Commons:Bots/Requests/MDanielsBot 2

MDanielsBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Mdaniels5757 (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: Since Magog The Ogre left and took their bot with them, I would like to take over its tasks with a fork of their code. This would perform all tasks OgreBot and OgreBot 2 performed, in the same way.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, supervised to start

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Variable by task, but same as User:OgreBot and User:OgreBot 2

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Variable by task, but same as User:OgreBot and User:OgreBot 2

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Already flagged

Programming language(s): PHP/Peachy, NodeJS. Source (with minor updates in progress) at [1].

Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Sounds good to me. But I would like to check what the bot does with license migration because it sometimes creates un needed work. --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: OK, how does it create unneeded work/how can I fix it? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: There were cases like this where the bot asked for a license migration review. We do not need that because of the CC-BY-4.0.

If you can point me to the code where the license migration related stuff is I can have a look at it. --MGA73 (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I think it should be a simple-ish fix here at about line 48. The only concern I have is that the documentation only talks about CC-BY-3.0 being migration-eligible, not 4.0 -- is it ok to mark as redundant? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: yes it only mention 3.0 because 4.0 was not invented at that time. If you try to copy and preview these templates you will see that the coding treat all of those as "redundant": {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-4.0}}, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-4.0}}. {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} and {{self|GFDL|cc-by-all}}. So in these cases the bot should simply ignore those templates. There is no need to mark them as "|migration=redundant" and certainly not "migration=review".

Thinking of it I do not know why it even marks files with "migration = review" at all because if the template thinks someone should look at it then it will put the file in Category:License migration candidates. --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Full support for the request. I would like to treat this as a new request, with the understanding that it performs same tasks as OgreBot and OgreBot 2. So, I have a couple of questions/suggestions:

• I understand that you forked the code from OgreBot / OgreBot 2. Please confirm that you are able to read and understand the code and are able to address bugs or issues, as necessary?
• Will you perform the gallery and new user updates under the namespace of your bot or contine under the username of OgreBot / OgreBot 2?
• Please remvoe (Bot:) from the edit summaries. The current edit style in commons seems to not use this any more as long as the user has Bot in the name and is flagged as a bot.
• Please update the tasks descriptions on your bot's user page to a full description of the task (we should not assume that everyone is or was familiar with OgreBot's tasks, and they should not be redirected to another bot).
• Are you able to update the edit summaries from OgreBot 2 to be more specific of what part was cleaned up? Based on the FAQ's from OgreBot 2 it seems that some user do not directly understand what is going on. I think it would be great to separate out edits made to use international templates from cleanups performed on interwiki transfers.

--Schlurcher (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Schlurcher! 1) Yes, I do understand the code, and can fix bugs as needed. 2) I intend to perform the gallery and new user updates under my bot's namespace, unless that will cause a problem. 3) "(Bot:)" should be removed from most now (they're pretty scattered about), I'll address the stragglers as they come up. 4) Will do. 5) I'll look into it, but my hunch is that that would require a substantial number of changes. I think a better approach would be to link to the FAQ (which I will update) in the edit summary. -- Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please make a test run for uploads reports? When bot will be approved please generate all missing past reports. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: Upload report is done, here it is. Yes, I will generate the missing reports if approved. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Aaannd it looks like OgreBot is back. I withdraw my request. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)