Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 3


 * 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

RonBot 3
Operator:

Time filed: 19:30, Monday, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: User:RonBot/3/Source1

Function overview: 1. Add non-free reduce to images over the NFC guideline 2. Add Non free image to be reduced (not yet written) to the uploader's talk page.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_145

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: around 70 pages per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Bot will do a search on Category:All non-free media for images that have a fileres: >325 (105625 pixels). It will check the last upload is the big image (wiki search shows the biggest visual image on the page, not necessarily the last image), and after checking to make sure it's suitable and not tagged already for reduction or for no reduction will add the non-free reduce. Also the uploader will get the Non free image to be reduced added to their talk page to explain that the image has been tagged and what options are available. NB: That template does not yet exist - some text ideas are at User:Ronhjones/Sandbox4.

Discussion

 * NB: This bot will only affect new uploads. I've done all the old files manually. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

From general bot standpoint, I agree with the spirit of a concern raised in the linked discussion:

...with the main reason being that typically we'd like to avoid quick back-to-back bot operations (i.e., a bot action that prompts another bot to take action). That said Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9 did a more expanded version of this (now inactive), and spurred some disagreement. This would be more targeted toward solely new uploads rather than everything, if I'm reading the new discussion correctly? It might also be an idea to go with a higher, clear-and-obvious/ likely-no-errors threshold for the pixel area / sizes for one form of tagging (i.e., the one that prompts bot followup) and tag with something less intrusive for only-suspect ones (since there was some disagreement on what that threshold should be).

-- slakr \ talk / 01:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If the reduction was not reversible, I would agree with the "Bot to Bot" scenario, however do we allow a full 7 days for a simple revert, which the uploader (having been notified) can easily do if necessary. Also quite often it's not really possible to evaluate the reduction until it's actually done. New uploads only, currently all files in excess of 105,000 pixels that are not up for reduction are tagged with non-free no reduce already (921 files at present = just 0.15% of all non-free images). I think we must be careful not to set a different "bar" - if we tag all files over X pixels, then we need something else done for the range 105,000 to X pixels (maybe use a modified non-free manual reduce), otherwise there will be users who will pitch their image just under the new bar - I've seen this with the current system, where there have been a disproportionate amount of new uploads in the 100,000 to 100,500 range - obviously knowing the bot won't reduce them (about 60,000 images in this range - 10% of the whole non-free category). Ron h jones (Talk) 19:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we think this can go anywhere? Just for info, in the last 2 months I have had to manually tag 4105 oversized non-free images - an average of 70 files a day (at least I don't have to tell the uploader, so my simple javascript to add the template by clicking an extra tab is very useful). Checking my talk page, I have only had 4 queries about file reductions, within that 4105 file lot. Ron h jones (Talk) 01:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As someone who used to run a similar bot, I support this initiative. Ronhjones has already done 4000+ of these manually without issue; should be safe to move forward with a trial.  -  F ASTILY   04:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You will need to build out the user messaging before this can be trialed. If you need assistance with the wording, check in the areas that normally deal with this subject. —  xaosflux  Talk 22:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was initially thinking of more than one, but in the end I went for a simple system - Non free image to be reducedRon h jones (Talk) 21:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Any chance of moving forward with a trial on this one. Still manually tagging 70 odd images a day - as an aside, it's possible the use of this bot with its user notices "might" persuade editors to consider the size of the image before they upload it (probably a bit of a long shot...). Ron h jones (Talk) 15:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * — xaosflux  Talk 20:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Run as trials of 1, 1, 5, 13, and 30 files. List of edited pages at User:RonBot/3/Trial. First trial had a minor glitch of not adding the signature to the talk page (so added manually, and edited code for next trial). The rest of the trials went smoothly. Source code page updated to last version used. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fall out from the trial was zero. I did have one editor just asking how to calculate the new size, referred him to WP:Image resolution, so can we move forward? Ron h jones (Talk) 23:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * task approved. — xaosflux  Talk 13:44, 21 May 2018 (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.