Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 2


 * 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

FastilyBot 2
Operator:

Time filed: 23:07, Tuesday, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Once I have written it

Function overview: Find files tagged with where it is clear that they should not be transferred (i.e. the file has also been tagged with, , , etc.) and remove.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Bi-weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: < 50 per run (but this is probably an overestimate)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Sure? Though to be honest, I don't see any benefit in doing so

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

Function details: The bot will look for files flagged with that should not be transferred due to the presence of tags such as, ,. The bot will then try to remove if possible. If it cannot, then it will link the file on a report page in its userspace for manual review & processing. I'll also make the list of bad tags publicly editable, so other editors can add additional tags. - F ASTILY 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Sounds like a useful task. If I remember correctly, the previous list, User:Fbot/Blacklist2 for Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 4, was a lot longer than User:FastilyBot/Task2Blacklist. I think that non-free media and esoteric file should be added to the list. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional tags to consider: nominated for deletion on Commons and incomplete move to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! - F ASTILY 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My first thought is that a file with both "move to commons" and "don't move to commons" templates is in horrible disarray and no automatic action should be done aside from logging for human review. Why did it have both in the first place, and how can the bot know that any particular template is the "correct" one? (Okay, maybe MtC was added by a bot, in which case that seems sensible, but otherwise.) Looking at Userspace file arbitrarily, I see unless a specific significant non-Wikipedia use can be demonstrated—what if one has been? Some of the other templates seem more reasonable, though. —  Earwig   talk 07:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the "move to Commons" template only is a recommendation: if the file has this template, then it is probably a good idea to move the file there. It is fine to move other files to Commons too if they satisfy the inclusion criteria on Commons. I sometimes come across public domain files which are incorrectly marked as 'non-free' and may choose to move one of those files to Commons, but most files which are marked as non-free are not suitable for Commons.
 * If the file has both "move to Commons" and "don't move to Commons", then something is wrong and then it is not a good idea to ask people to upload the file to Commons until the problem has been sorted out. If it is later discovered that the "don't move to Commons" tag is wrong, then "move to Commons" can be re-added when removing "don't move to Commons".
 * If a file has userspace file, then someone has asserted that the file probably isn't useful to Commons, and then it's better if we don't recommend people to upload the file there, although userspace files typically are permitted on Commons.
 * Another template I'm thinking of is split media. When that template is used, it often means that someone other the original uploader has overwritten a file, but without editing the file information page. In this situation, one of the files often has unknown source and/or licence, so it's often tricky to find out the copyright status of the files, and diffs and historical revisions of the file information page need to be carefully inspected. Maybe it's better if we don't recommend people to move such files to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded If there are no objections/concerns, I'd love to get started with a trial :) - F ASTILY 03:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Might as well give it a shot, although I still admit concerns about practicality/usefulness. —  Earwig   talk 03:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So, did 100 by accident when I stepped away from my computer to grab a drink 😬. Besides from that, everything looks good.  - F ASTILY  05:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have checked the edits and they generally look good. I listed some of the untagged files at FFD because the files are unused and seem to be unencyclopædic.
 * I noticed a problem with some files like this. In Special:PermanentLink/615940909, the file was tagged with PD-UK, confirming that the file is in the public domain in the United Kingdom, and PD-US-1923-abroad, confirming that the file is in the public domain in the United States. These tags ask for information about the other country, and add either wrong license or do not move to Commons if that information isn't provided. As a consequence, FastilyBot removed mtc. While I don't think that Fastily's bot needs to change its behaviour, I could see some use for a bot which checks if there is bot a United States copyright tag and a source country copyright tag present and then adds the correct parameters to the templates. I'm thinking of starting a discussion somewhere and then submitting a BRFA for the task. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. I'm going to leave this open for a bit longer unless another BAGer gets to it first since I don't have time to give a full review, but it sounds like we're in a good position. —  Earwig   talk 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick question... what happened with this one? It looks like there were conflicting tags, but also a tag that should trump the conflicting tag (i.e., "This file was reviewed and flagged by a human (User:Stefan2) for transfer. By reviewing the file the user confirmed that it is safe to move it to Commons.").  -- slakr  \ talk / 04:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stefan forgot to flip the switch in the  parameter for  which caused the template to display .  It's no problem to add a rule to omit files found in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human.  - F ASTILY  05:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are no other objections, could this be approved? - F ASTILY 05:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit I can't give this a real look until Saturday, but did slakr have any objections? —  Earwig   talk 05:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping for @The Earwig & @Slakr - F ASTILY 08:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm up to my neck in work until... Saturday, once again... —  Earwig   talk 08:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; from my checks before, it basically looked fine, and the operator has been responsive to the only issue I presented. No objections raised in the meantime. --- slakr  \ talk / 04:12, 19 February 2016 (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.