Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:BN

Bureaucrats' work area (archive)
Requests for bot flags request | watch To request a bot flag.	Requests for GWToolset and translation admin rights request | watch To request to become a GWToolset user or a translation administrator.
Other resources: Need administrator assistance? See the administrators' noticeboard. Need help? Try the FAQ, or the Help desk! Have an idea or suggestion? Tell us at the Village pump! Need a checkuser? See the CU request page!
Click here to add a new section

This is a place where users can communicate with bureaucrats, or bureaucrats with one another. Please refer to the links above for specific bureaucrat requests.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 2015

Noratelimit right

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T144689

Hi! As a steward, I just assigned account creator userrights to Dr. Bernd Gross per ticket:2016081510009464 (steward queue) as he needs the noratelimit right to inform WLE winners per wikimail. Unfortunately, local bureaucrats cannot assign this right yet which is very helpful for events when you need to create more than 6 accounts within 24 hours, or send out wikimails, etc. without giving bot flags. You might consider assigning these rights yourselves. For that reason, consensus is required and a phabricator ticket needs to be created. // CC Steinsplitter who helped in this particular case. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to support that, if anybody else will take care of creating the phabricator ticket. --Krd 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm also happy to support this change, and just created the necessary ticket on Phabricator (and assigned it to myself). odder (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know that I submitted a patch for this configuration change last night, just waiting for a few more voices supporting this request. odder (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support I support adding this group membership to the commons 'crats. (And could pretty easily be convinced to extend it to sysops). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support that's easier and better --Ibrahim.ID ♒ 03:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Makes sense for bureaucrats to be able to do this, as is already the case on enwiki. WJBscribe (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. as above. Yann (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Helpfull. Natuur12 (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bots and the upload by URL right

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T145010

This is a minor point with respect to rights, but I'm raising it here for the record in case there are later issues. In the past week I have added the image reviewer right to Faebot and Noaabot, both long term bots that previously were running uploads from known safe URL sources. As these are bots under my control and I have the IR right, this seemed reasonable in the absence of a clear policy as far as I'm aware. This was a work-around to changes to how accounts can upload from a white-listed URL. I'm unsure if this is a bug, as up until now I had presumed that any account can upload from white-listed URLs; perhaps changes to what bot accounts can now do without additional rights is an unintended consequence of reacting to the poor use of mass upload tools. Happy to be advised if there are related phabricator tasks, it's easy to lose track.

If the way this works changes, I'd be happy to drop the IR right from the two bots that currently seem to need it to function. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything related, and I'm unable to take care of this for the next four weeks at least. --Krd 13:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding (upload_by_url) to bots (and all autopatrolled if there are no security issues). The right just allows to upload files from a white listed url (see also phab T140040) and to import files from flickr using Upload Wizard. The url2commons has no restrictions at all (as far i know). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I support upload_by_url for bots. --Krd 13:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to give this right separately, because not all bot deals with uploading. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: And what is the sens of giving it separately? It would be the same as giving suppressredirect or changetags separately. I fail to see how you cane abuse the right. I wan to note again, url2commons has mainly the same funtions with no restrictions at all (as far i know). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a point to give this right to all bots. Right could be requested in bot request. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: Your opinion would make sense if you would restrict standard upload as well for bots, because bots could still use url2commons in bot mode or download the file to local machine and upload it. And as far i know, in bot requests the bot flag (with a lot of rights) is getting assigned and not just a specific permission (such as edit, move, edit semi protected, etc.). I see no sense in restricting a uncontroversial and helpful tool. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot request contain information about its purpose. I don't see why additional right could not be requested, if bot is clearly about uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@EugeneZelenko: given that the simplest solution would be to grant the flag to all bots, and this was effectively the status quo in the past, could you give an example of how you think any currently approved bot might misuse the upload-by-url right? I agree that it's a question that may be raised during bot approval, but considering the low risk of misuse for established bots, adding useful features like re-uploading damaged files or handling updates from the source might be the sort of thing that may be wholly appropriate for a bot not specifically focused on batch upload, and avoid the bureaucratic burden of a re-request for approval. Either way, I'm pleased that we are considering a slightly better process. --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The potential damage is very limited, and that such a misuse is going to happen by an approved bot is unrealistic. No need for an additional separate rights process. --Krd 11:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I have now created a Phabricator task for this request. odder (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi all—the configuration patch is now ready and awaits the establishment of a proper community consensus. odder (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Odder this looks a bit stuck, for community consensus are you expecting tokens in Phabricator or votes here? --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: I was hoping for a few more comments in favour of this change on this page, but it appears there isn't much interest (which is quite understandable—configuration changes are inherently boring). My current stance on this change is that if no more comments opposing it are voiced until Sunday night, I will use my bureaucrat discretion and request that the patch I submitted to Gerrit be approved. odder (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I support the proposal. As stated above, granting this to all bots is the simplest solution, it is basically just restoring the status quo and does not appear particularly open to abuse. WJBscribe (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:BotMultichillT

Please review this bot's edits and ensure everything is per community consensus. Related. Jee 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• +1 [1] The BOT put the name of the photographer in a field made for the author of the depicted artwork in the photo (e.g. a sculpture or a painting). And replace the information template, suitable for photographs, by the artwork template, not very suitable for photographs, and even less mandatory. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor, Christian Ferrer: Is this still an actual problem? If yes, please point to previous discussions and list one or two example difflinks. Thank you. --Krd 16:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If the lack of response from the operator can be considered as s/he stopped/agreed to stop using the bot that way, then its OK. Otherwise not OK. Jee 16:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Krd: It's fine, insofar as the operator does not force people to accept the changes (in no way mandatory) made by the BOT. I've nothing against Multichill or against the BOT. And I don't doubt about his good faith, and I thanks him for his work and his involvment, however if he don't have the pedagogy needed to convince this very great contributor then he let the files as they currently are, because we are not there to annoy the best contributors. If there is a(n) (edit) war, then I clearly chose my camp, and, sorry again to be a little harsh, this is not personal, but you will deal with me guys. For me this is fine now and this can be closed. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)