< Commons:Bots‎ | Requests

Faebot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

Non-controversial categorization, interlinks, standard template-ing (such as mass licensing template changes or application of the artwork template) and corrections for large Wikimedia Commons projects (envisaged to be mostly related to Wikimedia UK initiatives, though these are often with international involvement) with supporting Commons project pages. For example:
GLAM related batch uploads and well specified and non-controversial mass corrections, categorization, licensing, interlinks or standard template improvements. For example:
Where there is any doubt as to whether a large systematic change would be controversial, these would be put up for a community consensus, in the first instance on the most relevant project page for interested community members to comment on and suggest improvements.
For the nature of activities, the bot will remain supervised, though it may be left for longer runs (500+ images) and only on non-controversial changes after a significant monitored stable run.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic (sample checks should only be needed as the images have been reviewed at source)

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

One time runs.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

May need fast runs for larger uploads (such as 500+ images).

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):


Programming language(s):

Python. (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Please use language tags to enclose description. Author field is definitely wrong, since library just scanned images. I don't see any sense in Photos uploaded from Flickr by Faebot ID72157604192771132 categories. If bot can't deduce relevant categories from descriptions, something like Boston Public Library files needed categories should be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that I intend to get Flickrripper working (my install is falling over at the moment) and so some of the things you don't like will come out in the wash, though I have just added the 'en' template to the default description fields in my JavaScript. The images you have seen have not been loaded via python but just by shoving them through User:Flickr upload bot. As for the temporary category, this is part of the manual process I'm using as the Flickr upload bot has been flaky about whether images are actually loaded or not. Consequently I prefer to do a visual check using a non-existing category before using cat-a-lot to move them to the final category, which you can see from the file histories. -- (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I have now used Faebot to upload a couple of hundred example images from Boston Public Library (mostly 19th century colour lithographs of popular landscapes), see Category:Chromolithographs at Boston Public Library of landscapes and created Category:Animal Locomotion which has some rare examples of the well known Eadweard Muybridge photographs (780+ image plates). These use the language tag as suggested but if the author field is to be improved, this would have to run as a second stage. Unfortunately I have not been able to use Flickrripper as this appears to need a payment to Apple for access to pre-Lion version XCode if I run it under OS 10.5 (I don't have a Windows machine handy at home and don't fancy the dubious value of spending $60 upgrading to Lion), so the uploads have continued to use my local JavaScript wrapper for Bryan's Flickr upload bot which is frustratingly limited to 24 images per hour and forces the author field to be the Flickr account name. If someone has access to Bryan's exemption list I would love Faebot to be added to it, things would go a lot quicker. -- (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I still do not have the right libraries for Flickr-ripper on my OS, though I am trying out Python for other things and plan to help with a request on the Geograph tidy up in a few weeks time. -- (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Faebot has been making changes to a few hundred corrections to licenses and attribution over the last 24 hours. -- (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Faebot has made further improvements to the license terms on uploads of Category:Tupper Scrapbooks, 351 images, including a swap to PD-old-100 as Tupper died in 1898. Making some simple corrections to Category:Animal Locomotion, 780 images. -- (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • After a couple of examples of the bot upload template being removed when licenses are corrected, Faebot is adding its own hidden bot upload category to relevant files sourced to Flickr rather than relying on this being transcluded more obscurely via the template. -- (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Faebot has made a couple of thousand changes to Category:Chromolithographs at Boston Public Library in order to improve the Author field using the data from the Library, improve dates where possible, clearer layout for permissions and move over from CC BY-SA to a suitable PD license. -- (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Faebot has been categorizing images for Category:Images by User:Poco a poco, currently running at over 3,000, should be a couple of thousand more before it completes. After discussing on IRC, there was no easy way of tracking these down, so the search parameters are quite large, hence run over several days. -- (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    The total number was over 4,500 and the category has now been used for Faebot to add the user's custom credit template. I have managed to use a local dump from Commons of 18GB which speeds things up and reduces the load on Wikimedia's servers. -- (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Faebot now has an OTRS member flag, after being used to validate a small number of The National Archive's initial batch uploads (likely to be many thousands over the summer). -- (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Edits must be only flagged as bot-edits that are included in this request (batch uploads as far as I can see). I oppose any wildcard-permission. -- RE rillke questions? 15:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Scope updated. -- (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, my request was ten months ago. I have used the bot for a variety of other purposes that I had thought of that time last year. I can re-write the request now, if needed, though the list of activities above pretty much states that the bot is intended for various GLAM related media improvement jobs related to fixing information, links, templates, OTRS tickets as well as helping with the ins and outs of GLAM related batch uploads. Having these marked with the bot flag will avoid confusion. If the bot (with it's 30,000+ edits) is redundant, then I could make all such automated edits under my main account instead, though I thought making the distinction was helpful if there was a problem.
    • Until I am advised otherwise, I can start using my main account for these types of edits using Python. It will be easier for me to keep track of issues and if someone objects to that solution I can refer to the ten months of dialogue here. Thanks -- (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • In line with the above, as after 11 months of dialogue, as there seems little prospect of Faebot getting a bot flag, for simplicity I have been using my main account (Fæ) to establish Category:Geograph contributors which has has involved more than 50,000 edits and continues. To date only one person has suggested that this ought to be done with a bot flag.[1] Thanks -- (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Its entirely unsurprising that only one editor has commented on it (me). The reason is most people don't notice reasonable bot edits, so it makes no difference if it has a bot flag or not. However when that bot run affects your watchlist you notice, in my case my watchlist has been completely flooded by this run. Its also unsurprising the timing of my comment - I've only noticed when Geograph contributors of interest to me were handled. I don't get the glacial pace of approval, but I'd agree with Rillke (in that a blanket approval is a no-no). Geograph-related tasks are not included in the list of tasks above (Geograph work != GLAM work).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry if it is not clear. Where I say "Images in Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project being sorted by region, topic, photographer" it was intended to be explicit, and the bit in the scope where I mention other related WMUK projects covers Geograph, a UK initiative. In fact we had a workshop last week where the afternoon was nothing but getting more volunteers to help with Geograph categorization. By the way all these edits are marked as minor, so if your watchlist is temporarily affected it may be an idea to try hiding minor edits, at least until Faebot gets a bot flag or there are some positive suggestions on how to refine the scope definition. Thanks -- (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I'd favour a slight rewrite to separate out the "GLAM" from "other WMUK", as neither is subordinate to the other. It may be worth tightening up of "other WMUK" to make it a bit less open-ended. Both those are nit-picking things, not an issue with the bot itself (I have no problem with any edits mentioned above.
          • Two off-topic points: Due to misuse of the minor edit flag by many users, dropping it isn't really that helpful - as I'm likely to want to inspect minor edits. And I want to do some more work on the Geograph categorisation issue - if you want to talk that over, go to my talk?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I have updated the scope in line with your suggestions. Thanks -- (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support request. This obviously isn't a well-watched page, and by failing to act (for or against), we're creating a situation where policy is becoming functionally useless. I think it's clear that Fae's bot has done considerable modestly useful work, and is well tested for future use. However, these latest geograph contributions look like they're going beyond the level of semi-automated contributions that are permitted under one's own account name without the bot flag, and even though a sort of silent assent was given by the near-year of unresponsiveness here, Nilfanion has identified a problem that persists unless and until the bot-flag is actually applied to the Faebot account. Therefore, I recommend to Fae that he shuts down the bot and focus on trying to get some kind of a proper formal close to this request first. Wnt (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Please consider this a formal request to implement this request or for someone with the relevant authority to explain how the scope for Faebot needs to be reworded to do the good work that is intended for. As Wnt points out, it's been a year since I raised this request and I have made a couple of hundred thousand edits without anyone saying that I was doing anything that has not been of clear benefit to the project. Thanks -- (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please can you quantify "fast runs" in the maximum edit rate section? There is some discussion about what the limits of the servers are, so it's important to know what limits each bot will stick to. --99of9 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If this is a particular concern, then as there is nothing in scope for Faebot that would be urgent (such as dealing with vandalism), I would have difficulty in justifying less than 10 seconds between edits. A bit faster would be convenient for very large non-controversial mass changes (like every 5 seconds) but not essential and I am happy to stick to agreed best practice as advised. Thanks -- (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that this is still open after more than 12 months. Having a look thru I can find no reason that this can't be approved; so unless there are any other issues I will close this off as approved in the next 72 hours. russavia (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Approved russavia (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)