Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 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

User:Fbot
Operator:

Time filed: 02:30, Monday July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently, although I'll probably post a copy in my userspace soon.

Function overview: This is a re-request for the task at Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot. I withdrew the first request due to RL business, but I have more time on my hands presently, and have finally got around to coding this script.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a

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: See Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot

Discussion
Other than the change from Python to Java as the base language for the bot, are there any other changes you plan to make from the original filing? Are you using a established framework, or something of your own design? SQL Query me! 12:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No changes from the original specification. I'll be using MER-C's bot framework. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No comments on this page with concerns, looks like a sound idea,  SQL Query me!  20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I still have a few bugs to resolve, but I should be done and have the trial complete before the weekend comes around. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your time! If you need an extended trial or additional edits, just let us know. SQL Query me!  08:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a great deal of respect for Fastily, but I think this is a very bad idea, because I think it's going to make a number of current problems (listed below) worse.


 * A) The number of people that use "self" licenses incorrectly is staggering, meaning that the number of files that incorrectly are claimed as own work is even more staggering.
 * B) Many users don't know how (or worse, don't care) to make sure that Move to Commons tagged files are actually eligible for moving before they preform the moves.
 * C) There are already 20,000 files waiting to be moved over.
 * D) Of those 20,000, I'm guessing upwards of 500-1000 shouldn't be moved.

As an alternative, I would suggest that the bot checks for a "self" tag, and checks that there is metadata from a camera (or perhaps from a camera and also not from Photoshop or Paint.NET) and then if the file meets both requirements, dumps them on a pre-screened list (but does not tag them for moving) so that humans can make the call as to moving them.

A second (less desirable but easier to pull off) alternative, would be that Fastily's bot does not tag the files with the regular Move to Commons tag, but a special tag that clearly and specifically states that the file was screened by a bot, and that the file should only be moved over by a human after double checking the approval. Said tag would dump into a second list or sublist, separate from the current list of waiting files.

I'm sorry if this all seems paranoid, but the last thing I want is for a bunch of otherwise usable files to get deleted from commons because of bad "self" tagging.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In accordance with the original suggested specification details at Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot, I have added a |bots= parameter to Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. When used, the template will output an obvious warning to users transferring files to Commons. In response to Sven's concerns above, the main issue seems to be with metadata.  It is not logical to deny a move to commons based on concerns relating to missing metadata; users frequently upload perfectly valid images without metadata, created with a device other than a camera.  Additionally, metadata from a camera does not automatically qualify an image for transfer to Commons; there may still be underlying copyright issues (e.g. FOP, DW, DM).  That aside, I see nothing else that should be changed with the current approach.  Presently, my code is mostly complete and fully functional.  If there are no other objections, I shall proceed with a trial run within 24h.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution works for me.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm about ready to begin the trial. I'm currently collaborating with Sven to create a blacklist and whitelist for the bot.  The code is compiled, functional, and ready to rock. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider tweaking Copy to Wikimedia Commons so that bot-tagged files are categorized into a category like Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged). That way Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons would still be primarily human-tagged images, which should be given higher priority than auto-tagged images. Otherwise, I'd love to see something like this. Maybe also add PD-ineligible and its kin to the whitelist? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. The bot parameter could be set to output Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged) (though personally I would like "(bot-assessed)", rolls off the tongue you know).  Drilnoth, would you like to do the honors?  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 16:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, using . –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Update Apologies for the delays. I'm currently on vacation and still working on a few efficiency issues. The whitelist and blacklist are basically complete. I should have the trial run in the next few days. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems during run, all edits checked. I believe we're good to go.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed) still empty then?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Drilnoth... - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Err... did they get sent to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged)?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, there was a bug in my code. It is putting them in the bot-assessed category. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good; nice work. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  01:29, 11 August 2011 (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.