Commons:Bots/Requests/Hazard-Bot 13

Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs) [13]

Operator: Hazard-SJ (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: 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)

Discussion

• 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)
  • I'm closing this request as  stale given lack of any follow-up in over a month. odder (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)