Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBotI 3

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

STBotI 3

Operator: --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl. Uses a combination of my Perlwikipedia module and some stolen code from eagle, which uses LWP::Useragent.

Function Summary: Checks old images for copyright compliance.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily or Weekly, depending on how much time I have to run it

Edit rate requested: 6 edits per minute

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

Function Details: It has come to my attention (read: I have half a brain) that some users (read: newbies who don't understand policy and others who are abusing the system) are actually *drumroll* REMOVING STBOTI'S WARNINGS *collective gasp of horror*. To correct this grave travesty, I'd like to run STBotI on all images on the english wikipedia using the same detection rules as I have been for STBotI since time began. In doing so, we'd tag images, warn uploaders, and also keep a log of all images which we have previously edited. If I tag an image that I've already touched, or BCBot's touched, then either someone's removing warnings without reason or an image which follows policy is being wrongly tagged and noone's told me about it. The bot will run alphabetically through all images, starting from ! and going through Ω (through the wonders of wikipedia, it isn't just a-z anymore) checking for a tag, a rationale for non free images, and a backlink for non-free images. The code is in my subversion. It does not yet have the logging functionality (as of revision 69, it does not), and its tagging rules may be somewhat out of date. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

So basically you're doing the same thing as STBotI, but on older images (every single one). Sounds like a good idea. As well as the newbies who remove warnings, you'll catch some images that were uploaded long before the bots started looking for them. — Werdna talk 01:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that many of BetaCommandBot's problems arose initially from presenting newbies with unfriendly, incomprehensible messages full of Wikipedia jargon. Can we see what kind of templates this bot will leave on the images it identifies, and make sure they will be understandable to all users? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are the standard non-free image warning templates, as seen in the bot's contribs. They are {{Di-no license-notice}}, {{Di-no fair use rationale-notice}}, {{Di-no fair use rationale-notice}}, {{Di-no source-notice}}. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Di-no license-notice}} is okay, if a bit ugly, but {{Di-no fair use rationale-notice}} and especially {{Di-no source-notice}} are huge masses of text that cover unlikely cases and meander off on unrelated subjects. I'd recommend using custom messages along the lines of OrphanBot's User:OrphanBot/nocopyright, User:OrphanBot/norat, and User:OrphanBot/nosource. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll change to those notification templates (copying them and changing the bot name) tomorrow afternoon, when I have time. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what how many images you expect to find, but it might be nice to hold to some maximum tagged (older) images per day or something. Even a couple hundred wouldn't pose an issue, but "large" runs in the past have drawn some real negative attention. A statement like no more than 300(?) per day might be a nice thing (even if you never anticipate to hit that many, like I said, not sure how many are left at this point). - AWeenieMan (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. 300 is an acceptable limit that would probably never be reached. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have the issues above been addressed? Are there any other objections to a trial run? — Werdna talk 04:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. A trial tagging up to 100 images can easily be hand processed if errors develop and should be a large enough segement that any errors will be noticed. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Diff to STIMG lib --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Werdna talk 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One issue with the new warnings, but that's been corrected. Also had an issue where the bot would crash before warning a user if the image name contained unicode characters - I've fixed the crash, and am thinking about a proper solution. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of warnings have been given because the user said 'self-made', but didn't specify a license. — Werdna talk 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This is intended operation. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considered giving a special warning for that? — Werdna talk 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I suppose I can do that. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's necessary, but if I were one of those users, I'd be confused and say "Well, I did make it myself". — Werdna talk 10:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:STBotI/nocopyrightclaimself is live. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Are there any objections to full approval of this bot? — Werdna talk 10:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not.

Approved. — Werdna talk 08:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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