Commons:Requests and votes
This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.
When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights!
How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons
[edit]- Oversighter: Commons:Oversighters/Requests
- Checkuser: Commons:Checkusers/Requests
- Bureaucrat: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests
- Administrator: Commons:Administrators/Requests
- License reviewer: Commons:License review/Requests
- Bot: Commons:Bots/Requests
All applications made on the above pages are automatically transcluded onto this page.
How to comment and vote
[edit]Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.
It is preferable if you give reasons both for Support votes or Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Purge the cache. Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.
Requests for Oversight rights
[edit]When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.
- Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
No current requests.
Requests for CheckUser rights
[edit]When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.
- Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
No current requests.
Requests for bureaucratship
[edit]When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.
- Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
No current requests.
Requests for adminship
[edit]When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.
- Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Bastique (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (Activity: Talk Commons DR)
- Scheduled to end: 21:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to be wordy. I was a Commons Administrator for 12 years, from 2006 to 2018, when I lost the status because of inactivity. Much of that was my career and slowly growing apart from the Wikimedia projects in general. But in the last couple of years I've increased my involvement in the projects, helping when I've found the time. And I managed to bring myself to Wikimania this year in Katowice, reacquainting myself with the community and meeting a huge number of new people.
I was satisfied with just being a contributor and reviewer, however, I understand there is a huge backlog of things that need to be done, and I felt compelled to ask for the administrator rights again so I can better help with tasks here.
Plus, I am committed to not falling into inactivity again! Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 21:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Votes
[edit]- Support They know how to do the job, and we could definitely use the help. Abzeronow (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
👍 modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 23:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)- Support. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 01:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back.-- Mohammed Qays 🗣 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support welcome back old friend Bedivere (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fit India 06:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Gnom (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support welcome back Gnangarra 08:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Waqar💬 08:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose All due respect for your work, but IMHO flag should be granted also with regard of more recent activity... but as for Commons namespace (most relevant for admin work) unfortunately I see far less than 100 edits of yours in the last two years, and why should I presume it would be so much more in future? Sorry --A.Savin 08:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- i agree with a.savin. your activity is low. please be more active. thanks. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 11:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Experienced editor. T CellsTalk 16:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose seems like hatcollecting, not much recent activity. Didn't the user also work for WMF, but that no longer? ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- this is their personal account, Bastique was an employee when being an active contributor was considered a requirement and staff werent expected to take actions as employees. Gnangarra 00:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see the need for the admin tools -- DaxServer (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose after checking his contributions, it is really low amount for recent years. i believe you should do more and apply here later. sorry. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 23:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support User has a long history with proof he'll be a good admin. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back! RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Also low admin activity is helpful and welcome. --Achim55 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--RZuo (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Hadi (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support as I see no apparent issues and Commons does need more admins. Welcome back. EPIC (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support, given that activity concerns will be addressed in future. Ratekreel (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather little recent activity on Commons --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Commons need more admins as it is a very backlogged project. If the user expects to become active again, and was an admin in the past, we should give them the toolbox. --A09 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back to Commons, I have faith user will become more active again. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 20:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC) - Support Welcome back amigo! --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Any help is always appreciated, no matter how big or small. Jianhui67 T★C 06:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose too few contributions – increase activity here first and then request adminship, not the other way around...there's mountains of maintenance tasks here that can be done without admin rights. Per A.Savin. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have over 14,500 contributions on Commons--so "too few contributions" is not a valid reason. See Gnangarra's statement below regarding Commons policy regarding re-adminship. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 16:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is a valid reason because 14,500 contributions isn't really much (albeit depending a lot on which kind of contributions you do) and, more importantly, because as a.savin said your recent contributions are low. I'd likely support if you get active first and then apply, why not spend a month or six contributing here as a normal user first? Agree with modern_primat that you should rather apply at another time. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Commons policy doesn't necessitate that I apply at another time when my recent contributions have stacked up to meet the original criteria for Administrator. Commons longstanding and stated policy is that "Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process". I was an administrator here for 14 years. I earned the community trust long ago. Re-adminship was never intended to be the inquisition it is on English Wikipedia. It was meant for those of us who have returned in good faith, once again able to take on the commitment of doing this entirely thankless job on Commons to do so. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is a valid reason because 14,500 contributions isn't really much (albeit depending a lot on which kind of contributions you do) and, more importantly, because as a.savin said your recent contributions are low. I'd likely support if you get active first and then apply, why not spend a month or six contributing here as a normal user first? Agree with modern_primat that you should rather apply at another time. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have over 14,500 contributions on Commons--so "too few contributions" is not a valid reason. See Gnangarra's statement below regarding Commons policy regarding re-adminship. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 16:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose kinda lazy bummer far less than 100 edits of yours in the last two years. Sorry, but motivation looks otherwise. --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm not generally a huge fan of people with low edit counts becoming admins. I think the fact that Bastique already had the tools once and worked for the WMF at least shows they aren't going to botch the role up or anything. IMO a not very active admin who's experienced at the job and committed to contributing more is a lot better then nothing. There really needs to be more admins who go through the back logs, period. If Bastique just deals with a couple of DRs once in a while that will still be a huge improvement. More so if, or when, they are doing it on more of a full time basis. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Any help is always appreciated. Trusted user. Raymond (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- What backlogs would you be helping with as an administrator? Because there are lots of backlogs which ordinary editors can help to reduce, like subcategories of Category:Categories requiring diffusion, Category:Files needing categories and probably much more in Category:Commons maintenance. --JopkeB (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- This isnt english wikipedia as per COM:DEADMIN Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process. there is no inquisition required for admins returning after inactivity. The specified requirement is that they expect to become active. Gnangarra 09:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the information, I did not know that. JopkeB (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- How many admin actions are you planning to perform per month? --GPSLeo (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Requests for license reviewer rights
[edit]Rkieferbaum
[edit]MasterRus21thCentury
[edit]Hiyyihjaleh727
[edit]- Hiyyihjaleh727 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
- Reason: I’d like to express my interest to become a reviewer. I’ve been on here since November 2022 and have contributed my own pictures, mainly focusing on South Korean content. I would help with the backlog of reviews. I hope to help out when needed. Thank you for considering my application!--Hiyyihjaleh727 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Scheduled to end: 11:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
Requests for permission to run a bot
[edit]Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.
When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.
Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.
Operator: Zbytovsky (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: upload images, update their description and structured data
Automatic or manually assisted: automatically triggered, when upload happens on OsmAPP.org
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): when user uploads an image on OsmAPP.org
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 20 ?
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes No - IP exemption is enough
Programming language(s): TypeScript
Note:
I am creating an open-source app for browsing OpenStreetMap – the OsmAPP – and currently I am developing an upload tool, which lets OSM users add images to any map features and link them together.
I already requested last year, but the development took longer, Wiki API is quite challenging to work with. :)
- TEST RUN: File:Patník N.73 (Boundary Stone) - OsmAPP.jpg
- CODE: osmapp PR#492 - uploadToWikimediaCommons.ts
Although, I have a big issue now – the OsmAPP.org is hosted at Vercel Platform, which is unfortunately completely blocked from accessing Wiki APIs. I asked Wikimedia Stewards if it is possible to be unblocked, but they said the only option is to flag OsmappBot with the "bot flag". So can I ask for the flag for this reason, please? edit: no need for Bot Flag, IPBE is working good. See discussion below.
I welcome any ideas or recommendations how to make this upload process more useful for Wiki-projects. After the OsmappBot is unblocked and I have a working demo, I will submit it also to Village Pump.
Zbytovsky (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Please make test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko The bot flag is needed for the test run due to where the bot is hosted. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I had the same issue. Resolved it by requesting the IP Exception right, not the Bot right. Would that help?. These uploads should appear on recent changes, so I would like to consider other options that bot right. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- This one Commons:IP block exemption --Schlurcher (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I asked for the exemption here. 🤞 Zbytovsky (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Zbytovsky, I've granted IPBE for one week. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. We manage to make a test run from our production server and all works fine 🎉 Can you please grant a permanent IPBE?
- I uploaded few images from my app - see the bot's contrib page. Since this is not an import, but real-time upload on behalf of OSM user, any change I make to the bot will only affect future uploads.
- Should I completely finish the UI in the OsmAPP, or could I talk at the Village Pump first? eg. is the current images enough to asses usefullness for the wiki project, or should people be able to upload images themselves? Thx. Zbytovsky (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Zbytovsky, I've granted IPBE for one week. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I asked for the exemption here. 🤞 Zbytovsky (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- This one Commons:IP block exemption --Schlurcher (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I had the same issue. Resolved it by requesting the IP Exception right, not the Bot right. Would that help?. These uploads should appear on recent changes, so I would like to consider other options that bot right. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Why is {{FoP-Czech_Republic}} included in files that don't show copyrightable things? Will it also be included when things are depicited that don't fall inside FoP? What about countries that don't have FoP? --Krd 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Ammarpad (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: File description cleanup and categorization for files uploaded with Reworkhelper tool. Per this request
Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (the bot already has a bot flag )
Programming language(s): Python
– Ammarpad (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Test run here. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems OK for me, but may be template would be better solution? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I am not sure. But it seems to me other tool-based uploads identification mostly use categories only, see Category:Files by upload tool. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems OK for me, but may be template would be better solution? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is that needed for? --Krd 11:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Krd, I believe consistency and ease of navigating files uploaded with a specific tool. It's easier to find all uploads by a specific tool because of Category:Files by upload tool and the way the tools therein utilize the category. But that's not possible/much more difficult to do if the tool puts its name just in the file description, the way this tool does. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is the use case of knowing which tool a file was uploaded with? Is this already fixed in the tools themselves, so that the bot would have to cleanup past issues only? Krd 13:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Krd, I believe consistency and ease of navigating files uploaded with a specific tool. It's easier to find all uploads by a specific tool because of Category:Files by upload tool and the way the tools therein utilize the category. But that's not possible/much more difficult to do if the tool puts its name just in the file description, the way this tool does. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
FlaschBot1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Operator: Fl.schmitt (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Add {{Information}} to Media missing infobox template. See exhaustive preparative discussion on Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Media_missing_infobox_template. The bot tries to put as much information as possible into SDC fields (author, source, captions, date), since {{Information}} uses those data as default.
Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted. The bot follows "divide and conquer" tactics. Since it seems to be impossible to apply one solutions to > 300,000 media files lacking an infobox template, it will work on sets of files, usually defined by same author / creator (assuming that those files share sufficient similarities). The bot will be run multiple times on that set of files in different modes. First, analyze the file page content and try to categorize each of its components, without modifying and content on Commons. This step will be repeated (manually) as often as needed to adapt the categorization patterns, until a pattern set that fits for all file pages of the current set has been found. Now, a "dry-run" ("simulation") generates an overview over the "planned" modifications (see txt and SQLite analysis and simulation results for Category:Media missing infobox template (maps t1)). Only if this simulation result seems acceptable, the bot will run in "doit" mode to apply the "proposed" edits.
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Multiple times a week, but not daily.
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Maybe 5-6 per Minute?
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
Programming language(s): pywikibot
Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Please make test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bot ran into abuse filter trying to set SDC date... see Commons_talk:Abuse_filter#Report_by_FlaschBot1. It seems that the bot is currently not allowed to modify SDC data. Here's a first text modification (which is incomplete lacking SDC source and date...): Revision #920662309. I will report back as soon as the abuse filter issue is solved. FlaschBot1 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Hmm, SDC modifications seem to be generally forbidden for new users (and new bots...), according to Special:AbuseFilter/265. Is there a way to get things working nevertheless? FlaschBot1 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be ok to use my personal account for the test runs? Fl.schmitt (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, took some time for me to understand the problem - bot will reach autoconfirmed status on Sep 10, allowing SDC modifications. Once autoconfirmed, I will continue with test runs. Fl.schmitt (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be ok to use my personal account for the test runs? Fl.schmitt (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: test run done: Revision #922463275, Revision #922466275, Revision #922465199, Revision #922464360 and Revision #922461351 (last one - Map of Canton Sankt Gallen.png - has one additional edit by another bot).Map of Canton Schaffhausen.png is an example for adding a caption since a language-specific description template ({{Es}}) was detected. FlaschBot1 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source and author (Artist in original description) are duplicated in {{Information}}. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: yes, but I think this is better than removing parts of the original description. Removed parts are lost completely, for example using "artist" for the original uploader (which is IMO a nice, sympathetic way of referencing a person). That's an individual trait of the original description that's worth keeping. People shouldn't have to crawl the page history for this. The bot's general approach is to keep the original file description as intact as possible. Its main task is identifying SDC-relevant data, adding SDC and add {{Information}} for a uniform appearance. Keeping the original description is also some sort of "safety net" against the loss of relevant and important information about the file. Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source and author (Artist in original description) are duplicated in {{Information}}. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think this bot is ready for work now. Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
It sounds to me like mostly manual work, which should not be done with a bot account. Am I mistaken? --Krd 13:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if this sort of task should be done by a bot account. I assumed that doing such edits automatically on numerous files using a script is a typical task for a bot.
- Anyway, in my opinion it's mostly bot work, for example automatically checking the initial upload date of a file and using it as the latest value for SDC inception if there's no creation date available in the unstructured file description. That's work for a python script and not for a human being... Additionally, it's not feasibly to edit both SDC and text content of a file page manually, setting multiple SDC values for a single property (e.g. creator). In short: the focus lies on the script-based application of rules that were created "intellectually".
- Of course, there's a "manual" part: checking and adapting the regex rules to identify/categorize the unstructured content, to detect patterns how e.g. creators are mentioned. Additionally, some files may require manual intervention if a rule would only apply to single files. But once the regex rules are defined, they can and should be applied to the complete input set. And that's a bot's task, isn't it? Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Operator: トトト (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Simple text replacement
Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic manually assisted
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 edits per minute
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
Programming language(s): Python Pywikibot
トトト (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion
- An example of edits is this. The bot is aimed to assist replacing names of some parameters in the templates {{Japanc}}, {{Japanp}}, {{Aichic}}, etc which I am testing now. Affected files are not too many, but neither few, and by limiting edits within certain categories, it will be unlikely to give harm to unrelated files. --トトト (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please make a test run. Krd 02:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have tested with my account. And all the necessary edits related to the parameter name changes of {{Japanc}} and {{Japanp}} are completed for now. So I have tried another task today, adding region:JP_scale:5000 to geodata of files from Japan. This was innitially tried from Tototobot (talk · contribs) account, but an error message occured and the task was terminated unexpectedly at PAWS. Perhaps was it because of antispam filter? So I did it on my own account. --トトト (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Has done some edits successfully. Since it's so far away to compose my own script, right now it does only some replace.py tasks on Pywikibot framework. --トトト (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have tested with my account. And all the necessary edits related to the parameter name changes of {{Japanc}} and {{Japanp}} are completed for now. So I have tried another task today, adding region:JP_scale:5000 to geodata of files from Japan. This was innitially tried from Tototobot (talk · contribs) account, but an error message occured and the task was terminated unexpectedly at PAWS. Perhaps was it because of antispam filter? So I did it on my own account. --トトト (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please make a test run. Krd 02:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
If possible please put into the edit summary not only what is done but also why it is done. Please make another test run. --Krd 13:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with this request, but let me allow some testimony here. Recently I have updated templates regarding the monthly rail transport of 47 prefectures of Japan (i.e. {{Railtransportmonth-KanagawaPref}} 1). One of the purposes of these edits is to add a new category Category:(month name) in rail transport in xxxx prefecture to every page using these templates. However, the wiki system didn't make this revision effective unless there are some kind of edits to these pages. It means that I had to delete the last indention from all these pages manually. So at first I thought, well, then how about using pywiki-bot for these tasks? I tried replay.py replacing
}}\s
to}}
for these pages (i.e this page). This is a simple enough task for a novice code learner. But the sad thing is, pywiki-bot said that such a task is unnecessary, and didn't execute anything. Certainly it might be a meaningless edit from the point of view of contents-creation, but I shall say it is necessary for page maintenance, i.e., in order to activate the latest revision of templates. So I ended up using AWB executing simple replacement tasks for all the pages. By pushing "Save" button for thousand time or so, these pages are to be re-defined. Letting pywiki-bot add a user-template-generated harmless characters such as<!-- -->
to these pages is another idea, but I didn't like it because it polutes the edit history of these pages. So this is it. It will be good if my bot can execute auxiliary tasks to my manual edits, but since I am a novice in this field,currently I have no detailed plans how to use it.Thank you for reading this. --トトト (talk)19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)--トトト (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have added explanation to User:Tototobot. Removing
{{Geogroup}}
from template-generated categories is an important task, especially after{{Geogroup}}
is being implemented in the template itself. I will also try to improve the description of edit summaries. --トトト (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have added explanation to User:Tototobot. Removing
- This has nothing to do with this request, but let me allow some testimony here. Recently I have updated templates regarding the monthly rail transport of 47 prefectures of Japan (i.e. {{Railtransportmonth-KanagawaPref}} 1). One of the purposes of these edits is to add a new category Category:(month name) in rail transport in xxxx prefecture to every page using these templates. However, the wiki system didn't make this revision effective unless there are some kind of edits to these pages. It means that I had to delete the last indention from all these pages manually. So at first I thought, well, then how about using pywiki-bot for these tasks? I tried replay.py replacing
Operator: Leaderboard (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: meta:Global_reminder_bot for Commons
Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Roughly expected to be a maximum of ~2-3 edits per day
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (the bot already has a bot flag for another task, but the bot flag won't be used for this task)
Programming language(s): Python
A test edit is available at testwiki:User talk:Leaderbot demo.
Leaderboard (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Did you create relevant template, so message could be translated on other languages? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @EugeneZelenko: No - this is something I've planned for the future. That being said, would it be OK to have the message displayed in English with a link for the user to view the message on other languages in a central Meta-Wiki page? And can this be done later (i.e, after the bot starts running here)? Leaderboard (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- It'll be better to have local template, just for consistency with other messages. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: what do you mean by "local template"? Just want to confirm that I'm not missing something. Leaderboard (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I meant template on Commons. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @EugeneZelenko: which template exactly? Do you mean TNT (translatable template)? An example would be useful - there already exists a default translatable message on Meta: metawiki:Global reminder bot/Messages/default. Leaderboard (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- See {{Welcome}}, {{Copyvionote}}, etc. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: , does Global_reminder_bot/Messages/default work for you? Also can you mark that page for translation? Leaderboard (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Text seems OK for me, but Template namespace should be used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko This has been done: Template:Global_reminder_bot/Messages/default. Can I start a trial? Leaderboard (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Text seems OK for me, but Template namespace should be used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: , does Global_reminder_bot/Messages/default work for you? Also can you mark that page for translation? Leaderboard (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- See {{Welcome}}, {{Copyvionote}}, etc. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @EugeneZelenko: which template exactly? Do you mean TNT (translatable template)? An example would be useful - there already exists a default translatable message on Meta: metawiki:Global reminder bot/Messages/default. Leaderboard (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I meant template on Commons. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: what do you mean by "local template"? Just want to confirm that I'm not missing something. Leaderboard (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It'll be better to have local template, just for consistency with other messages. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @EugeneZelenko: No - this is something I've planned for the future. That being said, would it be OK to have the message displayed in English with a link for the user to view the message on other languages in a central Meta-Wiki page? And can this be done later (i.e, after the bot starts running here)? Leaderboard (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this shouldn't be done. We don't make much use of temporary user rights at Commons, and I don't remember even a single case where rights expired without the user noticing it but leading to disruption. If a temporary right expires, it will be extended on request, and it makes no difference if renewal happens before of after it expires. If there are precedents which suggest different, please advise. --Krd 07:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Krd: , my experience (at least on Meta) is a bit different - I've seen cases like metawiki:Talk:Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2024#Question happen which was what motivated me to write this bot. Now Commons might be a bit different on that respect, but in my opinion, I see this as a "no loss" situation and while yes the user can renew the rights after expiry, the point is to avoid this disruption entirely especially if it's a right that requires some sort of discussion. Worst case the user ignores the notification. And Commons does appear to make use of temp rights, at least from the user rights log (covering rights such as primarily IPBE, account creator and trials for rights such as autopatroller).
- (Note that if the decision is to not approve this bot which I understand, Commons will be placed in the bot's opt-out list which means that no user can opt-in and the bot will be disabled entirely on the wiki. Users can easily opt-out from the bot however if they want) Leaderboard (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think worst case is that by the notifications users may request renewal for rights they actually don't need, just because they can. But, I'm just providing feedback and will make any decision here. Krd 06:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- "users may request renewal for rights they actually don't need" - can happen even without a reminder, right? I do appreciate your feedback in any case BTW - this helps when thinking about it for other wikis as well. Leaderboard (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It can happen anyway, but per my experience the reminders will significantly raise the number of cases. If you look at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section, the part of users who signed for keeping their right and still was inactive half a year later, has always been significant, and just dropped a bit in the last few years, Krd 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- "users may request renewal for rights they actually don't need" - can happen even without a reminder, right? I do appreciate your feedback in any case BTW - this helps when thinking about it for other wikis as well. Leaderboard (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think worst case is that by the notifications users may request renewal for rights they actually don't need, just because they can. But, I'm just providing feedback and will make any decision here. Krd 06:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
GogologoBot (talk · contribs)
[edit]Operator: MFossati (WMF) (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: add the following structured data statement and qualifier to the file page of a new upload that is detected as a logo by this tool.
- statement: instance of (P31) logo (Q1886349)
- qualifier: determination method (P459) machine learning (Q2539)
Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, supervised
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): continuous
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): it depends on the amount of image uploads and on the amount of images detected as a logo. Hard to tell for now
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
Programming language(s): Python, Pywikibot
Source code: https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/toolforge-repos/gogologo
MFossati (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion
- I think it'll much better application for bot it it could detect non-trivial logos or logos already deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to add them with a separate property? While I'm in favor of adding more such ways to identify images, I don't think it mixes well with other statements. This was attempted and finally discarded with "depicts" statement a while back. Please make sure these statements can also be searched with Special:Search. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Enhancing999, thanks for your comment. Could you please provide any specific pointers to the previous attempt you mentioned? MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this bot going to be used as "act once on new uploads", "act once on all existing files", "potentially act more than once on the same file", or what? Unless it only acts exactly once on any given file, what is to prevent it getting into an edit war if its edit is reverted or otherwise changed? - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jmabel, thanks for your question. The bot is expected to act once on new uploads. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good. Is there any chance that the bot could also look at the wikitext for {{Own work}} and add a maintenance category (call it Category:Own work logo to checked) if it appears to be a logo and is claimed as "own work"? We see that combination a lot, and it is almost never true. And possibly something similar for a logo + any CC license, because that's usually false as well: we very rarely get a license for any logo that is above the threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the ability to search for logos plus own work and/or CC licenses would make a lot of sense. I think this is something we can do by querying structured data. For instance, we can already run a query like this to look for own work files with CC BY-SA 4.0. As soon as the proposed logo statements get added, we can then insert a
wdt:P31 wd:Q1886349
constraint in the query. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the ability to search for logos plus own work and/or CC licenses would make a lot of sense. I think this is something we can do by querying structured data. For instance, we can already run a query like this to look for own work files with CC BY-SA 4.0. As soon as the proposed logo statements get added, we can then insert a
- Good. Is there any chance that the bot could also look at the wikitext for {{Own work}} and add a maintenance category (call it Category:Own work logo to checked) if it appears to be a logo and is claimed as "own work"? We see that combination a lot, and it is almost never true. And possibly something similar for a logo + any CC license, because that's usually false as well: we very rarely get a license for any logo that is above the threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jmabel, thanks for your question. The bot is expected to act once on new uploads. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As requested by the rules, we've test-run the bot on 100 uploads randomly sampled from uploads made between Aug 21 and today, and here are the results:
- 4 medias were deleted beforehand, so no edit
- 1 media was skipped (maximum retries attempted due to maxlag without success), so no edit
- 95 medias were successfully edited
- It seems that it successfully worked, but we'll wait for community review. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It appears each file is edited twice. Is that for technical reason, or can the edits be combined in any way? Krd 17:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great point, Krd! It made me realize that the current code first adds the claim, then adds the qualifier, thus producing two edits. I've just tried that we can do the other way around. So - yes - we can indeed combine them into a single edit. I've updated the code accordingly. Thanks a lot, this is really helpful. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you use another property than P31 as suggested above? I think we should avoid a re-run of c-a t where WMF mostly ignored community input.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)- Hi @Krd and @Enhancing999, thanks for your feedback and sorry for the late reply, for some reason your replies did not appear in my notifications.
- While we wait for @MFossati (WMF) to be back in office for answering the first question, we are open to suggestion as to which property to use. @Enhancing999 do you already have one in mind? Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can create one ad hoc.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- @Enhancing999 Sorry for the long answer, but I felt the need to clarify some things about the request.
- We need to start somewhere to see if the experiment is of some value to the moderators. This is an experiment within the first quarter OKR work for FY24/25 (WE2.3.1). We don't think a new property would work, especially because the property proposal request would likely be considered too specific in scope to be accepted by the Wikidata community, not without reasons.
- We can quickly and easily use an existing property, and see if it’s valuable. If not, we will rollback as quickly and easily. The property instance of (P31) seems like the best fit, because we think it’s specific and meaningful. More importantly, the property is indexed, thus enabling search queries both in Special:Search and in Special:MediaSearch. Furthermore, qualifiers are also indexed, so it will be possible for moderators to find media classified as a logo by this bot. You can either use a search query (example with Special:Search, example with Special:MediaSearch) or a SPARQL one to achieve it.
- If detecting and tagging incoming logos does not help with easier logo moderation, then our plan is to rollback our own edits at the end of the experiment. If it does help, then we’re planning to investigate other ways to store and query such data, as we are considering other experiments in the near future as suggested by the community. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata easily creates properties that are just meant to be used for Commons. This shouldn't take much time and compared to working speed of WMF (It's seven weeks since you asked for input), this shouldn't be an issue. Nothing prevents you for indexing this property as well.
- If you think a separate property wont work, it means that ultimately this wouldn't work using instance of (P31) either. I think such implementations need more attention than once every month.
- Given the massive community backlash WMF got from an ill-prepared, hastily implement, not community feedback driven, likely costly previous experiment mixing machine contribution with our highly valued volunteer contributors, I think it's good to take good care this time, especially as a simple way was suggested already seven weeks ago.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)- @Enhancing999: unless there are a lot of false positives (and I don't think there are), the tagging of these as instance of (P31) : logo (Q1886349) seems at worst harmless. What would be the advantage of a distinct property? - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are likely few false positive in the first test set as it's still followed, but last time, it became problematic when person at WMF developing it moved on to something else.
- Based on past experience, I guess you know what happens afterwards: you will have to wait 7 weeks for an acknowledgment, then you will be told to ask for a change in the next wishlist, and, even if everybody agrees with it, you will have to wait for the next annual plan to have it scheduled. Possibly somebody will then throw it out entirely, because they don't know how to fix it.
- In any case, the idea is to classify also images where there is a lower confidence in the automatism so review is necessary.
- Using two different properties allows users to easily switch between volunteer assessment and machine assessment, focus on volunteer assessment while excluding machine assessment if they happen to agree.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: unless there are a lot of false positives (and I don't think there are), the tagging of these as instance of (P31) : logo (Q1886349) seems at worst harmless. What would be the advantage of a distinct property? - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can create one ad hoc.
- It appears each file is edited twice. Is that for technical reason, or can the edits be combined in any way? Krd 17:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is a coat of arms or a military unit insignia or a sports uniform a logo per the definition a "logo"? --Krd 07:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Krd: we're targeting images similar to Category:Logos, thus making a distinction between other classes such as Category:Coats_of_arms or Category:Sports_kit_templates. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my personal opinion there are too many false positives. Krd 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Permalink/923690458 has a gallery of images edited by the bot. Personally, I don't think false positives are an issue as such, at least when they are clearly distinguished from manual edits (see separate property above).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)- I agree that most of them are some kind of symbols or graphics, but I'd guess a third of them would not be put under Category:Logos, so "instance of logo" doesn't make much sense then. Am I mistaken? Krd 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It really depends what the logo people want to do with it. Today it's "logos", but it could be just any image type or topic. The confidence level of the classification can also evolve or be changed.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC) - Come to think of it, maybe the statement with the new property should be qualified with the confidence level (for the classification of the image) and the program version being used (if not available, the current date).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)- That makes sense to me. Krd 11:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- You read my mind: this is definitely something I wanted to propose. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've just realized that the bot has made accidental edits that weren't meant to be there, sorry for that! I've manually reverted them. Please refer to the test edits. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Similar to Special:Permalink/923690458 can you do a gallery that shows all images that you consider valid test cases (ideally include the confidence level for the classification as a legend).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Similar to Special:Permalink/923690458 can you do a gallery that shows all images that you consider valid test cases (ideally include the confidence level for the classification as a legend).
- It really depends what the logo people want to do with it. Today it's "logos", but it could be just any image type or topic. The confidence level of the classification can also evolve or be changed.
- The (determination method (P459), machine learning (Q2539)) qualifier distinguishes the bot's edits from manual ones. The queries mentioned here retrieve the bot's ones. You can compare these two queries: with qualifier (bot's edits) VS no qualifier (non-bot's edits). As a side note, nothing prevent us from trivially looking at the bot's contributions, too. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can't distinguish them any more when someone thinks they are correct and also adds a P31. Or would they have to remove the qualifiers? And no, looking at individual files and/or edits is definitely not a solution. Please make sure the results can be view by querying both with search and on SDC portal (hopefully eventually open).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can't distinguish them any more when someone thinks they are correct and also adds a P31. Or would they have to remove the qualifiers? And no, looking at individual files and/or edits is definitely not a solution. Please make sure the results can be view by querying both with search and on SDC portal (hopefully eventually open).
- We could also create a Wikidata item for this bot and use it as the qualifier value, instead of machine learning (Q2539). MFossati (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's better to use a separate property and qualify that with the program version being used. A year or two later, one will otherwise have a hard time which version of the bot considered what by which threshold. I suggest we create to properties:
- "Commons machine image type"
- "Commons machine image subject"
- The second for later uses, if you wan't to try to determine a logo topic.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's better to use a separate property and qualify that with the program version being used. A year or two later, one will otherwise have a hard time which version of the bot considered what by which threshold. I suggest we create to properties:
- I agree that most of them are some kind of symbols or graphics, but I'd guess a third of them would not be put under Category:Logos, so "instance of logo" doesn't make much sense then. Am I mistaken? Krd 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Permalink/923690458 has a gallery of images edited by the bot. Personally, I don't think false positives are an issue as such, at least when they are clearly distinguished from manual edits (see separate property above).
- In my personal opinion there are too many false positives. Krd 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Krd: we're targeting images similar to Category:Logos, thus making a distinction between other classes such as Category:Coats_of_arms or Category:Sports_kit_templates. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to highlight the main goal of this experimental bot, namely to help moderators find potentially problematic media. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is the commitment of WMF to maintain this going forward? How much time will you spend maintaining it in the next months each week? Or will it be discontinued after a month?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)- We are committed to maintaining this bot for as long as it needs to be. As already mentioned, this is one of our priorities for the year, and definitely won’t be dropped after one month. On the other hand - after careful consideration with the team - we won’t be pursuing the path of creating new Wikidata properties, nor adding the confidence score as structured data, as part of this work of identifying and providing a way for easier moderation of logos.
- While we agree that probabilistic statements supported by confidence scores are a very relevant topic, to the best of our knowledge no available Wikidata property can express so yet, and we see the need for a cross-community broad discussion that is outside of this experiment’s scope. If no consensus is reached on this bot request, the alternative is that we periodically release lists of potential logos to be considered (this time with confidence score), like we recently did. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do we have moderators who use the output of the bot for anything? I think it hasn't been outlined above, so I'm still trying without offense to understand who is in need of that, or if it may be a solution looking for a problem. Krd 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is the commitment of WMF to maintain this going forward? How much time will you spend maintaining it in the next months each week? Or will it be discontinued after a month?
- Looks like a great way to reduce mod/admin maintenance workload and reduce the number of copyvios on WMC. Please extend it or create similar bots to also detect other copyvios as proposed here or similar. Thanks for developing it, it seems very useful! --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)