Open main menu
Diese Projektseite in anderen Sprachen:

Diese Seite für Kandidaturen und Anträge bietet einen zentralen Ort um einen Überblick über laufende Kandidaturen und Anträge zu erhalten und um diese zu kommentieren oder sich an Wahlen zu beteiligen. Jeder Benutzer ist zur Kommentierung der Kandidaturen und Anträge eingeladen, jeder angemeldete Benutzer ist berechtigt an Wahlen teilzunehmen.

Wer Rechte beantragen möchte, bei denen keine Wahl vorgeschrieben ist (z.B. Dateiverschieber), der möge bitte Commons:Requests for rights aufsuchen!

Contents

Wo und Wie erweiterte Benutzerrechte auf Commons beantragt werdenEdit

Alle dort gestellten Bewerbungen werden automatisch auf dieser Seite eingebunden.

Kommentieren und AbstimmenEdit

Jeder angemeldete Benutzer ist eingeladen zu wählen und an den Diskussionen zu untenstehenden Kandidaturen und Anträgen teilzunehmen. Stimmen nicht angemeldeter Benutzer werden nicht gezählt, Kommentare dürfen dennoch gemacht werden. Ist eine Wahl erfolgreich so wird ein Bürokrat die beantragten Rechte verleihen. Es liegt im Ermessen des bearbeitenden Bürokraten über den Konsens der Gemeinschaft zu entscheiden, die Entscheidung muss dabei nicht zwangsweise auf der reinen Anzahl der Stimmen basieren. Unter Anderem kann der bearbeitende Bürokrat die Stärke aller dargelegten Argumente und die Erfahrung und das Wissen der kommentierenden Benutzer in seine Entscheidung einbeziehen. Beispielsweise Kommentare und Stimme eines Benutzers mit wenigen oder keinen Bearbeitungen auf Commons können in den Erwägungen des Bürokraten unberücksichtig bleiben.

Es wird darum gebeten sowohl für Ja- (  Support) als auch für Nein-Stimmen (  Oppose) Begründungen anzugeben, da diese dem bearbeitenden Bürokraten bei seiner Entscheidung helfen. Einem Argument, mit Nachweis wenn erforderlich, wird stärkeres Gewicht beigemessen als einer einfachen Abstimmung.

Abstimmung und Kommentierung sind in Englisch gehalten, das soll dich aber nicht von einer Teilnahme an der Wahl abhalten. Schreibe deinen Kommentar notfalls in Deutsch und bitte am Ende des Kommentars um Übersetzung.

Aktualisiere deinen Browsercache und benutze die bei der jeweiligen Kandidatur eingebundenen „Vote“-Links.


Requests for adminshipEdit

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.

No current requests.

Requests for bureaucratshipEdit

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 rightsEdit

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 rightsEdit

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 botEdit

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.

SchlurcherBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Schlurcher (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: Remove backlog on sub-categories of Category:Commons maintenance content though automated edits, where possible.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 30

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (Bot has flag already)

Programming language(s): Pywikibot

Schlurcher (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

This request is intentionally formulated openly. I am asking to be allowed to perform changes with my bot to reduce the backlog of sub-categories of Category:Commons maintenance content. I'm fully aware that only a fraction of the categories can be handled through automated edits. The idea is primarily to free time from volunteers so that they can focus on the ones that require judgement. So far I have focused on easy syntax fixes (Category:Language templates with no text displayed) and highly populated categories that can be easily done automatically (Category:Videos needing display resolution category). All changes to be implemented will be tested thoroughly and the edit summary will always mention the type of changes that were performed. Test edits:

  1. Correct language templates with no text displayed (add 1= in case no parameter is set, description starts with a character and the description contains a = sign) [1] [2] [3]
  2. Add display resolution (determine display resolution and add corresponding) [4] [5]

--Schlurcher (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FVCBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Eatcha (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The tasks would be the exact process that is described here. Currently the bot focuses on the featuring process and de-listing process. Please Note that this bot uses the source code of User:FSCBot, with minor modifications to adjust it for COM:FVC.

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

List Of tasks:

  • Add voting results to nominations by counting the oppose and support votes (supports 90 template)
  • Edit the title of the nominations, whether they were featured or not
  • Add the newly promoted videos to the category defined in the nomination.
  • Add the template {{FV promoted}} to the video description page.
  • Add the video to the chronological list of featured videos.
  • Add the template {{FVpromotion|File:XXXXX.webm}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  • Move the nomination from Commons:Featured video candidates/candidate list to Commons:Featured video candidates/Log/June 2019.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic and supervised by participants at COM:FVC, voting process is manual and counting and closing will be done by this bot.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): 3 runs a day (5:00, 13:00, 21:00 UTC)

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes

Programming language(s): Python

Eatcha (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

This question is not related to this bot, what is the maximum allowed rate ? Any approved bot with more than 86400 edits per day ? -- Eatcha (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Please consider this request withdrawn for now. The orginator of the request have asked to be indef blocked, and have deleted associated accounts offsite. While I may have access to the bot account, I do not currently plan to take it over. -- KTC (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please Wait, I had some troubles but I think I'm okay now. All my repositories on GitHub are live now. -- Eatcha (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Vote counting test run result. -- KTC (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Full on test run bot internal log and associated account contributions. -- KTC (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RonnieBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: RonnieV (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: Bot's task is to create, on request, a number of connected template-pages and two (maybe three) category-pages, as described in Phabricator T222993. If the collection of available languages growth, the number of pages created will also rise. Primary target are Dutch GLAM-partners, but if there are requests, I don't mind running the script for other GLAM's as well.

Automatic or manually assisted: Supervised

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 10 (for the time being)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y. A bot flag will be handy, as the current script will have to make about 10 template and category-pages on each run. Runs will be run irregularly. Runs are all based on predefined code templates, so manually checking won't be required.

Programming language(s): pywikibot

More information: RonnieBot already works on the Dutch Wikipedia, where she is busy with the lists of people born or deceased in a year or on a specific date, and in bringing some structure in the orphan pages. Occasionally RonnieBot does some small other tasks there as well.

RonnieV (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • I think will be good idea to check Wikidata translations carefully before creating templates. Probably Template:Zeeuws Museum/fr is incorrect. Most likely it's case for Template:Zeeuws Museum/mk, where name should be transliterated on Cyrillic. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for your remarks on the data being used. I moved, on Wikidata, the information about the location from the French name to the French description, resulting in this edit. The name the museum uses in its English and German communication is not altered. I feel that should not be done for other languages either, at least in the Latin script. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek has made an other choice.
    I do not feel confident enough to transliterate the name to (Macedonian) Cyrillic myself. I could update the script to withhold its output for non-Latin scripts if the name is not specified for that language. Thanks, RonnieV (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

FSCBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Eatcha (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The tasks would be the exact process that is described here. Currently the bot focuses on the featuring process and de-listing process. Please Note that this bot uses the source code of User:FPCBot, with very minor modifications to adjust it for COM:FSC. (I've taken permission from the author of FPCBot)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: List Of tasks:

  • Add voting results to nominations by counting the oppose and support votes (supports 90 template)
  • Edit the title of the nominations, whether they were featured or not
  • Add the newly promoted sounds to the category defined in the nomination.
  • Add the template {{FS promoted}} to the sound description page.
  • Add the sound to the chronological list of featured pictures sounds.
  • Add the template {{FSpromotion|File:XXXXX.flac}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  • Move the nomination from Commons:Featured sound candidates/candidate list to Commons:Featured sound candidates/Log/June 2019.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic and supervised by participants at COM:FSC, voting process is manual and counting and closing will be done by this bot.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): 3 runs a day (5:00, 13:00, 21:00 UTC)

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python

Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 05:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Can I test the BOT ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 06:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please make test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Vote counting test run result. -- KTC (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks OK for me. Will such results be published or they are used only internally? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko:, such logs are not published but it leaves edit summaries that are similar to the above, as it uses the source of FPCBot, maybe Special:Contributions/FPCBot can answer some of your question more suitably. Regards, Eatcha (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Is everything okay ? If it's a YES. How many days/weeks usually it takes to get the bot flag ? -- Eatcha (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems OK for me, but will be good idea to hear other opinions. If nobody will comment I'll wrap up request this week. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see a few test edits. (Please stop manually editing with the bot account!) --Krd 15:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Full on test run bot internal log and associated account contributions. -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed some unconfirmed results(Old revision of a not featured , Old revision of a featured sound ), do you want to see how it features a sound after the counting and category is reviewed by a user ? -- Eatcha (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I have checked a very small sample only, but everything looks ok to me. I think the request can be approved. Keeping open another moment for additional comments. --Krd 16:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The originator of the request have asked to be indef blocked, and have deleted associated accounts offsite. However, I have access to the bot (both on Commons and Toolsforge), and am willing to take over this request. -- KTC (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Can this bot be approved now ? The FSC page is backlogged. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

JhealdBot (talk · contribs) (7)Edit

Operator: Jheald (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:

Add a date-key to the file categorisation in an old maps category, where the file information includes a creation date before 1900, and where there is no existing key or defaultsort.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Closely-supervised automatic

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

Small batches, run from time to time

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

12

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

Bot already has it.

Programming language(s):

Perl, using MediaWiki::Bot

More detailed explanation:

It's useful for "old maps" categories to be broadly ordered by date. (See eg Category:Old maps of whole Wales (alone) for example). This tends to group like together with like, allows maps from a particular period to be more easily found, and allows the historical flow of treatments of the subject to be seen on the category page -- so, in the Wales category, it groups the early "Cambriae Typus" maps together, before later maps become more divergent.
The ordering is achieved by adding a sort key (ie |xxxx) representing the map's year to its categorisation. (Or, alternatively, via a Defaultsort). A lot of old maps already have this, particular those acquired as part of a systematic batch uploading. But also very many do not.
The present request, which is more for an assistance-tool than a full-on bot, is to help with the adding of such date tags, by seeing whether the map has an original creation date set in its information template, and using that for the sort-key for the target category if possible.
It is not intended that the tool should run freely. Rather, it would run on a single category at a time, adjusting only the keys for that category. Indeed, in its current form, it relies on being fed a list of the files in that category obtained from a manually executed quarry query, such as quarry:query/36370, which needs to be adjusted and then re-run for each new category that is to be done. The script's application also tends to be rather limited, as many many files either have no information template, or no creation date, or a creation date corresponding to when they were uploaded, rather than when the map was actually made. So the process of ordering a category remains primarily manual; but the script I think would be a helpful assist, to take care of the most easy cases.
Furthermore there are some files which are perhaps not best placed in the main date sequence -- for example it may make sense to separately group together old maps with a particular sub-area of the category subject, distinct from the main sequence that depict the whole of the category subject. The script therefore ignores any files that already have a sort-key for the category, or have a defaultsort, leaving these for manual assessment; and it is intended that any actions will be closely reviewed, category by category.
As a result, in a test run on Category:Old maps of the Electorate of Trier, out of seventeen maps, the script only added a single sort-key. (diff); the rest were all added by hand.
Nevertheless, despite its limited application, for the easy cases I think the script could be a useful effort-saver, so I would welcome its approval.

Jheald (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Test run on Category:Old maps of Germany. (Edit history, 20:59 to 21:01). Worked as expected, though category is a bit too heterogeneous to really show the advantages. Bot was editing a little fast, so I have slowed it down x2. Jheald (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Looks OK for me, but it'll be great add same information to meta-data when related properties will be enabled on Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Adding sort keys is pretty obvious good housekeeping. Rather than bot scope changes needing separate requests, could you not write a more generalized request for this and other types of map or GLAM related housekeeping? After running so many projects, your judgement as to what would then go out of scope, or be potentially controversial and need a new consensus should be sufficient. -- (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Jheald: Please comment which way to go. Thx. --Krd 17:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

BMacZeroBot (talk · contribs) 6Edit

Operator: BMacZero (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: Perform a batch upload from NPGallery, the US National Park Service's photo repository (Commons:Batch uploading/NPGallery). Licensing for these images is all over the place, so I'm being careful to determine public domain status before uploading; I'll be starting with pre-1924 images, images credited only as "NPS Photo", and images credited to people who are whitelisted as NPS employees.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 uploads per minute (given the speed of the source site, it will in all likelihood be far slower)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Already has.

Programming language(s): C#

BMacZero (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Test run can be found in Category:Images from NPGallery to check. For the first few I made hand edits after uploading - in each case, I also updated the bot to do those things automatically. BMacZero (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please use language tags for Photographer and Depicted place fields. I also don't think that photos like File:Photo Op (5b2a2b65-0ba5-422a-8b04-dc47d36ee650).jpg and File:Posing (ad003174-6386-48df-a200-59eece4f59ce).jpg fit into Commons:Project scope. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Good catch, will add the language tags. I'm not sure it's possible for me to effectively detect photos that are primarily of specific people and therefore out of scope. I can try looking for phrases like "a man" and "two women" in the text, but I think we'd probably miss some good images that way. Maybe I can add such images to an additional check category for humans to review? BMacZero (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Users with quibbles are free to nominate any image for deletion. The overall value of the collection outweighs the odd out-of-scope random selfie shot. And images of specific non-notable people doing activities (or in locations) which are poorly illustrated on Commons can have educational use. Users of Wikivoyage or Wikibooks might like to use an image of everyday hikers in Denali National Park, without the inherent distraction in depicting a celebrity. Commons does not exist solely as a servant of Wikipedia, nor is it restricted to only Wikimedia projects. --Animalparty (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see big value to have pictures of everyday hikers in every possible place to hike. Places are more then enough for Wikivoyage. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I added the logic I described above and put the images it would catch into Category:Images from NPGallery to check for scope. I'll can monitor this as I go and add more conditions as I spot them. If you'd rather we make the decision preemptively and not upload these at all, I can open a wider discussion to see if there is a consensus one way or the other. BMacZero (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it's good idea to organize project to post-process files in mass uploads in many respects: reviewing, categorization, adding metadata, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Another useful field/addition to include is the NPGallery Album name of the images, to greatly improve categorization. This photo of a squirrel, categorized only at the National Park level (which are prone to crowding anyway), is one of 148 images in the Album: Squirrels in Denali: having the category name machine readable would greatly facilitate placing into Category:Mammals of Denali National Park or new subsidiary categories. --Animalparty (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Good catch, I forget to grab those on the download run. I've added an Album(s) line to the uploads. I also added the "NPS Unit Code". I did another 10 uploads with the changes. BMacZero (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Please also take a look on recent uploads. For example, language tags are missing in some fields in File:Ranger-Led Hike (bb4d7778-d65b-4ba3-8ddc-464d63ae1f4e).jpg, will be good idea to use plain text in description. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I added code to strip the spans and brs, though I am adding the paragraphs to separate the different elements that are going into the Description. I also code to add en tags to any text fields missing them (not the Unit Code, though, since it's a technical code). BMacZero (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Any other problems or thoughts, or should I proceed? @EugeneZelenko: – BMacZero (🗩) 02:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It'll be reasonable to repeat test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I started one and noticed some metadata keys that weren't getting downloaded. I'm fixing that up and I'll do a clean test afterwards. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Clean test finished, see Category:NPGallery Batch Upload Test 3. I did end up excluding the theoretical out-of-scope images; I'll work later on how to deal with those. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks OK for me. I could only suggest to improve edit summary: (BOT) could be omitted because account name state this fact; it could refer to particular batch (NPS, it's particular division, etc). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Good ideas; I will do that. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs) [17]Edit

Operator: Hazard-SJ (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: Removing empty daily sections from Commons:Village pump

My bot currently adds these sections daily, and the purpose of this request is to seek approval to also remove them once all their subsections are archived.
The level 1 headings were being incorrectly archived by ArchiverBot as part of the preceding level 2 section, as described in this discussion. In order to continue having the dated sections, but not have them being incorrectly archived, the User:SpBot is currently archiving the VP.
However, regardless of which bot does the archival, if both bots leave the level 1 section heading behind, then they will need to be manually removed (e.g. Special:Diff/347530623, Special:Diff/347675949, Special:Diff/348857696, Special:Diff/348554724, etc.).

I am seeking permission to have my bot also remove these sections if they are empty (and not for the current day).

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): under 5 edits per day (and usually not that many) - depending on how frequently the page is archived, I'll try to have it run fairly close in trail to reduce the amount of time the empty sections sit around, so this may get tweaked based on which bot is archiving etc.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): Python

See Commons talk:Village_pump#First section header (permalink above) for the current discussion about this issue. Hazard SJ 21:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment On average, removal should only happen once a day, but you could check as often as the API allows.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please make a test run. Probably empty daily header should be added artificially. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I found at least one such removal was done. whym (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      @Euku: In the edit before that, SpBot did not archive the "Commons:Photo challenge February results" section from "April 08", do you know why?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      There's a comment in that section from April 24, which is not yet 14 days old.  Hazard SJ  14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If a bot adds section headers, it is sensible for the same bot to remove them, after they become unnecessary. As I understand, this change is a necessary step to complete Hazard-Bot and SpBot's job there. (I think I could re-enable ArchiverBot, but apparently that's not necessary?) whym (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Whym: If ArchiverBot continues to treat headings like any other text within the section above it, then not quite: it will continue to archive a level 1 heading that immediately follows a level 2 section that is being archived (re-using the example Jeff G. shared, Special:Diff/326974187 and Special:Diff/326974179), which is undesirable behavior that had gone unnoticed for a long time (SpBot doesn't seem to have that issue). If it can properly treat it as a separate section instead, then yes; I had left a comment that may or may not help with ArchiverBot supporting that (not sure if you saw it): Special:Diff/347181763.  Hazard SJ  14:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Whym: For a setup like in the VP and HD the ArchiveBot is not necessary at all, but SpBot does not support all of the Miszabot config features.
@Hazard-SJ: For the test run as requested by Eugene you could set the timeout span for SpBot to 7 days like it was set up before (I’ve set it to 14; I would be happy if you’d let a notice for me about this). Then you wait for SpBot’s job, so you should get plenty of empty level 1 sections and could test your bot. — Speravir – 00:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: Done just now, thanks for the suggestion.  Hazard SJ  17:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. While I might try fixing it later, I'm happy with the current setup of VP that does not contain ArchiverBot, to be clear. whym (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko, Hazard-SJ: The test run was successful: Special:Diff/350162226/350162432. Is this enough or should there be more of these? — Speravir – 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks OK for me. You could differentiate edit summaries for section adding and removal, but this is not critical. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I actually planned to do that (I’m already keeping track of how many sections were removed and whether or not a new section was added), but haven’t gotten around to fully testing and implementing that into the summary as yet. Technically, a single edit could contain removals and an addition. I hope to look more into that in a week or so when I should have more time to finish that up; I could get back to you when that’s done.  Hazard SJ  18:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Even for addition and removal in single edit you could list added and removed sections. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please advise: Are there any unaddressed concerns remaining? Otherwise I think this should be approved soon. --Krd 17:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
From my point of view the Bot seems to reliably delete only empty sections. Hazard mentioned some intended changes, though. As Eugene wrote, distinct summaries for the two different jobs would be more user friendly. — Speravir – 01:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ: Can the requested changes be implemented? --Krd 13:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Should be done now, sorry about the delay.  Hazard SJ  17:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Requests for commentEdit