Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 4

Krdbot 4 (talk · contribs)

Operator: Krd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Tagging files with {{OTRS received}}, i.e. {{subst:OR|TICKETNUMBER}}, for all open OTRS permissions tickets where the affected files names are machine readable.

Test edit: Special:Diff/324998478

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): continuous

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): perhaps 50 per day

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): Perl

The code will parse all open tickets in the permissions hierarchy and look for possible file names in the subject and body of the first article. If file names are detected, and the files currently contain any issue like {{OTRS received}}, {{No permission since}}, {{No license since}}, {{Delete}} or {{Copyvio}}, it will add {{OTRS received}} accordingly to delay the deletion process. Additional details are open to discussion. --Krd 14:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Good idea. Hopefully it will avoid deletion of some files with a valid permission. --Yann (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Krd: I also think it is a good idea. It may benefit from some of the recent discussions at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js, like expanding notifications in DRs to include use of OTRS received. Also, you may want to add "|user=Krdbot".   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Please remove Bot: from edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @EugeneZelenko: Generally we ask users to add "Bot:" to the edit summary (as per standard practice). Please elaborate. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

    I think user's (bot's) name is enough. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

    • @EugeneZelenko: Hm... OK. The test edit looks fine, i think this should be approved as soon as possible, it will reduce a lot of work for volunteers and the task seems uncontroversial. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• The bot task is good idea. I have some concerns with the template used or, to be precise, the text in the template. Both the German and English content of the template contain: the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file.. Per the description of the bot tasks, the bot will not perform a qualitative assessment. Thus, it the template used should be more in line of an OTRS ticket was received but not reviewed yet --Schlurcher (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

To answer my own question: please consider to add |reason=processing to the template --Schlurcher (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a new reason of "queued" would be better.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• All suggestions have been implemented, see: Special:Diff/325108360 --Krd 15:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks.--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @EugeneZelenko: If there are no additional issues, please consider to close this. Thank you. --Krd 08:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  But you didn't reply on question about edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  @EugeneZelenko: Most bots are using "Bot:" in the edit summary, please look up the edit summarys of edits marked with +b. Please follow standard practice. If you want to change it you should likely file a proposal on the relevant VP subsection, but not using single RFBotflag requests to push your point of view. I think the bot should be approved. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  Please take a look on two other requests on this page to see that such practice is not so standard. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  @EugeneZelenko: Requests where you asked for? Sorry, but please also look up old bot requests and the recent changes. Additionally there is no policy requiring bot operators to remove "Bot:" from the edit summary. It is up to the bot operator. When acting as bureaucrat, you should consider long term standards over personal preferences. Maybe it seems reasonable to discuss this on BN, instead of here in a single request. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  I could understand why Bot is used in edit summaries when bot operation without bot status and/or name is not clear indicate that this is bot. In all other cases it only complicate edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  I personally don't have a preference if used or not, just don't think we shouldn't block requests because of such really minor issues, especially because we have only a few bot operators here on Commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I stated very early that all issues have been addressed, which also includes the summaries. Although I disagree and see no harm in pointing out Bot also in the summary. --Krd 16:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Krd, it has been my understanding that you addressed all issues. Regarding Bot: in the summary, my understanding of Commons was that this is at the discretion of the operator (as long as the username identifies the bot). I still know, that during my bot requests, I have been asked to add it in. I always felt as one of the few bot operators that did not use it (even though my bot is one of the most active). Schlurcher (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please advise if there are open issue. Thank you. --Krd 15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  No open issues.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  +1. @EugeneZelenko:  ?? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  It's fine to approve this task. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)