Member since January, 2013
Bot This user account is a bot operated by Riley Huntley (talk).

It is not a sock puppet, but rather an automated or semi-automated account for making repetitive edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually.
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

taskscontribscountlogspage moves block userblock logflag logglobal contribs flag bot

Emergency bot shutoff button

Administrators: Use this button if the bot is malfunctioning.
Non-administrators can report misbehaving bots to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.


RileyBot (talk · contribs) 8Edit

Operator: Riley Huntley (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: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/06#Request shows consensus for removal of "uploaded by" in the file namespace, as it has caused confusion in the past. I am requesting openended removal of "Uploaded by" and similiar phrases that fall within the same scope. As shown here, McZusatz was doing this job with YaCBot. However, his bot is no longer running the task nor was it approved. I am looking to run it openendly for all uploaders, in order to ensure that external re-users of Commons content are able to attribute Commons materials inline with the stated licences. I have gone ahead and done a trial run of 20 edits.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): maxlag:5

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Pywikipediabot

Riley Huntley (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is consensus to do so the function schould be enabled again in YaCBot. YaCBot is also doing a lot of other stuff (cleanup tasks). Can your bot do the cleanup stuff as well? --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So the bot that runs the task without seeking approval, would get to continue the task after I get it approved for them? Not sure what I think about that. In any case, yes, my bot can do cleanup stuff as well. Riley Huntley (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
YaCBot is approved for doing cleanup tasks (bot operators are not expected to re-apply every time they want to implement a small alteration). Commons sense schould be used. I see no problem if your bot does that task as well, there are ten thousands of affected pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@McZusatz: --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Related discussions about YaCBot on this task: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/07#Redundant, Commons:Bots/Requests/YaCBot_(confirmation), Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_54#YaCBot. Simply removing the tags may raise the same controversy as in the first discussion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I missed those, thanks for linking them. I am more than willing to do the same as layed out in Commons:Bots/Requests/YaCBot (confirmation) as well as offering opt out of the user categories. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I am ok if this task is done by a separate bot. You could even keep your current bot logic and do it without the opt-out (instead ask about opt-in to removal by the uploader on their talk page to avoid controversy). I know that russavia opted in to the removal, so you already got quite a batch of files. --McZusatz (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Opt in it is! Riley Huntley (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I am happy to see a more cautious opt-in approach, which was missed in the YaCBot run. It would probably worth getting a more public consensus so that any account has been inactive for a long period, such as no edits for more than 2 years, could be asked to opt-out if they care. Fiddling about with user categories by bot, will remain controversial. -- (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Public consensus will be gathered if/when it gets to that point. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think task should be approved. @Krd: and @EugeneZelenko: Riley Huntley (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Krd: and @EugeneZelenko: - Pinging again. Riley Huntley (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Approved. odder (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)