Talk:Requests for permissions/CommonsDelinker

RamMan in his sig asks for non anon operations by the bot. I support that where possible, especially for high traffic wikis but it may not be practical, part of the proposal is to allow anon changing... 701 IDs is a lot of IDs to keep track of. Lar 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Reply

We need the proposed single login solution, frankly, but that is outside the scope of this proposal. Couldn't a bot be made to create login accounts and then to use them? Or perhaps a developer could do some sort of mass creation. I'm not sure exactly what would be required, but it seems that there has to be a temporarily technical solution to this. Running anonymously is really not a great idea for a bot. I have not looked deeply at this proposal, only commented on some of the issues that I'm concerned about, but how many edits are we talking about? It really isn't acceptable to run hundreds or thousands of anonymous bot edits on the english wikipedia and perhaps any other project. That clutters the recent changes and is a burden on vandalism patrol. Ram-Man 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Reply

The bot uses (or would use) an edit summary which clearly identifies it. For example something similar to translations I collected a while ago, that I and other admins currently use by hand. The edit summary would contain a link to the bot's user page at meta or commons.

It also runs through the wikis with a delay, and across different wikis. eg. it will delink one page from enwp, one from eswp, one from dewp, then another one from enwp, etc. Not all enwp at once. pfctdayelise 03:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Reply

All that is beneficial, no doubt, and really goes a long way to helping resolve the issues. Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult. From the perspective of enwp, we have a bigger problem with vandals than we do with this problem. So for us, it is more important that a bot that is making large number of edits be flagged and run under a user account. The solution above is good, but doesn't solve the clutter problem. It should be noted that this would not be the only bot running without a flag. We approve low rate bots occasionally to run without a bot flag, however we understand that over time these sum up to an increasingly annoying level, and this bot would contribute to the total. On its own, it *might* be ok, but it isn't alone. Let's put it this way, I request that the bot, when running on enwp, uses a user account with the bot flag (which would be granted). If this is not possible, I won't stand in the way of approving this request, but I don't want the issue to be ignored: If it is possible in *any way* to create user accounts automatically, I think it should be done. Ram-Man 13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Reply

Well, we don't even have any accurate stats on how many edits we would be talking about. After the enwp DB is fixed up, we might have a base to work on. Anecdotally, I can say that a large number of images appear to be uploaded for enwp only. (ie the uploader edits enwp and the image hasn't spread elsewhere yet.) Of course that's not surprising.

One idea might be - if the local wiki sets up the account, the bot will use it. One problem there is sorting out the password (which might result in being about the same amount of hassle as registering an account).

I don't know how reasonable any of the things we're talking about even are, though, so I'll shush now. pfctdayelise 17:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Reply

(To creat logons for - especially if a developer did it.) And frankly, many wikis don't have any images, let alone commons ones. That said, 701 would be a largish number to create bot approval requests for, though again developers could do the flaggng with approval at foundation level. Wikis could then opt out if desired. Rich Farmbrough 11:18 4 October 2006 (UTC).

Well, while we're still waiting for Single User Login... Alphax 03:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Reply