Commons:Bots/Requests/MDanielsBot
MDanielsBot (talk · contribs)
Operator: Mdaniels5757 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: I would automatically licence review Finna uploads. This involves two steps. First, I would use the Finna and Wiki API to determine if the license was CC-BY-4.0 (the most common one, although I reserve the right to add any others) and export the working ones to a text file. This step would run on Toolforge using a Python script (source at User:MDanielsBot/CheckFinna.py). Next, I would import that text file into AWB and run it in bot mode to update the license template, as well as performing some general fixes (AWB config at User:MDanielsBot/AWBConfig.xml).
I've read the discussion at Commons:Bots/Requests/YouTubeReviewBot, and think that this bot would cause fewer concerns related to reviewing. Finna uploaders are verified institutions (libraries, museums, etc.). Therefore, they could be trusted to understand and not upload/freely license works containing DW/FoP issues. Also, the bot checks whether the images are the same, so we don't need to worry about that.
A request for the License Reviewer bit and AWB access will be forthcoming. Requests for license reviewer and AWB are here and here, respectively.
Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, supervised at first.
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): As needed. The editing portion will run on my computer, so it will only work when I'm around.
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 1 edit per 5 sec
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
Programming language(s): AWB (edits), Python (checking)
Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- @Mdaniels5757: why do you say that you "reserve the right to add any others"? Why not just list the licenses that you could add now? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: I haven't listed other licenses because I don't know if they exist. I checked on PetScan, and apparently there were 8 Finna images that needed review and not tagged as cc-by-4.0 (all of which were tagged incorrectly as cc-by-sa-4.0), so unless there's a batch of new images under a different license, I wouldn't need to do change anything. If a big batch of non cc-by-sa-4.0 images are transferred, unless there's something I'm not thinking of, it would be silly to need to go through the entire BRFA process again, so I would make the "small alteration" as permitted by COM:BOT. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- License reviewer and AWB granted to facilitate bot trial, separate discussions for those not needed per this bot request (centralized approach), 'crat can remove if bot request denied. ~riley (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Test run complete. Aside from the very first edit (which had a problem with the PetScan query that I fixed), no problems I can see. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Support I checked all the edits and the only problem I found was the first one where the file was reviewed and had a review request at the same time. That could be fixed and if not all that will happen is that the file is reviewed twice. So I think request can be approved.
- You could however argue if the museum licensed the files correctly or they should be PD. But that is another problem. Besides it is easy to relicense later if needed because the files have creator template so a bot can fix that later. --MGA73 (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Approved. --Krd 16:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)