Commons:Candidaturas y solicitudes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This project page in other languages:
Deutsch · English · español · português · [ edit ]

Esta es la página de candidaturas y solicitudes, un lugar centralizado dónde puede localizar las solicitudes de permisos activas de los usuarios en este momento. Cualquier usuario es bienvenido a comentar; cualquier usuario registrado tiene derecho a voto.

Cómo solicitar derechos adicionales en Commons[edit]

Todas las solicitudes listadas anteriormente son mostradas automáticamente en esta página.

Cómo comentar y votar[edit]

Cualquier usuario registrado es bienvenido a votar y comentar en las solicitudes listadas en esta página. Los votos de usuarios no registrados no serán tenidos en cuenta sin embargo pueden realizar comentarios. Si la candidatura es satisfactoria, un burócrata otorgará los correspondientes permisos. Sin embargo, el burócrata que cierre la solicitud tiene discreción a la hora de interpretar el consenso comunitario y la decisión no tiene por qué ser la mostrada por simples números. Entre otras cosas, el burócrata que cierre la solicitud tendrá en cuenta la validez y peso de los argumentos presentados así como la experiencia y los conocimientos de los usuarios que han comentado. Por ejemplo, los comentarios y votos de aquellos usuarios con cero contribuciones pueden no ser tenidos en cuenta por el burócrata que cierre la solicitud.

Es preferible si usted pudiese dar razones tanto para votos Symbol support vote.svg Support como Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dado que así ayudará al burócrata que cierre la solicitud a tomar una decisión. Se da mayor peso a los argumentos que al simple voto, con pruebas que sostengan su argumento a ser posible.

Purgar la caché de la página. Use el enlace "vote" para editar la página transcluída.


Requests for adminship[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Mussklprozz[edit]

Vote

Mussklprozz (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 14:17, (UTC)

Hi, i have been a support agent for some months now and have done a decent amount of work during that time. I often get the problem that people request releases for pictures which I cannot handle because the picture was deleted due to lack of licence. In some cases it is even difficult to find out whether a picture was deleted or whether the user simply did not upload it. I can do my work much more efficiently if I can restore such pictures when appropriate.

My own work on commons so far was contributing own photos from time to time, buildings, monuments, landscapes and portraits. Sometimes I also ask people to contribute photos and help them with the release notification, for instance the professional portrait photos in Category:Fuensanta_la_Moneta. I am able to contribute in German, English, French and Spanish.

I would highly appreciate a positive vote

Cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportDerHexer (Talk) 14:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No experience in maintenance besides OTRS. 1989 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Eatcha (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Seewolf (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Normally I would just have abstained, but the three supports from German wiki within the first 20 minutes, unfortunately, do not let me any other choice. Additionally, per 1989. --A.Savin 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What a wise argument, chapeau! You apparently see OTRS agents as opponents in the maintenance of Commons instead of people assisting and supporting Commons. If it were not so sad, it would be just ridiculous. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    If someone wishes to be a sysop on Commons, they have to be sufficiently supported by Commons' community; simple as it is. --A.Savin 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    And people who are more active on the OTRS or in local Wikipedias than in Commons are not part of the community? Or is it Germans that are excluded from Commons? Ridiculous... --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    people who are more only active on the OTRS or in local Wikipedias than in and does not participate in various Commons project discussions are not part of the community --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose slightly sadly. Languages are good and so is the work however there is little experience in Commons maintenance and that is inapproriate to me. --Herby talk thyme 15:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support He could and would handle the extra workload that is caused by OTRS tickets for the other Commons admins, e.g.: undeleting files with permission received and deleting files lacking permissions. We should be happy about every person willing to assist us and to reduce the workload in general. And BTW: Where should the experience as an administrator come from if not from being an administrator? --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Squasher (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Hi, Squasher, this is your fourth edit in the Commons namespace since 2014. Could you please clarify, how did you find out about this vote? --VLu (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    By what rule would I need to justify myself? - Squasher (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's up to you, and having no answer is already an answer. Voting looks better if it doesn't show signs of canvassing. Also, as per COM:A#Voting: any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. Thanks, --VLu (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Up to this edit I made 253 contributions on commons. If this is not enough, that is OK for me. I do actively follow RFA, but do not vote normally, as I do not feel competent to do so. But one vote was justified so ridiculously, that it did “not let me any other choice”. Didn't want to fingerpoint, but as you really wanted to know, now you have it. - Squasher (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose When 5/6 of supports are from de people, and 3/4 of non-de people are on oppose, no I don't think this is normal. So per A.Savin. And Herby also makes a good point. In addition, the nom appearantly forgot to transclude this page, somehow another de people knows about this RFA and transcluded for them --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The issue is quite simple: The de-people (and OTRS agents) know him, the others don't. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    So let him be known before RfA, not after. This is Commons adminship, not dewiki adminship or OTRS adminship. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    There is a lot of work in the OTRS in favour of Commons you will never see, since e.g. the customer is told that his image in Commons was deleted correctly. In any case it is hard for an OTRS agent to become knewn in Commons before becoming an administrator, since most of the Commons part of OTRS work has then to be done by others. The idea was just to reduce the workload in Commons in respect of OTRS tickets. I wonder why this is not welcome.
    My personal conclusion is that we will have to reconsider the entire cooperation between OTRS and Commons, when it is not driven by mutual respect and trust. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, those who do not interact with the community do not, IMO, align with Commons:Administrators#Community_role. Even though many work on OTRS may have been on for the benefit of Commons, the same could be said for MediaWiki development. Do MediaWiki devs automatically get sysop because that might ease the debugging? No.
    It's not a question regarding "mutual respect and trust". We trust OTRS judgment, so we would happily (un)delete files or send deleted contents to an OTRS agent upon request, no explanation needed other than "for OTRS". However, unfortunately, the general Commons adminship isn't just those that are related to OTRS. As Natuur12 said, this would be fine for an OTRS-only mop --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    If you are trusting OTRS agents enough to delete or undelete files for them, where is the problem to just give them these rights? Do you fear a misuse of the extra admin rights as being able to block users? And if so, why not just say: It is OK for you as long as you handle files, but leave user blocking (and maybe: modifying user interface messages or filters) aside as long as you are not experienced enough? --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Again, it's not a question of trust. It's a question of a role. And no, we don't give adminship for you-can-only-do-this-but-not-that. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support AFAIK there is no limitation in the number of commons-admins. So even if Mussklprozz would just use the admin-rights for OTRS-work he would not take away anything of the other admins – present or future ones. --DaB. (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose will likely support after this candidate gains more experience at Wikimedia Commons. We have elected an admin for OTRS-purposes in the past but that didn't go to well as soon as this editor started doing work in non OTRS-related area's. If there was an OTRS-only mop I would happily support. Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    An OTRS-only role would have to include most rights of the admin role, especially the rights to delete and undelete files. (OK, blocking rights are not needed for OTRS purposes, but I don't see that this is a major admin job, neither it would be a problem when an unexperienced user gets admin rights: Do you think he would start with blocking lots of accounts illegally?) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I frankly don't care about the dewiki connection nor the fact that the nomination was done in the manner it was done. I'm not entirely comfortable granting sysop access to someone who is purely going to use it for OTRS matters. We have a lot of backlogs here, very little of which has to do with OTRS. If an OTRS agent needs to look at a deleted photo they are more than welcome to post at COM:UDR. The process is painless and such requests are handled, generally, extremely quickly. I just can't believe that granting you the entire sysop toolkit is going to really help us in any meaningful way. So, unfortunately, I have to oppose your request. --Majora (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    This process is painless and there is little backlog caused by OTRS issues because there are still several OTRS agents who are also Commons admins and handling most of such tickets without having to use COM:UDR and similar pages. Moving tickets between OTRS agents costs us efforts - efforts you do not see... Until a few months ago we had a huge backlog within OTRS which could removed with the help of new colleagues as Mussklprozz, but their help is limited because they always have "to call somebody else" on Commons. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSeems lack experience other than OTRS works.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 04:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question For clarity are you requesting admin rights simply to deal with OTRS matters or to assist with Commons maintenance as a whole? --Herby talk thyme 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Main reason is for OTRS matters, since my work as author and mentor also consumes a fair share of my time. Occasionally I will help out with Commons maintanance.--Mussklprozz (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Concerning my assumed “lack of experience in maintenance” (see 1989s comment above): Before my retirement last year I was a computer professional. My last job was service manager in charge for a SharePoint installation in a Dutch-German group, with ~ 4.000 users. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Having a pilot's license doesn't imply having a driver's license. In the same way, being a computer professional / being in charge of a SharePoint install does not imply you are familiar with the processes here.
    We don't admin someone just for OTRS --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    This may be tradition, if it is wise, is another question. BTW: Within OTRS we provide lots of material and training regarding copyright, personal rights issues, etc. Much more than most Commons users - and I would also say: lots of Commons admins have experienced. Unfortunately this is not known and visible within Commons, as well as lots of other work the OTRS team does (e.g. consulting users planning mass uploads, or with unclear copyright material). Maybe the OTRS team should communicate this better. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: In December 2019, you have uploaded a batch of photos by an unknown (sic!) author without a verifiable source and have tagged them with the {{OTRS pending}} template: 1, 2, 3. Whose permission are you going to verify if the author is unknown? How long will these files wait for permissions? If it was clear something was wrong with that permission, what was the need to upload these files? --VLu (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The pictures came from the agent of the artist, and he assured me that he had the exclusive rights. I asked him to send the release notification sheet to permissions.es, which he obviously did not. I am watching that queue and could not see any mail from him. – I will remind him again tonight. If he still does not send the notification, the pictures will have to be deleted.
    Same applies for the pictures from Manuel Liñán. It was a try from me to get some good illustration for the articles about those outstanding dancers. --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Requests for CheckUser rights[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Requests for Oversight rights[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.


Requests for permission to run a bot[edit]

Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.

Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.

MGA73bot2 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: MGA73 (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: Simple search and replace. For example adding a "self" in license templates when it is own work like this edit by Multichill and my test edit (I know I used the wrong account). Also cleanup in files moved to Commons from other wikis.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted most. But I can also run auto (however I always check the first edits before I let the bot run on auto).

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Whenever I'm online and have something to do.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Max. But since I will often check edits the bot will have to wait for me.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y (I had a flag earlier and made almost a million edits but was inactive for some time and it was removed). See old request here Commons:Bots/Requests/MGA73bot.

Programming language(s): Pywikipedia

MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Of course I support this. Welcome back! Trusted user. Multichill (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Achim yes as soon as all files with a {{Licensereview}} are reviewed, all files in Category:License migration candidates are checked, all files from Wikipedia are moved to Commons and Multichill have nothing else for me to do :-D --MGA73 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)--MGA73 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
:D --Achim (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

EatchaBot (talk · contribs) 3[edit]

Operator: EatchaBot (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: Categorize files waiting for LR to make license reviewing easy!

If after categorization humans fails to cope up with the backlog, I will extend it to reviewing files (with another BRFA + proposal at COM:VPP ). Images will will be matched using Perceptual hashing. Audios with Acoustic fingerprint. If it's safer to download download videos from a site with getting blocked (like the YouTube problem), videos will be matched with Digital video fingerprinting.

Automatic or manually assisted: Unsupervised - Automatic (Precision would be high enough to ensure that it doesn't vandalize anything, will not edit dubious files)

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): < 10

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Bot is already flagged

Programming language(s): Python

Eatcha (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Primary targets : Category:License review needed, Category:License review needed (video) and Category:License review needed (audio). Files marked as Own work will be removed and I can mention the uploader in the edit summary or post a little message on their talk page. All external links in the source parameter of the Information template will be archived, which will be beneficial if source link dies. I will replace the dead links with direct link to oldest archive. -- Eatcha (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Some older discussions : here and here -- Eatcha (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I can't wait!
    I support sorting files waiting for review in different categories. It makes it much easier. For example reviewing files from Flickr and YouTube is easy as the license is clearly mentioned and always the same place. Also you don't have to understand the language because the license is clearly marked. Other websites can be messy so you have to look for the license and if it is in local language it can be very hard for users who do not understand the language.
I also think it would be nice if the bot will check the license for still images from a video and note what the license was. The bot can't decide if the still image is from the video but it should be able to verify the license. If the license is non free then we should mark the images "no permission". If there is no video at the source then we should mark the images "no source". For all images with a link to a video with a free license we now know that the license is good (even if it is later changed to an unfree license) and we only need to verify that the still did come from the video. --MGA73 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I intend to support the following sources as in the beginning :
Sounds good. It sees review category is a mix of 2 kind of reviews. One where reviewer can compare the license on Commons with the license on source (the easy review) and another where reviewer needs to judge if a file is PD for some reason (the harder review). --MGA73 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • How should I categorize the files ? I can add categorization templates, only categories but the problem is the license reviewing script will not remove the template or the category. Is there any more conservative approach to this sorting problem ? I can create galleries, these galleries should be advertised to license reviewers. Or I can remove the categorization template / category after the file has been reviewed by a reviewer. -- Eatcha (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I was planning to add categorization templates like to tge file page, after the file has been reviewed the bot would remove the template. But it would generate a lot of edits and a better approach would be galleries for different sources and licenses. -- Eatcha (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we do it like flickr files? I think we at least need one for unreviewed files, one for files needing human review and one for reviewed files. If possible the files needing human review should be sorted in one for files where the source is licensed unfree, one for files where the link does not work and one where the license and link is good but the bot cant match the file (for example still from video).
If that is a problem we can start with a gallery of files where the source is licensed unfree and one where the link does not work. Those file should probably all be deleted. Perhaps the bot could add a wayback link to the files where license is (now) unfree in case that can help reviewer see if license was once free. --MGA73 (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
MGA For YouTube screenshots it gonna be like the examples at User:EatchaBot/LR/YouTube/screenshots. The bot can generate daily gallerys. Or if everyone wants categorization like Flickr, I need to add some text into the file-page most probably template like {{FlickrReview}}. But the license reviewing User scripts + Edit filter should be updated accordingly. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eatcha: I think the gallery works fine. I passed one and nominated the other for deletion. If there are more than a few files in a gallery perhaps it can sort them under Free, Unfree, Not found? --MGA73 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if Eatcha have the bot save all pages in Wayback Machine that is mentioned in source in file pages with a {{Licensereview}} etc. because in many cases we need a human to review and history tells us that it can take a long time before a human review the page. If there is a link in permission perhaps that should be saved too. --MGA73 (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

MGA see Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Review_all_files_in_Category:License_review_needed, I will implement it after next 3 months if no one does that before me/InternetArchiveBot starts operating here. It's a huge task and will take weeks (without doing another work, I checked InternetArchiveBot's source. it's not very easy to do.) to write a bug free code. And I also need to ensure that my bot does not archive any illegal stuff, like child-porn/Drug-store-sites/Hitmen/oragan-selling-sites, etc, archiving these illegal sites == Trouble for the bot developer. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Eatcha yes the internet is full off shit. But if all your bot does is to ask Internet Archive to save a copy of a website don't you think they have some sort of filter or cleanup? But of course I agree it would be nice not to ask them to save too much shit to minimize the risk that they block the bot. --MGA73 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
They won't block the bot in my opinion as they are paying for InternetArchiveBot (as they are paying implies they want more external links from here), and it runs from the tool-forge (Both bots share the same Ip address). The bigger issue here is the time that it requires to develop a multi-site review+archive bot for video+audio+audio, and of course avoiding archiving illegal stuff. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How should I implement it[edit]

  • User:EugeneZelenko and User:krd, I plan to add a temporary template {{ArrangedLicenseReview|site=%s|archive=%s|type=%s}} % (source_site, archive_url, type_of_file). This should categorize the files, once the file gets reviewed by a human the bot will remove the template. Flickr and YouTube have dedicated templates, I will use those for these two cases. Any changes you think, should benefit the reviewers ? What about the files with no external URLs, should I categorize them into a separate dedicated category or file a DR? -- Eatcha (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Example at File:Kathy-pham.jpg, check the red link categories. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • These will be hidden categories when created. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
You did not ask me ;-) but if the bot can somehow separate files in those with broken links and those with working links it would be nice.
I also think that it is nice to treat files from YouTube (and Flickr) specially because it is very easy to review files from YouTube (and Flickr) because the license on those two sites is very clear and easy to find. If you find many files from other specific sources we should perhaps separate those too. --MGA73 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
MGA I asked them as they will decide whether this task should be approved or not, it's a policy here. This request was created only because you asked me on my talk-page. What do you mean by dead link ? 404 + no archive or just 404 links ? And what category should be added ? Suppose there's a video from website of VOA news with 404 link and a archive what categories would you prefer ? And what if link dead with no archive ? And if link alive + archived ? It would be best if you write the exact changes you prefer after comparing with the example (kathy pham's portrait) I linked above. And also what about if the file's a video/images/audio or other ? I just calculated that 2^4 combinations of categories are possible if for a single website that supplies at least video if what your asking is implemented. Without implementation of your suggestion it's 2^3 now. It's double. -- Eatcha (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Its cool Eatcha! I know why you asked them :-)
You asked what to do with file with no external URLs. I think they should go in their own Category:Files with no external URL source
By dead links I mean files where the link is not working today and where there is no working link in archive. They should go in Category:Files with no working URL source.
If there is a working link today but no link in archive will the bot not force archive to save a link? If not we could create Category:Files with working source only and have all reviewers hurry up and look at those :-)
Categories like Category:White House images review needed is good. Especially if there are many images from the same source. --MGA73 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It turns out I was assuming a complex categorization system like Category:Videos from YouTube with no working URL source or Category:Images from YouTube with working URL source, nice to hear that in link's status there are only to possibilities and I was wrong. -- Eatcha (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Eatcha I think we should start simple. If it turns out that 90 % of the files end in the same category you could perhaps add more categories later or use User:EatchaBot/LR/YouTube/screenshots etc. --MGA73 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

ArchivesBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Maxbgn (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: update uploaded files information in 'Архіви' project of ukrainian wikisource. Bot already operates there and creates/edits pages, but now there is a need to update some info in files (source, author, year, etc). See bot's contribution on the bot's page.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time, then upon need, once per week

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 120, but can lower if needed

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): c#, DotNetWikiBot framework

Maxbgn (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

BotLeo (talk · contribs) 3[edit]

Operator: GPSLeo (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: Patrolling edits where no review is needed, like:

* Later maybe edits they are undone

Automatic or manually assisted: manually and (later) automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): daily or some times a day

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): not limited

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

Programming language(s): python with mwclient

GPSLeo (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

See also: Commons:Bots/Work requests#Patrol edits from autopatrolled users --GPSLeo (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there is no approval required if done manually. I'd oppose to do this automatically, as I can imagine a lot of scenarios where it would not be desired to patrol older edits per se. --Krd 06:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. Would you oppose if the bot automatically looks if a user got the new rights and then patrols all edits? --GPSLeo (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Little ping because of no reply @Krd: --GPSLeo (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I would strongly oppose that. Being ready for autopatrol now does not mean that all previous edits qualify to be patrolled blindly. Perhaps good to go for the edits up to a week ago, but not much longer. --Krd 20:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
At the Work request there was a consensus that that would be okay and good. I think then we need an proposal to discuss this. --GPSLeo (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Will you prepare such proposal? --Krd 15:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I should link the proposal here. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: just wondering if it would be possible for the admin who grants the user autopatrol to ping your bot, triggering the patrolling of existing edits? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it would be convenient if any patroller could ping the bot to patrol all edits by any user or IP. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
As in the patrol log there should be the name of the user actually made the patrol this should not be done by a Bot-account. There should be tool with OAuth authentication for the patrolling user. As the script is very similar I could think about creating such a tool as well. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)