Commons:Bots/Requests/HermesBot

HermesBot

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Auto - unsupervised

Programming Language(s): C#

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): continuous, from the toolserver after debugging

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): On en.wiki, yes, here no

Functions: Find recently uploaded images with no source information, tag, and notify the uploader. If their is anything on the page, it skips. If it doesn't find anything on the page, it adds {{No source since}} with the date part too.

Discussion

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): On en.wiki, yes, here no ---> What exactly to you mean here? Cbrown1023 talk 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikipedia it's flagged, on commons it isn't :-). ~ Wikihermit 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the bot's been running for a while now and hasn't had any problems. Can we get it a flag? ~ Wikihermit 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think will be good idea to use {{No tag message}} instead of {{Image source}} for user's notifications (as User:CommonsDelinker does). User's talk page will much less in size in case of huge number of files without source/license. --EugeneZelenko 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done :-). ~ Wikihermit 16:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I get a flag? I haven't had any problems with the bot. ~ Wikihermit 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your bot sounds great. Seems quite useful and I have no issues with it being run here. But being approved (not objected to) and flagged are two different things... As with BetaCommandBot, below, I just want to double check whether it makes sense for you to have a flag here. Having a flag means the bot's edits don't show up in recent changes. Is that, in this case, desired? Or would it be better to have the edits show up so people are aware of them. In BetaCommandBot's case the thinking seemed to be that it would be better to have them show up. Perhaps in this case, being in the category is enough, and the bot ought to be flagged???? I don't know, what do others think? (d'oh, forgot to sign) ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag isn't too necessary, because most images coming into commons are sourced, so it generally won't clog up recent changes. However, if a user uploads a bunch of unsourced images, there is a chance the bot will flood recent changes. Just some thoughts :-). ~ Wikihermit 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we close this as "no objections to the bot, flag deemed not necessary because we want to see the changes show up." Anyone have a problem with that? ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full agree :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Done~~ There being no further objections, consider this closed... this bot has been approved by the community but no botflag will be set. I suggest putting a pointer to this discussion on the bot's user page to signifiy that it is running unflagged with community approval. I will archive this (shortly/eventually/when I remember/unless someone else does it first) ++Lar: t/c 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Apparently there WERE objections, as the bot is currently blocked by Bryan. [1] Can we thrash these issues out here please? ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that users wanted more time to add a source. My opinion is that they could just add it when they upload, or they could add some sort of text. If the bot sees anything, even something as simple as a ^ it skips. That simple. ~ Wikihermit 03:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Users should be given the time to correct their mistakes and should not have a message being slapped on the image and their own talk page. Why aren't you willing to implement a wait time? -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about multiple passes, warn just the user the first pass and tag the image the second pass? That requires that the bot make recordings of what it did to itself which adds complexity, but is it doable? ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to complex to me. I don't see how waiting ten minutes can be problem. The bot probably fetches either the new images list from the log or Special:Newimages. Both allow you to set the time to start enumerating from. The bot should just load all images from now() - 10 minutes. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: since discussion has restarted, this bot is not currently, in my view, approved yet. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose due to the abrupt vanishing act by Wikihermit, and I'd like to revisit the request for flags for HermesBot II for the same reason. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per email correspondence. Sorry for the delayed change. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, a 5 minute delay? ~ Wikihermit 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is this user back? Are we satisfied? Can we leave the first request un-reopened? Can this request be approved? What do people think? I don't see a consensus here but maybe I'm misreading? ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No further objections than the one above. If the 5 minute delay is implemented it is fine to me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Have at it. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied, and I move that this discussion be closed, leaving the first request un-reopened. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Mark this discussion as closed, and the bot has community consensus for both sets of operations. Bot flag not set per discussion. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]