Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 8


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

MBisanzBot
Operator:  MBisanz  talk

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Overview: Tag empty image pages

Edit period(s): When I'm around

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

Function Details: Bot will take pages from this list of short image pages without templates. Since they do not have templates, they lack a valid license. The bot will check the page for the presence of a malformed license tag (checking for ) and if it is found skip it and flag it for review. If it does not find a template tag, it will tag the page with.

Discussion

 * A reasonably common form of vandalism is to remove the copyright tag. Will the bot check the article history to see if it ever had a tag? --Carnildo (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That list being discussed is of pages with a single author. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming a single author/contributor (to rule out vandalism): . - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One error on edit two before I realized I needed to rule out images on Commons, other 18 edits were fine.  MBisanz  talk 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like some editors malformed licenses are in the wrong field and getting hit, possible this one, this one this one this one this one which is PD. Can you check for these types of errors? —  xaosflux  Talk  11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if that isn't some kind of software error. I know on commons it is possible to upload an image with an edit summary-like comments field, but I have never seen it on the En-Wiki's upload field, so I don't know how it is possible.  And looking at the page histories of the Files, the comment's content doesn't appear in them.  MBisanz  talk 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the ones Xaosflux pointed out, the now-deleted File:Clusters.PNG, had its license deleted by a vandal, and this bot still tagged it. It was then deleted. – Quadell (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (I just saw--it was deleted for being duplicated at Commons, which is all well and good. But it the bot still shouldn't have tagged it, should it?) – Quadell (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, it seems most of the list has been handled by other admins in the normal course, so I suppose I will this request and do the remaining 10 or so edits by hand on my main account.  Sorry for the bother.  MBisanz  talk 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.