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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With that said, I hereby request to review whether Kallerna still has the trust of Commons community to hold the admin flag. Thanks --A.Savin 01:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove as nominator, for reasons already stated in the previous RfDA, and on ANU discussion. --A.Savin 01:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove regretfully, per above.Keep Their apologies seem reasonable and well-meant. We also are in huge need of admins. One less is no solution. However, the point should be made: no repetition of past mistakes. --Bedivere (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons needs more admins, but not admins who cannot use their tools properly. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here both involved admins failed with their tools. -- Zache (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove Per ANU discussion and their comment about other people trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove While I would not have blocked Karelj, the unblock was performed without the mandatory consultation and the subsequent lack of accountability leaves us little choice. Guido den Broeder (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove Regretully. Kallerna never fully addressed the issues raised on AN in my opinion Gbawden (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove The following quote shows are huge misunderstanding of Commons policies: You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you.[1] (the part before the comma should be irrelevant) --Schlurcher (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove I'm not a frequent voter, and I'm rather a low-key contributor. Admin behavior referenced and linked by other voters is one of most discouraging parts of contributing to Wikipedia and Commons. --Tupungato (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I accept Kallerna's explanation and apology. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Htm: could you please elaborate by "no reason"? --SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is for votes, not for discussing. I find your behavior very disturbing. I have talk page.-- Htm (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one in their right mind would consider asking for clarification "very disturbing behaviour". You still haven't answered my question. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please both tone it down? Keep the conversation civil please, wherever it takes place! Kritzolina (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KeepKallerna statement is far sufficiant, I quote: "I want to apologize everyone involved" or "This was obviously a mistake". If they do ten times the same thing, ok, but for the first error as administrator... that should be sufficiant IMO. Christian Ferrer(talk) 14:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Kallerna has apologized for his behavior (controversial unblocking) and offending remarks, and I feel no need to pursue the matter further. 0x0a (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete They said they apologise, but I have the impression the don't understand the problem at any level and still consider the feedback a big waste of time. --Krd 16:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove Regretfully. I do not find any sense in the responses from Kallerna. A well-sought sorry could have worked but I'm not finding it, and I seriously don't like ifs and buts.─ The Aafī (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove I'd have been fine with a warning if they showed they understood that they screwed up majorly here, but they've doubled down on their behavior, they've never addressed their conflict in interest as far as the unblock because they were w:WP:Involved in the incident that caused the block, they clearly don't understand that Karelj's block was within policy and seems to have prevented future disruption. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove as the nominator of the original de-adminship nom – too bad they couldn't admit their mistake and apologise to A.Savin. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The initial block and removing the block were both done incorrectly. The related discussions after that were somewhat subpar, but I hope that participants will learn something from this and next time co-operation would work better. --Zache (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Kallerna has acknowledged the action taken was incorrect, "I should have not done it without discussing about it first."[2] While the communications on both sides were not ideal (the initial failure of Kallerna to acknowledge the problem vs the rapid escalation to desysop fairly early in the discussion) this appears to be a first offence in the 14 years since Kallerna became an admin. If any admin can limit themselves to one mistake every 14 years, I think that would be a good result for the community. If Kallerna hasn't learned from this and the poor decisions are repeated, it will be easy enough to consider whether a desysop discussion is appropriate at that time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove Per above. Not convinced the "apology" is sincere, it seems to be a desperate, last-ditch attempt to retain the admin bit. -Fastily 23:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep this is not worth a desysop. Similar as King of Hearts. I hope kallerna and A.Savin can soon get along with each other again.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep per King of Hearts (who, no, I am not related to) and FHTS. This is deeply troubling and they're certainly on thin ice, but I think a desysop is unnecessary for one isolated incident. QueenofHearts ❤️ (she/they/ella/elle) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove not discussing the reversal, and the threatening nature of the comment sent to the original admin implying he blocked because he disagreed with the users opinions is very obviously wrong. The level of aggression and disrespect is extraordinary. If you are admin, then you do t wheel war. You discuss on the admin’s noticeboard. If this vote results in a deadmin, then I would like to see some sort of restriction placed on the former admin that prevents retaliation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep cool
A user was blocked just for having a non-consensual opinion. Wikimedia Commons should be open to diversity.
As Zache remarkably showed here, over hundreds of recent reviews, the user Karelj has never been really "uncivil". Just hastily shared singular and subjective opinions. No big deal. No drama at all.
Admin Kallerna unblocked Karelj without discussion because the user was blocked without discussion.
Admin Christian Ferrer politely suggested A.Savin that this minor incident was not worth a long and boring desysop procedure, but A.Savin reverted the comment as if the opinion was unacceptable. Why?!
Admin Kallerna also made the effort to politely engage a discussion on the same talk page, "For your work, I've especially enjoyed the images from Moscow metro. Thanks for your contributions!", result "I don't need bla bla" was rather harsh in comparison, and very weird in this context supposed to deal with COM:CIVIL.
In the end, it's quite a mountain for such an insignificant event gone haywire. Please continue to preserve Wikimedia Commons as democratic platform. The day it will stop, we will just find another cool place. 🐸 Don't Worry, Be Happy ♫ -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There's no need for this drama; both administrators made mistakes, and instead of wasting our time here, we should move on and concentrate on making improvements to Wikimedia Commons. 20upper 11:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Admin Kallerna has apologized for his controversial unblocking and offending remarks, I think there is no need to pursue the matter further. --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 14:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep In my view a single incident and Kallerna has straightened that out. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep just a single incident, not a chronic behavioral issue. The issue is resolved, and we're just wasting time over this silly thing at this point. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this smörgåsbord of several difflinks should say what exactly? --A.Savin 12:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not want to make a long explanation all over again. I would just like to see you apologize Karelj for your inadequat block. If the community thinks I should not have admin tools after my mistake and following apology, then I respect that view. —kallerna (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointing out a possible error by another admin doesn't excuse your behavior. Instead of abusing your tools, you could have started a discussion about that block. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a pretty minor mistake in the grand scheme of things, but still not good. If you do lose the privilege I encourage you to continue contributing and reply at some point in the future since it's that major of an issue to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct Guido, that is why I have apologized my actions. Adamant1, I have been here for more than 15 years, I have no intentions to stop my contributions. —kallerna (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you won’t retaliate if you do lose your privileges. The way you spoke to SHB2000 on the admin noticeboard was not great. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange that you are expecting me to seek Karel's pardon. I didn't treat him uncivil, unlike he treated Cart (and never apologized for this). The block was not abusive or bad-faith in any event. But if you are convinced that admins should apologize for past blocks, then feel encouraged to demand some Russian Wikipedia admins to do so first, who had abusively blocked me several times for void reasons, probably over political hate. --A.Savin 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A.Savin: As I said earlier, admins should understand each other reasons rather than being right. I explain how I see what happened. From Kallerna's point of view, your rationale for blocking Karelj based on the given examples was insufficient. In this case, one example was extended in your blocking rationale to repeated very disrespectful comments at FPC recently. Based on Karelj voting comments, your claim was not true. When the admin makes such claims as part of the block, it tarnishes the target's reputation, and action will be required when one notices it. From your side, I think you thought that Karelj's comments were enough for blocking. It is also complex to explain when negative opinnion is bad as the integral part of FPC is also that users can give opposing and critical opinnions. So I would like not to be too harsh if somebody tries to make commenting more friendly. -- Zache (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A.Savin, can you explain why you removed the above comment? Btw, you were blocked on ru.wikipedia for incivility. If you import that and call it abusive, expect people to reply.
Kallerna, why did you think it a good idea to be the one to revert that? Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above comment by an IP is indeed a troll, and there are good reasons to remove it. Yann (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being blocked for expressing political opinions IS abusive, though, if I understand correctly (A.Savin, please correct me if I'm wrong). --SHB2000 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minor terminology quibble: wheel warring is when an admin action is reinstated, not when one is undone. The unblock was inappropriate, though, to be clear. — Rhododendritestalk | 16:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect, that is not accurate. A wheel war includes reverting an admin action without consensus or discussion. This was absolutely an example of wheel warring. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description in enwiki is: Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus.wp:Wikipedia:Administrators -- Zache (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn’t want to rely on the English Wikipedia when it comes to administration. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if sysops have different opinions about an action that can only be done by sysops (delete, protect, block), that action should be reviewed by the community. meanwhile, when the action is being reviewed, or if no consensus can be reached, the default should be the least restrictive action, i.e. undelete, unprotect, unblock.
in other words, it should not require more than 1 user to undo a single sysop's decision, but rather a majority consensus is needed to affirm a single sysop's decision.--RZuo (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be obvious to people who have followed the AN discussion, but I think it should be indicated somewhere in the request that A.Savin was/is involved in the (initial) controversy leading up to this request, and that "the admin who performed the block" is A.Savin. That part was not immediately clear to me. whym (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I haven't followed these events closely, so I am choosing not to vote, but I'm troubled by the thought that if an admin continues functioning as such while lacking the confidence of some of the other admins, in addition to other long-time users, that could damage confidence in the moderation team, overall. I appreciate that some reflection has taken place, but should there be an agreement that any future irregularity would lead to, say, a 3-month suspension of Kallerna's sysop tools? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was new to the desysop process prior to this. I was a little surprised that the sysop and desysop processes have different thresholds (75% confidence of the community to become an admin vs 50% confidence of the community to remain one) but those thresholds must have come about from community consensus. The consensus must have anticipated a greater degree of disharmony to allow the threshold for removal to be at 50% instead of 25%. While it is a good idea to sometimes revisit a previous consensus to check current community thinking, it is probably not the best time to do so 1 day before a 7 day desysop process concludes. Sanctions short of desysop should probably be discussed outside of this desysop process, as you would do with any normal situation. However, "any future irregularity" is probably too low a bar to judge future behaviour. It is an open invitation to anyone with a grudge to try to provoke a reaction and label the reaction as "irregular." From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take your point, but I do think this situation warrants additional discussion, even outside of this current desysop nomination. Perhaps some consideration could be made of what kinds of actions have antagonized other admins and other constructive users, and there could be at least some informal agreement to revisit things if such actions are repeated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan Kekek, sorry I think your idea is not excellent, because there will be a proposal to suspend A.Savin's tool reciprocally. A large number of participants openly reported here and in the previous discussion that they considered the initial block unwarranted / inappropriate. I also think that if an admin comes to block you sometimes for a questionable reason, say you forgot to say "hello", then you'll probably be grateful to the person who takes the responsibility to unblock you immediately, instead of asking the community "saying hello is it an essential prerequisite?" Let's move on. Enough dust shaken off on this matter, in my opinion. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason wasn't so stupid, but I don't think we should be afraid of a discussion of Alex's behavior, if warranted - and not as the tit for tat you seem to be suggesting. I should say, suspensions for incivility can be appropriate but shouldn't be done without warning except in cases that are so obvious as to be uncontroversial, which this one was not. I haven't looked at this situation in detail but do know what comments were made at FPC. But anyway, start the thread if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No like. Your idea, not mine. And never said it was "stupid", just "not excellent" IMHO. Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was saying the block reason wasn't as stupid as forgetting to say hello. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... in this case the reviewer forgot to say "sorry" and "I my opinion". Also he made spelling mistake ("reasonon" instead of "reason") -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please turn the page as soon as this voting pool has ended. We're in 2024, happy new year. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason: I participate frequently on deletion requests (including Flickrwashing, freedom of panorama, etc) and I think I can use the knowledge of copyright that I learned to help reducing the backlog of un-reviewed photos.--Günther Frager (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scheduled to end: 00:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
Granted. No opposition in five days. --Bedivere (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason: I have been active on Commons since quiet some time now. I am not regularly uploading photos but I am doing some other work on Commons like patrolling and fighting vandalism and I am also active at the VRT. Since we have a huge backlog of images requiring a review, I would like to offer my help with doing some image reviews as well. Thanks, Ameisenigel (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scheduled to end: 11:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)
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.
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.
Automatic or manually assisted:Supervised automatic Manual
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Regular (not continuous)
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 5
Bot flag requested:(Y/N): N
Programming language(s): Python
I have not yet started any development work on this as I'll be awaiting for a test run approval. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I corrected all the uploads with respective PD licenses, dates, categories - the corrections are an output from the bot (as if it is run to upload). Thus, the bot is manually-assisted capable of corrections to the fields on-demand. There are some quirks here and there, but I expect to update the bot logic as they're encountered.
I'm not sure what you meant by using language ta for department field. Could you explain?
Apart from that, please review and let me know the feedback, and if I missed something. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What qualifier would you use instead? Can you please elaborate more about the exact statement that you would create? Thanks. Geert Van Pamel (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes sense to have broader discussion on matter of qualifiers. May be bot should be limited just for subjects for now? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: While I'm still waiting for an appropriate tag to be generated, I've now made the first set of edits. Please see the contributions of my development bot account: SchlurcherBotT (talk·contribs) (the last 12 edits, after I had fixed the link to wikidata).
In this first run, the bot processed a total of 20 revisions, leading to these 12 edits according to the following breakdown:
Message | Count
Done. | 12
Error: Claim already removed. | 1
Error: User on excemption list. | 6
I've made one more edit with the proper tag applied, as it was just created. Please let me know of any concerns of if I can start this operation. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload, categorize, rename, provide with a generated index Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps downloaded from the Library of Congress and other places (seldomly).
Automatic or manually assisted: manual
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): intermittently for a few weeks
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 100 when uploading
i have already uploaded 80,000 files through my main account in the last few days, unaware of this prior authorization requirement. Nowakki (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
here is a proposal for the index which i would add to the category page of a town. this category would then have subcategories for the (year, volume) combo of a map too. But the index should suffice to access all the plates.
the code to add the index is not yet written. i will add comments above and below the generated content to allow automatic edits to easily be undone.
For the moment i just need to upload the images. I can ask for additional permissions when i have the code ready.
Additional permissions will almost certainly also include the renaming of old files that were uploaded by somebody else with a bad naming scheme.
In any case, all accesses of the bot will be restricted to files and categories that start with "Sanborn Fire Insurance Map From". In other words, it may make more sense to just look at the end result as this is really just an upload job for new content with some alteration to old content in the same "namespace". Nowakki (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on your uploads: will be good idea to put content of file name into description, not just plate number; please enclose description in language tag. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, i am now using the in the description the same string as in the filename (File:ALLTHIS.jpg) with a language tag. I will delay editing existing pages in case something else comes up. Nowakki (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: So what is the ruling here? Can i run the bot or not? If yes, can you transfer the auto patrol rights from my main to the bot account? Or do i have to make a separate request for that? I need that to get rid of the rate limit. Nowakki (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make test run. Bot could operate on full speed after approval, but it's necessary to verify that its uploads are fine. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an ongoing process. Functionality is continuously added. However uploads can proceed now. There are now a few more uploads for you to verify.
I will then finalize the code and bring a few example towns to the intended end state, so you can approve of the old file rename and the generated index features when the time comes. SanbornMapBot (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description is still not wrapped in language tag ({{en|<description>}}). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn. It is fixed now. Some more images uploaded. SanbornMapBot (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
can you transfer the autopatrol right from my main account to the bot? SanbornMapBot (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. But please perform only test uploads until this request approval. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have today recategorized and supplied with a {{rename tag all map files from Wyoming (954 files). There are 218,807 files still to be renamed.
As it stands the newly renamed files have a different structure, with different metadata, as provided by the original uploader, from all the plates that i uploaded.
perhaps it would be a good idea to include at least one wiki-link with the newly uploaded files and behind that wikilink would be a page that explains everything about the files in general. SanbornMapBot (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A request to rename 200,000 files found no support after a recent poll failed.
I am planning to add 500,000 redirects to commons and build an alternative tree of categories to
hold the redirects instead. I am requesting permission to let the bot do that.
To make this possible, all names in this tree will be of the form "Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of"
instead of "Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from".
An advertisement/notification for the "fixed and consistent with Sanborn original indexing practice" filenames will be placed in c:Category:Sanborn maps of the United States by state and in each of the 50 state categories, because 50 is not a big number.That should be sufficient for it to get noticed by anyone involved enough (i.e. using the files often) to benefit from the fix. Nowakki (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko I believe the request in the parent comment needs approval. Is there something you can do? Thanks. Nowakki (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is usage statistics for these files? If absolute majority of them are not used, I think they should be renamed without leaving redirect. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko I made a mistake during upload. a few thousand files were uploaded with a different naming scheme from the others. The volume and the year in the filename switched places. Since these files are barely a week old, they should be renamed without leaving redirects. I request permission to take care of the problem. Nowakki (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make test run. Sure, it's fine to rename without leaving redirect in such circumstances. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I will start working on that.
Feel free to comment on the other request above.
Answers like: "I don't know", "I am not authorized", "I'd rather not" are total acceptable. I am an adult and will find ways to deal with it. Nowakki (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not using the bot to talk anymore after having been told so yesterday. Nowakki (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not use a bot account for manual edits, and especially not for discussions. We discuss with bot operators, not with bot accounts. --Krd 12:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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): N
Programming language(s): TypeScript
Note: Bot is currently in development, asking to be able to test it. Zbytovsky (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion
Do I get it right? Someone adds an image to osmapp and your bot will transfer it to Commons. If so, how is ensured that the license of that image is a) valid and b) meets Commons' requirements? --Achim55 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achim55 Yes, i think you got it right. As OpenStreetMap is also a open data project, we aim to have open licenses. Please see the design of upload dialog. I tried to write it the best I can, but I welcome any suggestions. It will add images with direct link to OSM feature, which means also proper map coordinates and category (eg. castle, guidepost, school, bridge etc.) Zbytovsky (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko Well, I didn't think of that, thanks for bringing it to my attention :-) As we are a map application, it is pretty easy to inform users based on country of the object. I created a mockup here - it would show up for the "NO" countries. Do you think it is sufficient for the beginning? I don't expect many users soon, but if it turns out to be an issue, it is quite easy to be more restrictive, or eg. check if there is a building in 1km, etc. Zbytovsky (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'll be OK for beginning, but will be good idea to extend database (Wikidata is perfect place to share with WLM if organizers will finally comprehend the need to do so) to include information about sculptress/architects, so it'll be possible to allow what is in public domain. There are also countries with partial freedom of panorama, where photos of buildings are allowed, but not of works of art. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I can reach out to WLM once this become an issue. Zbytovsky (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the FOP aspect should be addressed before is becomes any issue. At least all countries with partial FOP should be excluded; better all images should be manually reviewed, as even in FOP countries there will be images with works not permanently in public space. Krd 14:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question! My general approach with these things is to be extremely conservative – imo the V1 bot should be purely additive, and any conflicts should be flagged for manual inspection.
Then a couple of things might happen:
The existing SDC looks wrong, so I make a manual edit from my account to fix it. e.g. I’ve already been looking at the use of source of file (P7482) for Flickr photos in the SDC snapshots, and I found ~200 cases where the URL points to the Flickr URL’s profile (/photos/{username}) rather than the photo itself (/photos/{username}/{photo_id}). Those got dropped on a queue and I’ve been gradually tidying them up by hand – opening the files in question and making a manual edit from my account to point to the more specific URL.
The existing SDC looks right, so I work out why the bot is disagreeing. Is it a bug in my code, have I interpreted the data mapping wrong, is the data mapping at odds with the community approach to SDC, is the bot missing some bit of info on the Flickr photo. But the bot won't do anything on its own.
There might also be cases where the existing SDC is wrong in large numbers and we'd want to write an automated fix, but that's somewhat risky and I’d want to be extremely careful before doing that. Two possible examples spring to mind:
License versions. Flickr photos use CC 2.0 licenses, so that's what the bot will write into the SDC. But what if it finds a Wiki Commons file which links to the 4.0 version of the CC license? That sounds like an easy candidate for a fix buuuut I think there are Flickr users who leave descriptions on their photos saying "I license this as CC 4.0". A human copying their photo across would notice that; the bot might not. So in this case the bot would likely leave it as-is to avoid deleting info.
Date granularity. Flickr has different levels of granularity for "date taken". Most photos are DDMMYY, but there are some which are MMYY or YY or "Circa YY". If there are lots of cases where there's an imprecise data but the SDC claims it's a full DDMMYY, we might consider automating that. (It's pretty obvious when this has happened – Flickr always returns a full timestamp from its API, but it sets all the unknown values to 0/1. So a YYYY becomes taken="1950-01-01 00:00:00" takengranularity="6".) The bot could be written to fix these. But I don't know if that's a widespread issue in practice.
If/when the bot does start editing existing SDC claims, I'll make sure we document those with examples – and if there are cases that seem contentious, I'll bring them back for community discussion before actually implementing them. Alexwlchan (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To return to this question of "how does the bot handle conflicting edits":
Right now the bot will flag any conflicts as "unknown", not make any edits, and put them in a manual queue for review. I’ll look at them and decide if we need to update the bot code, do a manual edit to the SDC, or leave it be.
This confuses the bot, because it wants to write a different SDC statement to what’s currently in Commons – so it flags it as “unknown”.
I went and had a look at it, and I can see that the license has changed since the initial upload – there’s a license history feature on Flickr, and it was changed from CC BY 2.0 in April 2014, a year after it was uploaded to Commons.
(And now I'm going to look at tweaking the bot code so it gets the license from when the photo was uploaded to Commons, and uses that rather than whatever the license is now. But license is a pretty well-populated field, so I may not need this in practice.) Alexwlchan (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brief addendum to this: I’m going to take license out of the bot for now.
1. Licenses are already pretty well-populated in SDC, so the potential gain here is less.
2. I’m encountering a lot of cases where Flickr users have changed their license after the fact, which makes the bot unhappy.
It is possible to see license history on Flickr as far back as 2008, or I could inspect the Wikitext, but I’m going to leave it for now. I can come back later and see how many Flickr photos are actually missing a license in practice. Alexwlchan (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add another example to this:
If the bot encounters conflicting information in the "date taken" field, it flags a warning but doesn’t do anything.
e.g. File:STS059-238-074 Strait of Gibraltar.jpg is a photo which was posted to both Flickr and a NASA website. On Flickr the taken date is "April 1994", but on NASA's website we get the more precise date "17 April 1994", which is what's used in the SDC.
Flickypedia would write a statement "April 1994" if it was copying the photo fresh from Flickr, but it doesn't overwrite the existing, more-precise statement when it does the backfill. Alexwlchan (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 I’ll probably get to making some test edits early next week, and I’ll link them here for inspection when they’re done. Alexwlchan (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it’s been a couple of weeks and nothing has happened on this.
I am planning to get back to this bot eventually, but right now I’m prioritising getting the “uploader” part of Flickypedia working. Once that’s done, I’ll come back to the Backfillr bot. Alexwlchan (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you use a JSON data specification this can be done by simply merging all the different claims.
Please tag the edits with "BotSDC" as lots of user use this tag to filter out SDC edits
If you use a JSON post request this can be done by adding { "tags", "BotSDC" }
Please make sure you specify a maxlag for your edits as this got me into trouble once and avoid database overload
If you use a JSON post request this can be done by adding { "maxlag", "2" }
In the edit summary, please link the phrase structured data to [[Commons:Structured data|structured data]] or this bot request so users can find out more if needed.
I would appreciate if you could perform another set of bot edits that incorporate this. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick feedback! I’ve addressed all four of your suggestions.
1. Done, duh. For some reason I got it into my head that you can’t modify multiple properties at once, but I think that’s just a limitation of the visual editor? API seems fine with it, so that’s changed.
2. Done.
3. Done. I’m also planning to drop a note to somebody who works on the structured data team before I start running the bot at large scale, as a courtesy – backfilling Flickr data means 10s of millions of new statements, and I figure it’ll be easier if they have a direct line to the person adding database load.
4. Done. I’ve also added the property IDs, which I figured might be useful.
Thanks. No further comments from my end. My database issue was described here [4] and as I learned, as long as we respect maxlag it should be fine. As I've myself added 100s of millions of statements, I would not be too concerned about this request. Contrary, I think it is an excellent addition to improving SDC use. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please summarize: Have all issues been addressed? --Krd 04:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tasks: Upload up-to-date maps of Italian municipalities. There are about 8000 municipalities, boundaries are updated yearly by the national statistical agency. Here is an example of image that will be uploaded, the description will be automatically updated for each municipality: [5]
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: upload several images automatically
Automatic or manually assisted: automatic supervised (through OpenRefine)
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run each year
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): I don't know the edit rate allowed using the new OpenRefine function for uploading images. As fast as it can, i suppose.
Just to clarify: Is this to upload as a new version, or to overwrite? If the latter, is there a consensus to do so? I see that those borders include photo credits to the individual photographers, and these are from a respected archive, so I'd just want to make sure that there is agreement that this is desired; I've seen similar situations go either way. Clearly more useful in Wikipedia articles without the borders, but it's not clear to me that we don't want also to host a version with the credit line on the image. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thought is to overwrite. I've not seen any written consensus on the matter, but in practice that's what has been done for years in this category. I think that implies a silent consensus, considering these captions have been digitally added by the archive and provide no additional information not already in the description. Beao (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make some example edits. Krd 17:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Krd 13:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any more information or discussion needed? Beao (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[6] Why is this updated so often? Krd 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Images with watermarks" category is very big, so the retrieval of file usage statistics is batched to a fixed number of images every hour to avoid performance spikes, and I update the gallery after every batch. Is updating gallery pages too often problematic? I could do it less often (I'm thinking if images are not removed from the category), and also avoid doing it when nothing changes. Beao (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please at least don't update when nothing significant changes. Krd 07:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the code to update only on changes now! Beao (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appears to me that there are still too many edits or the statistics pages. (Or is there any relevant work done on these maintenance categories?) Krd 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the code a couple of days ago and did some extra runs to confirm that it worked, and since then the non-changing categories haven't updated. But yeah, I'm also removing watermarks! Beao (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not extremely useful, not completely useless. But okay, I will limit the updates more by rounding the stats to the nearest 100 or 1000. Beao (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Remove as nominator, for reasons already stated in the previous RfDA, and on ANU discussion. --A.Savin 01:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep Their apologies seem reasonable and well-meant. We also are in huge need of admins. One less is no solution. However, the point should be made: no repetition of past mistakes. --Bedivere (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Neutral --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I haven't followed these events closely, so I am choosing not to vote, but I'm troubled by the thought that if an admin continues functioning as such while lacking the confidence of some of the other admins, in addition to other long-time users, that could damage confidence in the moderation team, overall. I appreciate that some reflection has taken place, but should there be an agreement that any future irregularity would lead to, say, a 3-month suspension of Kallerna's sysop tools? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Done. But please perform only test uploads until this request approval. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ATimesSquare-500px.jpg&diff=829081269&oldid=700856020){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=830338946){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=830339160){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=830339211){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Aicurzio_(province_of_Monza_e_della_Brianza,_region_Lombardia,_Italy_2023).svg){kind=link}
Centralized discussion
