and click upload. The rest of the tasks are done by the tool.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Manually assisted. For every image to be transferred to Commons, I will have to fill a form and click a button.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 1-2 per minute. Mostly the same speed as Commons Helper.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): I am not sure. If I can operate this one without a bot flag, I am fine with that.

Programming language(s): Dot net. This is an executable which runs from my machine. I do not have a web version or a toolserver account. I can share the source code if its required.

Sreejith K (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


  • Please describe files review process. There quite a lot suspicious images transferred with existing tools. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, the process of picking images is totally manual just like in CommonsHelper tool. I will not run this bot blindly in a category. I will check the file to be transferred for appropriate permissions personally and transfer the image. If possible, I will also do a bot review in Commons with my own account. Its just that I want the upload to be under a different account than mine since I am getting lost in my uploads when I try to find the images for which I have copyright. --Sreejith K (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The bot account has made thousands of transfers already and some concerns have not been addressed. See [1][2] and User talk:SreeBot where piles of DR requests have accumulated. --ZooFari 06:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Sven's concern was that my script was adding Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot to the source field if {{Information}} template was not present in en wiki. But that's what all bots do including CommonsHelper. If there is no {{Information}} template, it is impossible to create one afresh with all the fields populated correctly. That should be done by the user who verifies the file move. Regarding the error with File:Sophie Lyons in Professional Criminals of America.png, the transfer was done on 6 August 2011 and since then the bot script has improved quite a lot. Now, I do not make that error. Regarding the DR requests on the Bots talk page, considering the fact that the Bot has made 7,000+ transfers already and not even 100 DRs has been raised so far, I think the Bot is doing a pretty good job. Also, I do participate in all the DRs raised and fix errors with the script every time I find one. Finally, for File:Gas-light-coke-lorries.jpg, if you use any available bot including CommonsHelper, it will do the same thing that my script did. It is impossible to automate fixing the license template. And thats why we have a bot review template added.
I think it's not fair to block the bot considering the fact that it never runs automated. Every single transfer it makes is done by me manually, by clicking on a transfer button in the tool. If there are errors with the transfers, its me who should be warned and not the Bot. If this block is used, me or someone else will use CommonsHelper to transfer the files and you will see the same output in Commons. So blocking the Bot will not help anyways. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So I suggest that that Sreejith K checks the files allreaady uploaded before new files are moved to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks MGA73 for the comments. I checked the files linked above. The source link in the first image had a double quote which I should have encoded. Its a small one which I never noticed and one which I will fix before my next upload. In the rest of the files, CommonsHelper also does the same thing which I did. If there is no {{Information}} template in the source wiki, thats the only thing a script can add in the author field. In the last one, CommonsHelper adds a lot of redundant license templates than mine. But it still is a problem and is an easy fix too.
With these small errors already committed and which I promise will not occur again, if I am not allowed to run this script ever again then I feel that's an unfortunate decision. I hope I had a choice than accepting the decision reluctantly. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No Commonshelper adds a "Original uploader <username>..." and that tells us that the user mentioned there may not be the author but just the uploader. "Original uploader" should only be removed if we think that the uploader is the author.
Multichill made a script called and it works similar to your script however it only accepts transfer if there is a "self-template". That scripts work both with and without an information-template. I think that the trick is to have different stripts/bots for own work and works created by other.
I agree that almost every problems can be fixed but it require that bot operator checks transfers, fix errors on the files moved, modify the bot, transfer some more files, checks new transfers, fix errors on the files, modify bot etc. --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose request and keep account indefinitely blocked - When this bot transfers files over, information is lost. That's not acceptable, period. When concerns are raised, the operator ignores them. That's also not acceptable, period. Look at this file. Not only was the original authorship information lost, but inaccurate information was put in it its place. There are a half dozen in just that series of images, and dozens more with the same issue. This isn't trivial, the bot is broken, and should remain blocked. Sven Manguard (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's actually quite rude for you to say that I do not respond to your concerns. The only time you left me a message for me was on my talk page and I replied within a day. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose You should not be moving files fast enough to need the bot flag if you are checking them in the way that you should. There are too many possible errors of botlike transfers --Guerillero 20:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg 

I withdraw my nomination

- My intention was not to get a bot flag, but to let BAG team know that this is not a bot but a tool like AWB. Now with this amount of opposition, I am no longer interested in using this tool. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • " it is impossible to create one afresh with all the fields populated correctly. That should be done by the user who verifies the file move."
    I disagree, it should be done by the user who's moving the file. After all, that's the user convinced the file is eligible for a move, so provide the essential information. So who's gonna fix those 1000s of files uploaded now? –Krinkletalk 00:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Revision of File:Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Terminal, Philadelphia, PA 1893.jpg

Since this bot did upload 100s of files, I'll leave a bit of feedback based one of the uploads. Changes I'd do, which are perhaps better done by the bot in the first place so that users checking these only have to remove {{BotMoveToCommons}} in most cases.

  • Remove Commons-transfer note from "Source". The transfer nor "Wikipedia" is a valid source. See also Commons:Essential information. This field should be left blank if not known, or rather, if there was no Source-info on the Wikipedia file page, it shouldn't have been moved here in the first place!
  • Removed unrelated date from the file information. Upload date is not related to the file itself. If there is no value in the "date" field on the Wikipedia file page, I'd either: 1) Query the user to enter it manually (it's usually in the description or filename, extractable by a human being), or 2) fallback to {{Original upload date}} indeed. Note however that for files with a license "public domain" due to age, a creation date is required! So files with that kind of license must not be transferred if there is no valid date.
  • Replaced author with {{Unknown}}. Upload is already mentioned in the "Original upload log"-section. Tools that extract author/attribution information will yield false information if uploaders are mentioned in Author (regardless of whether is says in English "Uploaded by", they should simply not be put in the Author-field)
  • Reduced/Eliminated hard-coded English phrases (looks really misplaced between other translated stuff, other than description and "Original upload log", there oughta be no hardcoded English at all.

Krinkletalk 00:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If these were notified on the bot talk page or mine, I would have made sure these would not occur again. Now that this bot is no longer operational, I will take care of the things noted here while doing a transfer review of the files already transferred. Thank you for your effort in reviewing the bot transfers. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing as withdrawn by applicant --99of9 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)