Commons:Bots/Requests/LSHuploadBot (2)
LSHuploadBot (talk · contribs) (2)
Operator: Lokal_Profil (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Upload of the second full sized batch of images in Commons:Batch_uploading/LSH
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:
- Image uploads
Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic-supervised
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run (Ideally later runs, same code just for the newly digitised images could be done with the same request)
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): ~ 2/min (or more depending on upload speed/filesize)
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
Programming language(s): Python
André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
This bot is essentially doing the same thing as for the first upload. However this time the upload is happening from my local computer rather than sending the disk, thus the request for the flag. Test uploads are now running. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- For transparancy. Unlike last time I'm running the bot with my work hat on, hence the missmatch of Lokal_Profil/André Costa (WMSE) above. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
A new request is only necessary if the task of the bot changes substantially (in my understanding). I propose we "speedy" close this request as approved. --Dschwen (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why does the bot not have a flag already if this is the 2nd upload batch? --Dschwen (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The last upload ended up being made server-side so that request was closed. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Previous (withdrawn) request. --Dschwen (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@André Costa (WMSE): Ok, to get this request moving along I'd like to see the bot code, then I'd like to see a test upload. --Dschwen (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Dschwen: . Source is at https://github.com/lokal-profil/LSH/tree/redux (note that it is the redux branch). Test upload is currently running. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@André Costa (WMSE): Well, it looks like this bot is already uploading full steam. I'd like to point out that this is not how the bot approval process is supposed to work, and that you are risking to piss off people if you work this way :-/. The uploads do look okay to me, so I will leave it running, but the point of the request process is to have multiple eyes on the bot before it can do lots of damage on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Considering the script had generated the descriptions for the ~14.000 images uploaded in the first run some 6 months ago (with plenty of feedback and iteration on the batch upload page) I was pretty sure that the bot had been looked at several times by different people. The fact that a separate request is needed here (which wouldn't have been needed for a GWToolset upload, server side upload or upload using any third party tools) does in itself reflect a problem in that upload bots are dealt with separate from their batch upload discussions. A quick look at Commons:Batch_uploading reveals that the majority of the bots there do not apply/reapply for a flag when they perform a (new) batch upload.
- IMHO assuming the batch discussion has been healthy with tests and iterations the only remaining reason for a separate bot request would be to look at the elements that are related to the actual upload i.e. upload speed (and summaries if file upload default is not used). Either that or use this as the platform for a fully fledged code review, which although potentially useful would probably not be reasonable. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- look at the elements that are related to the actual upload i.e. upload speed (and summaries if file upload default is not used) Yeah, and this has not been done. Look, I do not want to stand in the way of getting work done. What I'm telling you is that starting a process and then in the middle of it deciding to ignore it and go ahead is not likely to improve the working atmosphere here. Regardless of the rationalizations you may have (they do sound valid though). It would have been more productive if you had posted your last comment at the beginning of this discussion. I.e. you could have made clear that the descriptions of the previous upload were generated by the same bot code. This would have confirmed my earlier position to speedy close the request, instead it seems I took your comment that the previous uploads were made server side the wrong way (as in the bot was not used at all and hence the request withdrawn). So, we should chalk this up to a communication malfunction. I'll just close this request as approved then. --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Approved --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)