Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/CommonsDelinker 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs)

At the suggestion of ShakataGaNai, I would like to propose that CommonsDelinker be given adminship tools. For those who do not know, CommonsDelinker is a automated bot that delinks images from articles on Wikipedia and other projects that were deleted from the Commons or renamed on the Commons. The main page about the bot can be read on Meta. The main purpose on why I ask is that a lot of the pages on here are protected and trying to make an image deletion on the Commons, with an image still being used, will be very hard to do. If CommonsDelinker is able to do the job that he is supposed to do here, it will make things easier for yall and the Commons. It makes things easy for yall since you do not have to hunt down new images if things get deleted from the Commons. For the Commons side of things, we can remove images faster once we know all uses are gone. The Commons and Meta pages have all of the documentation and the people who run it. Zscout370 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Commons sysop)[reply]

Questions and comments

Comment I have had to fight to recover images this bot has deleted in the past. They were not acceptable for Commons but perfectly useable on Wikinews under fair use provisions. Why can't the bot use {{editprotected}} like everyone else who hasn't proven themselves to know local project rules? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the bot doesn't delete the images, it just cleans up red links after an admin has. It also tries to swap out images when dupes are discovered, and similar. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous nomination #1 - Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_3#User:CommonsDelinker, previous nomination #2 Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_4#CommonsDelinker. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If CommonsDelinker cannot be programmed to use the editprotected template, perhaps we could consider using wikinews:CommonsTicker as an alternative? It is less intrusive than the delinker, as it doesn't edit anything but only makes notifications of changes. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the {{editprotected}} solution would be better, though since I can understand the reasoning behind this proposal, I won't oppose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A related issue to this that springs to mind is 'snapshots' of pictures/maps/diagrams on Commons. Has anything been done about that? What I mean is - if a map of disease X spread is maintained on Commons are we getting snapshots made with a date in the title for use on our articles, and are these staying on Commons? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As SGN points out above, it isn't actually this bot which deletes the image. That's done by an admin on Commons, the bot is just cleaning out redlinks or changing to point to a replacement image. If I understand correctly, images on Commons get tagged, the ticker bot spiders where they're used and posts notices of a potential change. So, in theory, people here can go and check out votes for deletion and so. Post-vote Delinker is supposed to go round all the projects and tidy up. IIRC, the ticker bot wasn't particularly informative about how to look into this. With the vote below as it stands, I would like to suggest the following: the ticker bot is tweaked to give us better notification, only on archived articles. We should not be required to go and look at the discussion on Commons until after we've locally evaluated the change. In addition to notifying us, the ticker bot should caution the nominating user on Commons, and add a note in any vote on Commons for a deletion or change. Basically, it should tell them the image is in use on an archived and protected page on Wikinews and point them to WN:ARCHIVE or whatever parts of the mission statement clearly define the "known at a point in time" nature of the project. If a deletion or change still goes through after that, then delinker should use {{editprotected}} to request the change. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support From my commons background, this really should be done. In fact it should have universal sysop but some groups a bitches. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per arguments below. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commons has a habit of replacing images with newer updated versions, especially when it comes to charts, graphs, and maps. This has the potential for 'breaking' the archive. I realize it is a hassle for Commons sysops when Wikinews is the only one still using the old image. Therefore, I agree with Brian McNeil that the ideal solution would be for the Delinker bot to 'learn' to use {{editprotected}}. Then we can evaluate if the new image is an exact match and take action accordingly. --SVTCobra 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per SVTCobra. The bot could "break" the archive by updating images with newer versions when it shouldn't - i.e. updating a chart, which will cause it to incorrectly reflect the content of the article it is in. We need a human to make sure the replacement image is suitable - not a brain-dead bot. Additionally, as Brian points out above, many images unsuitable for Commons could be uploaded locally, under fair use, instead of being deleted wholesale. I think the best solution would be for CommonsDelinker to use the {{editprotected}} template on an article's talk page to inform of changes. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Considering our history with the bot, I think the so called some bitches includes us too (see the bots previous noms, and some of the discussion relating to the block of the bot in various user talk archives, as well as various grumbling elsewhere. Sufficed to say, this bot is not popular.). Well I understand the motivation for making sysop, and agree that in many (but perhaps not all) cases it would do good things, I don't really want it to be able to edit protected pages. I feel the {{editprotected}} solution would work best for everyone. If it proves that we agree with all the editprotected requests, we can revisit this discussion at a later date. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the arguments above --Skenmy ^talk 11:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bot's work is important, no doubt, but sometimes it is unnecessarily destructive. An extra pair of human eyes would be a good thing. EVula // talk // 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This bot being an admin would allow Commons to go back to ignoring this project's specific needs. There is a long history of this bot breaking WN:ARCHIVE and I am vehemently against it regaining the ability to do so. This bot has been proven to be disruptive. I am of the view that image changes on archived articles should always be checked by an administrator. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.