Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Fbot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: FASTILY ^(TALK)

Time filed: 08:05, Thursday November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Flags certain freely licensed files for transfer to the Wikimedia Commons.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 20k

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: The bot will identify and flag sourced (sourced as in the file's source is indicated in its license tag - e.g. {{pd-self}}, {{GFDL-self}}), freely licensed files to be moved to Commons with the template {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. The bot will ignore files tagged with templates such as {{Do not move to Commons}}.

Discussion

There should probably be a delay before doing this immediately after image upload (on the order of 24 hours?), so that it doesn't end up tagging images that are quickly identified to be lying about their licensing. (Of course, people should check again when the image is moved, and will check again at Commons, but we wouldn't want the bot to create extra work for people by having two of the reviews happen simultaneously.) --ais523 09:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, a wait period can be implemented. Your comment brings up some key rationale behind the bot I thought I'd mention. The only reason I even contemplated running such a bot was per a hardworking team reviewers, who carefully verify the copyright status/licensing information and source information of each image to be moved to Commons. From my experience with media files, statistically, files tagged with license tags which specify source information tend to be problem-free and ready to be moved to Commons. While the possibility of the bot flagging improperly licensed files exists, I'm confident that these problematic files will be identified and dealt with appropriately by any one of three tiers of reviewers (i.e. users who transfer files to Commons, en.wiki admins who verify the copyright status of files before deleting them locally, Commons users who verify file copyright status). -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it was more out of a desire to avoid having new-image reviewers and export reviewers reviewing the same obviously mislicensed image simultaneously. --ais523 01:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Will you ignore files under FFD/CSD? How do you deal with multiple licenses? What about images already existing on commons and {{ShadowsCommons}}? What about special cases, such as, {{Possibly non-free in US}}, while still having PD license in source? Make sure you look out for all the template aliases.

(I am unsure if we have active bots tagging images for moving (I know there are for deletion), so I would personally like if the bot could add a |bot=Fbot to the move template, so that the person moving the file can easily identify this was a bot decision.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not mention the bot would ignore CSD/FFD/PUF tagged files and files with templates such as {{ShadowCommons}} because I assumed that would be a given for filing this request. All the same, I am happy to confirm that my bot will ignore the aforementioned files. In response to the bot tagging {{Possibly non-free in US}}, please refer to my function details. The bot is limited in the files it will tag based licensing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Which pywiki script are you using for this? or are you creating your own? also please create a user page for the bot. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be using add_text.py, possibly with some modifications. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'm supportive of the idea of having a parameter like bot= in the MTC template, even if redundant (that is to say, unused). Pretty sure it would be useful in the long term. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any updates? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

{{BAG assistance needed}} I'm working on the code right now, but I've been awfully busy in RL and I think it may be awhile before the code is done. That said, I would like to withdraw this request; I think I'll re-file at another time. I would like to thank everyone who spent time and effort to review and comment on this request. Your suggestions have been helpful, and I will be working them into the code for this future bot. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Withdrawn by operator. without prejudice; indeed, I don't foresee any problems in getting this approved when you do have the time. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.