Please do not use this page to attack these users instead of participating in civil discussion. This is not a complaints department. If you have a private matter that concerns operation of BetacommandBot, please discuss it with Betacommand on his talk page.
11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day
And 6,000 yesterday [[1]]. All to be modified in 7 days or face deletion. How can that possibly be squared with with betacommandbot's stated desire of not wanting to delete images? I have had 7 tags appear in my watchlist today, and looking at comments on the bot talk page from another user with 7 and an 11, that seems about average, with one admin getting an unholy 65 direct talk page tags over the 2 days. I, like other well meaning editors who have not uploaded these images do have a willingness to investigate, fix and educate where necessary, but are simply put off by the sheer number of tags in a short space of time, with no tags applied for the preceeding 5 days. The intransigence/absence of betacommand on the bot talk page is also frustrating many. I have also seen the speedy deletion of images purely on the say so of uploaders getting fed up with the bot and just jacking it in. The majority of uploaders just seem baffled/confused/annoyed, with none really making any headway faced with tag explosions like this. Many image tags wont even be seen by the uploader in 7 days. Something seriously needs to be done about the way this bot is operated/scheduled. MickMacNee (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I am not the only one angered by this. I find it incredibly disruptive and destructive to Wiki. While I understand that the policy is clearly written, the policy was recently changed, but in most of these cases, the image does qualify as fair use, but it simply needs to mention the specific article its already used in. Why can the bot just do this automatically? Some of the users it is notifying aren't even active anymore to change the image. --Veritas (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with this. While tagging images is necessary, tagging them at this rate overwhelms the ability of Wikipedians to deal with fixing fair use criteria, the ability of admins to delete the images without a script, and the ability of people to review that the bot did tag the image properly. Please slow down the bot to reasonable levels. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, why does a bot even need to do this? We're sacrificing reason for efficiency at a destructive and brutal pace. If it is not possible for a bot to operate in a constructive manner it should be shut down. It is clearly not capable of fixing problems, but only pointing them out and often to users who are no longer active and unable to do anything about it. Thus, what happens? Images are deleted and we will wait a year or so until someone else comes along to add new images. A ridiculous waste of editor time thus indicating that the bot really isn't all that efficient in the long-term. --Veritas (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need a bot to tag these to conform to policy. But given that we have 40+ days, I'd urger that we work on this current backlog past the 7 day limit. Its worked before and can work again. Also, a schedule of when runs would occur, would be most helpful. MBisanztalk04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of the intransigence. Just completely brushes aside any criticism. Not everyone has been here since mid 2006, especially many new uploaders, and many images pre-date 2006. This bot has got to be one of the most divisive things I've seen on WP, and yet, no direction is given to a precise summary as to consensus for this bot's usage. This is not about the policy, this is about the effectiveness of the bot to apply it. I have seen nowhere in the myriad of talk pages about this, any actual analysis of whether the bot statistically meets it's stated aim of not seeing an end result of deleted images, rather than being just a very fast and efficient deleter of content, valid or not. Denying that the bot plays any role in the admittedly final human decision to delete is just outrageous, especially given the timescale, numbers, and the reactions to it's tags from users of all experience levels. MickMacNee (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that BC is being intransigent, but that the use of this bot must be monitored and restricted due to its damaging side-effects that tags images faster than other, active, editors can step in to fix the backlog of destruction it leaves behind. BC seems to have a tendency to closely stick to policy. That's the safe route and there's nothing wrong with it save the fact that it doesn't always account for the human element of Wikipedia. --Veritas (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Veritas, when ever BCBot makes a run that day's limit is normally extended. since we are getting closer I thought Id identify as many as possible so they could have time to fix them prior to the deadline. βcommand05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not completely sure of the technical aspects of how the bot works, but I know that I haven't had any complaints about it until the past couple days so I'm not sure if something has changed recently. It is troubling though since I do feel that the bot's actions are negating is usefulness. Perhaps we can extend these 7 day deadlines until the back-log is cleaned up? --Veritas (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That convo looks like a general gripe, I am raising issue with the incident of NFUR tagging 15,000 images in 1/2 days, and the multitude of issues that comes from that. MickMacNee (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx3)That is reasonable to ID them now so there is a greater opportunity of the uploader seeing and fixing them. Would it be possible to extend the delete date in the tag to say 14 or 21 days to reduce the incidence of uninvolved Admin X wandering across the image, not knowing about the extension on the Cat page, and deleting it? MBisanztalk05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has come up several times. Part of the problem is that instead of tagging a few hundred images each day, the bot runs on this task only once in a while but tags many thousands of images instead. There is no need to extend the deadline, really, this will create a huge backlog when it comes time to delete these things anyway, so the deadline will effectively slip. It would be nice, though, if this task was run more frequently but at a lower rate. Mangojuicetalk05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What use is that if the tag says 7 days, and people just chuck it in because they haven't a clue what to do? There is no information anywhere about this deadline we are getting close to. Of the 7 images I have seen marked, 2 required a 10 second mod, most had specific tags that can direct to organised interest groups such as applying dvd cover templates, and none actually deserve deletion. Some even date from Nov/Dec 2005, so why are you rushing this through now? Why has there been no attention earlier by people who know what needs to be done to satisfy this bot? MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright tags on the images clearly state what is required of the uploader to fulfill policy. There are also a few hundred active admins and a help desk for anyone confused to contact about what to do. I really don't see how this is something the bot can be faulted for. Lara❤Love05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and disagree at the same time. Ideally, that is how it should work, but clearly not how it works in practice. I am tending to favor Mango's suggestion here that the bot run the task more often. This would create a far more agreeable tagging to editor-intervention ratio that is actually maintainable. --Veritas (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning more runs, I had a massive run about a month ago. this cleared what I missed last time and future runs should not be as bad, Im hoping to run this ~2 times a week. βcommand05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That fits from the admin who said it wasnt her job to explain the procedures on the project page she patrolled, necessitating edits of the instructions by the user themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing at all wrong with this. I just cleaned up one myself, and i'm lousy at writing these things. Luckily, it's pretty much boilerplate, and if you can remember most of it, then you're fine, and if you can Cut n paste to fit the use of a given image, then it's easier. there's a bit of mix and match, running down your entire notification list with one clipboard text-set would be bad, but it's not that tough to do. And this doesn't affect every editor, just those who never read the full 'how to upload images' guides, or who disregarded the tough part about writing something. Those editors will get the notes, as will all editors who have any article with such an image in their watchlist. I just grabbed one, and will probably find others in the next few days. This isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be. And, it does keep WP out of legal dangers and hassles. Would it be nice if the tagging bot ran more often than now? Maybe. It would probably irritate the serial violators more and a few might quit uploading, and a few might start writing, and then we'd have less for the rest of us to do. Or maybe not. But that we have 18K unfurred (sounds dirty, don't it?) images is even worse. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to write FUR's, it's easy, I did one right off the bat, but when 7 pop up in your watchlist in one day, in the middle of a big article project yourself, none of which you uploaded but want kept, all of which are not violaters, some pre-dating the policy at all, some that could blatantly be fixed in seconds, some you know full well will not get the attention (it's not all project based images), but the effect of lumping it all in one, and with attitude of the operator, and the complete lack of historical guidance, you have to wonder if the stated aim of not wanting to delete images is correct. Had I just seen one or two flagged, I probably wouldn't be here now, and be none the wiser as to the tip of the iceberg surrounding this bot. MickMacNee (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Three of us on the ice hockey project fixed about 40 images in a very short period of time. There is no reason why we have to hold to a hard 7 day deadline if the backlog cannot be adequately tackled, but if editors with an interest in affected articles and projects are dedicated, it can be handled fairly easily. It just takes some time. Resolute05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beta just said that he's planning on having the bots do more frequent runs. I am in favor of a large number of these being tagged now so long as the bot does regular and fairly frequent runs in the future so that users interested in maintenance have time to step in to fix the often minor adjustments that are required. --Veritas (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, for the day when there'll be a "11,000 images fixed in one day" thread. MickMacNee, if these images are so easy to fix, why are they not being fixed? Why is it so that years down the track, this bot finds thousands upon thousands of bad images each time it runs? --bainer (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are clear issues surrounding the lack of links and interest from the bot operator to inform aggrieved users of the past discussions about this bot (are there any agreed consensuses? Not about the policy, but the specific use of the bot). The issue is not clear cut when most advocates of the bot are expert admins, and most aggrieved by it are new editors. The issue is clearly affecting many many editors. Just needing a 17 point not my fault header on the bot talk page that has an archive for every month should tell people something is wrong. I say again, has any analysis been done on the effectiveness of this bot on gaining rationales to meet policy? As opposed to just hastening deletion of perfectly acceptable material? MickMacNee (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material is not acceptable if it's not fixed; that's the policy, and the bot is just alerting admins that there is a deficiency. As for Betacommand and his communication skills, yes, they leave something to be desired, and I've had my own 2 cents to say about that a time or two. Nonetheless, the bot shouldn't stop running just because it's delivering the bad news that there is a lot of stuff that needs fixing). Mangojuicetalk05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely cannot ignore the scheduling issue, and the complete lack of any historical links or summaries. 'see the archives' is all you will get, if you're lucky. It has changed my willingness to fix things today, it has caused an admin with 60 odd tags to flip out, and caused others to just give up and say they want the images deleted rather than deal with bcb anymore, which were probably fixable. MickMacNee (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images. Also, Wikipedia isn't really hurt by copyrighted images being deleted, appropriate for fair use or not, so it's not damaging the 'pedia. It's an inconvenience for some, obviously, but it's a bigger issue for Wikipedia to be improperly using copyrighted images. Lara❤Love05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this probably doesn't matter to the deletionists, but there are a lot of editors (myself included) who have simply given up on uploading images. BCBot takes a subsection of a subsection (10C is it?) and uses it to tag tons of perfectly acceptable images for deletion. Then we have admins who simply plow through the backlog, deleting without bothering to check if it's something simple to correct. I'm done with trying to add images to this project, at least until BCBot is reined in or shut down completely. BellwetherBC05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly to say that deleting images doesn't hurt the articles. It's also a little strange to give up on uploading images. It's not hard to do it the right way, if the image is truly appropriate per policy and guidelines. I won't opine on the schedule though. Sooner or later we do need to get to a resting place where most of the images have the data they need. Wikidemo (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that many of the images at hand were uploaded correctly, then the guidelines changed, and suddenly there's a bot coming by screaming about the coming image apocalypse. BCB is bad diplomacy; Wikipedia rules are in flux, and when they change, thousands of articles are affected. How do we deal with this? Do we make it easy to bring the old ones in to compliance with the new rules? Maybe get a bot to fix that? Or do we get lazy and just send a bot out to tell editors they're wrong and their work is being erased. Even if the form is easy now, why should I trust it? Why should I assume the rules aren't going to change again such that the band name or record number has to be included with every album cover, and suddenly BCB rolls by with another 11k nastygrams per day? Allowing this to proceed unabated costs Wikipedia the trust of its editors. —Torc.(Talk.)11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't really hurt? A picture tells a thousand words. How about the editors chucking it in left right and centre every time this thing runs like this? In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images, As said above, I do fix images, but on days like today you think what's the point?, especially when you research and see the background to this issue, and see the massive effect one user is allowed to have without comeback. The copyright issue is all well and good, but again, this bot today has tagged in my watchlist sample, 30% of images that were loaded in 2005, and not a single actual copyright violator (after modification to meet a seemingly ever changing policy). Would you create content if you knew you might have to do it 3 times after each deletion retrieval? How does anyone expect any other jobs to get done in the face of that kind of lunacy. MickMacNee (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem is that he's taking a subsection of a subsection, and applying it like it was the effin' tablets brought down from the mountain with Moses. And the admins that mindlessly plow through the backlog, without checking each image carefully aren't doing the project any favors either. There's just next to no common sense applied here. BellwetherBC06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the time you've spent... is such a horrendously fallacious argument to make. In the time I've spent correcting correctly tagged images so the bot stops bitching I could have made substantive contributions to the project. We have X hours of editor manpower, yet a machine insists on determining exactly how we'll get to use those hours, and it has decided that forcing editors at gunpoint to perform dull, meaningless bureaucracy is the best use of our resources. And those hours are gone: whatever it decides, plus the lost hours from the editors who just bail from Wiki altogether when they get spammed by a machine, plus the lost hours from editors who will eventually have to reupload the same image because there was nothing wrong with it before aside from botardedness. —Torc.(Talk.)10:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is silly to me is to stop uploading images because of BCBot. Just upload them under the policy. They don't get tagged if they meet the requirements. Lara❤Love06:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what is silly is treating a subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ. And dismissiveness is usually the best option when dealing with those less experienced than you. I uploaded my first image maybe a month ago. I haven't uploaded a new image in a couple of weeks at least, after getting bludgeoned by BCBot, both on images I'd uploaded, and on images at articles I contributed regularly to. I'm tired of it, and I'm not going to be uploading (or working with images at all) until this bot is either reined in or shut down. BellwetherBC06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is also non-uploaders wanting to fix things, faced with ridiculous conditions to do so, the issue of minimal exposure images being lost due to an arbitrary 7 day deadline, and images that were uploaded under the now out of date correct policy, being tagged multiple times every time a phrase changes. The issue is also the us and them attitude, there is absolutly no link from the bot page for a collaberative effort for experienced editors to fix things in a coordinated manner, nor any links to major consensus regarding the bot, it's all hidden all over the shop, all that exists is a long list of excuses and get out clauses. Most loaders hit by the bot only know to go to the bot page if that, and realy struggle to even comprehend what is required of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a better time frame than seven days? "Arbitrary" doesn't seem appropriate considering these are images that infringe upon copyrights. Lara❤Love06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse Wikipedia policy with U.S. law. The former is far more restrictive than it legally has to be. Most of these images do not infringe upon copyrights; they simply haven't had a specific rationale for fair use written yet. An appropriate time frame would be one that gives actual humans (not bots) time to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to each individual image, and to write a rationale if the image is to be kept. *** Crotalus ***06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not infringing until examined and challenged in court. The one I corrected today was patently legally correct, it just did not meet whatever matching criteria the bot uses (these are I believe kept secret, why?). Many of these are not infringing at all, it is purely the bot design that tags them. Giving 7 days notice on an article loaded in 2005 along with 15,000 others at the same time is patently ridiculous. It is also my understanding that an image with a few keywords but filled with gibberish does not get tagged. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the quesiton was rhetorical but it would make more sense to tag all the images at once rather than haphazardly, and give people a very short time to correct new uploads but a long time (say, March 1 or March 15) to correct older ones. That way people could plan their work load, and rest assured that once they addressed all their notices they would be done with it. That's not going to happen, but just my $0.02. Indeed, the vast majority of these images don't violate copyright and are perfectly fine for Wikipedia, they just lack some data fields on the image file. Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that people who either don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation policies or don't understand how to write a proper fair use rationale are having their images deleted. It seems to me like they want someone to blame. Either Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admins are taking flak for enforcing the policies laid down by the Foundation. The policy is not decided by Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admin. Also it is not always simple to write a FUR if you are not the uploader. How can I know the source of an album cover that someone probably google searched? Also with regard to Bellwether's comment "No, what is silly is treating subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ." - If any part of this section is not met, the image may be deleted. It's written in the "enforcement" section right below the one I linked to. You may think that 10c is trivial but the Wikimedia Foundation (ie the owners of the servers and they set rules which we cannot override) do not. There's nothing silly about a bot pointing out violations of policy. James086Talk | Email07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues on how it is being scheduled. There are people who want to fix things, this bot is not helping by going the extra yard and scaring new users and annoying old users that have complied with a now changed policy. At the very least this should have been an internal project bot to highlight first issues for an experienced group to review/quick fix, without going straight to tagging the uploader, placing a massive incomprehensible tag on the image, and deleting within 7 days (that isn't being enforced because it is not working, so why say it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus nobody it seems is aware how the bot checks to decide when and when not to flag, it's whole design and operation appears to be in one persons hands. That to me is wrong when it affects so many other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no-one more suited to writing a fair use rationale than the uploader. If they don't know how, then they shouldn't have uploaded the image. New/inexperienced users may not have known about fair-use and the policy, but the message given by BetacommandBot links to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I think tags such as {{no rationale}} are pretty clear, but if you can think of a better way of phrasing the message that needs to be conveyed by the tag, go for it. Finally; even if the images aren't being deleted within 7 days it provides an incentive to provide a valid rationale now instead of procrastinating. We can't change this policy even if it is overwhelming for new users (I stayed away from fair-use for a long time). James086Talk | Email07:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images I'm often seeing tagged are ones where the uploader is usually long gone due to issues like this bot. And I don't get this idea that you can jump straight in and add text without any knowledge, and it will usually be fixed if wrong, yet woah betide you if you add an image with even the most trivial of non-compliances. Only a small subset of images really need the uploader's actual knowledge. Understanding the rules around nfcc is a nightmare. The bot is damaging efforts for new uploaders and experienced fixers at the same time. To suggest all is hunky dory at the moment is daft. The lack of group effort or consensus regarding this bot is also amazing, as fixing furs at the rate they are being tagged is way out of the league of even the most wiki-addicted. MickMacNee (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to MickMacNee: As far as I can tell, the bot has a very simple algorithm. It takes the name of the pages an image is being used on and looks for them in on the image page (note that the links at the bottom of an image page are automagically generated, and so don't count). If any of the images are precisely named on the page (doesn't even have to be linked), ie. including things like "(diambiguation bit)", then the bot passes it. There is even a toolserver link around somewhere to a tool where you can check your images to see if Betacommandbot will tag them or not. So MickMacNee is correct to say that you can write gibberish on a page and the bot won't be able to tell as long as you include the name of the article somewhere. Of course, if a human spots this, the image will be tagged or corrected, and the editor who did this would get warned and, if they didn't stop, blocked. There are images I know of, which lack rationales, but which have the article name on them for other reasons. The most common reason is when the description bit says "picture of random article name" (with or without the link). The bot won't be able to detect these. It does, however, detect ones that say "picture of subject of article" without naming the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Just That Easy™, why does the bot fix the fair use rationale? What information is it missing? For that matter, if it only detects a linked article name if the article has been wikified, that's a bug. A fair use rationale has to name the article it's used in, but does not explicitly have to link to it.
Another bug is that the bot is too stupid to tell when a targeted page has been moved and replaced by a disambiguation page, which triggers a false NFC. If it was a human eidtor who falsely harassed a few dozen users and deleted images under false pretenses, they'd be banned for vandalism by the fifth instance. We should not be more lenient for bots than we are for people.
Another issue is how totally confrontational everything about this bot is. Look at User_talk:BetacommandBot: you're greeted with screen-tall stop sign and 17 rules that all essentially say "piss off I'm right about everything." Then read the discussions below where it gets even worse. (Seriously, read it.) —Torc.(Talk.)10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Form issues
The issue is obviously that most uploaders are ignoring the page that appears prior to the upload formula, if the users uploading Fair Use images where presented a blank form and filling it was obligatory to complete the upload we wouldn't be dealing with a backlog of 11,000 pages due to something as simple as FCC#10c. - Caribbean~H.Q.06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is that WP's policies regarding image useage are so arcane and stringent that they allow bots to tag perfectly acceptable images for deletion, based on a subsection of a subsection. When this project brings their image use policies more in line with actual copyright laws, perhaps the deletionists won't have such a field day, and new uploaders (and image workers) won't become discouraged and give up. BellwetherBC06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've stated this four times now. What we're discussing now is a possible way to prevent images from being improperly uploaded to begin with. Lara❤Love06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you've ignored the root cause I raise four times now. The problem isn't good faith uploaders who don't know the subsection of a subsection of the NFCC that BCBot uses to tag images for deletion. The problem is primarily with the policy that allows the "letter of the law" enforcement that BC demands from initial uploaders, and the tagging itself, which seems like killing a gerbil with a bazooka to me. BellwetherBC13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really have to separate this issue into two parts, old images and newly uploaded ones. Or maybe three - brand new, a few months old, and really old. Older images are a real problem because people get blindsided by the tags and by deleted images. For people actively uploading new images they can get spanked around a little bit until they learn how. "Arcane" is an overstatement, it's just a weak user interface. People grumble but I think that's more in the delivery of the message than the task they have to learn. In less than 1/2 hour you could learn most everything there is to know about how to upload images properly. It's a lot faster than learning the markup language, or learning where all the policy pages are. Nevertheless, anything that could make the process easier to get right from the start is good. Wikidemo (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The negatives are that oftentimes an image is used for articles other than the one it was specifically uploaded for, which then triggers the bot to tag it per 10C. BellwetherBC06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a option to prevent a simmilar situation in the future, this is supposed to kill the problem at its root. About sideffects, the only one that I can perceive is that the upload process would take longer, but then again when that is compared to the time that admins spend cleaning image backlogs that effect proves meaningless. Please note that this blank form (wich should be designed so even the most dumb of bots can understand the resulting rationale) would only appear if the user selects one of the Fair Use licences, wich means that users uploading free or public images wouldn't encounter this problem. - Caribbean~H.Q.06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most first time uploaders probably don't even know the difference between free and non free, but the editors that do are being given the runaround by the reverence being held for this bot, and ignoring the massive issues it creates and continues to create with it's tidal wave operation. The culture is also now I believe, we have a bot that fixes that, so let's not do it ourselves, or guide good faith violators. The tag box is huge and intimidating to a new user. MickMacNee (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if a new user is going to upload a image he/she will receive the instruction page before uploading, now if they choose to ignore that, chances are that they will most likely end uploading without a rationale wich will only add to the backlog, we can't have a competition between a bot that fixes images and several tagging them, and we can't let the 'fix bot' choose if he removes a notice placed by another bot before. - Caribbean~H.Q.06:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would support a redoing of the image uploading procedure where incomplete uploads were prevented from happening. If a user does NOT supply a required piece of information, the page should send return an error message and stop the upload until all required info has been provided, INCLUDING the article where the pic is intended to go. This would reduce the problems on the back end that leads to all the grief this bot takes. I have no idea how this can be techincally done, but it seems a good idea. On the flipside, regardless of how inconvenient it is, the bot is doing necessary work, since images which are protected by copyright should NOT be used inappropriately on wikipedia. Remember, even "fair-use" is a violation of copyright, though being done in an "excused" manner. If you wish to excuse the violation of the rights of someone else, you should probably be very clear as to how and why and for what reason you are doing so. The bot only cleans up situations where people have not done this adequately. If it tags too many images, its probably because most people are doing it wrong, which is why we need to fix it at the "front end" before being uploaded. --Jayron32.talk.contribs07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get hung up on first loaders, as I've said, there are wider issue with those about them not having a clue at all. But I am seeing a very large proportion of these flags being like this: [2]. Perfectly fixable in seconds by experienced editors, yet we are being swamped, and who is coordinating these efforts, and from where? And is there any information at the page causing all these tags, the bot? No. Leaving fixes to uploaders and pontificating as such by the bot is also wrong when like this, it was loaded 18 months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those images uploaded a year and a half ago we will have to deal it with patience and using the current methods. Please note that my proposal is focused in the images being uploaded in the very close future so we don't have a similar discussion eighteen months from now. - Caribbean~H.Q.07:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to make the same point - it's not fair to say uploaders should've enforced a policy that didn't exist at the time. At the same time, though, people should keep a check on their uploads. Will(talk)13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please click "show" above and have a look at the backlogs arriving soon in the "disputed fair use images" dated categories. Normally, these images would be deleted after 7 days. The practice so far has been to extend the deadline some indeterminate amount. Given that these runs by Betacommandbot were done rather close together (looks like an extended run over three days), what would be the best way to determine a suitable extension here? An extra week? An extra two weeks? I asked Betacommand on his talk page recently (a few weeks ago), and he said he was near the end of doing these runs. Previously, I put dates of 10th and 17th February on the other backlogged categories. I'd suggest putting a date of 2nd March on these categories. It isn't terribly clear where this sort of thing should be discussed, or with whom, and it seems no-one else is attempting to manage the backlogs. To avoid future disputes, I'd appreciate it if people could object to or endorse this action, here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I only do logos (and some symbols and seals). Right now AWeenieMan's tools say I have ~3900 images to process. Given real life commitments and what, I would need about 3 weeks from today to get through them all. MBisanztalk07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend giving them a month at least. Give the original uploaders (who might not be very active) some fair time to see the notices. I know the policies are strict and all but 18,000 images obliterated in a week just seems brutal (though kind of impressive). • Anakin(talk)18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop uploading so many non-free images, and use fewer non-free images. Less time spent writing rationales, less time spent fixing images, Wikipedia is more free — its a win-win situation. Mr.Z-man18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is much more fun looking for free pictures, anyway! One thing I would say, is please, please, take care over old black-and-white photos. Some will be public domain though we are not aware of it, and some will be genuine historical photos and of great educational and encyclopedic value (and hence exactly what fair use is intended for). For now, to deal with the backlog, I've put a deadline notice of 2nd March (around two weeks) on those categories. I would also like to see Betacommand do a schedule for the runs he intends to do in March. Tagging thousands of images a few days before the Foundation's deadline (23 March 2007, or seven days later depending on your interpretation), would not be appreciated, I fear. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have about 500 non-free uploads per day, Im guessing that my future should be around 1000 images about twice a week. βcommand16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next BCBot Phase
What BCBot has been doing is tagging images without any valid rationales. The issue with this method is that if a image is used in multiple articles, but only one valid rationale, it violates our NFC policy, but the images should not be deleted. My next planned phase was to remove the image usage that does not have a rationale. Comments or suggestions? βcommand16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What BCBot has been doing is tagging images without any valid rationales - This is fundementally an incorrect statement, your bot does not tag images that have complete garbage as a rationale but mentions each usage once. Your bot should not be the first and only assesment of the presence of a valid rationale before the placement of huge tags on images and talk pages with phrases such as invalid rationale (is it? on what basis did this get decided?), The rationale is (not) presented in clear, plain language, Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale (which may already exist), or in some other way, the image will be deleted. MickMacNee (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit premature to talk about changes to BCBot when there is clearly no consensus on its continued operation AT ALL. My feeling is that until BCBot can accomplish its work without angering editors, it shouldn't be running AT ALL. If you don't choose to stop BCBot, then you should be forced to stop running it. The root problem with BCBot is that it is enforcing a policy that demands more work from volunteers. This must be done gently, if at all. And it's clear from reading the hostile messages here that BCBot is not gentle.
May I make a suggestion for a resolution of this issue? You and Hammersoft have claimed that you are operating with the support of many admins and editors. If you feel that this work is so important, then you should be willing to do it yourselves. If you cannot find volunteers to work on this project, then attempting to coerce editors (FIX YOUR IMAGE RATIONALE OR ELSE THE IMAGE GETS IT) does not improve Wikipedia. Better to let it die under the weight of copyright lawsuits than to create so much unhappiness. RussNelson (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much sympathy for people unwilling to comply with our policies, which have been in place for a very long time. Nor do I have much sympthy for people canvassing to get support to ban the bot [3]. And by the way, I'm not operating this bot. I support what it's doing. Betacommand operates it. And no, I'm not going to perform the work because it involves thousands upon thousands of images. No small number of people can handle it. I recently estimated that if it took 10 seconds per fix it would take 11 straight days of editing to fix just a portion of the images tagged by Betacommand. The problem is absolutely massive. The bot is a tool to get it under control, to change the culture of liberally uploading fair use under whateverthehellsomeonethinksistherightwaytodoit. It's GOT to change, or we might as well forget about ever getting into compliance with Foundation dictums on this. I personally don't care if the people liberally abusing this policy are unhappy about it. They should be *glad* to work towards compliance with policy, not fighting it like it's the second coming of Satan and the end of the project if their precious non-free image gets deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People aren't generally "liberally abusing" the policy. Many of them don't understand it, as it hinges on a highly technical definition of "rationale" that is not obviously different from copyright tags. Many of them uploaded images completely correctly, before the 10c-rationale policy existed. If you want all of Wikipedia to follow a new policy, you have to make the policy easy to follow and not demonize people who don't instantly change what they're doing to go along with it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)So BC, if I understand thise new phase, BCB will go through articles that use an image, but that the image has no FUR for. What sort of FUR will it look for? A valid backlink? the article title? a FUR template? etc. I'd say I'd support BCB generating lists of images that are used in articles where there is no mention of the article title on the image page. My fear is that if BCB edits the articles to remove the images, people might not notice and know to write a separate FUR. How many images are we talking about (FUs in more than 1 article)? My rough guess is 5%-10%, but I'd like a firmer number (xx,xxx) for example to figure out the impact of this phase? BTW, how many images are left in the current phase? MBisanztalk04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with MBisanz. Betacommand needs to give the community an idea of numbers before starting new phases. He should also have the courtesy to state when a previous phase has finished, before rushing on to the next stage. I support a lot of the work that Betacommand does, I just wish he would be just a little bit more organised about it! I'm going to start a new section below, and maybe even a whole new page, like Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. We need to do this systematically as a community, not on the whim of Betacommand (though he has done much sterling work and should be thanked profusely). Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BC, I don't remember the details of this phase, but could you please be sure to leave behind a redlink or some other notice, so that any editor who notices it can restore the image (if appropriate) by adding a rationale and a link? It would be best to leave something in the article itself, not just the talk page, because that way people who visit the article but don't necessarily have it on their watch list will be able to notice and pitch in. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So much horror over a bot, and no horror over the policy violations
I find it amazing that certain vocal people here are absolutely desperate to do SOMEthing to stop this bot, to get it banned permanently. They stand in horror that 11,000 images would be tagged in a single day. You guys want to take a guess how many fair use images are improperly uploaded/licenses/tagged/rationaled every day? If we didn't have a bot to help manage this problem, we might as well give up on ever having the fair use situation brought under control on this project. All of you horrified at the work this bot is doing, which is completely in compliance with policy, should be absolutely MORTIFIED at the rampant abuse of policy performed by ungodly numbers of users who simply just don't care about our policy. Or maybe that's the point? You don't care about our policies? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the tag doesn't say which article it should be used in (Example), or the source of the image (www.), or a description of what the image is (Logo of IBM from 1971). MBisanztalk06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's obvious, as when the image itself clearly shows the screenshot, and "what links here" takes you to article on the software. And the source is irrelevant with screenshots; someone could have hit Printscreen and then pasted it into Paint. Ron Duvall (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, it could also be a screenshot from a news article, so we'd need the user to say either "I took it" or "I got it from NYT.com/132543". And the "What link here" section only shows articles containing the image, it doesn't define if there is a rationale under copyright law for the use of the image in that article. MBisanztalk07:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of you ... should be absolutely MORTIFIED at the rampant abuse of policy performed by ungodly numbers of users who simply just don't care about our policy.
Why should anyone be mortified, when such behavior is completely and totally predictable. You set up a project in which every Tom, Dick and Mary who shows up at the door can jump right in and participate, and then you wonder why they don't care about your policies? Start with: Why should they care, since the system of enforcement is weak at best and random for the most part, and the chances of their being caught are minimal (unless, of course, they're just stupid or don't care if they're caught)? Then go to: there are so many damned policies that even if someone wanted to play it straight, it's practically impossible to do so -- and the interpretation of these myriad policies differs from administrator to administrator, from case to case, from circumstance to circumstance.
This is the system you've set up, which inevitably lead to the rampant disregard of your upload policies - so why be "mortified", just fix it.
Unfortunately, the only way you're going to be able to do that is to in some way change the essence of the project. It's going to have to be more tightly administered, but the only way to do that is to reduce the number of policies down to a manageable lot that both editors and administrators can understand without taking a lifetime course in Wikipediology.
You could apply that rant to pretty much any set of rules. Why bother with speed limits? Why bother with copy protection on music? There really aren't that many rules on Wikipedia, and the ones that are the most important are the ones based on common sense: keep a neutral point of view, don't be a dick, and don't put copyrighted material on a free encyclopedia, just to name a few. --clpo13(talk)08:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree, my friend, but that's not the case at all. Speed limits are just there, they're regulations created for a reason, but they can be there (as in most of the U.S.) or not (as on the Autobahn in Germany, and for a while in Monatana), they can be set high or low, they can change or they can stay the same for decades -- nothing about our system of justice or social regulation determines or requires that there must be speed limits. That's not the case here, where the problems are essentially systemically determined by the structure and philosophy of the project.
Oh, and not a lot of rules on Wikipedia? Are you kidding? We've got "guidelines" out the wazoo that most people treat like Holy Writ, and they specify, sometimes down to the comma or dash, what you can and can't do. Worse than that, the rules overlap, they conflict, and they are subjected to myriad interpretations, so if someone doesn't like what you're doing (regardless of its potential value) there's almost always a rule that can be cited to use to revert it. From this lack of clarity and too much complexity comes, inevitably, corruption. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)09:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize for disagreeing. You have your Wikipedia philosophy and I have mine. Of course, considering how you think things should be run, I'm beginning to wonder why you even bother sticking around Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is as deeply flawed as you think it is, and if you refuse to go through the usual channels to suggest a fix, then it's not going to change simply because you want it to. Perhaps you'd be better suited at Scholarpedia or Citizendium. I was actually visiting a fork of Wikipedia with stricter editing policies just recently, but I can't remember what it was called. Ah well. At any rate, if you oppose the open policy of Wikipedia, it's clearly not the place for you. --clpo13(talk)09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is the place to be, since it has become the current de facto standard, the first place people look for information on the Web. I think the project has fabulous potential, but I worry that its inherent contradictions will do it in before it has a chance to reach it. The infoworld moves fast and its past is full of de facto standards that fell by the wayside. My hope is that Wikipedia will resolve its systemic problems and become (in a phrase that's vaguely familiar) "all that it can be", so I'll stick around and do what I can to help out.
But also I think you may misunderstand me -- I'm not calling for stricter editing policies of things as they stand now, I'm calling for stricter and more coherent enforcement of a vastly simplified and more open set of policies. First the policies need to be whittled away to the essentials, and then they need to be properly enforced.
But this conversation is getting to be a little too esoteric for this venue. I simply wished to respond to the editor who seemed to think that we all should be beating our breasts about people uploading pictures they shouldn't, when, in fact, that behavior was perfectly predictable from the start! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, not just on Wikipedia, but everywhere all over the world, "usual channels" are the places where people who live to make sure nothin' ever changes no-how hang out. "Going through channels" is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in a bureaucracy or a strict hierarchy, if what you want is to order some new paperclips or get a soldier discharged, but channels aren't much good at dealing with change, since they exist to make sure the same kinds of things happen in the same kinds of way over and over again. Besides, (maybe you've noticed?) I'm not much of a fan of that kind of thing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Individuals come here and upload items and articles that for various, sometimes complex reasons, shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. In order to maintain openness and get as much good "stuff" as we can, we have admins, and bots, and experienced users, who use tools to weed out and sort that information. So should users be Mortified, probably not. Should we abandon policies simply to get more "stuff", probably not. Even though some things could be made better (and many of us are trying our darndest despite the lack of a paycheck), there is no deadlineMBisanztalk09:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! MBisanz is one of the "good guys". There probably are people who delete because they think it needs doing and don't think too much about anything else, but MBisanz isn't one of them. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft, the problem is not WHAT BCB is doing. The problem is HOW it is doing it. Yes, I realize that some people don't want images tagged. We can disagree with them while at the same time admitting that BCB is harming Wikipedia. I think that you are so afraid of giving these people any quarter that you are unwilling to acknowledge any flaws in BCB. For example, BetacommandBot only knows about the case of English letters, so it wouldn't be able to see that Βcommand and βcommand could be different names for the same article! Why not be honest and say "Yes, BCB has problems, and harms Wikipedia, but the benefit it does is greater than the harm, so I can accept that." RussNelson (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say "Yes, BCB has problems", but I don't think those problems harm Wikipedia. I remember an instnace some months ago with an article that ended in 4 "!"s and therefore couldn't be recognized in templates. Now, that is a problem, but I don't think its a problem that harms the encyclopedia, because users recognize it and respond accordingly. Same thing with a certain song title that begins "Help:" thereby placing it in the helpspace instead of as an article. Another problem that doesn't harm the encyclopedia. Now if BCB was deleting images or not notifying creators or removing images at random from articles, that would be harming the encyclopedia. MBisanztalk04:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand has more power than an admin, because of closed source
Just by running a bot that's allowed to make so many edits so quickly, Betacommand has more power than admins to set policy. In particular, he uses this bot to enforce a very particular interpretation of WP:FURG 10c that is not required by the Foundation or by copyright law. I don't like the way 10c has been handled in general, especially the paranoid rush to beat some imaginary deadline, but even the kind of enforcement we do now -- by which I mean the kind of enforcement BetacommandBot does now -- could be made much more intelligent.
One very noticeable aspect of this: BetacommandBot approves of a rationale if and only if it repeats the name of the article exactly. Being a robot, BetacommandBot of course has no common sense, and there are many rationales out there that anyone with common sense can tell are correct but don't fit this narrow criterion. But when this discrepancy leads to disputes, Betacommand and Hammersoft (in particular) define the rationales that aren't understood by the bot to be against policy.
In effect, the bot is a de facto policy, but this policy cannot be discussed or edited by the rest of Wikipedia because Betacommand will not share the source code. When the bot does the wrong thing, sometimes the only way to get Betacommand to fix things is to block the bot. However, the bot holds other things such as the RfC process for ransom. If you block the bot, new RfCs can't be created. So BetacommandBot wins policy disputes with admins automatically -- it holds the power -- despite the fact that neither Betacommand nor his bot would realistically pass an RfA.
I believe we need to decentralize the tasks performed by BetacommandBot, and most importantly, open up the source code. Wikipedia runs on open source. I cannot see why Betacommand will not cooperate with Wikipedia and open up the source code to his bot -- "security through obscurity" is rather unhelpful here. Opening up the source code, in addition to being just a good idea for preventing bugs, also allows people to suggest patches and different ways to do things. Imagine if people who cared could fix these issues instead of just repeatedly complaining about them:
BetacommandBot could tolerate near misses on article names instead of demanding an exact match. A rationale correctly identifying an album cover as being used to illustrate "the article on the album '!'" is a perfectly good rationale for using the image on ! (album).
BetacommandBot has poor scheduling of the order in which it tags images and leaves notices, which causes it to disruptively spam users' talk pages.
BetacommandBot leaves messages with misspelled words in them, making Wikipedia policy look amateurish.
BetacommandBot edit wars, blithely retagging images when people contest the tag. (A possible alternative is to create a noticeboard for disputed tags, much like the PROD->AfD process. There are probably other ways to deal with this. They would require discussion, but right now discussion is hardly possible.)
My point here, remember, is not to simply point out these failings in the bot, but to point out that these failings could be fixed if Wikipedians could read the code and suggest patches or get their own version approved.
There is such a noticeboard Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk for Beta related comments. Beta doesn't get paid to do what he does, so I really don't like the idea of trying to hold him to a schedule. 20,000 images is a lot at once, but its certainly not unmanageable with tools lik FURME. Yes, 10c is a rigid interpretation, but this process was approved by the Bot Approvals Group, which is sanctioned by the Bureaucrats, and the bot does enforce a policy that has consensus. For the RFC process, there is a backup bot, and I know Beta has been working for sometime on trying to split up the functions the bot performs. MBisanztalk10:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It takes approximately no time to release the source code to a program. It can take effort to make the code well-documented, or runnable on someone else's system, but I'm not actually asking him to do that. On the other hand, Betacommand is holding us to a schedule by running the bot so quickly that no one can keep up with fixing the rationales. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that's an argument for closed source, Zscout. You realize that there's a difference between the copy of the code that's running on a server and the copy of the code that's put up for public review? People can't just edit the displayed code and make the bot do something different. However, people could suggest that Betacommand incorporate changes in the bot he runs (this doesn't require a "war"), or split off their own version of the bot and get it approved through the BAG (and I hope that Betacommand would recuse himself from participating in the approval decision). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are giving suggestions, here and on his talk page. Hell, there is a discussion about this bot on a weekly basis. So he is taking their suggestions to mind. But no matter what anyone says, the only person who can decide to put the code out there is BC. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)10:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. What I am saying is that the discussion could be more useful and less adversarial if the source code were open, because people could suggest actual patches to the bot instead of saying "BC, you need to figure out how to code this". How is your response an argument for closed source? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "10c" is part of the fair use policy (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). The resolution indicates that appropriate rationales are required for material used under an EDP. "10c" was part of the policy when the Foundation policy was passed, specifically mentioning our fair use rules as an example of an appropriate EDP.[4] The bot has no special control over the resolution and policy, but rather acts in response to policy in the fashion it was approved for. The Foundation resolution also indicates that non-free usage should be machine-readable, which could be construed to include the accurate linking/naming of the articles in which a non-free image is used. Just some thoughts. Vassyana (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that our EDP requires we enforce 10c. It does not require that we enforce it like BCBot does. The "machine-readable" clause has also been construed as one we've satisfied for years, because all non-free use template names start with the text "non-free". If you're more paranoid than that, you want each rationale to be machine-readable as well. But even that is still different from "readable by BCBot", which is what is currently enforced and not required by the Foundation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many images does Wikipedia have (give an idea of numbers over time)?
How many free and non-free images does Wikipedia have? (And under what circumstances are free images kept and not transferred to Commons?)
How many free and non-free images date from (were uploaded in) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008?
How does Wikipedia identifiy its free and non-free images? (License tags - are these systematically kept under control?)
How many images are uploaded each day? (Split the number between free and non-free)
How many images are uploaded each month and how many are deleted? (deletion needs to be averaged over a month - varies too much daily)
How many non-free images have non-free use rationales?
How many non-free images lack non-free use rationales?
After we have clear answers to these basic questions, we may be able to set up a system that works more smoothly and has more vision than the current one - or at least a more articulate vision that the current one. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you'd need to contact a developer at MediaWiki to get most of that data. I just don't think its available in a format that even a script could extract from the encyclopedia. MBisanztalk15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia currently has 773,658 media files Normaly it's about 300K unfree images. Tags for unfree images are pretty darn systematic. less so for free.Geni19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks. :-) Any tips on how to answer the other questions? By the way, where does the 773,658 number come from? Is that some magic word or something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of media files is on Special:Statistics.
Most of these questions can be done easily with the database (toolserver) except that I can't differentiate between free and nonfree images that way. I do have a database query that will gather stats on taggings, deletions, uploads of images. Perhaps I can run it over the last year later today. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generaly the best attack line for answering the questions is to take a smaller sample so for the simple free unfree spilt you pull up 100 random images and count.Geni19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by that method I estimate we currently have a little over 200K taged unfree images and a worrying number of copyvios.Geni20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So my prediction that the obsession with the NFCC would lead to people failing to check for copyvios has come true? Well, that's good to know. Now, all sarcasm aside, what is the best way to deal with this? Should there not be as much focus on checking sources and weeding out invalid claims of free images, as there is on rationales for claims of non-free use? Geni, could you definre what you see as the difference between a non-free image and a copyvio? I think I know the difference you mean, but many people think that non-free image claims lacking a rationale are copyvios, when in fact they are not. I see a copyvio as something like an image with no fair use claim at all (not even a copyright tag), or a copyrighted image incorrectly tagged as free or public domain. Do I have that about right? Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah the image namespace has been lousy with copyvios for years we could knock out a fair chuck of them by going orphan zapping. Fixing that is the next thing to do. In this case by copyvio I mean an image with say a GFDL tag that I don't belive. Non free image means something with a fair use tag of some sort.Geni23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my stuff. The 'date' is by week. This means that in the first full week of 2007, we had 16806 uploads, 6582 deletions, for a net gain of 10224. and none of the bots made any taggings. In the first full week of 08, we had a net loss of 841 images (free and non-free included here, remember) with bots making about 6000 taggings. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over 600 THOUSAND images tagged by BetacommandBot. And people don't think a bot is necessary to do this work? People don't think the scale of this problem is enough to call it serious? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, more detailed numbers will help correct misunderstandings in future. Please help with the (lone) effort to actually write a useful page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last one is serious enough to keep in its own section for now, so that it doesn't get lost in the noise, and is more about Betacommand than BetacommandBot anyway. The other two could usefully be merged here though. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drama
I wonder whether anyone has considered that just directing a bot to go through every image and add links to the associated articles would effectively cancel out all of these issues? Adam McCormick (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That misses the point. If the image use was wrong, it needs to be removed, not just linked. Humans need to review each non-free image use and make sure it is OK. Bots can't do that. The drama here comes from a variety of sources, but mainly people (from both sides) jumping in and making only a few points without really looking at the whole picture. To really get a handle on what is going on here, it is best to read lots of archived discussions, hang out at various noticeboards for a few weeks, try fixing a few images and uploading a few images yourself, and then slowly you will get an idea what the common types of image problems are, and the volumes of various groups of images. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading these discussions (and similar) for nearly a year now, but it all seems to come down to "Images that don't follow the letter of the policy, as we see it, they must be deleted" versus "Not everything this bot does is accurate, and can it change" and "lots of these rationales are withing two word of perfect" with some random other comments in between. Both sides see the other position as utterly untenable and around and around we go. This just reeks of one stubborn editor who refuses to see reason and a groundswell of those who feel downtrodden about this policy. It all seems very bitey and pointed. I mean the code to this bot sound extremely simple (could probably be replicated in a few hours testing) and the idea makes sense it just seems that the execution is flawed. Why won't Beta allow community consensus to control his bot? Why is this policy still in place if there is a groundswell of opposition to it? I wonder. Is this really that important of a bot, and if so why is it being run outside of the Admin Community? It just seems like everyone, including Beta and Mac, needs to chill out and just discuss things instead of inciting such a riot. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot could add the link if the picture is only used on one page and has correctly indicated a license. Assuming that a non-documented use of the image means the image is being misused is assuming bad faith - we wouldn't let human beings get away with doing that, so we're going to let a machine? —Torc.(Talk.)20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the bot assumes nothing. bots cannot write rationales. and bots cannot assume good faith, neither can they assume bad faith. images that are non-compliant need reviewed and fixed. just adding a link goes against policy. βcommand20:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot inherits its assumptions from its programming. This bot was created with a faulty, bad faith assumption: anything that doesn't meet its requirements has not met Wikipedia's requirements. Plenty of examples of this assumption being false have already been provided. The bot is faulty and should be taken offline. —Torc.(Talk.)20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torc2 you are mistaken. Policy clearly states otherwise. bots cannot add proper rationales. if you think they can you need to review our non-free policy. βcommand20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The faulty assumption is that the rules that apply WP:NFCC must be written in a way that BCB understands. That is false; the resolution only calls for it to be "machine readable" - not "readable by a poorly-programmed bot". When it reads an image fails to see what it is expecting in a format it can comprehend, it assumes (in bad faith) that the editor is to blame. Also, given this proposal, BCB activity should cease until that is settled. The {{Non-free album cover}} or {{Non-free DVD cover}} tags (for example) for images used on a single page should be sufficient indication of fair use. —Torc.(Talk.)21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question Torc2, since you obviously did not bother to read WP:NFCC let me quote it. The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item,
whats so hard to understand about that? that is POLICY instead of making bullshit comments based on things you pulled out your ass and are not based on fact, why not stop making unfounded attacks and BACK IT UP WITH FACTS AND DIFFS which you cannot do. all BCBot does is follow policy if you write a rationale that meets policy BCBot will not tag it. βcommand02:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. I saw nothing that said the rationale had to be readable by BCB, or what the bot would be looking for. And since when does "recommended" mean "required"? That's a faulty assumption. Even WP:FURG doesn't require the use of a template. The bot needs to be intelligent enough to work around reasonable interpretation of the requirements; editors shouldn't be expected to guess how the bot will read the image page. —Torc.(Talk.)05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torc2, let's draw this out. The policy requires rationales for each use (the link to the title, as opposed to just typing out the title, is recommended). BCB looks for those typed out article titles (link optional) that are required by policy. If your rational doesn't meet policy, then BCB tags it. If your rational does meet policy, BCB doesn't tag it. What part of that don't you get? Lara❤Love06:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the part where the bot is too poorly programmed to recognize simple misspellings. I also don't buy that the algorithms and coding are robust enough to spot valid rationales that are not formatted in a way that the bot is expecting, or that the bot can't be easily fooled. Of course, the bot is a big black hole, and by keeping the code secret, BC has ensured that the flaws won't be found, and that the bot won't undergo any serious QA testing. Does the bot recognize FURs without links? I don't know, because nothing is published about how the bot works.
It's easy for Beta to hang himself on the cross and yell "bullshit!" and "lies!" at everybody, because it's easier to hurl insults than it is to be helpful and discuss potential flaws in his code and the tone of the messages he programmed. I also don't get how one editor is given cart blanche to run roughshod over whatever civility guidelines we pretend applies equally.
Just think how much easier this whole process would have been if the instructions were remotely informative, if the warning message the bot gave encouraged users to fix their images and pointed them to clear, helpful instructions rather than simply berating them for not having it right, if User_talk:BetacommandBot had actually helped editors solve their problem instead of defensively belittling them for being annoyed by an obnoxious message, and if BC and his legion of apologists actually acknowledged that positively contributing editors might have a justifiable reason to be annoyed by the way the bot was instituted and run. —Torc.(Talk.)10:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torc2, Betacommand and Lara are right. We can't assume that because an image is in use that it is in use in the right article or that the use is valid. That needs to be reviewed by a human. Think of it as image patrol, the same way as new pages are patrolled, with the exception that some of the images are not new and that deletion is proposed. The equivalent would be if a bot put PROD notices on all new pages that failed some agreed upon text. That is what BetacommmandBot is doing to non-free images. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we can assume that if an image doesn't meet whatever specific, yet insufficiently-documented conditions BCB is looking for, that it is a copyright violation? That doesn't seem like an assumption of good faith to me. Rather than do the analogous of PRODding, why don't we do the analogous of {{references}} tagging or {{notability}} tagging? Why did BCB go directly to a deletion warning? Why didn't it drop an warning with a polite tone stating that the image might lack a sufficient rationale and needs to be fixed soon, maybe with links on how to fix the rationale and why this is important? Then why weren't these images reviewed by humans to confirm BCB's suspicions before the deletion warning was dropped on them? Where is the discussion where BC asks how he can make this whole thing friendlier to editors and less confrontational and actually listens to the responses? The warning BC received for attacking another editor with a bot was more gentle than the warning a couple thousand users received for posting images that don't fit the obtuse, mechanical requirements of an obscure guideline.
I don't buy the argument that a bot cannot write a fair use rationale for, say, an album cover that already has a license. If the person who coded BCB cannot do that, there's no reason to have any faith in BCB. If there's a legal issue of saying a human has to confirm the information, the bot could do the formatting work and prefill the information, add the image to a list, and a human editor could verify it later. There are better solutions than what we have. Another better solution would just be to append the rationale to the appropriate non-free use templates, so users fill out both in one go. The licenses and their relation to fair use are another source of confusion: why do we need these two separate templates that deal with essentially the same thing?
So, are all these tagged articles going to be reviewed by human beings before deletion? Are they going to fix the simple mistakes? Are images that are used multiple times and have one sufficient rationale but not another going to be deleted, or just removed from the unauthorized article page? —Torc.(Talk.)10:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torc, I've removed Betacommand's comment, but if you look past his tone and language, he is actually right. For multiple uses we do require a separate rationale for each use - there are good reasons for this. "Are images that are used multiple times and have one sufficient rationale but not another going to be deleted, or just removed from the unauthorized article page?" - Betacommand has answered this elsewhere - if there is one valid rationale, the image will be left alone no matter how many times it is used without a rationale in other articles. There are plans to remove "images with rationales" from articles where they don't have a rationale for that article, but that will be later and there should be notification about this. "are all these tagged articles going to be reviewed by human beings before deletion?" - ideally, yes, though if the backlog sits there unfixed for a long time, eventually they will be deleted. Work has been ongoing on this issue throughout the year, from March 2007. There is a deadline in March 2008 that the whole year's work has been aimed at meeting. Have a look at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 24 January 2008 (currently 1899 images) - the deadline there has been extended to 24 February, though it has not been possible to indicate this on the image page, user talk page and talk page notice tags, which, in hindsight, is unfortunate. Similarly, Category:Disputed non-free images as of 12 February 2008 and Category:Disputed non-free images as of 13 February 2008 and Category:Disputed non-free images as of 14 February 2008 (a total of around 13,000 images) have a deadline of 2nd March. There used to be a lot more images in those categories. The numbers are going down in part because people are adding rationales, probably using tools like WP:FURME. Compared to the total number of images on Wikipedia (nearly 400,000, of which possibly a quarter are non-free, though that is a wild estimate), that is not a lot. The proportion of free to non-free has varied over the last few years, and is complicated by many free images being removed to Commons, but this gives some idea of the numbers involved. Wikipedia is a big place, and this whole project has been about more than just small groups of images here and there, it has been about bringing the entire set of images into better compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and the image policy of the Wikimedia Foundation. The process has not been smooth at all times, and could have been prepared and implemented better, but it could also have been worse. Please read and re-read what I've written before replying, and see whether your questions have been answered. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you had to act as handler for BC kind of goes to show what the problem is. I saw his reply, so I'll ask again: How has he not been disciplined for this behavior? Why is it continually excused? You see nothing wrong with that? Is there anybody else on this whole site who gets this kind of protection from their own actions?
I'm not really asking the questions for myself. I have no images at risk and was largely unaffected by this whole process. (I had two images that were tagged, instantly fixed once I deciphered that the the big template that said "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law" wasn't actually the fair use template the machine wanted, deleted anyway, and restored by request without any further changes required). I'm asking about where this process is documented for editors who don't read this page, or get turned off by the whole talk to the hand approach? Thank you, by the way, for being the one person who seems interested in discussing this sanely. —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing Torc's concerns individually
Torc, let me address your concerns one at a time.
OK, let me respond where I have time to do so. I've interspersed the replies since they wouldn't make much sense lumped at the bottom... —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the part where the bot is too poorly programmed to recognize simple misspellings.
The bot shouldn't have to be programmed to pick up spelling errors. It's the responsibility of the uploader to get it right. This is just more ridiculous demands on Betacommand.
Even my cell phone will correct a misspelling. I find it hard to believe that a bot wouldn't be able to scan an image description, and if the image is only used in one article, detect a name that is similar and put that on a list of potential misspellings, then send out a more appropriate message that alerts editors of the potential error, or that simply corrects it. There is also the issue described above of moved articles whose previous names are used for disambiguation —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't buy that the algorithms and coding are robust enough to spot valid rationales that are not formatted in a way that the bot is expecting.
The bot expects the title of the article the image is used in to be present. This has been repeated to you countless times above. The article title, that's it.
That's not what I said there. I said I have my doubts about it because the code isn't made public. Telling people what the intent of how the bot works isn't the same as letting people see what it's doing to accomplish that. —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the bot recognize FURs without links?
This question has been answered in big black bold letters for you already, more than once. How can you possibly not get it? This is blatant disruption.
I'm not asking for me. I'm asking for editors who are unaware of of this discussion. Where is this documented? Where does the average user go to find that information out, and whatever other questions they have about the functionality of the bot itself? And thanks again for your assumption of good faith. —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy for Beta to hang himself on the cross and yell "bullshit!" and "lies!" at everybody, because it's easier to hurl insults than it is to be helpful and discuss potential flaws in his code and the tone of the messages he programmed.
He's hurling insults because he feels attacked, which I happen to agree with considering the sheer stupidity of some of the claims being made. These messages, for example, that you and others are bitching about are not messages written by Betacommand. Those are the standard image templates that were written by others. I went to go soften them a bit, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. They are clear, to the point, and polite.
Read this. That's the introduction I, and most editors get to the work BCB is doing: defensiveness, insistence of absolute infallability, a totally dismissive tone, and 21 pages of archives editors are expected read before speaking. Everything on that page was said to other editors before they said a word to BC. Compare that to even the edit summary for ClueBot: "Reverting possible vandalism by [...] to version by [...]. False positive? report it. Thanks, User:ClueBot." Perfect. "Hey, I think this is vandalism, but just in case I'm wrong, let me know." Is it just a coincidence that this bot induces anxiety and combativeness instantly while ClueBot doesn't? —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't get how one editor is given cart blanche to run roughshod over whatever civility guidelines we pretend applies equally.
I wouldn't consider it cart blanche. He takes a lot of shit from people, most of it unwarranted. Sure, he's an ass sometimes, but most people probably would be after two years of this bullshit.
I've been involved in this for a week or so, and actually, it didn't have any huge effect on me. It's not personal for me. That's why I'm telling you, from a fresh perspective, the editor relations side of this whole operation is horrendous. If he (or whoever is responsible for this) is going to set up a system that is this aggressive and this defensive, he should be willing to accept the criticism or he should not be doing this work. Think about what he did: he used a machine in which the community trusted him to operate to coerce and abuse another editor who was critical of its use. His punishment for this was nothing. People were so afraid of his reaction, many were hesitant to even require him to apologize. So what happens after that? He comes right back and abuses another editor, and somebody else steps in and protects him from himself. If he cannot deal with the criticism and defensiveness this generates, he should not be doing this. —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just think how much easier this whole process would have been if the instructions were remotely informative, if the warning message the bot gave encouraged users to fix their images and pointed them to clear, helpful instructions rather than simply berating them for not having it right.
Thanks for uploading IMAGE NAME. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page.
That clearly explains the problem, where to read about why it's a problem, where to go to fix it and an explanation of what will happen if it's not fixed. I tried to fix it, but I came up with nothing. Well, I changed that "may" from "will" so you nor anyone else would have room to call BCB a liar if the admins couldn't get to it in two days.
[[:{{{1}}}]] is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to [[:{{{1}}}|the image description page]] and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Look at all those links. Links to what everything means, various areas to go for help, a tempalte to use. I mean, it's like Missing Rationales for Dummies. I should check to see if it was written by Hungry Minds.
First off, you forgot Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale, which is what actually shows up on the image page and includes none of those links; it's the first thing most editors are going to see. Here's the problem with that: most images are used on only one page. It's entirely reasonable to expect that editors will believe something like Template:Non-free_album_cover is sufficient fair use for a single article, and there's really no logical reason to believe it's not. From an outsider perspective, for somebody who hasn't been dealing with this for months and months, for an image only used in one article, Template:Non-free_album_coveris the reason it's used in this article. Yes, the warning links to both the boilerplate and the fair use templates, so users can eventually figure out that there's two distinct components that say largely the same thing required. It's workable, but it does cause some frustration - the frustration is normal and expected, but people involved in the tagging and deletion side of this process sure seem to act like it's not and have no sympathy for editors who get frustrated with it.
The formatting of these messages is a minor part of the issue, although it doesn't seem like the psychological effect of seeing three or four of them on a talk page, or ten or twelve show up in a single day was consdered. The tone issues are things that seem trivial, but will be magnified when issued 10,000 times to 3,000 people. For example, "remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page." is rather condescending. Substituting "Adding and completing" for "Using" in that would make the last two lines unnecessary. Use of the word "you" is confrontational: "Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use" can be less confrontationally stated "Due to copyright restrictions, the image description page must include a reason why the image qualifies for fair use; instructions for how to do this are available at Wikipedia:Non-free content." That at least makes the instructions sound less abrassive.
And yes, while BC doesn't control these templates, from the perspective of the editors receiving them, he is the one responsible for them being issued. And BCB is responsible for the "Image is about to be deleted WP:NONFREE" edit summary inserted into talk pages, which gives the impression that a decision has already been made to delete the image rather than indicating something just needs to be fixed. —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we can assume that if an image doesn't meet whatever specific, yet insufficiently-documented conditions BCB is looking for...
Insufficiently-documented? Oh, I guess you forgot to read the policy that's been beaten into this conversation and like a dozen others this week. THAT is where it is CLEARLY written out what the bot is looking for. Also, again, in big black letters, repeatedly, on this page.
Again, what I'm asking is where does the average user, who hasn't been involved in this discussion, easily find out exactly the conditions the bot is looking for? I want somebody who is going to complain that their image was correctly tagged, who isn't sure who to inform after fixing the images, or who just has a general question about the procedure to be able to go to a page that says essentially "here are some common mistakes that are made: the license tag is different from the fair use rationale; the article has to be spelled precisely in the rationale; after the rationale has been added, the warning messages can be deleted; if you have any questions, feel free to ask them on this talk page specially dedicated to this specific process (not one for the general guideline on which it's based)" Yes, this information can be divined from reading this page, or plowing through a few dozen archived talk pages, but if you're interested in making the whole process less irritating for the user, you're going to keep them better informed any way you know how.—Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...why don't we do the analogous of {{references}} tagging or {{notability}} tagging? Why did BCB go directly to a deletion warning? Why didn't it drop an warning with a polite tone stating that the image might lack a sufficient rationale and needs to be fixed soon, maybe with links on how to fix the rationale and why this is important? Then why weren't these images reviewed by humans to confirm BCB's suspicions before the deletion warning was dropped on them
We don't tag images for improvement when they may be copy-vios. We tag that they may be copy-vios and give a few days to be fixed. If you don't like that process, you're in the wrong place. Betacommand didn't write the policy, he simply enforces it. And the messages the bot drops are discussed above. They do exactly what you just requested they do. Perhaps it's assumptions of bad faith on your part and that of others that these completely non-confrontational messages are taken as hostile.
Given the number of people complaining, perhaps it's a reasonable belief that the messages are not non-confrontational? And perhaps the experience after receiving the messages when one seeks discussion and explaination simply reinforces that impression? —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why weren't these images reviewed by humans to confirm BCB's suspicions before the deletion warning was dropped on them?
They are tagged so that they are reviewed by humans. Admins review the images before deleting them. If they were incorrectly tagged, which practically never happens, if ever, the tag is removed. If there's an easy fix, they're fixed.
That begs the question: why is the warning so stern and why doesn't it state something more like "Our automated system has flagged this article as possibly lacking a Fair Use rationale. It will be reviewed by an admin no sooner than ten days from now, and may be removed due to copyright restrictions if it has not been updated to meet the current fair use requirements." —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The warning BC received for attacking another editor with a bot was more gentle than the warning a couple thousand users received for posting images that don't fit the obtuse, mechanical requirements of an obscure guideline.
Tell it to the Foundation. You have serious comprehension issues.
That must be why I'm the only editor to have ever complained about this, and why this page is so short and uncontentious. Thanks for making this personal, by the way.
I don't buy the argument that a bot cannot write a fair use rationale for, say, an album cover that already has a license... There are better solutions than what we have.
I don't buy that it's necessary as album covers are probably the easiest FURs to write. How lazy are you people becoming that you demand a bot be coded to do this for you? If it's such an easy code to write (certainly much easier than just writing your own FUR), stop complaining and get to coding.
So...BCB is absolutely critical because checking these images is too hard to do manually, but asking that a bot who checks them also complete the simpler ones is "laziness"? Are you interested in trying to solve any problems or are you just trying to make people angrier? —Torc.(Talk.)11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another better solution would just be to append the rationale to the appropriate non-free use templates, so users fill out both in one go. The licenses and their relation to fair use are another source of confusion: why do we need these two separate templates that deal with essentially the same thing?
Feel free to raise this issue in the appropriate forum.
So, are all these tagged articles going to be reviewed by human beings before deletion? Are they going to fix the simple mistakes? Are images that are used multiple times and have one sufficient rationale but not another going to be deleted, or just removed from the unauthorized article page?
I think this has been stated above multiple times as well. Bots don't delete images. Admins, all of whom, with maybe one exception that isn't of concern here, are human, do the deletions. And they review the images and fix the ones that can be.
Yes, and there have been cases of admins deleting thousands of images in a short space of time, and then apologising later for mistakes made in that deletion run. Do you not think that admins should take time to carefully review each case, rather than semi-automating the deletions? There are cases where a cursory inspection doesn't find the simple fix. Sometimes a closer look is needed to spot what the mistake was, and to then tweak the image of article to fix the problem. Carcharoth (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. About what part of the abuse BC gets is from people who have received ONE notice about ONE of their images? What part is from people who have received MULTIPLE notices at once? (Obviously these would be guesstimates, at best, but I suspect the answer would be enlightening.)
2. Is there a way--note, not "is there an EASY way"--to modify the workings of this bot so that, instead of twenty or thirty separate notices splashed all over a user page each time BCB runs, the run would be completed, a list for each user would be generated, and ONE SINGLE message, with a list of affected images, could be placed on the user's page?
As you might have guessed, I have a suspicion here: I think much of the rage accorded to this bot (and thus, its operator) is not due so much to what it does, but to the manner in which it's accomplished. Knowing little about GDFL and free use, I'm willing to assume that the bot performs a necessary task; at any rate, it's a task mandated by the Foundation. But I think that people who see what appears to be a Sisyphean task's-worth of "disputed image" messages on their talk page (just for an example, take a look at User talk:Azumanga1--note: this is a completely uninvolved user whose page is only an example) are more likely to get angry than a user who logs on to find a message saying "okay, here's the list" and a link to a clearly-written page of instructions. (I'm a reasonably-intelligent human, but all the "how to write an acceptable rationale" instructions I see have confused me.) Also--and I really hope BC doesn't take this as yet-another attack, because he's been nothing but helpful to me--I think the constant attacks have gotten under BC's skin, and he's developed some less-than-ideal ways of handling perceived criticism. It becomes a vicious cycle: the bot makes edits that honk off users, the users spit fire at BC, BC spits back, matters escalate, and all of a sudden we have twenty-eleven AN threads calling for a ban of both BC and his bot. I'm wondering if reducing the aggregate mass of the warnings would reduce the drama as well. Gladys J Cortez15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as to your point about BCBot and multi post, Ive been thinking about how to do it for months. there are two main issues that I am having.
1. go back to a single threaded checking method.
the main drawback is what now takes about 8-10 hours to check will take 800-1000 hours to check per run.
2. hack together some method to get 100 seperate threads to talk and play nice together, and avoid random thread crashes due to random server errors.
the main issue here is that it increases the risk of users not getting notified, something that I do not want to happen.
Can't you just make a list as the bot does the tagging over 10 hours, and then run a program to consolidate the listings, and then do a separate run to notify each user once? Delaying the notification of the user by a day could be workable if you make the date and category eight days after notification instead of seven. BTW, what is a "thread crash" - do you mean an "edit conflict"? Carcharoth (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please see Thread (computer science) for what a thread is. but one of many things can cause it to crash, (Ive tried to catch as many as I can) it could be an edit conflict, spamblack list error, page protection issues, image deletion, or some other random problem that the bot cant handle. it then stops the bot. (given that there are in essance 100 copies of the bot running at a time loosing a few is nothing major.) βcommand16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that users not getting notified would be a bad thing--and again, please recognize that I'm coming from a tech-support-but-no-programming-whatsoever background--but if a user ISN'T notified due to a thread crash or other event during a given bot run, wouldn't the "missed" users from one run get picked up during the next? Not that it's ideal, of course--but I can't help but think there's got to be SOME way to improve the current situation. And again, please don't see my ideas and questions as criticism of you personally; I think you'll agree with me, though, that the current mode of operation is apparently untenable for both the users AND for you. Gladys J Cortez18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
users would not be notified. once an image is tagged BCbot does not re-tag an image if its still tagged. that would mean any images tagged during a run would not get notified if there was a thread crash. Ive been thinking of methods of improvement but they all get shot down for one reason or another. βcommand19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you are trying to do too much stuff in parallel (sounds like multi-tasking) and coming up against technical limits. What I'm asking is can it not make a list somewhere off-wiki of the users that need notification - the list gets consolidated - and then the bot runs again and makes notifications. Actually, this really is a year too late now, but for the future could you really, really try and sort this problem out? There may be other bot runs in future where users will be notified of multiple problems. In fact, I'm sure there could be consensus generated to require bot notices to be given in consolidated format, rather than separately. Call it the Betacommandbot clause if you like. Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
multi-tasking is what I am doing, I give 500 images to each thread and have that thread work on them. Ive got one idea, that Im working on but Im not sure how it will pan out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs)
I have a couple of possible solutions:
If I am correct in assuming that your 100 threads don't edit conflict notifying the same user, then have the bot look for a previous note by itself (using comments or whatever) and find the end of the list and add the name to that instead of simply appending it to the user's talk page.
If your 100 threads do edit conflict notifying the same user, you could have another thread/process running which waited for incoming UDP packets notifying it of new notifications to post. It could then limit it to one thread per user so it wouldn't edit conflict.
Another idea is that you could have the bot log to a MySQL database and have a process come behind and tally everything into a list and post it, maybe once every hour or so and update lists that already exist on users' talk pages.
Or you could continue as you currently do and then run over BCBot's notifications for that run and consolidate them after the run is finished.
Those are my ideas. If you want, I could even help you with implementing any of these, though Python (which is what BCB is written in, if I am not mistaken) isn't my forte. -- Cobi(t|c|b)07:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Write the list to a subpage of the user's talk. At first it won't exist, so when the first item is found, create the page and leave the user a notice on their talk. As the bot finds new items, add them to the list. The notification only happens once per run (because the page already exists when the second item is found, leaving a notice can be skipped). That would be my suggestion. It can be made fancier by taking dates into account and leaving notices when the first time THIS run an item is found, or make the subpage different for each run. ++Lar: t/c04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems brilliant, but I don't code, so I don't know. Here's a simple thought I had, if that isn't possible or something. Instead of the whole long message that the bot leaves now, what if it were just one sentence that linked to the whole template somewhere else. I get that there'd still be multiple section headers, but big deal. Either you're going to fix the images then delete or archive the notices, or you can just rollback the notices. All this over talk page messages. Lara❤Love08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of the user subpage (as with a local file on BCBot's system) is that the threads can edit conflict with each other, and then you're screwed. The user would miss a few images (and complain, a lot :)) -- lucasbfrtalk13:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never looked at BCBot's code so this is just speculation, but my guess is that every message left on a talkpage uses a new section ("section=new"), which prevents conflicts (Mediawiki does not throw an edit conflict if the conflicting edits aren't in the same section). -- lucasbfrtalk14:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then you just use new sections on the subpage. The point of the subpage is to avoid an overwhelming list on the main talk page. All that is needed is a link to the list. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback was not designed as a tool for people to tidy their talk pages with. And anyway, I think you are suggesting that if a bot creates a long messy list, a human should tidy it up. Why not get a bot to do the tidying up or avoid the mess in the first place by figuring out a way to add one notice and a list of images with the notice? If you were leaving the notices by hand, would you leave 30 identical notices or one notice and a list of 30 images? Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a user subpage were to be used, I would think it should be an opt-in kind of thing. Perhaps something like a blank template on the talk page or a category users can add themselves into that basically says (to the bot), 'I know what your warnings are all about, just make me a list on my subpage.' That way people who aren't familiar with the bot's work are still getting talk page notifications (with a paragraph of information, whatever it says) and those that are can just watch their subpage (where it would leave perhaps a note with the title being the image name, and the text being bullet pointed reason and date scheduled for deletion, just one idea). I have concern about creating date based subpages, because then you end up with a ton of pages that will never get looked at and potentially never deleted. It would seem smarter to me to put the list on one subpage (which would be standardized) and let the user clean it up as he/she cleans up the images/deadlines pass/etc.
Of course, if we are throwing out ideas that could involve a lot more work, I would expand upon the template on the talk page idea and add another bot into the picture. This bot would scan the BCB list subpage, remove any redlinked sections (i.e. images that had already been deleted), then update the template on the user talk page with the number of sections on the page, which would then create a note saying 'You have X many images on your BCB page that need attention' (this message can say whatever, this is just an example). This update in turn would then create the watchlist notification (once per day if the bot was run once per day). I guess depending upon how many people opted for this (and unless we have a bot writer like Betacommand who can write a multithreaded bot to attack this problem, I would imagine the number of pages to scan could eventually get a bit large to do quickly. Perhaps the bot could even nominate for deletion any blank BCB subpages. Of course you would end with people who don't clean out their list (which goes back the opt-in bit) and end up with a notification to check images that other people have fixed (to fix that you would need to go back and check if the image fails again, which would be even more work). And of course what I am talking about adds an entire layer on top of the seemingly simple idea of a subpage list (which I would bet most people would ignore or forget about, which is one of my concerns) and perhaps is a bit overkill to a problem that could be solved other ways. Just food for thought (from someone who doesn't really mind the BCB notifications on his talk page). - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire concept of using a bot to raise issues with image tags is not user-friendly. It's about on the same level as automatic voice-mail machines; those delightful systems we all enjoy using so much. Beyond that, I would suggest that some of the comments from the bot's operator are not particularly civil, which surely does not help matters.
Just because there are issues with image tagging, and possibly even most of the users alerted by the bot are not conforming to image upload policy, the end of sorting that out nevertheless does not justify the means. It seems to me that many of those speaking in favour of the bot are merely supportive of policy (which really, there's not much of a leg to stand on for anyone who isn't). However, they might want to consider how the issue should be addressed, even if using a bot is part of the solution. Also, surely it should not be up to one individual to act on image tagging? It seems to me that Betacommand has far too much latitude on the issue, merely through being a bot operator. Indeed surely there should be far stricter conditions on people running bots? zoney ♣talk20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't only support Betacommand because I support the policy. Betacommand and the work he does with his bot are invaluable to the project. It would be unmanageable without him. As far as the messagse go, they're the same message templates left by editors who do image tagging. It's like the opposition to the welcome bot. People said it was too impersonal. Who cares? The point is that the information gets across. A bot can get so much more done so much faster, which is necessary for a project of this size. Lara❤Love01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the ends do not justify the means. Undertaking the work of tackling image licensing does not place Betacommand or his bot outside criticism. That's the kind of logic that allows all manner of unpleasantry to occur on Wikipedia simply because the contributors are "valued". The unpleasantry meanwhile ensures that a lot of other contributors end up packing it in altogether and making better use of their time.
It is not the case that there is absolutely nothing can be done if the bot is done away with. For example, it might be a better idea to look at avoiding the workload in the first place. Fair use images are a bad idea for one thing. zoney ♣talk11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AjaxSmack
Although I've tangled with User:Betacommand and his lap dog User:Hammersoft over other issues before, their direct rudeness, sarcasm, and incivility is a refreshing change from the stultifying mandated consensus and community that is frankly geo- and culturally biased toward the sensibilities of the dominant Euro-American editor base. Yes, there are problems but the Betacommandbot seves a useful purpose and it's opponents seem to be reacting in anger toward perceived rudeness in auto-generated deletion warnings but have few viable alternative proposals of their own. Having said that, I will admit sympathy with some of the arguments presented above:
The uploading process for non-free images should clearly include all elements needed to satisfy BCB in a simple format.
The deletion notification should cast a wider net and allow for more time to add FUR
Imagine a newer editor with around 500 edits who edits infrequently wants to upload a non-free image. He is likely not that well versed in policy and follows the upload form and includes a FUR but the article name is misspelled or not wikilinked. BCB catches the mistake and posts a deletion notification on the user's talkpage. However, the user is an infrequent editor and doesn't see the notice until after the article is deleted. He wants to re-upload the image with the proper information but the relevant information is on several policy pages and is not readily distillable from overly verbose prose so he gives up. No doubt the anti-fair use crowd is cheering but death of an image though bureaucracide should not be the ideal. The upload process has gotten better but there is room for more clarity as well as tweaking of the bot. — AjaxSmack 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot doesn't look for a link, which is not required. If it's just a mispelling, the reviewing admin or someone else doing image patrol will correct it. So, for your hypothetical situation, the image most likely would not be deleted. Lara❤Love01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lara, you are aware that when there are large numbers of images involved, that some admins sweep through the category with less care than is ideal? The "admins will catch all mistakes" attitude is understandable, but doesn't always work. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case I gave above was not a hypothetical; it was a distillation of my experiences. I have had images I have uploaded that are totally within fair use guidelines deleted because of a non-wikilinked article title and, since I don't always edit Wikipedia weekly, I missed the notice. Another image was deleted because the target article was moved (renamed) and I never got a bot notice of the impending deletion. Only after 20-30 minutes of carefully reading several pages of policy did I accrue the knowledge necessary to ward off similar deletions of future uploads. Although these are anecdotes, the list at User:Blathnaid/Sandbox seems to back up my experience. I can imagine that quite a few editors more casually attached to Wikipedia than myself would be unwilling or unable to wade through the Slough of Despond that is Wikipedia non-free-image-use policy. I'm not arguing against usage of the bot, just for improvement of upload policy and procedure. — AjaxSmack 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's something you need to address with the careless admins. It's been stated several times that people think it would be better of users were given more time to make corrections. Betacommand simply runs his bot to find images that fail to meet policy and tags them with a generic community-written template. Bring up on AN/I that admins need to avoid deleting images that they can correct. That you believe there is no need to rush. Backlogs will be backed up for some time, but it will give editors more time to make corrections, and fewer mistakes will be made. Win/win. Lara❤Love18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several people there think it is, and are not convinced by by his "I voss only following orders" attitude. Clearly the requester is the primary problem. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why must people always link such stupid bullshit to Nazis? Seriously. Can't you take such things just a little more seriously? Avruch T 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People were blaming the bot twice for him acting on my orders to first add tags for the Belarusian Wikipedia and to notify editors of image deletions for X template. Honestly, even if I tell people "send all your questions and comments to me, not to the bot" people still find someway to blame the bot. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the 'Attack page'
It seems as if betacommand got his way and the "attack" page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c has been redirected here. I have listed it for DRV if only out of courtesy to all the contributors, we'll see where that goes. In the mean time it seems quite clear what betacommand thinks of any discussion about his bot, and the fact he cannot separate any discussion about him and the bot, treating it all as a 'personal attack'. MickMacNee (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with Betacommand
No, this is not another bot thread, this is a question about dealing with its owner, betacommand. I ignored the deliberate vandalism of my talk page, I ignored the total ignorace to repeated requests for information, I ignored the responses about 'bullshit attack pages' is respone to good fatih attempts at centralised discussion, but now, he is basically calling me a liar: "The issue is the page was created with numerous false statements that were knowingly made", and "they knowing pulled shit out of their ass". Seriously, what has this guy got to do to get censored? MickMacNee (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he really said "they knowing pulled sh*t out of their *ss" about other editors, that just isn't on and he should receive a warning at least. Hasn't he had warnings for this recent stuff? SpecialRandom (Merkinsmum) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit diff links above are fairly unambiguous. As Betacommand2, he does appear to have said those things. I am going to leave him a warning on NPA and no more, as I am about to step away from the computer for a time, but other uninvolved admins should review in more depth. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments tward MickMacNee, and several other users are correct. I have repeatedly stated facts and how BCBot operates. these users come forward making BS claims about how BCBot operates, without ever providing proof. these false claims were not based on any facts but where designed to make me/how the bot operates look bad. I pointed out these false statements, yet the users in question keep repeating their same false statments ignoring my comments. I have repeatedly stated how/when BCBot does things either here or on AN. yet the users in question failed to do any research, but instead make lies up about how they think work. βcommand00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just left a warning on your talk page, however... you can be entirely correct that your critics are factually wrong, and at the same time saying so in a manner which broaches WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. If you broach those policies and abuse users enough, you will be blocked, even if you were right about the underlying dispute. Abusing people on-wiki is contrary to policy, rude, and destructive to the community. You've been warned about this before and you've admitted that you had a problem staying polite with people before. You know this is a problem. If this keeps up, somethings going to have to be done about it. That doesn't serve you well or the project well. Please take the step back and calm down and stop aggrivating the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Georgewilliamherbert, BC/BC2/BCbot have done many good things for wiki, but the community's patience with lack of response to concerns, his behavior, and his language/incivility seem to be at an end. BC's been warned multiple times. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, if there are concerns about BCBot that you think that I have not answered please bring them up on my talkpage. I try to stay calm but repeated attacks against me wear me thin, and admins seem to just ignore those making those attacks, while when I react I get hammered for loosing my cool after repeated attacks against me. βcommand02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit irritated that we keep moving this off, because I'd certainly like for MickMacNee to see that most ofthe community is tired of this shit. Every single little thing, he runs here. I don't like tattletales. This is ridiculously childish of him. it's the old 'I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you' for five minutes, until he screams 'He HIT me! He HIT me!'. Well, good for him! Really. how much begging for a fight should we tolerate? Let MMN see that no one approves of him, and then he can move on. Hiding it on a subpage means less people saying stop it to him. ThuranX (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let him study up on the proper procedures for uploading images, get out of Betacommand's sandbox (proverbial, not subpage) and move along already. Everyone jumps down Betacommand's ass for his civility and they don't consider the constant poking he gets, and in particular, this month, from MMN. Lara❤Love08:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think the above comments are innapropriate then? If anyone is tired, it's me from being continually abused for having the temerity to start a discussion about a bot, which you and others continually try to derail into unfounded conduct allegations. I realy would love to know what possible self-interest I could have in making BC look bad. MickMacNee (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the constant crap that you give BC (which, by the way, looks an awful lot like harassment at this point), I probably would have said worse. Find something productive to do with your time and stop poking people with a stick. Shellbabelfish16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it'd be a Pyrrhic victory for your anti-BCBot campaign. We're all aware of how horrible you find it to have all the images you uploaded without rationales tagged and notified on your talk page; we know you took it as a personal insult, and many of us see your actions since then as a payback for that. I sure do, and all your conduct since then continues to show me you can't accept responsibility for your upload actions, and fix your images. Now quit trying to get a guy doing something that was endorsed by Jimbo in trouble for doing it. You keep poking the animal, the animal tries to bite, then you try to have the animal put down. That's how I see it, and judging by LaraLove's comment above, I'm not alone. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment exposes the criticism of me as the phallacy it is. I have never had any images uploaded by me tagged by BCBot (until he chose to mis-use his privelages and vandalise my talk page). Check your facts before making such ridiculous statements. I raised the original issue as a reflection of observed community concern, nothing more, nothing less; your continued assertion that this is a personal campaign due to something I have to gain from it is, in the words of BetaCommand, "bullshit"; and your and LaraLoves attempts to besmirch me for doing so, do not stand up to scrutiny. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I may have said about your bot that was actually incorrect has not been repeated once it was corrected by you:- one of the main issues at hand is the lack of accurate information on which to base any complaints at all, and your reluctance to correct any innacurate view promptly, preferring to vandalise talk pages instead. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because you dont bother to do any research, Ive clearly stated how/why/what BCBot does countless times. you just dont bother to do any research and instead making baseless claims. βcommand16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these are issues that come up time and again, why don't you do the obvious thing and link them from the bot page, instead of childishly telling every objector to check the archives? (after vandalising their talk page and generally being a dick) MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not personally affected by BCBot? Then why are you out here every day looking for ways to get BC and BCBot blocked? Why do you keep poking him with a stick? If you're not affected, you've got even LESS ground to stand on. The only community concern that matters is improving the project. That's achieved by protecting the project from legal troubles. BCand BCBot assist in that. Their actions are noted and approved by the Foundation and Jimbo, as evidenced in the many, many prior threads on this matter. I don't know why you're opposed to his actions, but the net result is that you look like you want the project to be damaged, or even fail. Stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense, day after day. And if you've got no image uploads, then yes, I was wrong to assume you're personally insulted. Fuck if you're not insulting the whole project though. ThuranX (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your POV opinion of my actions, and again you confuse issues with the bot with issues with the user. Check your facts before making generalisations like this. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You're going to trying to use NPOV in a discussion about other people's behaviors? That's not what NPOV is about. Further POV=Opinion, so... my POV opinion is my ursine bear. The Issues of the bot are the issues of the user, as you've stated that BC must fix BCBot to your standards, and because BCBot is BC's. When you attack BCBot, you're attacking BC. and so on, this isn't new. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tone down the rhetoric and watch your language. This is a forum for reasoned discourse not angry comments. FWIW, my comments apply to everyone, let's take a pause before reacting; I find that sometimes works (LOL). Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I think something should be added to the CIV policy about it being thrown in peoples faces constantly at any remark vaguely considered to fall under a corner of that policy, as calling someone uncivil for such remarks isn't really civil in itself. Lara❤Love17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah let's do that. Let's allow people to be uncivil. Almost as good an idea as drive-in liquor stores. What could possibly go wrong with that? You may want to ask Betacommand why he isn't an admin anymore if you doubt that there is a larger issue to be dealt with when it comes to Betacommand's people skills. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that would be interesting, since that's not what I said. EconomicsGuy, is that what I suggested? Is it really? No. My comment was directed specifically at the response that "Fuck if you're not insulting the whole project though" was given. The use of "fuck" here is not uncivil. WP:CIV is thrown in peoples faces here constantly, which is really no different that throwing POV-pusher in someone's face. It does nothing whatsoever to help any situation. Srs. Calling someone uncivil does not lighten the mood on a heated thread. It doesn't cool things down. And it's uncivil to call someone uncivil when they're not. Lara❤Love17:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So telling people that they are pulling shit out of their ass or calling them liars repeatedly in the same mnanner as you describe is not uncivil? Suggesting that they can't be called uncivil for that doesn't de facto make it legal? News to me. Like I said, there is a long and consistent pattern of behavior to consider. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Since you clarified that you aren't supporting Betacommand's foul language I'll let it go. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have "thrown WP:CIV in people's faces", just like User:Avruch hasn't thrown WP:NOT#CENSORED in people's faces. I wasn't even trying to imply that that single "fuck" was incivil, I was merely pointing out that arguing that there is no policy against swearing by pointing at WP:NOT doesn't quite make sense, in my humble opinion. If there is a policy that should be applied when it comes to swearing, it's Wikipedia:Civility, and that's what I wanted to point out. :-) --Conti|✉17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no reasoning with him. I've been calm in previous threads on this matter, but at this point, nothing less than the firmest and bluntest language seems likely to affect MMN's attitude. CIVIL doesn't extend infinitely. ThuranX (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing your last two recent comments shows a more reasoned approach. It still can be an area of contention, focusing on the issue not the submitter is what is required, IHMO (sitting up here in the heavens, looking down on you mere mortals... Not really!) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I've been dealing with him since the creation of his "proposal", which some view as a borderline attack page. There are two issues here. One being that MMN decided to go after BC and his bot without doing any previous research. This after multiple threads here and on AN. And he is relentless in this campaign. And why? He claims on behalf of the community. Then, the other issue is BC and his short fuse. But he's been dealing with the MMN's of Wikipedia for two years. The animal analogy is a good one. You can't keep poking an animal over and over and not expect it's going to eventually try to bite you. If Beta is a beast it's because of all the shit he's taken from people too lazy to go read a policy or get their facts straight before grabbing their pitchfork. Lara❤Love16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you seek to mis-represent, I did not choose to 'go after betacommand', I raised issues with the bot that I and as observed, many others held. I consolidated the issues and discussion in a good faith attempt to stop multiple ANI and other threads, and for this I am attacked, for the obvious purpose of making the whole thing go away because you don't like it. The previous research you propose is the frankly ridiculous assertion that no editor has a right to raise issues about the bot before searching hundreds of previous AN and BC talk page archives, that is a ridiculouis position and clearly in bad faithm, and only serves to highlight betacommands woefully inadequate methods of communication. The direction of the rest of your post is frankly not worth adressing. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont apply a double standard to me, I see countless attacks against me and no actions are taken against those editors, yet when I respond I get hammered. either enforce it both ways or dont enforce it. As it currently stands there is a double standard. until the attacks against me are handled properly dont expect me not to react once in a while. βcommand16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. You take a no mercy approach with image upoaders because they're breaking the rules and on the other hand expect to see yourself cut some slack when you break the rules. You've taken on a contentious task and adopted an abrasive manner in doing it. Its pretty much a given that you're going to get flamed. You don't have the self discipline to reign yourself in, but are happy to hold everyone else to the higher standard. Its pretty pathetic to watch. If you can't ignore the flames while you're going about your work you should retire your bot or turn it over to someone with a cooler head. Or install some big stop hand banner thing with a blunt summary of how it is on you user page that covers off retalitory edits and comments. Be sure to cover all the minuate in the rules. Maybe it'll help because you'll surely read that and it'll eventually sink in and the problem will then go away. You need to do what you're doing in a civil manner and ignore the barbs you're inevitably going to take. "Whining and complaining" about having to take critism over such an invasive and crude-mannered bot just doesn't make sense. Its part of the price to pay for doing what you do and the means you've chosen to do it. Suck it up. Wiggy! (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It probably escaped your attention, such as you pay any attention to criticism, that that consolidation of numerous threads occured after the creation of my page, and covers completely different subjects. But like I say, you clearly can't see the difference, or don't give a shit, either way. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're doing here then, those aren't personal attacks? And in regards to your earlier comment, I don't have to go anywhere, its perfectly acceptable to discuss whether or not what you're doing is harassment right here. I would support blocking at this point if you can't get yourself under control - take a breather. Shellbabelfish20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you decided to continue this thread in a different place, but there you go. This post is an issue about betacommand's behaviour, brought on himself by his own actions, a perfectly acceptable topic for ANI, and completely separate from the original discussion. I say again, if you have evidence of stalking or personal attacks by me, you know where they can be raised, otherwise, enough of your baseless accusations. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about you learn the languague. Much as you and others realy hoped it got deleted, it wasn't, so again, enough of the mis-representation. Of course we should all talk to you on your talk page outside of third party observation, it's such a helpfull place to be [11]MickMacNee (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just let it go. It has become obvious several times that Betacommand has a free pass to reply as he wish and as long as he isn't an admin anymore (and thank God for that) he can't unilaterally do any real damage. He just shuffles the papers around so an admin can delete the images. Just give it up, stop using fair use and always upload to Commons instead of Enwiki. That way he will be out of work soon anyway and we can all move happily on and forget the whole fair-use war. A lot of people here are going to find themselves without anything to do because this is all they ever do but that's not really our problem. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that none of this would be a problem if we followed the lead of some other wikis and actually tried to become "The Free Encyclopedia" by banning fairuse completely. Black Kite22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banning or simply deciding that it's more trouble than it's worth would still result in the same. I may not agree with the anti fair use people here but I really can't see the purpose of all this. Kill fair use, turn off local image uploads and just use Commons. Less trouble, fewer bots, more actual content and time spent on article writing. Of course this would also mean that a large number of users would need a new hobby or ZOMG actually write an article or improve one once in a while. In other words, spend time on the things the readers are really here for. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that could free up enough sysop time to deal with the real threats against Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and collaboration then all the more reason to bury the hatchet and shake hands. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-read this whole thread, and I see MickMacNee making valid points and being attacked from all sides by Betacommand and his supporters. I know Betacommand was the first to use the "lies and bullshit" comment, but the same could equally be said of what his supporters are saying about MickMacNee. Will accused MickMacNee of creating a witchhunt, but what I see here is a witchhunt taking place against MickMacNee. Shell's implicit threat of blocking (raising the subject for the first time and supporting it) was completely inappropriate. Everyone needs to calm down here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't blame people for thinking MickMacNee is being disruptive - because he is. After being criticised for opening another ANI thread (this one), he tried to link to the MfD discussion in this subpage, and when it was removed (and he was informed why we don't do that), editwarred with Betacommand to the tune of 6RR. And then blamed Betacommand ([12]). I should've probably blocked both at that point, but protected and warned instead. Then, he decided that the closing of the DRV was all down to Betacommand (despite being told that it was closed by an uninvolved admin by myself and at least two other editors) and tried to start YET ANOTHER AN/I thread attacking Betacommand([13]) which I archived back here immediately, and he then deleted and I suspect, was about to take back to ANI before I warned him I would block him if he did so. So after all that, and another pointless argument on here, he opened a DRV (without informing the closing admin). Good job all round, no? Black Kite07:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Carcharoth. I note that many share Mick's opinions, maybe not to the extent that he expresses them, but certainly the spirit of them. It gets annoying when anyone who publicly disagrees with BC's actions gets treated like a criminal by those opposite. Orderinchaos14:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think everyone that raises a concern with Betacommand gets treated like a criminal. I think those who repeatedly and relentlessly pound the same points over and over again, pad valid points with misinformation, and consistently prod Betacommand are the ones that are met with the greatest opposition. A respectful approach can make all the difference. Lara❤Love14:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict between Betacommand and MickMacNee
Originally written as a reply to Black Kite above
The above ANI thread was perfectly legitimate. Betacommand had stepped over the civility line and subsequently got warned for it. It shouldn't have mattered who opened the thread - I really hope you can see that. Linking to the MfD and DRV discussions is also perfectly fine - that is something I would have done if he hadn't done that. There is nothing wrong at all with noting the MfD and/or DRV discussions of a page that ended up as a redirect pointing here. If the redirect pointed somewhere else, that would be a different matter. You can't say "but it's available in the page history" and then not have the page linked from anywhere so that people forget the page ever existed. The edit warring was sily, as you told both parties (but it is another black mark against Betacommand, in my opinion, that he edit warred over this - when is he going to learn his lesson?), but the ANI complaint MickMacNee made here looks legitimate to me. I would have to check Betacommand's contribs, but if he is going around removing links to the page that was redirected, that is not acceptable. And I just wasted time checking the wrong account. It seems it was Betacommand2. Here is my summary:
Remember that some of Betacommand's supporters say that MickMacNee runs to ANI to make complaints? Well how is these series of edits by Betacommnd anydifferent in the complaining sense? There is no consensus, as far as I can see, that the page was an "attack page" and should have been dealt with in this way. What I see in the above diffs is Betacommand using an alternate account to carrying on attacking MickMacNee and making over the top accusations that cross the line from strong criticism into misleading and biased attacks. Which is ironic, really. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the swift moving of that thread from ANI to here was not the right way to handle this, and I think the diffs I've provided above are genuine cause for concern. Funnily enough, the place to raise this would be ANI, so I'll go and do that. On the other hand, your (BlackKite's) handling of the edit war, by protecting and warning, was spot on. Carcharoth (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such an issue is petty, of course, but I understand how Betacommand must've felt over the issue. This isn't nice at all because I don't believe he was obscuring discussion - as the talk page suggests, I don't feel there was always any good idea to put the notice on the page ("There was a page discussing Betacommand(bot) but it got deleted." - is that related to a noticeboard that is a subset of WP:AN or WP:AN/I for Betacommand(bot) issues?). This doesn't help and this is so ironic. What I do feel from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Recent MfD is that MickMacNee really feels that the MfDed page should have stayed but considering Betacommand considers it an attack page I also understand his response. MickMacNee has still not told me why he wants the notice up there (he has managed to not answer the question at all) and managed to deflect the issue towards a DRV ("DRV listed anyhow."), but I'll wait for a response nevertheless. My immediate concern is that this is getting increasingly petty and it should not be Betacommand vs. MickMacNee or, as it must feel like to him sometimes, Betacommand vs. The World - having been in that situation more than once I know how it feels - but the issue should be about how to resolve a bot that malfunctions (does it malfunction? I've read this entire page multiple times and every time people explain how it isn't broken, the thread dies), or that there are communication problems with Betacommand, which is not helped by the diffs above. If Betacommandbot really does cause this much ire, then perhaps it should be stopped. However, I firmly believe the bot is doing work that benefits Wikipedia and if the bot is to be stopped, there must be an alternative. There is a deadline, is there not? And that is not a community deadline. x42bn6TalkMess13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder...
I have to wonder about the utility of this whole exercise. To my mind, scrapping the damn EDP and having free-only content would be so much easier... But here we are, and so I am also wondering of MickMacNee believes he is getting anywhere with these frequent threads. There has at no point been a consensus that anything other than civility concerns warrant action against Betacommand or his bot. I proposed that he stop using it in order to avert the constant bickering, and because if BCBot stops tagging then the community will be forced to deal with the issue in a more concerted fashion. But that did not achieve consensus on this page, and no other remedy of any sort has been shown to. If MickMacNee or others believe that further action is an absolute requirement, the logical next step is an ArbCom case. Avruch T 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the subpage was MfD'd and has now been redirected and the useful discussion there is no longer visible and the redirect has been protected, and we have to use page diffs to point people at it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, for that one page. There have been many, many other discussions (including this page here) where no consensus to change the status quo has been achieved. The lack of a consensus at the discussion stage would indicate that if some believe action is still required, ArbCom is the only other option. Avruch T 02:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration also might have the advantage that people would get soundly smacked down if they committed the same level of casual quasi-personal attack that haunts all discussions around this issue. (Three cheers for the new arbitrators, by the way!) - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd have anything to add to an ArbCom case, but there are hundreds if not thousands of editors who do. I would definitely like to see a case proposed - even if the arbitrators declined to hear it, that would send an important message. Happy‑melon11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random Proposal
I can end the madness with BCBot, but when the deadline occurs admins delete images on sight that dont have valid non-free rationales. that would make me happy and end the abuse that I take. But I know it would offend the users I am trying to help now by notifying them. βcommand01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people (including me) appreciate the value in what BCBot does tagging images. But just enough people are so outraged by it, and so unable to read or understand the policy and requirements to upload/correct legacy images, that it seems like it might be easier for everyone to have you leave off. When a hundred thousand or however many images there are get deleted en masse, then you can resume tagging images as they are uploaded after the deadline. Folks who want to crusade to have the previously deleted images restored can do so, and it won't involve you. Avruch T 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that'd be left up to the deleting admins and whatever sort of consensus comes about when the deadline hits and there are tens of thousands of non-compliant images. Avruch T 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are using the current incidents and support from those who feel you are being attacked as credit to force through a speedy deletion criterion without support? You are looking for WT:CSD. You would need support there for such a proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"What I am most concerned about is that people may use this deadline to try and force through some CSD allowing "invalid" images to be deleted on sight. That would be a disaster. There are a variety of possibilities, but the reason I'm bringing this up a month beforehand is to get people thinking of the possibilities and to decide on something now, with discussion, rather than argue about it later in the heat of the moment if some people get the idea in their head that the passing of this deadline means things are changing and deletion will be "easier"." Carcharoth - 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to repeat what I said there: Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008? If I can get a clear answer to that, then I'll be happy. What I don't want to see happen is the passing of this deadline used as an excuse for deletion 'on sight'. Betacommand should continue to tag images the way he has always done, and there is no reason not to stick to the current "48 hours to fix new uploads" and "7 days to fix old images" deadlines. That worked OK over the past year, and should continue to work OK. Deletion 'on sight' raises the possibility that admins will miss things such as vandals removing non-free use rationales, or that such rationales will be removed as "invalid" rather than being contested in the right discussion forum (such as IfD). Judging rationales is not easy, and many admins would get it wrong, so discussion would be needed for contested rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Given the headaches of having to reinsert images once they are deleted, commented out of the article by another bot, restored by me, FUR'd , and then tracking down which article it was in, I'd actually prefer BCB continue than that proposed world. MBisanztalk02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Can I suggest, trying to phrase this as delicately as possible, that it's language like his response above that is actually the core of the problem here? There appears to be very little disagrement on the issues of the underlying policy. There appears to be very little objections to the idea of some sort of automated tagging. Almost all of the problems revolve around Betacommand's approach. He's routinely called "unresponsive," "difficult," "incivil," etc.
There is no room on this project for the attitude of "all nor none." This is a work that is contructed by and maintained by volounteers. A pre-requisite is that we contribute in a spirit of compromise and mutual respect. However much we all believe that the image work is required, it does not appear that Betacommand is tempermentally suited to perform it. There are some parralles with use of administrative privledges, where it's accepted that if a person cannot engage in civil discussion regarding the use of the tools than they should consider not using them.
I personally have attempted to discuss with Betacommand that the "abuse he take[s]" stems from his chosen method of discouse. People that you are "trying to help" do tend to get outrages when told to stop whining and complaining. I've not been sucessful in doing so, and my comments are "archived" from his talk with dismaying speed. I don't understand why Betacommand appears to feel compelled to continue running this bot. Is there not any way that the responsibility for this can be transerred to someone less volotile and more communicative?
This has been suggested before. The standard non-responses are that anyone else would get just as upset (an untested assertion), and that Betacommand is separating out his bots and making the functions more available (there is some evidence of this, but as usual with Betacommand and communication issues, you have to keep asking until you find out what is going on). Ironically, some of this was discussed at a page that has now been redirected. You can read what was said, but it will be in an old version of the page, which might feel a bit strange. I'm currently, with the agreement of the admin who closed the MfD, copying out bits I think were useful. Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I hate to say it, Beta shutting down BCBot and letting all the images get deleted WOULD solve this, but only in a way that will leave MickMacNee crowing for years about hist victory over those who would make Wikipedians suffer things like responsibility and laws. BCBot's actions HELP the community, and those complaining really don't seem to understand the issues of copyright and non-free content well enough to see that BCBot helps us avoid direct and indirect legal hassles, and helps us avoid insulting thousands of creatives who directly or indirectly provide us with the great images we use. Those who've generated free content for us are usually good about this (see the retired David Shankbone, for example), but some aren't. a little AGF shows they didn't mean to forget or not tag, and would be hurt if their saturday afternoon's efforts were wiped out. As for all the images we 'borrow', those persons deserve recognition and credit for their efforts as well. BCBot helps us get that by getting the uploaders to fill in the data. BCBot works in a perfectly fair manner. It tags in proportion to one's own image uploading ability. IF you uploaded a hundred things right, no problems. If you uploaded 100 wrong, you get tagged. It's straight forward, and there's no collateral hits taken. Article editors can see from the edit summaries and article talk what's going on, but aren't interrupted by 'new messages' notes. Ultimately, if your talk pages are filling up, it's your own fault, deal with it. As for Betacommand's civility, MickMacNee keeps saying he wants to keep the bot and the man separate, but he keeps conflating them - see the highly punitive community ban call below. If you were doing all the work Betacommand does for his bot, when that bot points out the lack of responsibility by some editors, the creator takes the hits. After being on the receiving end for months, any one of us would get tired of it. Especially having the same 'Fixing this would take less energy than attacking me for doing the right thing' thought a thousand times a day. It becomes 'leave me alone and fix this shit'. Then just 'fuck off and die'. Is it "right"? Probably not, but it's also just being human. Intolerance for laziness and ignorance increases at an exponential rate relative to exposure. BCBot's got the backing of a wide swath of the community, of the foundation and Jimbo, and it's a legal remedy. Ignoring it, blocking Beta and banning BCBot will get more trouble, not less. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As for Betacommand's civility, MickMacNee keeps saying he wants to keep the bot and the man separate, but he keeps conflating them - see the highly punitive community ban call below." - you do realise that it was Nick, not MickMacNee that called for a community ban? You seem to be doing some conflating of your own. "BCBot's got the backing of a wide swath of the community, of the foundation and Jimbo" - sometimes I wish the community, the foundation, and Jimbo would help out more, instead of letting Betacommand take the flak. But if you, ThuranX, are not willing to do this, why not? I've helped out on various image desks and on Betacommand's talk page and the bot's talk page. Have you? Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "deleting on sight" for the old images (new uploads without rationales should be deleted after 48 hours). I think that it will only cause more drama. There are still old images out there that were uploaded before a rationale was required (for example Image:Album-cover-the-visitor-by-arena.jpg uploaded when WP:NFC looked like this). There are also images which just need the article name fixed, eg [14]. There are quite a few editors now (like User:MBisanz) who are fixing the fixable images. I've disagreed with the mass tagging in the past, but there is a decent system in place now to fix the images that can be fixed. FWIW, Betacommand has been helpful whenever I've asked him/her a question. Betacommand, do you have a number for the amount of images that still don't have a rationale? Do you plan to tag another large amount of images? Bláthnaid12:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This pains me greatly to even consider such a suggestion as I know how important it is we deal with Non Free content, but the endless personal attacks on Betacommand and his resulting unending incivility is preventing any meaningful work being done to deal with non free content. I suggest asking Betacommand to relinquish his bot flag and request that his bot account be indefinitely blocked, if this isn't forthcoming, I'm quite prepared to ask the community to consider banning the bot (and not Betacommand himself) and asking that the bot flag be removed by a bureaucrat. The fact that we have one noticeboard now devoted to one man and his bot, together with the unending threads at WP:AN and WP:ANI suggests action is very urgently required to deal with the situation facing us. Nick (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a simpler, less harmless, way - everyone just shuts up and lets the bot do its work. Or Beta just ignores the threads on his talk. Will(talk)11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have asked Betacommand several times (over the past months) for a schedule for when he intends to run his bot for image tagging. Given the amount of editors willing to work on this, and the wide range of the bot (affecting lots of people), and the number of times he has been asked, why is he not being more responsive? This is an example of the concern raised on the page that was redirected, a concern that was not addressed and was lumped in with the rest as part of an "attack page". Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, have you read this page? Or know the opinion of most users who sensibly avoid the drama over here? You'd never get this to pass. -Mask?11:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tasks that BCBot runs could be better organised in the hands of another user, I feel. I'm not asking for the work that BCBot does to stop, just that BC's version of the bot stops doing the work, and someone else who is more open to criticism can take over so we can have a much more productive atmosphere. Nick (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Betacommand has written the bot, another bot operatore would first have to go through the whole process of creating the right code, the right settings, which will cost weeks, if not more. The bot does its work perfectly, there are hardly any issues with what is within the grasp of any bot, and what this bot does. The added incivility by the users that attack the bot because they don't understand what is wrong, surmounts the comments by Betacommand by orders of magnitude. Why do we complain about Betacommand, because all returning incivility is concentrated coming from one person. Maybe stopping the bot, as suggested above, and wait for all users whose images got deleted to start complaining that their images got deleted without previous notice will solve the problem? --Dirk BeetstraTC12:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know something? Not many people work on non-free images, period. Those who work to fix non-free images, save those that need saving, and so on, don't (generally) get all upset when Betacommand and others rumble on regardless. What is needed is for those working on these issues to work together, and Betacommand could do a lot more of that. I've tried reaching out to him many times, and he occasionally responds, but most of the time gives the impression of being, quite frankly, disorganised. That is the only conclusion I can draw from someone who is so poor at distinguishing the genuine concerns from the ones that are not. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with Betacommand, no problem there. Generally, he has been helpful, and has offered his help throughout. Even if I did not ask for help, but just mentioned a bot-problem. And I do a some responding if complaints come in on Betacommand/Bots talkpages. I also see that there I have to answer 'that is wrong, maybe you mean this?' .. and those are things you can not teach a bot, it is just impossible. If the categories with images which 'should be deleted/reviewed' becomes to large, then it just takes longer to get through it .. it does not matter there if Betacommand splits jobs up in smaller batches .. it has to be done in the end, and if the tagged images don't get deleted immediately after the 7 days, that only means that the uploaders have longer to repair. I would just say, let it run until the end, and then work through the backlog later. That will now give a burst of further abuse on the talkpage of Betacommand/Bot, but then it is over .. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and if Betacommand and his supporters had civilly and calmly said this, like you have, then we wouldn't be here. Instead, Betacommand did a ridiculous attack on MickMacNee, there was a witchhunt against a perfectly OK page, and MickMacNee' legitimate bringing up of concerns has been mischaracterised as harassment and attacking. Oh, and my proposal is still quietly being ignored amongst all the noise and drama. And it is not over by a long shot. There is still the issue of what to do after the deadline passes. See the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline and the (rather obscure) follow-up by Betacommand at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Random Proposal. I don't think admins deleting images 'on sight' will help improve things around here. I'm trying despearately to get people interested in a calm discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, but the inertia of this whole year-long process is immense and proposing details for what should happen after the deadline seems to not be of concern to anyone working on the tagging and deletions at all, which is rather strange. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I predicted this days ago, and you've been denying that a community ban was your goal. Oppose. Your only proposed alternative is that we ignore the law, and keep using images illegally, just so no one gets the talk page messages which are just so horrible; or we let them all get deleted, go through a massive 'why did MY images get deleted angst' wave, massive REuploading without FURs, MORE taggings, and more deleteions because some people will never get it; or, we just eliminate images. None of these seem like good options. As said above, this would never pass. ThuranX (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thuran, fair use is not illegal. Please try and understand the difference between non-free use (Wikipedia), fair use (US copyright laws) and copyright violation (US and international copyright laws). It is difficult, I grant you, but when people tell you what you are saying wrong and you don't listen, it looks like you are doing what you accused MickMacNee and others of - ranting and not listening to those correcting what you say. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only point out, Nick, that 90% of the unending threads at AN and ANI are either the work of a few editors with agendas, or from people who have correctly received bot-generated warnings and don't understand why. Black Kite12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. No-one who knows what this is about is denying that. That is old news. The issue is the lack of response to genuine concerns and suggestions for improvements. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute that. A few have agendas, but most of the complaints seem to be first-time recipients who become upset about the treatment they receive and the attitudes they encounter. You could make the same arguments about agendas about the defenders: a small, vocal bunch who no longer are able to view this situation objectively, are exceptionally defensive, and cannot separate legitimate criticism and honest confusion from pointless attacks. The only people I see basing their arguments on things like "we can't do this because it would be a victory for such-and-such" are the people willing to excuse any type of behavior from BC. This whole event largely did not affect me and won't affect me further, but I still took the time to discuss it because I thought the double-standard imposed here was depressing. There is no excuse for the behavior: if you can't perform this function without losing your cool taking abuse and having to explain things over and over to people who don't want to read hundreds of archived pages, figure out how to do it so it doesn't generate this much animosity, or just stop doing it. Excessive stress is not an excuse for rude behavior, and no individual is critical to the project. If BCB doesn't do this work, will the next person who does generate this much friction? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it. —Torc.(Talk.)21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No support. Abolish non-free content, turn off local uploads and make Betacommand and his bot redundant. This also releases a significant amount of sysop time to deal with POV pushers and other far greater threats to the project. I'm far from being a fan of Betacommand but this is clearly more pressure than he can deal constructively with and I'm starting to think this is more trouble than it's worth since we do agree that non-free content should have proper fair use rationales. For the record, we are not violating the law ThuranX. Our non-free policy is sígnificantly stricter than the law. Read up on the issue or stay out of it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the drama has been about BetacommandBot's tagging of legacy images that have been on the wiki for years. Once those images have been dealt with, I think that the controversy will die down. From what I've seen, bot-tagging by Betacommand and others of new uploads and orphaned images have caused very few problems, and there are help desks to promptly help uploaders. Bláthnaid13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of images we are talking about there will be a substantial number of deletions even if we try to tag them with correct rationales. I looked into this before Christmas to see what could be done about the number of album covers that need rationales and without a bot we can't make it before the deadline. It's impossible. Even when this is over and done with there will still be disputes because people will still upload images without proper rationales. I simply don't think this is worth the effort anymore. Other major Wikipedias are getting by just fine without fair use. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand has said that the majority of images have already been tagged, so hopefully there won't be a situation like this in the future. The disputes over the new images that are tagged haven't been too heated, and the bots are doing a good job in catching the new images without rationales (eg [15]). Bláthnaid19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carch, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that there are not enough people dealing with NFCC. But this is not BetaCommand's fault. From what I've seen, he/she has been resonably willing to deal wait until things were resolved. You yourself said that he/she waited until the alternative proposals ended up failing. Once it became clear that no one else was going to do something, he/she went ahead and did it. It's not his/her fault that the community failed to come up with an alternative. And yes, perhaps it will be ideal if the bot's code is released to someone and if it is seperated and all that. But the reality is, it is not BetaCommand's fault the community has come to rely on his/her bot so much. People are welcome to code alternative bots. Betacommand is not stopping them. Perhaps it is a waste of time to re-invent the wheel but ultimately it is betacommand's work and his/her right to decide what happens to it. It's not as if betacommand has relied on a community of volunteers to help him/her code his/her bot then refused to let others use it. And yes, perhaps betacommand has been a bit incivil. But when you get many of them downright rude, some probably violating NPA and many of them probably blaming betacommand for something which isn't his/her fault, it's not surprising. And yes perhaps betacommand can work with the community to make the bot even better but is not doing so but I presume he/she has a job with limited free time and is already dealing with all the flak from the bot. Ultimately, no one else has coded an alternative bot or even volunteered. For starters, I suspect the code isn't as easy to make as some people seem to think. And given all the flak betacommand receives, I would say it's not surprising even those who are capable have no desire to do so and be the next person that everyone loves to hate. As I said at the beginning, it is not Betacommand's fault that we are in this mess. We had a whole year and we failed to do anything. The sad fact is, we have far to many people who are willing to argue over NFCC, argue for us ignoring our 'free' mission, complain about betacommand/bot, defend betacommand/bot (yes this includes me), revert appropriate taggings without fixing the problem, upload NFC, defend NFC deletions (without fixing the problem) etc etc but far to few people willing to ensure our images comply with NFC, fix them when they are fixable and delete them when they are not. You and some of the people complaining (and defending) here are part of the solution which is good but as you've said there are too few. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support this, but only because of the timing. Betacommand and his bot have come up over and over and over again as problems, and while the work needs to be done by someone, I think it is definitely worth taking some time to reevaluate each of BetacommandBot's tasks and which has community support, and indeed whether the bot has community support at all. However, we're fiddling while Rome burns here. There are thousands of images on the chopping block, most of which can probably be kept if we start writing rationales for them. I'm going to go add rationales to 100 images now. I suggest everyone else reading this do the same, and we can discuss BetacommandBot's status another time. Mangojuicetalk15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the frustrating thing, the bot does lots of valuable tasks, but every time the bot is blocked for a problem relating to one area it covers, it takes out a vast swathe of the functionality all bots provide. There's a definite need to have all the tasks separated out and run under different accounts (something promised but which remains undelivered). There's erosion of trust and with the recent grossly unacceptable behaviour Betacommand programmed into BCBot this past week to spam messages, many people no longer believe the bot is functioning correctly and no longer trust the operator. There's a perception (completely wrong) that the bot is being used to tag images improperly in some sort of crusade against Non Free content - this is something directly down to the behaviour of the operator. There have been requests made on multiple occasions that the source code should be made available, vetted by trusted bot operators and run under a new account by one or more trusted users. It's just not happening and it's getting to be quite frustrating that we're here yet again, having another discussion about the bot. Nick (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a bot running on a free information project by a strong supporter of GFDL content over non-free content closed source? What is so secret about a set of scripts? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of people that I trust, but I have seen a lot, just look at the recent admin desysop. the community was wrong. My position is that you have to be proven trustworthy. that is why I dont make my code public. βcommand15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still did not answer the original question. Where is the credibility of your commitment to free content when your own bot is closed source. Why should we trust you and your bot when the trust is not returned? How can you not see the problem? Your bot tags images after examining a piece of Wikicode and other trivial stuff. You make it sound as if that is something super sekrit yet I could do the same in AWB with a simple plugin and even run it unattended too. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of clueless-bot-newbies questions: What harm could possibly done by someone with no good intentions if the code of the bot would become open source? I don't see it right now. --Conti|✉16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BCBot can reach upwards of 700 edits a minute. that is 35000 edits an hour. that is un-modified. with a few tweaks it can edit a lot faster. AWB only reaches 10-15 edits a minute, and normal pywikipedia maxes out at 60 edits a minute. βcommand17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there a limit for normal users on how many edits they could make in a minute? And anyways, isn't it really, really trivial to program a bot that could do lots of edits a minute? That doesn't sound like a strong argument to keep the bot's code secret. --Conti|✉17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the bot is written in C? Why do I need to drag this out of you? Speed is not the issue here, it's the actual task of your bot. It isn't exactly rocket science to figure out what the bot does and the Mediawiki API isn't rocket science either. Oh, and non-bot non-admins can't edit that fast anyway due to the limitation set on how fast we can edit regardless of how we do it. So that's rather a non-issue unless you now want to claim that admins would abuse the bot. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Per this I now understand that not only does he think that, he also somehow gets a stab at OTRS in there. Apparently BetacommandBot is a threat to our very existence. Expect calls from the CIA soon. Quick everyone, run for cover! EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't actually know anything about what experience I've had -- it's far more than you -- but let's leave that aside. What, exactly, are your terms for releasing your source code? Nandesuka (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason to suspect that Nandesuka, whose name I've seen around Wikipedia for a long time, is someone who is likely to run an unauthorized bot, or release the powerful code the bot uses to vandals or something? I myself would like to look at the code, partly because I'm just curious, partly because I've had one or two ideas for bots in the past and would like to see how some of the things are done because I might want to actually build a useful bot, and partly because the more people who know how the bot actually works, the more people can explain the safeguards that are in place in the code to those who complain about it as abusive. I have a programming background. Mangojuicetalk16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my question. Would you kindly explain to the community your terms for releasing your source code to another editor? For the sake of discussion, let's assume the editor is one you "trust." Nandesuka (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, it took a lot of work to get that answer. In any event, thank you for clarifying that you will not release your source code. Hopefully the next time someone brings up the issue you won't try the "But, but, but, no one has asked!" dodge. Nandesuka (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) You realize he's under no obligation to release the code, or have a criteria for release other than "Only people with twelve toes and seven fingers, who can write Perl while sleeping"? Avruch T 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But reasonable people are willing to discuss things in public. Beta has said several times that very few people have asked him for his code (which seems incorrect to me, but let's ignore that), and that the only reason he didn't release it was the askers weren't willing to comply with his terms. Since I assume Beta is reasonable, I'm sure he'll have no problem stating publically what his terms are.
But then, I'm only an admin who has been editing for 3 years with over 11,000 edits and no blocks. So perhaps an untrustworthy scoundrel like me just doesn't have a full grasp on the situation. Nandesuka (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You realize he's under no obligation to release the code But by the same token, I would assume that the community is under no obligation to allow a closed-source bot to do this task - although it would seem, practically speaking, that there is little choice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Sorry, but this proposal for a community ban is nonsense, IMO. Almost every bot has had problems here, and we don't ban them. You need to weigh things out here - BCB is an asset to Wikipedia when it comes to non free content. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To remind those who have raised the suggestion of banning the bot, the bot is not the problem. The problem is the massive amount of non-free content accumulated by this nominally free encyclopedia project. To complain about the bot is to miss the point: the bot's work on Wikipedia is an essential. It must be done. Don't complain that somebody is doing it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People aren't complaining about the bot, people are complaining about Betacommand's unresponsive and uncivil reactions to any kind of criticism. --Conti|✉22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no excuse in a free encyclopedia to have a secretive, closed-code bot causing deletion of multiple perfectly valid images that have been a part of the project for many years. I have much less of a problem with this bot if Betacommand would do two things: (1) Open up his code to community scrutiny. Failure to do so demonstrates a clear distrust of the community that is completely incompatible with this type of project. (2) Stop with the incivility toward complaints. Some are from new users, who simply don't understand the sub-section of a sub-section that BCB is using to tag for deletion. Some are from more established users overwhelmed by the massive talkpage spam geerated by the tagging of older images that they'd uploaded long before.
If you have nothing to contribute, don't. I've seen your equally incivil comments on BC's talkpage. You're part of the problem, not the solution. BellwetherBC01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, I find this umpteenth call to block the bot to be tedious, repetitive, and unlikely to yield anything positive. I'm sorry you disagree with my tone, but I'm calling a spade a spade and find no reason to not call it that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please step away from the corpse. Seriously, you want code that can run at 35000 edits an hour opened up to all and sundry? Anyone who would be confident enough with such code to modify it should be able to write their own version of BCBot and have it approved. Black Kite01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "dead horse." There are many people who feel that on a free project, code for such active bots should be open to criticism and improvement. Such secrecy, combined with the incivility present in the communications of BC and his supporters, does not improve this project. BellwetherBC01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst BC is occasionally incivil, that aimed towards BC is many times worse. Try reading the archives of his talk pages sometime, or try enforcing WP:NFCC on articles. You'll soon get the idea. Seriously. Black Kite01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard this claim many times, but to date the evidence has been pretty thin. Can we have some diffs where BetaCommand receives abuse over and above that which is normal for an administrator doing CSD patrol? I know he no longer has the bit, but the parrallel is obvious. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get the "The bot can do lots and lots of edits a minute and therefore shouldn't be made open source" argument. As I've found out above, normal editors can't make that many edits anyways, whether they program a bot to do it or not, and it's highly unlikely that an admin would suddenly start running the bot (without any kind of approval) once the source code would be out in the open. So.. I honestly don't see the harm if the code that can run at 35000 edits an hour is opened up to all and sundry. --Conti|✉02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I stand corrected, then. Maybe the devs should think about that, tho, an editing limit for non-bots sounds quite reasonable to me. Anyhow, I still think it should be rather easy to program a bot that would do lots of edits, so if someone with enough malice would be around, he would've already programmed and used that bot. I doubt someone will suddenly turn up and use that bot to do any harm if the source code would be released. I therefore still don't really see this as a reason not to reveal the code to the community. --Conti|✉02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the editing rate in a bot is a number in the code. There's no super-secret trick to making a bot edit 35,000 times per minute. Anyone can take a bot with open source code, like any of the Pywikipedia bots, and crank up its editing rate if they want. Then they'll get blocked. There is nothing magic about BCB's ability to edit quickly, so that is a pointless argument for why its code should be hidden. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BOT he must inform us what framework/language he is using. Since the bot was approved as a Pywikipedia bot he either a) must answer my question above or b) request approval again. In addition to that, it is not possible for non-admins or non-bots to run it at that speed yet Betacommand now shows that he doesn't even trust OTRS let alone the admins. And we are suppopsed to respect the wishes of a user who acts like this? No thank you. He wasn't desysopped for nothing and he needs to either listen or leave. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since this has been brought up a couple times, out of context. BC did not jab OTRS or any admins. What he said was that he doesn't trust OTRS to decide who is trustworthy to receive the code for the bot. His failure to trust all admins is completely legitimate. As example of why that distrusted is justified was given by him: Archtransit. The community makes mistakes. BC wants to avoid this mistake from being made. Lara❤Love02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't even need to release the code, just inform other editors in a sensibly located place, what it actually does, beyond the innacurate and mis-leading statement 'the bot enforces policy'. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let me restate myself for the 100th time ALL BETACOMMANDBOT LOOKS FOR IS THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE OR A REDIRECT TO THAT PAGE. THAT IS REQUIRED BY WP:NFCC#10c IT DOESNT NEED TO BE A WIKI LINK JUST THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE. IT DOES NOT NEED A TEMPLATE STYLE RATIONALE, IT DOES NOT NEED THE ARTICLE= PARAMETER ALL IT NEEDS IS TO MEET ONE BASIC PART OF OUR NON-FREE POLICYβcommand02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand basically just doesn't get it, he cleary thinks the above a sensible reply to the request; well, take this as yet another attack if you want, I know you will, but the above reply is just another example of what he thinks is being helpful or informative, blowing his stack on a talk page that will be archived and never seen again in a few weeks time, helping no-one who has to deal with his bot, or any third party who wants to save the mass-deletions his bot threatens. The sentence isn't even all that informative for the unninitiated who have not been following this whole sorry teeth-pulling epic, which is the real hoot, red bolded text or not. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's cognitive dissonance here: You won't release the super-skerit code, but that's all it does? Further, I think it's fairly clear that that's a hopelessly reductionist explanation. you could almost as easily have said "It edits wikipedia." - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
without getting into complex programming speak that 90% of the people here will not understand, its what the bot does for dummies. also do not edit my comments. βcommand03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please enlighten us. What super super sekrit algorithm is used to analyze the very few words on the image description pages? Why can't you just admit that your bot is a simple script and nothing more than that? Why does it mean so much to you that everyone has to think you are some sort of programming genius for having written a freakin' Mediawiki bot? This secrecy and belief that you have some sort of super special powers is ridiculous. We are grown-ups here, not kids. At least describe in pseudo-code what your bot really does and per WP:BOT what framework/language you are using. That is not too much to ask if you want people to trust you given your history with scripts prior to losing your bit. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what exactly is it that you're opposing? (1) Open up his code? So far the only objection is that it's too fast for "normal" users. (2) Stop with the incivility? You're for more incivility? Or are you objecting to the straw man argument raised by Hammersoft, what this is another threat to block. In the same spirit of my asking several of the members of the "other camp" to step back, can I ask that you, LaraLove, take these pages off of your watchlist for a while? I personally am not finding your input helpful. It's growing increasingly repetative. For example, in the above comment you've "voted" without providing much to go on. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let me clarify. This specific oppose is the the specific proposal of this specific thread. And yes, you can ask that I take these pages off my watchlist, but no, I'm not going to. I'm only repetitive because I'm responding to the same things over and over and over again. If people would read more comments on the page than their own, they wouldn't have to keep asking the same questions and I and BC and others wouldn't have to keep making the same, repetitive comments. I didn't elaborate on my oppose because I just opposed a similar proposal a few inches up, which followed another similar proposal from like two days ago, maybe... and I think there was one a day or so before that... and one last week. Maybe I'm wrong... but it's something like that. Lara❤Love03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to have a policy that all bots are open source, then are ways for you to do that. Arbitarily deciding that one bot needs to be open source because you don't like it (or whatever) despite being unable to explicitly explain what the problem is however is not acceptable Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot shouldn't be open source because it's disliked by people, it should be open source because, hopefully, this would reduce the drama by quite a bit.
People would stop asking what the bot does. And if they would, we could simply show them the code or tell them exactly what they want to know.
Wikipedians could improve the bot in many ways. (Hey, that's almost like this weird wiki thing, isn't it?)
The bot could, finally, be split up, so if one part messes up, we wouldn't have to block all other functions as well.
If the bot owner one day decides not to work on Wikipedia anymore, we wouldn't have to create a whole new bot for all these tasks.
Well, and it's kinda ironic that a bot that removes lots of non-free content is itself not free. But that's a minor point, of course. On the other hand, I see no reason whatsoever not to publish the code of the bot. --Conti|✉13:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I've removed it, and you've re-added it. I didn't think that archiving was bold enough to fall under bold/revert/discuss, but edit warring over it is fairly petty. If the page is too long, make a manual archive and create a summary or an FAQ. Bot archiving is a sub-optimal solution in search of a problem. To be explicit, I'm opposed to the bot archiving of this page. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to the main page, the traffic here is actually pretty minor. I think either one would work, although the Miszabot timeframe should probably be extended to 7 days. What you see here is everything since the page was created, and its still smaller than the admin noticeboards are most of the time. Avruch T 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we look all of one section above, the LaraLove says "I'm only repetitive because I'm responding to the same things over and over and over again." BetaCommand has said many times that he gets sick of responding to the same whining and complaining again and again. And, perhaps this is a bit of a mental leap, but this page serves a totally different purpose than the "parent page." This is a page dedicated to one long, ongoing saga, and having the history where someone can actually look at it avoids the rinse/repeat cycle that the pro-incivility-when-provoked crowd appear to be so sensitive to. Bot are, in the best of cases, blunt tools. If this page is crashing your browser or something, make a meaningful archive, with a summary and a link. Don't let's fall into the trap of "oh, no one has commented for 48 hours, it must be resolved." Then what happens is someone like MikeN has to comment every 48 hours to keep discussion moving forward (in the face of purposeful go-slow, see above.) Then he gets accused of harrasment. See how that's sub-optimal? 152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care one way or the other, but I wouldn't use the argument that not archiving the page will end the repetitiveness considering we've been repeating ourselves to the same people on this page and others for days now. Lara❤Love05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On dispute resolution
I agree with LaraLove that there's plenty of repetition on this page because the same ideas keep getting raked up over and over again, and failing to gain traction. Archiving the page will not make it more or less repetitive, but it will a least make past discussions easier to locate and present ones easier to read and contribute to.
This page is somewhat outside any meaningful interpretation of our dispute resolution system, but it's clear that many of the issues raised here are related to conduct rather than content or policy. If you want to discuss conduct problems and feel that they haven't been resolved, produce a conduct RfC. If that doesn't help, consider mediation or arbitration. Don't try to use the sheer size of this page to browbeat a user into changing his conduct. You will not be permitted to succeed in such a path. Follow dispute resolution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many obfuscatory comments there, it's hard to know where to begin...
I'm not objecting to archiving, only to thoughtless machanical archiving. See where I say "make a meaningful archive, with a summary and a link" up there? Are you even reading other people's posts?
I agree that this is mainly a conduct issue. Notice above where I say that?
"Don't try to [...] browbeat a user". That's offensive. "You will not be permitted to succeed in such a path." That's highly offensive. Anticipation should apologise for the baseless character smear, verging on personal attack, they have just committed.
Regardless, it's clear that no more meaningful discussion is going to occur in this venue.
06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading your comments, but you haven't explained why a human could do this mechanical and boring task better than a machine.
If you agree that it's a conduct issue, again I can only urge you to consider my advice that you follow the dispute resolution mechanism.
Again, the arrival of Tony Sidaway means that all meaningful dialog has ended here. If he can't delete this page, he'll archive it to death... I am sure that Tony will insist on having the last word here, so please feel free to say whatever you like, I won't be reading further. 152.91.9.144 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Betacommand RfC and arbitration related to administrative conduct. Since he is no longer an administrator I don't think they can be seriously described as an attempt to resolve the various disputes expressed on this page. I again urge you to seriously consider dispute resolution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely serious question
Since BetaCommand felt free to write, and is allowed to run, a bot that flagged images for deletion under "NFCC 10 c"... would I be allowed to write and run a bot to revert its flaggings, under "Assume Good Faith"? Both are policy... I would definitely like some serious replies to this, thanks! --75.5.176.16 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a bit of an addition: If revertings would be 'too extreme', what about removing the deletion-flaggings and replacing them with user-or-article talk page notifications? Assuming good faith, a notification of some sort whould be a much more friendly and useful solution to images without a rationale. I don't see the use in the rampant deletion of images via a time-delay that users may not have time to respond to, or even understand. --75.5.176.16 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure for speedying was, I seem to recall, agreed months ago. If you now have a proposal for changing it, it wouldn't be a specific Betacommand matter but a matter of policy, so you should discuss your proposal there. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with the back-end of Wikipedia (yet)... would you be able to point me to a proper area to ask about such a policy question/proposal? Thanks --75.5.176.16 (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand 'assume good faith'. No one is saying that the people who uploaded the images are trying to harm wikipedia. They are probably trying to improve wikipedia. I.E. No one is assuming that these images weren't uploaded in good faith. However they have also in most cases failed to comply with NFCC policy which we consider serious enough that it needs to be fixed ASAP or the images deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts after reading this page
OK, as someone suffereinf from insomnia, i read through most of this (apoligies if I missed anything important). Here are the thoughts of someone who has dealt with BCbot in both a positive and negative way.
As I understand it, BCbot flags images that have improperly written or missing FU rationales
However, it only assesses the existence, or lack thereof, of mentioning the article of use (criteria 10.c)
Some users believe that this targets images that are most likely covered by fair use but are missing a small portion of the rationale
Others say that 10.c is a crucial part of a policy laid down from the foundation that must be respected
There is also a concern over the managing of the rate of the bot's operation
Users who hold this view claims it makes it difficult for human users to manually fix the image pages by the 7 day deadline
Other users say that as the images fail a criteria mandated by the foundation, they should never have been uploaded in the first place, and must be either fixec or speedied,as was previously agreed upon.
A further concern, one that does not really bear on this debate IMHO, is the way in which BC runs the bot and responds to comments
I think a key issue here is that many people expect BCbot to validate an articles rationale the way a person would, all it does is search for keywords. As a response to this, and the concerns about timeframes, perhaps the images identified by the bot should be tagged differently. My suggestion would be to add a template saying something along the lines of This image may not have a valid fair use rationale. It has been identified by a bot as not listing the articles in which it is used. As there is a Wikimedia Foundation policy mandating valid use rationales, if it is not fixed it will be delted on May 23rd, 2008 as noted in the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Feel free to destoy my suggestion and tell me how a completed misinterpreted every statement on this page. :) Random89 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no bot is perfect. However I don't think that's the reason for the bulk of the complaints. There seems to be a substantial minority of the community that disagrees with the idea of using a simple heuristic to identify the hundreds of improperly used items non-free content uploaded daily. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The09:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only thing we are trying is to get Betacommand to give us an honest answer to a simple question. Unfortunately, as always with Betacommand, this is proving very difficult which is why we are getting increasingly suspicious. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I see a lot of complaints, at least in the first thread, about the bot being too fast, or creating more problems then it's worth or whatever. However what is clear is that we have to delete all fair use images with no valid rationale by March 23rd of this year. And what is also clear is that so far, that I've seen anyone, no one has demonstrated any actual significant problems with the bot. Some people have complained about betacommand's incivility or reluctance to deal with complaints which may be true but is mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only issue is whether is whether there are any demonstratable significant problems with the bot. From what I've seen, so far there have been none. The bot may make a few mistakes but they are few and far between. Most images that have been tagged do indeed have non-compliant rationales. These may be easy to fix in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that they are invalid and as I've said need to be fixed by March 23rd or deleted. If you have a problem with betacommand then follow the appropriate procedures. But don't act as if or complain about the bot as if it is causing major problems when you have no evidence for that Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For example, this incivil attack on Betacommand appears in the section above. Yet look at the talk page of the editor that made this comment, and what do we find? Lots of BCBot warnings, about many of which the editor has done nothing - for example Image:The red house palgrave.jpg which was tagged two weeks ago as non-compliant but the uploader has ignored it and not provided the correct FUR - yet has the temerity to complain about BCBot. Black Kite10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at how much had to be distorted to make that example fit what you wanted it to. First, the reply is testy, but it's criticism, not an attack. The points he's making are clear and correct: BC demands strict compliance to one set of rules, but frequently breaks rules he feels justified breaking. He seems unconcerned with the feelings of uploaders, but expects them to worry about his feelings. BC knows this is a task that's going to grate on peoples' nerves, yet still takes a caustic, unfriendly approach to the whole thing. "You don't have the self discipline to reign yourself in, but are happy to hold everyone else to the higher standard" - that can't be said better or more clearly. "Its pretty pathetic to watch" is a bit of a flame, granted. "If you can't ignore the flames while you're going about your work you should retire your bot or turn it over to someone with a cooler head." Words worth repeating. "Its part of the price to pay for doing what you do and the means you've chosen to do it.
It's obviously written by an annoyed editor, but its assertions are correct, and they were in reaction to communication received, not some random volley out of thin air. Now for your second point: Lots of BCBot warnings, about many of which the editor has done nothing - for example Image:The red house palgrave.jpg which was tagged two weeks ago as non-compliant but the uploader has ignored it and not provided the correct FUR - yet has the temerity to complain about BCBot. You've just illustrated a perfect example of the flaws with this methodology: BCB WP:FUCs this editor over with SEVEN notices in two days while the editor is clearly busy working on other articles. Despite this, SIX images are fixed, and the seventh requires a different kind of FUR that might take research. The editor gets frustrated and complains here, and points out legitimate problems with the procedure. And how is this summarized by you: "Many of which the editor has done nothing [about]"..."the uploader has just ignored it...has the temerity to complain about BCBot".
Look at that editor's history. He's been here three years and does great work. He has ZERO blocks, and I couldn't even find a single warning for any form of disruptive behavior in his user talk page. Yet because he's critical of something that a few dozen other editors have also criticized, you want to defame him and drag his name through the mud, rather than actually address what he said? This user posts a paragraph with a couple pointed words, which aren't even vulgar; yet you want to crucify him and insist BC and his red ink "lies and bullshit" tirades are totally justifiable? —Torc.(Talk.)11:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's deal with those inaccuracies one at a time. (1) That wasn't the only image that wasn't fixed - two others were deleted for no rationale, and another editor fixed this one (2) It doesn't require a different type of FUR which requires research, that image just requires a bog-standard FUR just like the others he fixed. (3) There is a WHOLE WEEK to fix those FURs, most of which are a few minutes work (note that the editor fixed the six images that he did fix in 20 minutes) Yet that editor has carried on editing in other areas and not fixed all the images. Perhaps he wanted them deleted - but if he wanted that, then why is he posting anti-BC stuff like the link I posted? I don't understand that. (4) You think "suck it up" and "pathetic" aren't incivil? You might want to rethink that. You might also want to look up "defame" and "crucify" in a dictionary. Criticising is neither of these things. (5) I only criticised that particular comment, not the editor's other work, which is great. That's why it's actually such a good example, because an attack on BCBot by an editor who's normally incivil wouldn't be worth remarking on. Black Kite12:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:032806_francelaborprotests2.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:FlemingTSWLM.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=193780736){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ABeatlesFamilyGuy.jpg&diff=192281237&oldid=192277602){kind=link}
