Commons:Requests and votes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page
Shortcuts

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!

How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons

[edit]

All applications made on the above pages are automatically transcluded onto this page.

How to comment and vote

[edit]

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.

Requests for Oversight rights

[edit]
watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

  • 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.

No current requests.

Requests for CheckUser rights

[edit]
watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

  • 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.

No current requests.

Requests for bureaucratship

[edit]
watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

  • 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.

No current requests.

Requests for adminship

[edit]
watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • 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.

bastique

[edit]
Related requests:

Commons:Requests and votes/Bastique

Vote

Bastique (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (Activity: Talk Commons DR)

Scheduled to end: 21:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to be wordy. I was a Commons Administrator for 12 years, from 2006 to 2018, when I lost the status because of inactivity. Much of that was my career and slowly growing apart from the Wikimedia projects in general. But in the last couple of years I've increased my involvement in the projects, helping when I've found the time. And I managed to bring myself to Wikimania this year in Katowice, reacquainting myself with the community and meeting a huge number of new people.

I was satisfied with just being a contributor and reviewer, however, I understand there is a huge backlog of things that need to be done, and I felt compelled to ask for the administrator rights again so I can better help with tasks here.

Plus, Iam committed to not falling into inactivity again! Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 21:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Requests for license reviewer rights

[edit]

Rkieferbaum

[edit]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Comments

@Modern primat: maybe take a quick look at Commons:WikiProject GeoSets before you do? Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 15:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose still, low amount of edits for anti-copyvio. i will change my vote if someone ask questions about files for licenses and you answered good. modern_primatඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before commenting on this, I'd like to ask you some  Question. @Rkieferbaum, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPAhzNu-QEA
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/armand_rajnoch/51935707494/
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/showbizsuperstar/3004920413/
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/53967325738/
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAtm-YrjLtY
Regards, –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 16:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbiruzzaman: hi there and thanks for your question. Here are my impressions:
1. Reject. Although the YouTube channel seems to be legitimate, the audio track (composition and execution) are presumably copyrighted and there's no indication of a release. Stills from the video would be acceptable.
2. Reject. CC license listed on Flickr is NC and therefore cannot be used bere.
3. Reject. CC license is ND, cannot be used here. Furthermore, the photograph is arguably derivative of the newspaper, so I might reject it (or at least seek a consensus before accepting it) even if the license listed on Flickr was OK.
4. Tricky one, but I'd also reject it (or at least put it up for discussion). The license on Flickr is acceptable and the account seems to be legitimate, but FOP in the USA doesn't cover sculptures. I see no indication that the artist released his copyright for such reproductions under said license. There seems to be a large number of photographs featuring artwork from the Burning Man up on Commons, though, including a few from this photographer, but I couldn't find a discussion about this around here that results in this type of photograph being acceptable.
5. Reject. The YouTube channel seems legitimate but this video is basically a slideshow of several pictures taken from all over the internet, and none of the ones I searched are free.
Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Hello, thank you for applying and offering to help. Since you have less than 2,500 edits since 2016, can you please talk more about how you became "familiarized with the license review process and its intricacies" .. as in what surprising things did you come across that might not be obvious to a user who does not have any interest in license review? Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 00:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sikander: hi there and thanks for your question. Maybe I'd start with the reply I gave above: I feel like all five examples might be considered acceptable by a user that's not familiarized with this subject, since all of them are stated to be licensed under CC. However, to my understanding, none of them should be accepted for the reasons I listed. Another example that comes to mind, which I've encountered multiple times, is when a YouTube channel or a TV network licenses their content under CC. Within a program, an image that is not free is used for some reason. Someone then uploads the video and uses a frame displaying the non-free content, arguing, even in good faith, that the TV network made that content available under an acceptable license. In such cases, it might be reasonable to interpret that whatever the network actually owns is indeed usable under CC, while still assuming that their use of non-free content did not release that content unless there's robust indication that it did. Please let me know if this answers your question. I'm happy to go into further detail. Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, good luck! modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MasterRus21thCentury

[edit]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Comments

✓ Done Queen of Hearts (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyyihjaleh727

[edit]

Comments


Requests for permission to run a bot

[edit]
watch

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.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.

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.

OsmappBot (talk · contribs) 2024

[edit]

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

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): Yes No - IP exemption is enough

Programming language(s): TypeScript

Note:

I am creating an open-source app for browsing OpenStreetMap – the OsmAPP – and currently I am developing an upload tool, which lets OSM users add images to any map features and link them together.

I already requested last year, but the development took longer, Wiki API is quite challenging to work with. :)


Although, I have a big issue now – the OsmAPP.org is hosted at Vercel Platform, which is unfortunately completely blocked from accessing Wiki APIs. I asked Wikimedia Stewards if it is possible to be unblocked, but they said the only option is to flag OsmappBot with the "bot flag". So can I ask for the flag for this reason, please? edit: no need for Bot Flag, IPBE is working good. See discussion below.


I welcome any ideas or recommendations how to make this upload process more useful for Wiki-projects. After the OsmappBot is unblocked and I have a working demo, I will submit it also to Village Pump.

Zbytovsky (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard upload dialog
FoP in effect when uploading in countries from this list


Discussion
@EugeneZelenko The bot flag is needed for the test run due to where the bot is hosted. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same issue. Resolved it by requesting the IP Exception right, not the Bot right. Would that help?. These uploads should appear on recent changes, so I would like to consider other options that bot right. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one Commons:IP block exemption --Schlurcher (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I asked for the exemption here. 🤞 Zbytovsky (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zbytovsky, I've granted IPBE for one week. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We manage to make a test run from our production server and all works fine 🎉 Can you please grant a permanent IPBE?
I uploaded few images from my app - see the bot's contrib page. Since this is not an import, but real-time upload on behalf of OSM user, any change I make to the bot will only affect future uploads.
Should I completely finish the UI in the OsmAPP, or could I talk at the Village Pump first? eg. is the current images enough to asses usefullness for the wiki project, or should people be able to upload images themselves? Thx. Zbytovsky (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MatrixBot (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

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

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Remove all files from all categories in Category:Books in PDF by year

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 20 edits/min

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): pywikibot

—Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please read discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Books in PDF by year first. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think you shouldnt just "remove the categories", but move them instead.
for example, files should be moved from Category:1505 books PDF files to Category:1505 books, if the file page wikitext doesnt have "[[Category:1505 books]]" or "[[Category:1505 books from...]]". RZuo (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea, that should be easy to implement with some additional python and regex. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmmarBot (talk · contribs) 3

[edit]

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

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: File description cleanup and categorization for files uploaded with Reworkhelper tool. Per this request

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (the bot already has a bot flag )

Programming language(s): Python

– Ammarpad (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

FlaschBot1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Operator: Fl.schmitt (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Add {{Information}} to Media missing infobox template. See exhaustive preparative discussion on Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Media_missing_infobox_template. The bot tries to put as much information as possible into SDC fields (author, source, captions, date), since {{Information}} uses those data as default.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted. The bot follows "divide and conquer" tactics. Since it seems to be impossible to apply one solutions to > 300,000 media files lacking an infobox template, it will work on sets of files, usually defined by same author / creator (assuming that those files share sufficient similarities). The bot will be run multiple times on that set of files in different modes. First, analyze the file page content and try to categorize each of its components, without modifying and content on Commons. This step will be repeated (manually) as often as needed to adapt the categorization patterns, until a pattern set that fits for all file pages of the current set has been found. Now, a "dry-run" ("simulation") generates an overview over the "planned" modifications (see txt and SQLite analysis and simulation results for Category:Media missing infobox template (maps t1)). Only if this simulation result seems acceptable, the bot will run in "doit" mode to apply the "proposed" edits.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Multiple times a week, but not daily.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Maybe 5-6 per Minute?

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): pywikibot

Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Tototobot (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Simple text replacement

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic manually assisted

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 edits per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python Pywikibot

トトト (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Leaderbot (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

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

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: meta:Global_reminder_bot for Commons

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Roughly expected to be a maximum of ~2-3 edits per day

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (the bot already has a bot flag for another task, but the bot flag won't be used for this task)

Programming language(s): Python

A test edit is available at testwiki:User talk:Leaderbot demo.

Leaderboard (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think this shouldn't be done. We don't make much use of temporary user rights at Commons, and I don't remember even a single case where rights expired without the user noticing it but leading to disruption. If a temporary right expires, it will be extended on request, and it makes no difference if renewal happens before of after it expires. If there are precedents which suggest different, please advise. --Krd 07:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Krd: , my experience (at least on Meta) is a bit different - I've seen cases like metawiki:Talk:Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2024#Question happen which was what motivated me to write this bot. Now Commons might be a bit different on that respect, but in my opinion, I see this as a "no loss" situation and while yes the user can renew the rights after expiry, the point is to avoid this disruption entirely especially if it's a right that requires some sort of discussion. Worst case the user ignores the notification. And Commons does appear to make use of temp rights, at least from the user rights log (covering rights such as primarily IPBE, account creator and trials for rights such as autopatroller).
(Note that if the decision is to not approve this bot which I understand, Commons will be placed in the bot's opt-out list which means that no user can opt-in and the bot will be disabled entirely on the wiki. Users can easily opt-out from the bot however if they want) Leaderboard (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think worst case is that by the notifications users may request renewal for rights they actually don't need, just because they can. But, I'm just providing feedback and will make any decision here. Krd 06:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"users may request renewal for rights they actually don't need" - can happen even without a reminder, right? I do appreciate your feedback in any case BTW - this helps when thinking about it for other wikis as well. Leaderboard (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can happen anyway, but per my experience the reminders will significantly raise the number of cases. If you look at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section, the part of users who signed for keeping their right and still was inactive half a year later, has always been significant, and just dropped a bit in the last few years, Krd 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GogologoBot (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Operator: MFossati (WMF) (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: add the following structured data statement and qualifier to the file page of a new upload that is detected as a logo by this tool.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, supervised

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): it depends on the amount of image uploads and on the amount of images detected as a logo. Hard to tell for now

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python, Pywikibot

Source code: https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/toolforge-repos/gogologo

MFossati (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  • I think it'll much better application for bot it it could detect non-trivial logos or logos already deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be better to add them with a separate property? While I'm in favor of adding more such ways to identify images, I don't think it mixes well with other statements. This was attempted and finally discarded with "depicts" statement a while back. Please make sure these statements can also be searched with Special:Search. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Enhancing999, thanks for your comment. Could you please provide any specific pointers to the previous attempt you mentioned? MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    here Enhancing999 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this bot going to be used as "act once on new uploads", "act once on all existing files", "potentially act more than once on the same file", or what? Unless it only acts exactly once on any given file, what is to prevent it getting into an edit war if its edit is reverted or otherwise changed? - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jmabel, thanks for your question. The bot is expected to act once on new uploads. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good. Is there any chance that the bot could also look at the wikitext for {{Own work}} and add a maintenance category (call it Category:Own work logo to checked) if it appears to be a logo and is claimed as "own work"? We see that combination a lot, and it is almost never true. And possibly something similar for a logo + any CC license, because that's usually false as well: we very rarely get a license for any logo that is above the threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that the ability to search for logos plus own work and/or CC licenses would make a lot of sense. I think this is something we can do by querying structured data. For instance, we can already run a query like this to look for own work files with CC BY-SA 4.0. As soon as the proposed logo statements get added, we can then insert a wdt:P31 wd:Q1886349 constraint in the query. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As requested by the rules, we've test-run the bot on 100 uploads randomly sampled from uploads made between Aug 21 and today, and here are the results:
    • 4 medias were deleted beforehand, so no edit
    • 1 media was skipped (maximum retries attempted due to maxlag without success), so no edit
    • 95 medias were successfully edited
It seems that it successfully worked, but we'll wait for community review. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears each file is edited twice. Is that for technical reason, or can the edits be combined in any way? Krd 17:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, Krd! It made me realize that the current code first adds the claim, then adds the qualifier, thus producing two edits. I've just tried that we can do the other way around. So - yes - we can indeed combine them into a single edit. I've updated the code accordingly. Thanks a lot, this is really helpful. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use another property than P31 as suggested above? I think we should avoid a re-run of c-a t where WMF mostly ignored community input.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Krd and @Enhancing999, thanks for your feedback and sorry for the late reply, for some reason your replies did not appear in my notifications.
While we wait for @MFossati (WMF) to be back in office for answering the first question, we are open to suggestion as to which property to use. @Enhancing999 do you already have one in mind? Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can create one ad hoc.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 Sorry for the long answer, but I felt the need to clarify some things about the request.
We need to start somewhere to see if the experiment is of some value to the moderators. This is an experiment within the first quarter OKR work for FY24/25 (WE2.3.1). We don't think a new property would work, especially because the property proposal request would likely be considered too specific in scope to be accepted by the Wikidata community, not without reasons.
We can quickly and easily use an existing property, and see if it’s valuable. If not, we will rollback as quickly and easily. The property instance of (P31) seems like the best fit, because we think it’s specific and meaningful. More importantly, the property is indexed, thus enabling search queries both in Special:Search and in Special:MediaSearch. Furthermore, qualifiers are also indexed, so it will be possible for moderators to find media classified as a logo by this bot. You can either use a search query (example with Special:Search, example with Special:MediaSearch) or a SPARQL one to achieve it.
If detecting and tagging incoming logos does not help with easier logo moderation, then our plan is to rollback our own edits at the end of the experiment. If it does help, then we’re planning to investigate other ways to store and query such data, as we are considering other experiments in the near future as suggested by the community. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata easily creates properties that are just meant to be used for Commons. This shouldn't take much time and compared to working speed of WMF (It's seven weeks since you asked for input), this shouldn't be an issue. Nothing prevents you for indexing this property as well.
If you think a separate property wont work, it means that ultimately this wouldn't work using instance of (P31) either. I think such implementations need more attention than once every month.
Given the massive community backlash WMF got from an ill-prepared, hastily implement, not community feedback driven, likely costly previous experiment mixing machine contribution with our highly valued volunteer contributors, I think it's good to take good care this time, especially as a simple way was suggested already seven weeks ago.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: unless there are a lot of false positives (and I don't think there are), the tagging of these as instance of (P31) : logo (Q1886349) seems at worst harmless. What would be the advantage of a distinct property? - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely few false positive in the first test set as it's still followed, but last time, it became problematic when person at WMF developing it moved on to something else.
Based on past experience, I guess you know what happens afterwards: you will have to wait 7 weeks for an acknowledgment, then you will be told to ask for a change in the next wishlist, and, even if everybody agrees with it, you will have to wait for the next annual plan to have it scheduled. Possibly somebody will then throw it out entirely, because they don't know how to fix it.
In any case, the idea is to classify also images where there is a lower confidence in the automatism so review is necessary.
Using two different properties allows users to easily switch between volunteer assessment and machine assessment, focus on volunteer assessment while excluding machine assessment if they happen to agree.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a coat of arms or a military unit insignia or a sports uniform a logo per the definition a "logo"? --Krd 07:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: we're targeting images similar to Category:Logos, thus making a distinction between other classes such as Category:Coats_of_arms or Category:Sports_kit_templates. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion there are too many false positives. Krd 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Permalink/923690458 has a gallery of images edited by the bot. Personally, I don't think false positives are an issue as such, at least when they are clearly distinguished from manual edits (see separate property above).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of them are some kind of symbols or graphics, but I'd guess a third of them would not be put under Category:Logos, so "instance of logo" doesn't make much sense then. Am I mistaken? Krd 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends what the logo people want to do with it. Today it's "logos", but it could be just any image type or topic. The confidence level of the classification can also evolve or be changed.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, maybe the statement with the new property should be qualified with the confidence level (for the classification of the image) and the program version being used (if not available, the current date).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Krd 11:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You read my mind: this is definitely something I wanted to propose. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realized that the bot has made accidental edits that weren't meant to be there, sorry for that! I've manually reverted them. Please refer to the test edits. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Special:Permalink/923690458 can you do a gallery that shows all images that you consider valid test cases (ideally include the confidence level for the classification as a legend).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The (determination method (P459), machine learning (Q2539)) qualifier distinguishes the bot's edits from manual ones. The queries mentioned here retrieve the bot's ones. You can compare these two queries: with qualifier (bot's edits) VS no qualifier (non-bot's edits). As a side note, nothing prevent us from trivially looking at the bot's contributions, too. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't distinguish them any more when someone thinks they are correct and also adds a P31. Or would they have to remove the qualifiers? And no, looking at individual files and/or edits is definitely not a solution. Please make sure the results can be view by querying both with search and on SDC portal (hopefully eventually open).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could also create a Wikidata item for this bot and use it as the qualifier value, instead of machine learning (Q2539). MFossati (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to use a separate property and qualify that with the program version being used. A year or two later, one will otherwise have a hard time which version of the bot considered what by which threshold. I suggest we create to properties:
  • "Commons machine image type"
  • "Commons machine image subject"
The second for later uses, if you wan't to try to determine a logo topic.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to highlight the main goal of this experimental bot, namely to help moderators find potentially problematic media. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the commitment of WMF to maintain this going forward? How much time will you spend maintaining it in the next months each week? Or will it be discontinued after a month?
     ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are committed to maintaining this bot for as long as it needs to be. As already mentioned, this is one of our priorities for the year, and definitely won’t be dropped after one month. On the other hand - after careful consideration with the team - we won’t be pursuing the path of creating new Wikidata properties, nor adding the confidence score as structured data, as part of this work of identifying and providing a way for easier moderation of logos.
    While we agree that probabilistic statements supported by confidence scores are a very relevant topic, to the best of our knowledge no available Wikidata property can express so yet, and we see the need for a cross-community broad discussion that is outside of this experiment’s scope. If no consensus is reached on this bot request, the alternative is that we periodically release lists of potential logos to be considered (this time with confidence score), like we recently did. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

[edit]
Centralized discussion
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes&oldid=907565236"