Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 9


 * 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

Hazard-Bot (9)
Operator:

Time filed: 03:17, Saturday May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: PyWikipedia and custom code

Function overview: To tag pages from Database reports/Unused non-free files with  {{subst:orfurrev}} {{subst:orfud}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot_requests

Edit period(s): Occasional

Estimated number of pages affected: < 1400 originally

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: I will generate a list of file description pages from Database reports/Unused non-free files and the bot will add if it wasn't already present on the page.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   03:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Go ahead. I'm in the early steps of getting Fastily's bots (I have all of them, theoretically) up on Wikilabs, but considering I know shit about the technical stuff, setting up labs is painful.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have the Fbots? :O  Hazard-SJ  ✈   20:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Programming language(s): Python and/or C# Source code available: Pywikipedia and/or AutoWikiBrowser Huh? Could you please clarifiy what languge it is written in, and if the source code will be avaible? -- Chris 05:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It means that I may either use Pywikipedia or AWB for the job, possibly alternating, so I won't have to seek approval to use AWB and PWB differently. I am using the the standard Pywikipedia package and/or standard AWB. No original code will be used.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   20:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please trial with both AWB and Pywikipedia, to ensure that the task runs smoothly on both. -- Chris 13:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded I have not started my trials as yet, because I am now aware that I needed {{subst:orfurrev}} (for orphaned non-free revisions), not the template that was previously mentioned (which was for PD images).  Hazard-SJ  ✈   00:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll just use AWB to make things easier, I'll re-request if I want to use PWB. (So trial would change to 50?)  Hazard-SJ  ✈   00:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just 50. Let us know when it's done.  MBisanz  talk 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Sorry, I went to 75 instead of 50.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The linked discussion mentions two tasks: tagging used non-free files with old revisions with {{subst:orfurrev}} (Fbot task 9) and tagging unused non-free files with {{subst:orfud}} (DASHBot F5 Bot). Is your bot only handling the {{subst:orfurrev}} task? The linked database report, Database reports/Unused non-free files, lists files needing {{subst:orfud}}.
 * When tagging with {{subst:orfurrev}}, do you check that the file information page doesn't already have orphaned non-free revisions or non-free reduced to avoid unnecessary duplicate tagging? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been checking for neither orphaned non-free revisions nor non-free reduced. Also, I have been adding {{subst:orfurrev}} to the pages from Database reports/Unused non-free files, so I assume there is a problem? My intention is to tag the pages from Database reports/Unused non-free files, but as you say, I should be using {{subst:Orfur}}. If that is the case, then I'd like to know if the  parameter is necessary or if it can be bypassed by the bot. Otherwise, if it is mandatory, I'd have to drop the task.   Hazard-SJ  ✈   02:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked a few files in the list. Yes, it seems that something is wrong. Here is a clarification of what is needed:
 * For all files at Database reports/Unused non-free files, check that they indeed are unused. The database report is only updated once a day and file usage quickly changes. I've sometimes tried to tag files manually, noticing that some files in that list are in use (presumably because of recent changes to the articles).
 * Also check that the file doesn't already have di-orphaned fair use. If the template is present on the file information page, it means that someone else already has tagged the file. For example, User:Sfan00 IMG seems to have tagged lots of files today, probably manually (judging from his edit summaries).
 * If unused and untagged, add {{subst:orfud}} to the file information page. Also inform the uploader about the tagging by adding " Example.jpg ~ " to the uploader's talk page, where Example.jpg should be replaced by the filename.
 * A few other templates have been mentioned here. Don't use orphan image, {{subst:orfurrev}} or {{subst:orfur}} for this task as they are designed for other things. {{subst:orfur}} is for files with a replacement parameter whereas {{subst:orfud}} is for files without a replacement parameter. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I have reverted the majority of the edits (some have edits after, which include placing the correct tag). BAGAssistanceNeeded I'd like approval to go for another trial please.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I assume by that, you've managed to address all the concerns Stefan2 rasied? -- Chris 17:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   03:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets see how it goes this time.  -- Chris  10:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * |Robot%5D%5D:_Tagging_orphanned_fair_use_image Done, with the exception of the notification part which I don't think will be doable for me, unless there is a way for it to be generated (none that I know of currently).  Hazard-SJ  ✈   05:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the result. In two cases, File:Edwin Hubble with pipe.jpg and File:CAFOD.png, it seems that images were in use in the articles when you tagged the files, although they were not used in the articles a few hours earlier when the database report was generated. No big issue; I've just reverted your bot's edit to those two files. I think I've also seen a bot doing such edits once in a while, so if it happens again, it would probably be automatically fixed anyway. I guess it would be better if the uploaders could be informed of tagging in case files were removed because of vandalism or a typo. For example, the Edwin Hubble photo was missing from the Edwin Hubble article because of a typo: someone wrote Infobox scientis instead of Infobox scientist, and only the latter can be used to display images. Deletion notices help people finding such mistakes before the image is deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the uploader does need to be notifed that their image has been tagged for deletion. Hazard, is it possible for you to add that to the bot? -- Chris 08:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be a good idea, but I don't think I can generate the uploader for each picture with AWB like this, so that part is still uncertain.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   01:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if the users can't be notifed, then I really can't approve this task. It would be totally unfair on users to tag their images for deletion, and then not notify them. -- Chris 02:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a possibility that I'll be getting some code for this. I'll wait for it and see how it goes.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   04:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded I have received some code, and have did a dry run. Can I go for a trial ("wet run") now, please? The code is in Python, and has two ignore lists if needed (one for users, one for the images). It will warn the author.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   04:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I've also updated the function overview since you'll be using {{subst:orfud}} instead of {{subst:orfurrev}}. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  22:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

All seems to have gone well. Dr. Blofeld was not warned, because he's on the ignore list. I have no errors logged, so it seems ready for operation.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   05:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked all file information pages and a few user talk pages and I think it looks correct. Two of the tagged files are currently in use, but I checked the articles in which they are currently used and confirmed that they were not in use when you tagged them. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks! &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  01:02, 7 June 2012 (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.