Commons talk:Bots/Requests

Change of policy?

The policy was always "If you want to run a bot on Commons, it is recommended that you get a bot flag." now it was suddenly changed to "If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first. " I oppose this change of policy, where was this discussed? Where is the consensus? Multichill (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion starting at Commons talk:Bots#page re-write. Would you like to comment there? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

@Multichill: Policy on Commons is descriptive and we've been requesting/requiring that people seek community approval for some time now. Getting the policy wording updated to match practice seems a good thing, but I'm not sure that it is a requirement that it be discussed again. But in any case, MM's suggestion of where to discuss this seems apt. Please be prepared to explain WHY you think that asking the community for approval of something (that is potentially very disruptive and potentially will require a lot of work to fix, should it go awry) is a bad thing. Most wikis either require bot approval, or are so small that the global bot policy is a better fit. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Commons talk:Bots#page re-write. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Restriction of bot

Where can I request that a bot be restricted so that it does not create falsehoods? In particular, the User:Slobot claims to reformat dates into the ISO 8601 format. However, dates in Commons are not necessarily in the Gregorian calendar or the proleptic Gregorian calendar, but dates in ISO 8601 format must be (proleptic) Gregorian dates. The user running the bots has declined to adress the matter. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not helped your case by calling the bot a liar, and nor have you said what actual changes you would like the bot operator to make. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not called the bot a liar. I have indicated that it could become a liar if, after warning, it makes false date conversions. As for a suggested change, I think the bot author should investigate the date when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in the countries where any language supported by the bot is the primary language. The bot should be limited to changes to dates where the year is greater than the most recent adoption year and less than or equal to 9999 (to conform to another ISO 8601 requirement).

Another alternative is to limit changes to fields that are sure to be computer generated dates, since such dates are almost always Gregorian.

Unfortunately, Commons does not seem to have any facility to inform readers of how ambiguous information should be interpreted, corresponding to the legend of a map. If such a facility existed, it could contain a statement that Commons content is not governed by ISO 8601 and the meaning of dates in the YYYY-MM-DD format must be determined from context. But as it is, not only is there a widespread perception that dates in that format are governed by that standard, but User:Slobot explicitly claims to follow the standard. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Approval process partially stuck

There are some requests with the discussion came to an end but still waiting for an action by the approval crew. Eg. FrescoBot, RobotMichiel1972, Esby-mw-bot, etc. The approval process seems to be partially stuck since april. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to reduce the risk of unnecessary stalls, I would suggest to introduce the use of templates like en:Template:BAG assistance needed and en:Template:Operator assistance needed. What do you think? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. --Jarekt (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Question: how does COM:AWB access (now at COM:RFR) figure in the bot approval process? Do secondary bot accounts with AWB access necessarily need to go through a bot approval process (even though AWB access for the main user's account seemingly doesn't)? Rd232 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Status

We now have Commons:Bots/Requests/Status to provide an overview. The statuses and colours are a bit experimental, but it's a start. Rd232 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Great idea! I'm sure this will help the bureaucrats to proceed the requests a bit faster. :) Trijnstel_talk 10:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't claim credit for the idea though - it came from en:Wikipedia:BAG/Status. Rd232 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone support this one that is automatically updated?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

With the addition of a bit of colour, yes it looks handy. --Fæ (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This lacks the current workflow status (e.g. opened, waiting for operator, waiting for community). --Dschwen (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bots making extremely long file names

US National Archives bot is using the file description as the file name. This is producing files with extremely long names, often with the useful part cut off. When I request changes to the names to something more manageable, there is no rename rule to cover this, so the request is summarily rejected.

So can we:

1. REGEX the names into something more readable? For instance, Demolishing a tower in London's Smithfield Market which was unsafe after it had been damaged by enemy action. New… - NARA - 541894.tif is perfectly described by "Demolishing a tower in London's Smithfield Market - NARA-541894.tif".
2. Add a rename rules for robo-articles like these so cleanup attempts aren't so hair pulling.

Comments?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To avoid duplication, I have responded at Commons:Village_pump#Ridiculous_file_names where this same topic has been raised. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot with unknown function

I have a question. We make soon a lot of pictures (photo flights) and I expect that here again changes are necessary, which can be done with a script/bot and should. How I can request such a bot, though I do not know the function? --XRay ^talk 16:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is need to request a bot if you do not yet know the function. As soon as you are clear about the function, the request should not be a problem. --McZusatz (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Translation Notification Bot

We should mark this as a bot, as other wikis have done. No need for RfBot because it's run by Mediawiki so it can't exactly fail the nomination. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Sure thing —  done odder (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Useful link

Since we don't have a bot's owners noticeboard like the English Wikipedia, I'll post this here.

// Useful tool for bot operators by [[commons:user:Riley Huntley]]
mw.util.addPortletLink('p-personal', mw.util.wikiGetlink('Special:Contributions/<INSERT BOT NAME>'), 'Bot', 'p-bot');

This handy tool is in my /global.js as I run my bot on a global level, but it would be most useful for local bot ops in their /common.js. This adds a link to your bot's contributions beside the log out button for easy reference. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Riley Huntley: This doesn't seem to have done the job. :(   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Pinging @~riley.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin Bot Request

Could someone educate me on how to request admin status for a bot? Would the request be placed here, on the admin's request page or both? Also, do we have a process for temporary admin status? The background is that I am thinking of a most effective way to allow my bot to perform his maintenance tasks also on permanently edit protected files. Currently, there are roughly 500 of them (surprisingly few). Based on a dry run, the bot would still perform a total of 100+ changes (mainly internationalization changes). Given the amount of changes, handing this over to an admin or making edit-change requests seems not the most practical way of handling this. Also, repetition of the task might not be necessary so this could be a one time run. Other suggestions are also welcome. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there is no policy about this. But I would say the user running the bot should definitely have admin rights. Then this can be requested in a regular bot request. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And if the bot operator is not an admin? There are quite different skill-sets needed to be an admin and a bot operator. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You can try, but succeeding is unlikely IMO. We don't have a policy here, but other wikis like enwiki has a policy requiring adminbot operators to be admins themselves, and some there are like cswiki (if I remember correctly) that adminbots are frowned upon and people run adminbot tasks on their main account (bad idea but it is how it is). So it's kind of a grey-zone.

Commons:Bots/Requests/Embedded_Data_Bot_(adminbot) was linked on both RFA and BRFA, but I don't remember seeing other adminbots at RFA (or maybe I just didn't look). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ad hoc semi-automated edits exempt from prior permission?

Just double checking that I got this right: performing ad hoc semi-automated tasks from my normal user account does not require a prior bot approval under COM:BOTS?

Specifically, I want to do things like run pywikibot's standard replace.py script from PAWS to make text substitutions on the file description pages of a given subset of my own uploads, or all images that were extracted from the same book scan, or similar. The immediate impetus for asking is that SteinsplitterBot just reminded me that I failed to add any categories to the ~67 images extracted from File:The Story of The Other Wise Man (1920).djvu, so I'd like to create a per-work category and add it to all of them.

To my mind this kind of thing is in the grey area between an actual bot bot, and a simple utility like HotCat, so I'd like to get some feedback before just assuming this was ok. Xover (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Commons:Bots: Semi-automated tools (e.g. JavaScript tools) are not normally considered to be bots and do not require a separate account, but some users choose to use a separate account for non-bot but high-speed editing.. I would add that the three important parts are 1) all edits are fully supervised or pre-determined 2) edits occur at a reasonable speed (~5-10 per minute) and on a reasonable number of files (~ < 1000) 3) edits follow standard practice / are considered uncontroversial and could be perform on a normal account. If this is fulfilled you can proceed directly. That's how I interprete our current practice. Additionally, please note that the request process is primarily to help operators to make the best edits, so we can avoid unnecessary overlap or re-work. It's more a quality ensurance process not only an approval process. This said, I would consider your described scope as ok to do. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That was more or less what I assumed, but since I'm not up to date on the bot practices on Commons, and other projects sometimes have extremely conservative policies on this (sometimes even for very good reason), I wanted to be certain before I let rip. And what I have in mind is indeed just automating edits I would otherwise make manually so I wouldn't expect any of them to be controversial in any way. Pywikibot throttles edits by default, and edits from PAWS have a separate tag, so it should also be clear to one and all what's going on. Xover (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for Neriah bot

Hello!

I apologize for sending the message in English. Please help translate to your language.

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for Neriah bot on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
—Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 14:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for InternetArchiveBot

Hello!

I apologize for sending the message in English. Please help translate to your language.

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at m:Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for InternetArchiveBot on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Buse filter is too aggressive

Instructions:

> Create a user account (while logged in to your normal account) and user page for the bot

Result:

> The Abuse filter has recognized a possible problem with your edit

> On Wikimedia Commons it is not usual for a user to edit someone else's

> user page. A user's main user page would generally only be edited by the user

I can edit the page of my bot on other wikis. The filter is too aggressive. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: It happens very rarely that a user who is not even flagged 'autopatrol' starts running a bot. That's been the reason here. --Achim55 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for Dušan Kreheľ (bot)

Hello!

I apologize for sending this message in English. Please help translate to your language.

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for Dušan Kreheľ (bot) on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
—Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 21:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for JhsBot

Hello!

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for JhsBot on Meta-Wiki. All Wikimedia community members are invited to participate.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Global bot flag request for Lingua Libre Bot

Apologies for sending this message solely in English. Please help translate to your language.

Hello,

This is a notice pursuant the global bot policy, to inform you that Lingua Libre Bot is requesting approval to operate as a global bot.

The discussion can be found at Steward requests/Bot status in Meta-Wiki. All Wikimedia Community members can participate in the discussion if they so wish.

Thank you.

You are receiving this message because this page is listed in the list of pages to notify about new global bot discussions. If you no longer wish to be notified, you may remove this page from that list at any time.

--MA (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Renewal

My bot (user:LA2-bot) apparently has lost its bot flag from a long period of inactivity. I don't see any form for submitting a request for renewal of the bot flag, only requests for entirely new bots. LA2 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@LA2 are you sure this had a bot flag? I don't see anything in the user rights log... —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you're right, it seems LA2-bot never had the flag, but still did some bot jobs. Including the one in the last couple of days, when it edited a few thousand image descriptions. Nobody complained, so I guess it is fine. --LA2 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for global bot flag for CommonsDelinker

Hello!

This is a notification to let you know that a new request for the global bot flag for CommonsDelinker has been started.

Please note that the request will remain open for 14 days starting today. You can leave a comment or opinion on the relevant page!

Best regards --Superpes15 (talk)

Extending FinnaUploadBot

Hi, currently we have botusers user:FinnaUploadBot and user:FinnaUploadBot2 which both are focusing uploading and updating images from Finnish national aggregator finna.fi. In this process the bots are adding phash and dhash imagehashes to SDC.

• pHash checksum (P9310)
• Imagehash difference hash (P12563)

However, I would like to process Estonian photos in Wikimedia hackathon in Tallinn, Estonia and in m:AI Sauna, Helsinki. For this I would like to bulk add imagehash values to commons photos from Estonia and Europeana as prework. Detection of Estonia and Europeana photos would be just that if there is link to *.ee or *.europeana.eu then it is in target photos and I would calculate the imagehashes and add these to SDC. Use case would be that values could be loaded using SPARQL and values could be used for matching photos between https://ajapaik.ee and Wikimedia commons.

If i want to extend bot to do this, is there some procedure what I need to do before I am writing imagehash values to Wikimedia Commons? --Zache (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)