Commons:Bots/Requests

Bot policy and list · Requests to operate a bot Requests for work to be done by a bot · Changes to allow localization  · Requests for batch uploads

If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first. To do so, file a request following the instructions below.

Please read Commons:Bots before making a request for bot permission.

Archives List all Requests

Requests made on this page are automatically transcluded in Commons:Requests and votes for wider comment.

Edit the summary table

watch

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.

CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Rillke (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

• Archiving pages like Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking  running
• Removing expired messages from MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice  implemented (if sysop flag would be there, it would do this as well)
• Watching recent changes of MediaWiki JavaScript pages, running JSHint over the old revision and the new revision. Reverting to old revision if more issues appear in the new revision and generally notifying the editing user about issues, except they opted out; writing full report to a subpage of Commons User scripts (MediaWiki pages go to the message cache) and maintaining a table of scripts and their JSHint and esprima status
• Watching recent changes in user namespace and for JavaScript pages, run esprima over the new revisions. If it detects issues, report them to the user.
• Watching recent changes of MediaWiki CSS pages, running CSS validator over it and doing the same as done with JSHint, except reverting.
• Possibly taking over Undeletion Request archiving if we decide to create one subpage per request needs discussion
• Possibly deleting files (considering all the points requested there) needs implementation

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, running on wmf-labs.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Archiving Commons:Deletion_requests/mobile_tracking: Once per week

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): No throttle, just following mw:API:Etiquette. Sheduled by xcrontab, job submitted to grid engine.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Sysop flag requested (administrator status): (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): JavaScript. Running on Node.js - source code available on GitHub (On labs: /data/project/commons-maintenance-bot/)

Rillke^(q?) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please make a test run for each task. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

De-flagEdit

Following the first bot de-flagging run, I researched the activity of all accounts flagged as bots on Commons, and discovered that slightly less than a fifth of them have been inactive for more than two years now.

While we do not have a local bot de-flagging policy as of yet, I believe that we can tentatively agree to remove bot flags from accounts unused for a period as significant as two years.

As is the case with inactivity run for sysops, I will be informing each and every owner of this request by posting a message on their talk page and sending them an e-mail — with the exception of Multichill and Omnedon who requested that flags be kept for their bots during the first run — asking them to take part in this discussion. In case of lack of response, I'm intending to remove the flags from affected accounts in a month's time, ie. on May 10, 2014. odder (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The following 32 accounts are flagged as bots and have been inactive for more than two years:

Username	Owner	Last edit	Current status
ABFbot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:ABF	2011-03-04
Alch Bot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Alchimista	2012-04-02
BierBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:ChristianBier	2009-02-06
ComboBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Cmapm	2011-11-02
CommonsHelper2 Bot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Jan Luca	2011-12-22
Crochet.david.bot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Crochet.david	2012-02-16	Owner agreed to remove the flag
D'ohBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Dnikitin	2011-11-08
DavepapeBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Davepape	2011-12-08
DerbethBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Derbeth	2011-07-24	User requested that flag be kept
DieBucheBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:DieBuche	2012-02-03	Owner agreed to remove the flag
DougBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Doug	2011-12-07
EuseBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Eusebius	2012-02-16	Owner agreed to remove the flag
Filbot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Filnik	2011-07-09
File Upload Bot (Jarry1250) (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Jarry1250	2011-12-10
File Upload Bot (Omnedon) (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Omnedon	2009-06-05	User requested that flag be kept at first de-flag run
GeoUploadR (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Rillke	—	Owner agreed to remove the flag (bot work finished)
KamikazeBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Karol007	2012-03-25
KobacBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Kobac	2012-03-12
MagnusA.Bot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:MagnusA	2011-11-19	Owner agreed to remove the flag
Marnanel bot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Marnanel	2011-01-16
MerlBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Merlissimo	2011-10-26
MerlLinkBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Merlissimo	2011-09-24
MifterBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Mifter	2011-12-30
MultichillAWB (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Multichill	2009-09-06	User requested that flag be kept at first de-flag run
Picasa Review Bot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Dcoetzee	2012-03-15
Prolinebot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Prolineserver	2011-12-18
Quibot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Quibik	2012-01-08
Reedy RotateBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Reedy	2011-12-21
SKbot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Sergey kudryavtsev	2012-03-22
SternthalerBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Raymond	2011-11-27	Owner agreed to remove the flag
Thehelpfulbot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Thehelpfulone	2011-05-05	Owner agreed to remove the flag
WaldirBot (talk · contributions · user rights management)	User:Waldir	2012-01-23	Owner agreed to remove the flag

DiscussionEdit

•  Info All bot owners have now been notified about this request through a talk page notification and via e-mail. odder (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• I apologize for not having done the upload yet, I simply forgot. Please keep GeoUploadR flagged. I cannot promise anything but it's now back on my agenda. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Now, everything that I wanted is up and appears to look good, so please  remove the bot flag from GeoUploadR. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, for the notification, feel free to remove the flag.--DieBuche (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• MagnusA agreed to remove the flag from his bot. odder (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• As for DerbethBot - I would like to keep the bot flag, because I sometimes fix category sorting of a large number of pronunciation files using the bot. --Derbeth ^talk 17:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• User:Crochet.david added consent to the table above. Please state the consent down here. The  Done templates above should only be set by bureaucrats when the actual deflagging is has been performed. --Dschwen (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Although I don't see the benefit of de-flagging, I don't have any plans for using the bot in the near future, so do as you please. --Waldir ^talk 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Currently no tasks planed for SternthalerBot. Feel free to remove the bot flag. Raymond 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Hi there, thanks for the notification, please feel free to remove the bot flag. Thehelpfulone 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• I think will be reasonable to transfer User:Picasa Review Bot to other owner(s) who will be interested in performing this task. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but we should probably deflag and have the new owner re-request the flag. While the bot code won't change we shuld be certain taht transfer of ownership and maybe operating from a new server does not impact its function. We sould also make sure the new user is well versed in operating the bot. --Dschwen (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is necessary; we have Picasa Review Bot 2 operated by Zhuyifei1999 right now, and it is quite active. odder (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh right, I forgot about that one. --Dschwen (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

      I definitely recommended account transfer in that case. May be we need to do so for future usage? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nasjonalbiblioteket-bot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Profoss (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

The purpose of the bot is to upload images from the Norwegian National Library. It is not clear how many photographs, but at least 4000, possibly more.

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Photo upload

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 0.5/1

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python (see Commons:Bots/Requests/Riksbot for older version of script

Profoss (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please make a test run with about 10-20 uploads. odder (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Profoss again, hoping to move this forward. odder (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

UN OCHA maps bot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Jeremyb (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: uploading maps to category:Maps by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Automatic or manually assisted: supervised (automatic)

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 2/min ?

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y (if you think it should be)

Programming language(s): python

Jeremyb (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please make a test run with about 10-20 uploads. odder (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already working on the test. --Jeremyb (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• test almost done. ended up using custom python+pywikibot to generate descriptions on disk and then pywikibot's upload.py to do the upload. still working out the best way to do this. --Jeremyb (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Question How do you know the maps are released under CC-BY 3.0? odder (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• direct contact in person and by email. we had a meeting with them at their office at w:United Nations Secretariat Building and the emails use their official UN addresses. --Jeremyb-phone (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please forward proof of release under CC-BY 3.0 to OTRS (permissions-commonswikimedia.org). odder (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• ticket:2014031410007248 --Jeremyb (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2014031410007248}} to the |Permission= field in the {{Information}} template, and make sure to add it to future files. Other than that (and perhaps a typo in Locator Map of… — should be lower case), the files look OK to me. odder (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• You mean Locator map instead of Locator Map in description= field? What about processing the ticket? --Jeremyb-phone (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant exactly that. As for the ticket, it looks fine to me. odder (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I was trying to avoid processing my own ticket :) --Jeremyb (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please add language templates for Source and Author fields. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• @EugeneZelenko: Please edit File:Burundi - Location Map (2011) - BDI - UNOCHA.svg to reflect the desired format. --Jeremyb (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

   Done. Sure, usage of Wikidata will be even better for Author. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Jeremyb: Is there anything in particular blocking this request? odder (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

GifTagger (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: McZusatz (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

1. Converting static GIFs to PNG
2. Tagging the source-GIF with the appropriate template
3. Posting the replacement to Commons Delinker

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): less than 12

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Would be helpful, I guess.

Programming language(s): Java

McZusatz (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Is there a community consensus for doing this? Should we really tag each and every gif with a message that requests a re-upload as PNG? I'd think that only a tiny fraction of GIFs would benefit from this (if any). I don't think there is much benefit of just converting a GIF to a PNG. The big PNG feature - alpha transparency - will be unused, unless the image is recreated from scratch (or from a source that has alpha transparency). Maybe I'm missing something... --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The thumbnail of this gif is useless as it only shows some random black pixels. Sadly it is used in two articles.

Much smoother thumb

There are some reasons which favor PNG:

1. Better thumbnails
   C.f. thumb on the right; GIF thumbnails are often pixelated due to the 'palette-effect' (1-bit alpha channel)
2. Smaller size
   GIF files tend to be larger than PNG
3. Easier editing/"Lossless" editing
   Someone may want to edit those files. Surely the editor prefers a 24-bit palette over the 8-bit GIF-palette without uploading a new PNG derivative file before or after his edit by fiddling with (partly) broken tools such as UpWiz or DerivativeFX. Also you can not apply most filters to indexed palettes which results in a lossy process: Palette -> 24 bit -> Apply filter -> another? Palette
   However, the conversion from GIF to PNG is lossless and also the transparency, if present, does not get lost. (PNG supports 8-bit transparency in contrast to GIF's 1-bit transparency.)

--McZusatz (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the detailed response. I was not aware that the GIFs thumbnail so terribly (why doesn't MW just generate PNG thumbs?). --Dschwen (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How hard would it be for a bot to do the conversion, upload the png, link them in other_versions, (and bonus points: replace mainspace usage)? (rather than just tagging) --99of9 (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too hard. Mainspace usage replacement could be delegated to existing bots and upload and conversion should only take marginally longer than an edit to the file page. --Dschwen (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay... Feedback about my three test edits is welcome. --McZusatz (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I had a brief look and they looked fine apart from the old "reason it's superseded: a png is now available" should be changed to "a color version is now available". Can you do some more test edits to give us a better overview? Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Some more test edits are here: (Always in batches of three edits: Uploading, Tagging as dupe, Posting to COMdel)

• another test
• another test (involving the change you proposed above)
• 10 more files processed...

(I can do more test if you want. If there are specific files you want me to tackle, just send me a list of the file names.)

However, I have still a question left: As you can see, I am posting the replacement to Commons Delinker which is only allowed to be done by administrators. Should I use my main account to run the bot or does my bot get additional administrative rights? --McZusatz (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@McZusatz, @99of9: Thanks, the tests look fine to me. I'd prefer if the edits were made from the bot's account rather than your own; we can easily make the bot a sysop to enable it to edit the CommonsDelinker page; there's precedent for that, and I believe there shouldn't be any problems about it. odder (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this looks very good right now, but I have one further suggestion. Could you wikilink the "superior" to a small page listing the advantages of PNG vs. GIF (like the ones you listed above). Otherwise I fear some uploaders might be bummed to hear that they uploaded an inferior file :-). --Dschwen (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done (The link looks like this) . --McZusatz (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, from my side this looks fine now. I also have no reservations against giving the bot an admin flag, as long as the operator account does have one as well. If you ever loose the bit on your main account it should be removed from the bot account as well. --Dschwen (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --99of9 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

McZusatz -- unfortunately you did not understand the real reason why the GIF thumbnail is problematic, and your edit to "Commons:File types" was inaccurate. The reason the rescaled GIF doesn't look good is because it has a transparent background, and when GIFs with a transparent background are rescaled here, the transparent area eats away at the non-transparent area. If the GIF was changed to be fully opaque, then its thumbnail would look perfectly fine. Until two or three years ago, GIF thumbnailing was in fact better than PNG thumbnailing in some respects... AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A 1-bit palette is still a palette (at least in my mind). My wording was not perfect and I have to thank you for making the section clearer.

Also considering your argument that "thumbnails of fully opaque GIFs would look perfectly fine" in the context of this Bot request, I am not sure if this is a supporting or opposing argument. (Maybe neither.) However, wiping the alpha channel of affected GIF files is obviously not an option because we'd loose the transparency which is needed on backgrounds other than white. Even if we did, we are still left with the limited color palette of GIF files which makes editing and applying image-filters impossible or unhandy as well as the limited color palette of the thumbnails which are GIF, too. --McZusatz (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

First off, GIF has palette-based transparency, not "1-bit alpha channel". If it had a 1-bit alpha channel, then any color could be specified as either transparent or opaque, but that's not the case -- only one color in a GIF image can specified as transparent, while all other colors are always opaque.

Secondly, there's no problem whatsoever with an opaque grayscale GIF; there's a palette of 256 shades of black/gray/white to work with, so that PNG doesn't have anything that GIF doesn't have in this particular case. In fact, for many years (from at least 2005-2011, and probably during part of 2012 also), the GIF thumbnailing algorithm on Wikimedia did a better job of resizing opaque grayscale images than the PNG thumbnailing algorithm, which was why some people preferred to upload lossless grayscale opaque raster images in GIF format (see File:1900_census_Still.gif etc.).

Third, I really don't see what real purpose transparency serves in File:(R)-3-phenyl-cyclohanone.gif; by far the simplest way to fix that file would be to upload an opaque version (saved as GIF87), which I could do in two minutes or less... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Letting the bot replace the gifs with pngs costs contributors even less (if the bot just does it). I see no compelling reason to cling to gif as a format, just because there are certain limited cases where gif is "just as good" as png, or bacause thumbnailing of certain types of gifs "used to be" better than the thumbnailing of pngs. --Dschwen (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That might be the case if PNG resizing could be trusted to never regress, but past developments don't give great confidence on that point. Nothing was done to fix known and complained about flaws in PNG resizing for six years or more, and if I hadn't offered the comments at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/07#problem_with_new_thumbnailer (incorporated as Bugzilla bug 51298), some of the old flaws might have been reintroduced. In the future, I might not be able to make such comments, or might not be listened to if I do make them, and everything might be thrown back to square one again. There doesn't seem to be any on-staff salaried Wikimedia developer who has direct responsibility and expertise in image resizing issues -- or if there is one now, his position would appear to be of rather recent date. AnonMoos (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that GIF thumbnailing will never be changed and that it is more stable than PNG thumbnailing. (c.f. bugzilla:52043, ...). Moreover I think that it should not be a problem to teach the bot to skip Grayscale GIF images. --McZusatz (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fundación Joaquín Díaz (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: -jem- (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL) (Board member of Wikimedia España)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Upload and tag ~3500 images associated to Fundación Joaquín Díaz. Project supported by Wikimedia España.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Upload mentioned images, description and categorization.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Depends on the weight of each image

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y (Temporary, ~1 month. At the end we will request removal of the flag.)

Programming language(s): Programmed using PHP and using as base w:es:User:Jembot.

• Alan ^(talk) 22:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC) (As member of Wikimedia España)
• Rastrojo _(D•ES) 22:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• -jem- (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) (operator and base code programmer; Wikimedia España member)

DiscussionEdit

• I think will be good idea to reflect author information in image descriptions. Do you need OTRS status too? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If possible, yes. (also temporary). --Alan ^(talk) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Alan: Are the bot flag and the OTRS flag still required for this task? I see that the bot has over 2,700 edits, and a lot of uploads, so I think we can mark this as resolved? Apologies for the belated reply. odder (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Odder yes, but only bot flag. No longer need the OTRS flag. Cheers, Alan ^(talk) 11:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alan, @-jem-: Thanks; I just had a look at five most recently uploaded pictures and have a few questions:

1. Have you managed to fix the encoding problems visible on this page?

See bugzilla:57052. --Alan ^(talk) 13:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alan: I'll take it as a yes, then :-) odder (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Could you automatically add all pictures uploaded through this bot to Category:All medias supported by Wikimedia España; I see that Diego has been adding it manually to those pictures I checked. (Note: this category might need to be renamed; media is the plural form for medium, but you might want to use files; anyway I digress a bit.)

Media -> Multimedia (synonymous). --Alan ^(talk) 12:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alan: Apologies for not being clear enough; what I meant is that media should be used as a plural form for medium (rather than medias; see Wiktionary). This is, however, nothing that blocks this request, merely a sidenote. odder (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I also note that the aforementioned picture (and probably others as well) does not have any data inside the | Date = parameter; if that's because Fundación Joaquín Díaz does not have that information, please use | Date = {{unknown|date}}.

   This also needs to be fixed in those pictures already uploaded; I see that some of them include dates, but the bot did not recognize it, so it might need to be fixed manually.

2. Could you please upload additional five pictures so we can make sure everything is in order? Thanks :-) odder (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Ping: Rastrojo

@Odder For 3 last points, it's better wait to respond by Rastrojo. --Alan ^(talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Odder, just to clarify things on my side: As you can see in Bugzilla, finally the task was requested there and I just provided the data to use for the descriptions, not the bot code nor operation. After not just the encoding problem, but the point that things aren't checked after the first upload (as I would have done, of course), I think I'll take care personally in the future. What is missing is an «upgrade» to better resolution versions of the same pictures, and a verification of the license status for each one; everything is pending further contacts between Rastrojo and Fundación Joaquín Díaz, and then we (that is, I) could add that category after consensus about the name, and the date parameter (the received data was quite chaotic; there were some dates, but sometimes in one field, sometimes in another; sometimes it wasn't clear if it was the date the picture was taken, or the postcard was bought, or arrived to the Fundación... I just fixed the most important and visible problems, even if it wasn't my task; the data problems must be discussed with the Fundación, too). If I take over, I'll try my best that things are arranged properly, but I'm also considering to do all the work with my bot account, Jembot, and request the bot flag for it, as I was planning to do it in the future anyway, and I like things to be "clear". So, for the moment, this thread should be "on hold" until Rastrojo is back (I think he's having University examinations) and we decide how to proceed. Sorry for any inconveniences. -jem- (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@-jem-: No inconvenience caused, and thank you for the clarification. I agree we should put this request on hold until Rastrojo can comment on it. odder (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm back. I would say that the preferable option is just to keep this request on "stand-by" for a while (I have to contact again Fundación Joaquín Díaz in order to get full resolution scans of the already uploaded pics... and this will take a couple of months). Sorry for these troubles. Best, Rastrojo _(D•ES) 23:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: I'm placing this request on hold until Rastrojo comes back to us with more information. odder (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs) [13]Edit

Operator: Hazard-SJ (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Flickr uploads

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Python

The primary task of this request is for Flickr uploads. See here for the first planned request (code).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Uploads have been made for a trial.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Please enclose Author field in language template. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done in this change.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Could you please make a test run? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because the task is flickr uploads, License-reviewer flag is granted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll soon modify the script to integrate uploading by URL.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • In relation to this request, the licence reviewer flag isn't required as it is inserting images which are covered by OTRS and by way of an individual licencing template. But sure, Hazard-SJ is a trusted user, so the licence-reviewer flag on the bot may be useful for future usage by Hazard-SJ of the bot. russavia (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have some issues with this. Firstly, the bot did not decide to upload the images itself. There needs to be some identification of why these images are being uploaded. A link to the request would probably suffice, or putting the name of the person who made the original request as the upload inuitiator. Secondly, the images are licensed as CC BY-ND 2.0 ("no derivatives") on Flickr, but the template being used is for an entirely different license. That license specifically says that the reuser is free to "adapt the Information". Thirdly, based on the template used, I suspect that the OTRS release is a general one and not specific to Flickr. Someone should check that, with careful attention paid to the different license used there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Okay,

  1. That can be easily fixed.
  2. I've just verified that the licenses are different.
  3. Strangely enough, the template does say

     "This file comes from the Flickr stream of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is copyrighted."

     In that case, I'm guessing either you're correct about the OTRS ticket or the license has changed since then. We'll need an OTRS member to check on ticket:2013061310007371 (I'll leave Russavia a note since he is one and is the requester of this specific task, though anyone with the ability may feel free to check.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hazard-SJ all is good, it's covered by the OTRS ticket. The licence on Flickr hasn't changed, it's something that some UK govt departments do due to there not being an OGL option for licencing on Flickr. For example, the Department for International Development does it differently, File:Heikki_Holmås,_Norwegian_Minister_for_International_Development,_speaking_at_the_London_Summit_on_Family_Planning_(7556998858).jpg is from here which states "This image is posted under a Creative Commons - Attribution Licence, in accordance with the Open Government Licence." The only difference here is that the OGL with the FCO has been done via OTRS instead. It's all ok :) russavia (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Can we get a second opinion on this from someone else with access to the OTRS ticket? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No, there is no need. Delicious carbuncle is implying that I am lying about the OTRS ticket. Don't entertain such trolls. russavia (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Given the discrepancy in licensing, it is simply common sense to have someone other than the initiator of this request check the OTRS ticket. Russavia is understandably oversensitive after the recent loss of his Bureaucrat rights, but this isn't personal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
          • DC, I am not over-sensitive about any bureaucrat rights, I don't know what gives you these delusions. I am "sensitive" of people using edit summaries which imply I am lying. russavia (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just something else quickly, this is exactly why Hazard-SJ has gone to the trouble of writing this bot, so that we can upload media from Flickr which is on Flickr with a non-Commons compatible licence, but for which we have a Commons compatible licence via OTRS. There are a couple of other streams which I hope Hazard-SJ will do in the future too, {{Aeroprints.com}} being one of those -- available on Flickr as All Rights Reserved but we have a CC licence on OTRS. russavia (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please have a look at the latest uploads in the trial (see here).  Hazard SJ  05:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  The first two files uploaded are correct, in that they have the licencing and "to check" category. The other files only have "Bot: Uploading files from Flickr per request by Russavia" with no informatio, source, licencing template or categories. Perhaps get rid of the bot message, and try another batch. I'll fix these current files though. russavia (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've looked through Pywikibot's code, and have seen that it doesn't exactly support the implementation. I have verified that MediaWiki supports it, so I'll go ahead and submit a patch for Pywikibot to properly support this, then re-run another trial.  Hazard SJ  00:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  I've gotten the patch merged, so now the latest trial is here.  Hazard SJ  21:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  And it all looks good. This request could now be expedited and marked as approved I believe. russavia (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• These particular uploads look fine. My question is about who takes legal responsibility for publishing the uploads, since the license won't always be publicly checkable as it would for most Flickr uploads. If the bot operator is not checking the OTRS/license, then only OTRS agents should be requesting/responsible-for the batch uploads, because only they can read the correspondence? Should we require that they are different to the person who approved the correspondence (as they were here)? --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Russavia: ^?  Hazard SJ  04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I find 99of9's proposal quite reasonable. I suggest we agree (and document) that the bot can only do batch uploads if an OTRS agent other than the one who approved the ticket confirms that the ticket is fine. Perhaps it would be good to add that agent's user name in edit summary so people know where to direct they queries if anything goes wrong. Back to you, @Hazard-SJ. odder (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair User:Odder. User:Hazard-SJ is this already part of the bot operation isn't it, with the documenting of who requested? russavia (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the bot already shows the requester i the summary, I could let it also show the OTRS agent who approved it as okay.  Hazard SJ  20:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hazard-SJ: Please do implement this, and then we can finally close this request :-) odder (talk)

User:Hazard-SJ, you will need to know who dealt with the ticket for this one. And believe it or not, it was none other than User:Odder. If you could implement that, and do a run of 10 with the same settings as before that would be great. russavia (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: I'm placing this request on hold until @User:Hazard-SJ comes back from his wikibreak; will reconsider this in a month's time (14 May 2014). odder (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)