Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

B-bot
Operator:

Time filed: 17:15, Wednesday, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C# using DotNetWikiBot

Source code available: User:B-bot/source

Function overview: Tag orphaned images used under a claim of fair use ("non-free") with {{subst:orfud}} and notify the uploader.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot_owners'_noticeboard/Archive_9

Edit period(s): Once nightly. Could be any time, but my plan is to schedule it at 10:00 PM Eastern (2:00 or 3:00 UTC) and it would run until done. I estimate that the average run time to be between 30 minutes and an hour (assuming 30 second delay between edits and 50 orphaned images per day). Twice daily. My plan is 1:00 PM Eastern and 10:00 PM Eastern. Assuming 50 orphaned images per day, each run should be 15-30 minutes.

Estimated number of pages affected: 100 on average, assuming 50 orphaned images per day (one to tag the image and one to notify the uploader). Right now, there is a bit of a backlog that needs to be tagged, but once I do that, there are typically around 40-50 orphaned fair use images per day.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details:
 * 1) One of the complaints we often receive with either bot-based tagging of orphaned fair use images or semi-automated tagging with AWB and the like is that images that are only orphaned momentarily because of vandalism or for a short time because there is edit warring over which poster to use, etc, get tagged and that this is obnoxious.  Do I will maintain three daily lists of orphaned images at User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-2, User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-1, and User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-0.  Images will only get tagged if they are on all three lists.  (This will cover a 48-hour period.)
 * 2) I will be populating the list of orphaned images from http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/3268 .  (I don't hugely care what URL I use, so if we Quarry were to not appreciate me progrmmatically kicking off the query every night, I could change it to point to a different URL and ask (nicely) for someone to have it automatically run the query for me every night.)
 * 3) When a nightly run begins, I check to see if it has any results at all from Quarry.  If I do not, or if the results exactly match last night, then I was unsuccessful in reading the data.  I email myself an error message and wait until the next night (or until a manual run).
 * 4) I then move the contents of User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-1 to User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-2 and the contents of User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-0 to User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-1.  (I am looking for the most recent edit by either me or the bot, so there is no chance that someone vandalizing these pages could cause bad things to happen.)  I paste tonight's results into User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-0.
 * 5) If an image appears in all three lists, I tag it with {{subst:orfud}} and notify the uploader with {{subst:Di-orphaned fair use-notice}}.  (I will be adding the functionality to obey opt-out rules tonight.)
 * 6) For purposes of this initial launch, I am defining "orphaned" as "not used in either article or draft space".  (A fair use image used in a userspace draft would be considered an orphan.)  While our rules do NOT permit fair use images to be used in drafts, we are usually at least slightly tolerant of them if you are actively working on it and about to publish.  There are three possible alternatives NEITHER OF WHICH MATTER FOR THIS INITIAL REQUEST BECAUSE I AM SKIPPING THEM COMPLETELY: (a) treat images used only in drafts no differently from any other orphan and tag them accordingly, (b) tag them, but with a longer timeframe (like a month) to allow time to complete and submit the draft, or (c) only tag them if the draft has not been edited in some period of time (like a month).  (Again, I only mention this to clarify what the bot presently defines as an orphan - for the moment, it's not going to tag images used in drafts for deletion and so regardless of your opinion on the subject, we're not going to be any worse off than we are now.  There is nothing stopping someone who vehemently wants to see them deleted from seeking them out and tagging them for deletion, or simply removing them from draft space.)

Discussion
Submitted, --B (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The situation with non-free files in drafts has been discussed numerous times at WT:NFC but such use hasn't gained any acceptance.
 * What happens if a file has a redirect which is in use? The imagelinks table usually seems to register the file use under both the redirect title and the target title, but with exceptions.
 * I'm not sure if waiting for a few days is going to change much. I suspect that such vandalism often won't be spotted until the uploader has been notified.
 * How do you identify the original uploader? You should look at the history of the file information page and not at the history of the uploaded files as the file often has been uploaded by one user and reduced per WP:NFCC by a bot, with old revisions deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree that there is no consensus to permit non-free content in drafts and it is subject to removal if someone desires to do so. But simply for the sake of not letting 1% derail the 99% of the work that every single Wikipedian everywhere agrees needs to be done, I'm punting on that issue for the moment.  (Probably my preferred plan would be to tag them, but with a one-month timer instead of a one-week timer.  That way we don't annoy someone who is in the middle of writing something, but we don't give you an indefinite escape from our standards either.)  In any event, that's an issue for version 1.1.  In version 1.0, I'm skipping it.  (If, for whatever reason, this is a dealbreaker on approval, which it shouldn't be since there is never anything stopping anyone from doing whatever they want manually, I will modify the query to include them.)
 * I haven't seen that issue pop up. Two thoughts: (1) I (or whoever does it) would notice it a week later when going to delete the image and could probably resolve it by just bypassing the redirect. (2) If it becomes something that happens more than once a year, I could add code to purge the image page and check the live list of transclusions before tagging.
 * While that's probably true in some / a lot of cases, in deleting tagged orphans, I have noticed more than a handful of them where the vandalism had actually been reverted well before (usually) you tagged it and I'm assuming that it's probably a bug/feature that the rollback button doesn't update imagelinks right away. So the delay would (hopefully) at least give that time to work.  Also, sometimes you have a case where it's only briefly an orphan because someone makes a change for which there is no consensus and the change gets reverted.  Certainly, we can see if it makes a difference, but my hope is that we will be less likely to get angry complaints if we wait a little bit.  I'm certainly fine, if this seems like a bad idea, with knocking it down to one day or eliminating the delay completely.
 * I'm treating the author of the oldest revision as the uploader. That might not be perfect (e.g. oversighted edits), but, as you said, it's better than looking at the file history because a bot could have uploaded a reduced version. --B (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A bot which at least handles the other cases is better than no bot at all. Tagging files manually takes too much time for me.
 * I don't know how common this is.
 * If  hasn't been updated for some reason, then I think that the article needs to be edited or purged with , but that waiting for a few days won't help. You can use   ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=links&plnamespace=0&titles=File:Example.png&redirects=1&format=xml example]) to get the article title (provided that WP:NFCC isn't being violated) and then purge the articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye on the problem and see how prevalent it is. --B (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

((BAG assistance needed))
 * This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Every edit was me personally performing the edit to validate my process. I will refrain from doing anything with the bot account until this is approved. --B (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoping to get permission to start running this. There is a significant number of images to tag.  The code is written and tested (and posted). --B (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

B since I am very bad with image copyright issues, what was the outcome of the discussion at Bot_owners'_noticeboard/Archive_9? I see not result or I miss something. to ask their opinion about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a !vote or anything - just something that everyone agrees needs to be done. On the sliding scale of "everyone agrees we need it and a bot can easily do it" to "it's somewhat controversial and difficult for a bot", tagging orphaned fair use images is all the way up at the top.  There have been various bots to do this over the years but their operators have mostly left the project.  User:Stefan2 had been doing it manually (or I guess probably semi-automated with AWB) for a while now.  When he was gone for a few days this week, I did it once with AWB and it was so tedious that I figured I could write a bot in about the same amount of time.  The discussion covered several different (potential) bots.  These are some of the image tasks that bots are needed for and I'm ordering them roughly from least controversial to most controversial:
 * Tagging orphaned fair use images for deletion and notifying their uploaders (that's this one - completely non-controversial and very easy to do)
 * Tagging fair use images that have orphaned versions (where the image was either reduced in size or maybe the company changed its logo and someone uploaded the new logo in its place - Stefan2 has written a bot at Bots/Requests for approval/Stefan2bot 2 for this task and this is also completely non-controversial.)
 * Removing fair use images from userspace (this is a little more difficult to do programmatically and if it's a user space draft of an article as opposed to someone just using it on their user box, it's possibly useful to exercise some judgment here - maybe we try to ascertain whether it's an article draft or a userbox and if the former, leave the author a message asking them to remove the image or submit the article instead of automatically doing it.)
 * All of the above were discussed and at least the first two are completely non-controversial. This is the BRFA for #1 and Stefan2's is the BRFA for #2.  --B (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding #3 - WP:NFCCP is clear - non-free images are not allowed in user space, whether it's a draft article or not. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. #3 is outside of the scope of this bot anyway.  It treats fair use images that are used only in user space as "orphans". It makes no effort to remove any infringing uses and that would be a job for a different bot.  My only point is that if someone is trying to make an article, it's worth talking with the person. --B (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten about the discussion, I'll review it again and be back. Not sure how long it will take. —   13:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reviewed the previous discussion(s) and think I'm refreshed and back up to speed on this. As I recall, I was going to write four various bot tasks for these situations, then Stefan volunteered to to one, and I talked to someone on IRC that said that the others couldn't easily be done with a bot (I think it was  who use to do this regularly with AWB, but I can't confirm that).  That left me in a discombobulated condition about trying to figure out what still needed to be done and who was doing what and what there was still a desire to have done.  I'm still willing to try and write code to perform these tasks, but I need a clear set of rules for the bot task to follow.  I have no objections if B want's to have a bot task to do one of the tasks that needed to get done (not sure if stefan ever followed through or how that is working, but may have to look into that sometime). —   18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote this one because it's the easiest to automate and most urgently of the tasks. (There are 50 orphaned fair use images per day and a much, much smaller number of these other things.) There is not a currently a bot doing this - that's why I wrote one - Stefan has been doing it semi-automated with AWB (I think?).  While he was out for a few days, I did it - once with AWB and once with Twinkle and it's painfully tedious.  My bot (which is completely coded and tested - I just need permission to turn it on) will do it automatically with no human interaction needed.  Stefan has written (and has a BRFA pending) the task for tagging fair use images with old versions.  Still out there and needing to be written are (1) removing fair use images from userspace (and templates, etc) and (2) tagging fair use images that are used on a page where no rationale has been written for their use.  (Both of these tasks are more complex to code and have much less of a daily backlog that needs to be dealt with.)  May I have permission to schedule the bot?  Are there other steps to receiving approval?  --B (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, sorry if you thought I had an issue with it. What I would probably do, is add a minor function to the code so that it creates a list in it's userspace (no approval needed).  This would serve as a great way to see what it would tag (without it actually tagging anything).  Just a thought. —   22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is underway at User:B-bot/Test page. --B (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Side note: in case it isn't obvious what I'm doing, I'm showing the first (in the case of the image page) or last (in the case of the user talk page) 250 characters of the page, which includes my {{subst:orfud}} template or my deletion warning template. In other words, I'm not adding everything you see there - I'm adding just the one template at the beginning (in the case of the image page) or end (in the case of the user talk page). --B (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * Tasks 2 and 3 are out of scope for this BRFA and are better discussed elsewhere. A suitable place to discuss task 2 is at Bots/Requests for approval/Stefan2bot 2, and I'm trying to see what to do about task 3. All three tasks have previously been handled by bots, but the bots stopped editing at some point. Specific comments about User:B-bot/source:

Please check that the file hasn't become in use since the database report was generated.

// Did someone else tag the page before we got here? if (pgCurrentImagePage.text.ToUpper.Contains("Di-orphaned fair use".ToUpper)) This misses some redirects to that template, such as db-f5. Would it be possible to query the API to tell if the file appears in Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files instead? That should be safer.

pl.FillFromPageHistory(strPageName, 100); Does this mean that you only get the 100 most recent revisions of the file information page and that the original uploader will be misidentified if there are more than 100 revisions? Maybe not a problem; few file information pages have more than a dozen edits.

// Can we notify this user? What happens if the talk page is fully protected? Does the script crash, or does it only skip the user? For example, quite a lot of notifications should go to User talk:718 Bot, which is fully protected. Also check if the talk page is a redirect, and if so, notify the redirect target instead. Users who have abandoned one account and then started with a new one sometimes redirect the old account's talk page to the new account's talk page.

Is this the complete code? The strings  and   do not seem to be defined anywhere in the code. Maybe not important; the uploaded code seems to contain everything interesting.

It seems that you check if bots and nobots allow you to notify the uploader (but miss ), but not if this allows you to tag the file. Is this intentional? For example, if a file's unfree status is disputed, it may be useful to add while the file's copyright status is discussed at WP:NFCR.

Consider identifying the article for which the FUR was written and purge that page with  (must be posted to the API). Files are removed from the  database table when vandals remove them from the page, and the database table isn't always updated when the article is rolled back. Purging the article with  seems to fix the   database table in most situations. See Village pump (technical)/Archive 133 where User:Aspects notified me of this. If WP:NFCC is not violated, then the article title should appear somewhere on the file information page, and the article title is usually linked. You can get all linked articles by using. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All but one of these changes are now implemented:
 * I now attempt to parse the fair use rationale and purge the article in question, then check the imageusage api to see if the image is in use after doing so. (According to, forcelinkupdate is just a simple get, not a post, and it seemed to work when I tried it.)
 * I check to see if it is in Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files.
 * The FillFromPageHistory function of the DotNetWikiBot framework requires you to specify a number of revisions to look back in history. It passes that along to api.php.  I have upped this number to 1000.  The purpose of the exercise is just to be large enough that in a real-world scenario, I'm going to get all of them.
 * I added exception handling and logging if the edit cannot be made because the page is protected.
 * Anything that starts with Properties.Settings.Default is defined in a settings file. The idea is that these settings could be tweaked without needing to recompile the whole thing.  It also contains my password, so obviously I'm not posting the whole thing, but I could post the other parts if you would like, I suppose.
 * Edited to add: I changed it so that in test mode, it will use the edit summary ... so if you look at the test page history, you will now see the edit summary that I have it using. --B (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not modify it to check for nobots with allow=B-bot. The bots template page does not say that nobots accepts any parameters &mdash; it says that nobots blocks all bots unconditionally.
 * I also did not add a bots check to the image description page. In the rare scenario where an orphaned image is being discussed at WP:NFCR, someone could kick the can down the road by setting the timer at a month in the future if need be ... but if the image is orphaned, I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario where we would want to do that and checking for bots tags on non-compliant images allows them to escape detection.
 * The test is re-running now.--B (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also put in some more throttling. I was getting read errors.  I was waiting 15 seconds between edits, but was reading everything right away.  I have put delays before and after every read and it seems to be working better now.  I have also put in code that if the connection fails, for whatever reason, I will disconnect, wait a while, and try again (up to 10 times).  Lastly, I fixed a problem where if I failed to tag the image with {{subst:orfud}}, I was still notifying the user. --B (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, since we have added these checks to make sure that an image is really orphaned, I have changed my proposal to run the job twice per day, so the image will be tagged after being orphaned for 24 straight hours, rather than 48 straight hours. --B (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The bot has completed a successful test run of the complete process with the results of the edits it would have made at User:B-bot/Test page. It logged its events to User:B-bot/Event log.  Interestingly, Stefan2, there were three images in this batch that showed up from the DB query as orphaned, but which the API (correctly) told the bot are not orphaned, so that process worked. --B (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

((BAG assistance needed)) Can I get an approval to do a real run of the task? I have demonstrated the functionality in simulation mode. --B (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

B I guess the bots needs to change then. allow and deny are very common. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

((BotTrial|edits=30)) I set a lower limit for the bot edits so that we can check editors' reactions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have set it to tag a maximum of 15 images (which will be 30 total edits outside of whatever it logs to its own userspace - 15 images tagged and 15 notifications).  It waits 10 minutes after it kicks off the query to get the latest list of orphaned fair use images, so you should see edits starting in about 10 minutes and it should take about 15 minutes to get through 15 images and notifications with the rates I have set for editing and page reading. --B (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the allow and deny, I will add the possibility for to my regex.  Certainly right now, it's not a possibility since very few people know the bot exists yet. ;) --B (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The run is complete. You can review the edits involved in this run at  and the bots log is at User:B-bot/Event log.  (There isn't anything interesting in these 15 images to look at - I log an event if I fail to edit the page, if I encounter an image used only in draft space, or if an image that the query showed was orphaned is no longer orphaned.  None of those things happened.) --B (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

B, Stefan2, what are the differences between this bot task and Bots/Requests for approval/Stefan2bot 2? Is there any chance that those 2 overlap each other in some files/pages? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Stefan2's bot is for tagging fair use images that have old revisions that need to be deleted. Please see any image in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old for examples.  If you scroll down to the file history, you will see more than one revision in the file.  In the overwhelming majority of these cases, the image was rescaled from a really big image down to a smaller size and now we need to delete the really big one.  Example: File:GoT S05E01 Mance Rayer at the stake.jpg.  Stefan2's bot tags images so that they will show up in this category.  My bot is for tagging fair use images that are not used at all in any article.  Both of these tasks are very important and are non-controversial. It is possible, I suppose, that both bots might tag the same image by pure coincidence - if you have an unused image that has old revisions, then we might both tag it.  But this isn't really a problem - if the image is completely unused, we will just completely delete it.  Neither bot is going to undo the other's tag and Stefan's bot is, I assume, not notifying the uploader so there is no chance of annoying the uploader with duplicate talk page messages. --B (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

B, Stefan2 I made the comment after I noticed this: but I guess this is because the first edit was manual. The someone removed the tag and the bot was triggered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. The two edits were a month apart.  If someone removes an image and it becomes orphaned, then the image is added back into the article, then it later becomes orphaned again, it is desirable behavior that the user would be notified again.  In this particular case, it looks like the logo for this company changed.  Someone uploaded the new logo to Commons and replaced it in the article.  That triggered Stefan2's tagging and notification (which was manual using WP:TWINKLE but would have been made by my bot were it in place at the time).  Then, the Commons version was deleted as a copyvio and the original logo was re-added, so the orfud tag was removed.  Then the new logo was uploaded to Wikipedia under a claim of fair use and the old one was orphaned again, so the image was re-tagged and the uploader re-notified.  This is normal and desirable behavior.  It's no different than if you create an article and someone nominates it for deletion, it survives the AFD, then a month later someone nominates it for deletion again.  You would want both notifications. (Neither of these notifications would be made by Stefan2's new proposed bot.) --B (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2
((BotExtendedTrial|edits=100)) B Let's catch some more attention. I want to see editors' reactions. It seems you already have people visiting your talk page and this is good. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is done. The edits can be reviewed here and the bot's log is viewable at User:B-bot/Event log.  In this batch, there was one notification that it was unable to make (notifying ) because the talk page was protected. --B (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Side note: the reason that there were only 98 edits instead of 100 is that, in addition to not being able to notify 718 bot because the page is protected, one of the images - File:BostonSuspect2.jpg - was uploaded by, which has opted out of notifications with the nobots tag. So I set it to process 50 images (which would normally result in 100 edits), but two of the images tagged did not yield a notification, so it resulted in 98 edits (aside from what the bot logged in its own userspace). --B (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

B Thanks. Now I am going to wait 4 days for reactions. I want to be double sure when it comes to images. Please ping me if I forget to revisit this page. Thanks again! -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have looked at some of the edits. File:BostonSuspect2.jpg was uploaded by (not ), and the uploader was properly notified. Two images, File:Dpdstorlogo reduced.png and File:Fat Face (logo).png, were uploaded by, whose talk page is fully protected, but the bot failed to note that the uploader wasn't notified. The bot properly noted that 718 Bot wasn't notified when File:Brasaov.png was tagged, though.
 * In the updated code at User:B-bot/source, I do not see any implementation of or . Looking at the examples at Template:Bots/doc, I see that different programming languages implement the nobots template differently. Perl seems to think that all bots are allowed if nobots uses parameters (regardless of which parameters the template uses), while Python doesn't seem to make any difference between bots and nobots, giving the strange result that bots with no parameters is interpreted to mean that no bots are allowed to edit the page. Also, some programming languages seem to have problems if there is both an allow and a deny, e.g., which is listed as valid syntax on the page. I find this very confusing. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2, B AWB for instance will treat bot and nobots the same way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding File:BostonSuspect2.jpg, you are right and I missed that. I was looking to try and figure out why the number of edits wasn't what I expected and thought that was it.  You found the right answer, though.  Regarding File:Dpdstorlogo reduced.png and File:Fat Face (logo).png, actually this is not a bug.  When I took a look to check on the progress, I noticed the error that I logged editing User talk:718 Bot when trying to notify it about File:Brasaov.png.  I removed all of the notices from its talk page (which were all added by admins using Twinkle, which didn't at the time care that the page is protected) and added nobots to the page.  So for every image that was uploaded by 718 Bot after I made that change, my program correctly saw the nobots template and did not attempt a notification. --B (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I was supposed to remind you in four days. --B (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

B is there a possibility that a file was removed as an act of vandalism and none realised for 7 days as a result for example of the original uploaded being inactive? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While that is always a possibility, that is not a problem that is caused or made worse by a bot-based solution. The only question is whether a bot is going to tag all of these images or whether a human has to do it.  Humans have been doing it manually since the bots that previously did this job quit.  In fact, the bot solution is BETTER because we're purging the article before tagging the image so if there was vandalism that has been reverted, the bot will not tag the image in the first place, whereas a human might tag it because they're not going to purge the page and see that the image isn't really orphaned.  In fact, with the completely human process, this is a possibility: (1) vandal blanks the page, (2) another user rolls back the page, which does not update the image links. (3) human sees the image as orphaned and tags it, (4) five days later another human still sees the image as orphaned and deletes it.  At least with the bot doing it, if the vandalism does get reverted, we're not going to tag it in the first place.  And whereas a human might forget to notify the uploader or not bother to notify the uploader, the bot will notify them.  There really isn't any way that we're ever going to detect that vandalism has gone unnoticed for seven days and the answer there is just once it does get noticed, the image needs to be restored.  There is a similar case that does happen from time to time.  (1) Bob uploads an okay, but not great image.  (2) Jim uploads a flagrant copyvio and replaces Bob's image. (3) Jim's image gets commented out by a Twinkle user who does not notice that there is another image there.  (4) Bob's image gets deleted as an orphaned fair use image or, if it is free but poorly named, as a "useless" free image, or the article just sits there with no image ever until two years later when someone notices it.  Again, this does happen on occasion, but the bot isn't going to make this problem any worse than if a human does the tagging. --B (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

B I agree with you. I wonder if there are ways that a bot makes the things better in this direction, the same way AnomieBot rescues orphaned references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2015 (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.