Commons:Bots/Requests/BartBotje

BartBotje (talk · contribs)

Operator: Bj.schoenmakers (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Uploading nature related images from plantennamen.info, waarneming.nl waarnemingen.be and observation.org (and other sites in the future in aid of the dutch nature wikiproject Dutch)

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic when manually initiated

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time runs at the discretion of the operator

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): avg. 10 per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Perl using: MediaWiki::Bot and MediaWiki::API

Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This bot already has a botflag for the Dutch wikipedia. I want to be able to use it for uploading image batches and as a back-end for a tool i'm creating, allowing users of waarneming.nl, waarnemingen.be and observado.org (sites for nature observations) to publish media to commons using the correct copyright/attribution etc.

•  Support. For plantennamen we have a valid OTRS-ticket (ticket:2017031610007597). Bot owner knows what he is doing and the pics at the sites mentioned are great. Natuur12 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please make a few test edits. --Krd 06:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, did a few test-uploads in Category:Images from plantennamen.info

  Please enclose author name in language tag. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please make dates complaint with {{ISOdate}} in the {{Information}} template to allow for multilingual dates. Example: |date=Tue Apr 25 01:16:25 2017 changed to |date=2017-04-25 01:16:25~riley (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Question Why doesn't plantennamen have the author's name anywhere? It makes your template statement "This permission only extends to photos taken by Maarten van der Veer at this link." very hard to interpret, because I can't see who any of the photos are by. --99of9 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a slight problem with the ticket. Most likely outcome: we will have too delete the test uploads from plantennamen. I will leave some detailed notes at the ticket in some days too explain what went wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I nuked the uploads from Plantennamen. It turns out that this person didn't take at least a significant amount of the photographs himself. This was only found out after an extensive check off the test uploads. Most uploads contained consistent EXIF but some didn't. Perhaps we can still hoste some off the files in the future but not this day and given the situation not any day soon. Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Always ask at least one question :). Thanks for investigating Natuur12. --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'd be happy to see test uploads from the other sites. --99of9 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I did some test uploads from waarneming.nl, waarnemingen.be and observations.org :

Natrix natrix (Colubridae) (European Grass Snake), Biebrza NP, Poland.jpg
Alces alces (Cervidae) (Eurasian elk), Biebrza NP, Poland.jpg
Eysarcoris venustissimus (Pentatomidae) (Woundwort Shieldbug) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands - 2.jpg
Eysarcoris venustissimus (Pentatomidae) (Woundwort Shieldbug) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands.jpg
Harmonia axyridis f. succinea (Coccinellidae) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands.jpg
Diurnea fagella (Chimabachidae) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands.jpg
Lophophanes cristatus (Paridae) (European Crested Tit) - (adult), Oberengadin, Switzerland.jpg
Pseudoips prasinana (Nolidae) (Green Silver-lines) - (imago), Zemst, Belgium.jpg
Bombylius major (Bombyliidae) (Dark-edged Bee-fly) - (imago), Arnhem, the Netherlands.jpg
Ommatoiulus sabulosus (Julidae) (Striped Millipede), Molenhoek, the Netherlands.jpg

Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• The latest upload contains {{LicenseReview}}. Ca we assume that the bot checked the license before the upload, can we consider this reviewed? --Krd 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Bj.schoenmakers:  ? --Krd 05:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The tool can only be used to upload files with license CC0, BY-SA and BY .. this is checked at upload-time and timestamped using a url-copy at archive.org (since users are allowed to change their copyright/license settings), Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

    So if this is already checked at upload time, do we need {{LicenseReview}} or can we consider this already reviewed by the bot during upload? --Krd 12:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

    @Bj.schoenmakers:  ? --Krd 05:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

    Yes, the copyright/license is checked by the bot during upload, do you want me to remove the {{LicenseReview}} template ? (or is it autopatrolled or something ?) Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

    Yes, I'd say if it was already reviewed by the bot it does not require additional human review. It should be replaced by the template version which says review is complete. --Krd 17:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Krd: this may be controversial (2014 discussion). I was not allowed to do this for my uploads even though I could prove that using the FlickrAPI meant I had automatically confirmed the license and there was no true value by having the standard Flickr bot do exactly the same thing again. I would support a definition of what is required for bots to skip license review, but this may need a community consensus beyond an individual bot discussion. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Why does the account need a bot flag? --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  How many upload are intended to be done by this bot? --Krd 13:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Could anybody please summarize what is the status of this request? Are there open questions or unresolved objections? --Krd 16:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Approved. --Krd 13:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)