Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Ramaksoud2000Bot[edit]

Operator: Ramaksoud2000 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 09:59, Monday, December 26, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: https://github.com/MER-C/wiki-java/blob/master/src/org/wikipedia/Wiki.java with a small run file. Will make run file available when finalized.

Function overview: Tags files that were uploaded with the WP:File Upload Wizard with the "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so" option with {{di-no permission}} and notifies the uploader.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:F11 is the policy that authorizes this.

Edit period(s): When manually run. Most likely daily to weekly.

Estimated number of pages affected: 6 files and 6 user talk pages on first run. About 1-5 files and user talk pages would be affected on each subsequent run.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No (Note: Task 2 was approved, but not with a flag)

Function details: Goes through Category:Files licensed by third parties, a category that tracks WP:File Upload Wizard uploads that are credited to an external, non-public source. Checks each file for the text: '''Evidence:''' Will be provided on request. This indicates that the "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so" option was selected. The bot then tags the file with {{subst:npd}} and notifies the uploader with {{subst:di-no permission-notice}}. The bot ignores all files with the following templates: {{OTRS pending}}, {{OTRS permission}}, {{OTRS ticket}}, {{OTRS received}}, and {{Di-no permission}}. The bot cannot be exclusion compliant because notification of the uploader is required for deletion under F11. Unless the policy is changed, I don't see a way to be exclusion compliant. I ran the program and created a list of files and user talk pages that would affected on the first run at User:Ramaksoud2000/Bot trial.

Discussion[edit]

@Ramaksoud2000: For files that should be ignored, you'll want to check for all redirects to the templates. For instance, instead of {{Di-no permission}} one could use the equivalent {{npd}}, {{No permission}}, {{Db-f11}}. You'll also want to check if these templates were substituted, and not just look for the code that transcludes them.
That aside, I do think we should seek broader input. The task seems uncontroversial, but I think we should achieve at least some rough consensus for it. Others might know of additional templates, scenarios, etc., where we wouldn't want to tag with {{Di-no permission}}, or perhaps there is doubt as to whether this process should be automated. Let's try to reach out to those who work closely will files, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion? If you know of a few other appropriate venues, please notify them of the discussion — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The template must be substituted to work properly and have the correct date, and when substituted {{Di-no permission}} is placed. I don't think it should check for transclusions of the redirect, because that means the template isn't working properly, and the file won't get deleted. As for additional discussion, that's a good point, and I have posted notices on WT:FFD, WT:File Upload Wizard, and WT:Media copyright questions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot should probably check for redirects to the OTRS templates though, and I'll update it to do so. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! I've been wanting something like this for a long time. There are a few other file maintenance tasks (mostly deletion tagging) that can probably be automated but this is an excellent start. I wholeheartedly, 100%, support this bot. About time we got some major assistance in cleaning up the file namespace. It is a mess out there. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It doesn't really matter, but the bot trial page above is outdated because image patrollers have gotten to those images and tagged them as di-no permission. An updated list is at User:Ramaksoud2000Bot/Images_missing_permission. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an OTRS agent, I worry about this from multiple perspectives. First, the typical 7-day wait time for this criteria is quite low compared to the OTRS backlog (multiple months). Often, images with OTRS pending aren't tagged as such, so this would result in deleted images. Many OTRS permissions agents aren't admins, so this contributes further to the OTRS backlog, exacerbating the whole problem. Second, a bot can't determine whether an image actually needs permissions, and many administrators deleting on this criteria do so mechanically. What is there's a likely PD claim to be made? Our uploaders don't know about PD, but those tagging for permission should. Third, what if a non-standard note that an OTRS ticket has been submitted lies somewhere on the page? I often see people just include a ticket number somewhere instead of an appropriate template. The third can be addressed from a technical standpoint. The first could possibly be addressed by placing a 30 day hold before the bot tags for permission or lengthening the wait time for F11. I'd prefer the former. The second, though, requires human eyes at some point. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also seeing lots of files in this category that don't appear to actually need permission. See, for instance, File:1962-mets-uni.svg. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:BU Rob13. You misunderstood. The bot only uses the category as a filter to narrow the scope. The bot only tags images that have "Evidence: Will be provided on request" in the permission field. This indicates that the file uploader selected the "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so" option in the File Upload Wizard, which is not a valid way to upload files. The Upload Wizard contains this warning when they select that option: "Note: files without verifiable permissions may be deleted. You may be better off obtaining proof of permission first."
  - Also, the number of files is low. I ran the bot, and these images would be tagged [1]. I don't understand your concern about the OTRS backlog, because this bot would not do anything different than someone tagging the image as needing permission. As for the concern about the possibility of a free image, I patrol the new image queue, and have never seen an image under this option be PD. This option in the File Upload Wizard is buried deep, and an uploader would have to skip past options for age and U.S. gov works to reach this option. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 11:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I withdraw my objections. The OTRS concern is basically that missing permissions files, if immediately tagged, get deleted before OTRS agents would get to the ticket. But that's a broader concern that should be addressed in a different venue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13's concerns are quite valid, but as explained I think this task is a lot more simple and less questionable than it may seem. This discussion was pointed to from three noticeboards, and over a week has gone by without opposition. I think we're OK to move forward, but someone please correct me if they feel more input is needed.
Ramaksoud2000, you wrote Checks each file for the text: Evidence: Will be provided on request. Are you referring to the code that would check for this text? Feel free to share that, but more importantly, could you possibly provide examples (permalinks) to such revisions of a file page? Also, going through the file upload wizard I was unable to locate the "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so" option. Could you walk me through that? Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 08:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The program checks all pages in that category to see if they contain the following wikitext: '''Evidence:''' Will be provided on request. I'm not at my computer right now to get the code, but it's a simple statement that returns true if the page wikitext contains that exact string. This is an example revision of a page containing that text. To find the option in the File Upload, go through the following steps: This is a free work -> This file was given to me by its owner -> Evidence. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 14:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will the bot detect existing instances of {{di-no permission-notice}} to avoid duplicate notifications (e.g., if some human notifies first)? --slakr^\ talk / 00:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up. No, it does not. I see a few issues with this. First, it already checks for {{di-no permission}} on the file. It's unlikely that someone would notify the uploader and not tag the file. If you are referring to a scenario where someone notifies the uploader and tags the file a minute later, but is beaten by the bot, I find that unlikely because this bot doesn't run continuously, and people generally tag the file first. I've never seen someone notify first. Second, if it were to check for the notice, the bot would have trouble distinguishing notices for files that were previously deleted for no permission, but re-uploaded under the same name. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this probably shouldn't be a big concern, unless now that it is explained, Slakr still thinks otherwise? I am happy to move forward with a trial, barring objections — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. which should equate to 25 files + user talk, if I understand correctly — MusikAnimal ^talk 11:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me a courtesy ping and chance to review trial edits prior to approving the bot. I'd like to see how this one goes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Bot only made 20 edits on the first run, because only 10 files met the requirements to be tagged. The trial isn't over, but everything looks fine to me so far. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add an edit summary for the user talk notifications. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an edit summary for user talk notifications and the bot's run today performed 8 more edits. I checked each one and they looked fine. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6 more. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me so far. I think this can be approved (once we hit the 50 edit trial limit). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Last batch of edits pushed it to 50. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Approved. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.