Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MGA73bot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

MGA73bot 2[edit]

Operator: MGA73

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually assisted

Programming language(s): Python - pywikipedia

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Task 1: Help migrate GFDL images. Taks 2: Sometimes move images to Commons.

Edit period(s): Task 1: For a few days until migration is over. Task 2: When I feel like.

Estimated number of pages affected: Task 1: Up to 122,500 images. Task 2: Probably no more than 100 a week.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): ? If included in replace.py and imagecopy.py but it should not be relevant

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details:

Task 1: I helped migrate ~300,000 images on Commons (with MGA73bot2). Multichill helped me make lists and I ran the bot on those lists. We now noticed that the images on enwiki are not yet migrated (was ~122,500 left when I looked in Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates).

I'm willing to help migrate these images. I would like to to this at higher speed to get the job done and since images often contain only a few lines I think that it will not slow down enwiki. I monitor my bot while working most of the time and I'm almost always on IRC so I can be contacted fast if needed.

Task 2: The bot can transfer images to Commons. When it is done it will add {{NowCommons}} on the image and if image is uploaded with a new name it will update the link on the pages using the image. --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I would suggest speedy approval of task one; experience on Commons should be more than enough here. Task 2 I support but think would need a trial or somesuch. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. Task 2 - see latest bot edits :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Drilnoth on this one. You seem to have pretty decent experience in this area and you're trusted, so it seems like a speedy approval on Task 1 would be appropriate. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task 2 is basicly the same as this request. multichill (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues here that others have not raised. In my opinion, speedy approval to complete the task would be appropriate. --68.127.234.44 (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We feel like running, multichill (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider task 1

Speedily Approved. Unless you object, I'd rather wait until task one is finished before starting on task two, so that we can actually see the edits (i.e. they aren't hidden in-between thousands of edits from task one). If you'd rather not wait, let me know. If you'd rather split task two into a new BRfA, feel free to. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok with me. Tnx. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

The migration task is as good as over. The rest of the images (~3,000) should either be deleted or checked manually. So I will move on to the next step and start transfering images to Commons so you have some edits to check. I will start with images in this category Category:Images ready to be moved by John Bot II. --MGA73 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really you should wait to be approved for trial first. But sure,

Approved for trial (20 images). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just understood that it was ok with task 2 when task 1 was completed. But anyway I completed the trail. I did a miscount so if you count better than I you will probably come to 21 images :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Trial complete.[reply]

I'm not sure if this is needed but it seems that the status in the table above is not updated (open instead of trial or trial completed) so now I try adding this: {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot which is meant to update the table (User:BAGBot) is currently down. Regarding the moving of images to commons, the images which where moved (i.e. the ones which are on en wikipedia) get deleted, correct? This means that I can't actually see the previous images (not being an admin), so it's hard to judge is they were moved correctly, although the images which are now on commons look pretty good. I'm going to ask a member of BAG who is also an admin to review the moves you have made. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting as an admin here and at commons, the move looks successful. I might suggest a double-check that any image being transferred is NOT in Category:All non-free media or does not include {{Non-free media}} (they are the same thing, just don't know which way is easier for you to check) to make sure you don't move over any of en.wiki's non-free images. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will check before I move and I will check again when the file is on commons and I will delete images on Commons if they for some reason should not have been transferred and then remove the "NowCommons" from the image on enwiki. During the test I did not make a "bot check" on Commons so you would have a chance to see what the bot did (I can't guarantee that no one else have). Normally I (or someone else) will make a check on Commons and remove the "bot check" template when image is ok and everything is all right. Besides admins on enwiki should not delete images transferred to Commons before the "bot check" template is removed on commons. And thank you for the tip with the template "non-free media" that should be useful. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Good to go. MBisanz says the moves so far look good, the ones I've seen look okay. And you seem to have experience in both images/commons and bot operating. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.