Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ORFUbot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

CAT:ORFU bot[edit]

Not exactly a request, since the bot does not exist yet, but I've done some research with pywikipedia and think I could do it with relative ease. The idea is as follows: There seems to be a monstrous and barely (if at all!) manageable backlog on CAT:ORFU. Hundreds of images are littering the categories, day after day, and I really feel sorry for those who have to shovel this crap. How about automating this process with a bot? Per Wikipedia:CSD#I5, we can speedy these after 7 days. Thus, a proposed modus operandi for the bot would be:

  • Check out the 7-day-old category.
  • For each image, check if it's still unused.
    • If no, remove the ORFU tag.
    • If yes, delete the image.
    • If used only in User: space, report it somewhere, since a human has to decide whether it is
      • used in an article in user's workshop (so it's valid for now) or
      • wrongly used on userpage (in which case it should be removed and killed).

Yes, you gather correctly. I'd request sysop privileges for the bot. Now I know admin bots are frown upon, but why not put people's effort into something more productive than cleaning up CAT:ORFU (which seems to have a fortnight backlog now)? Obviously, the algorithm could be adjusted as necessary to avoid damage done by deleting wrong images. Any thoughts on this idea before I start some real coding? Misza13 T C 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the controversy surrounding OrphanBot which amoungst other things removes images from pages where the fair use claim is missing/disputed and is know to do so in instances where an image has merely been tagged wrongly (not a bot fault IMO) and automated deletion would I'm sure receive a huge amount of resistance from the community at large. I do not believe this is an issue that we can decide here. --pgk(talk) 21:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally object to bots running with sysop flags, and specifically object to bots deleting content (i.e. I would be less obecjting of a sysop bot unprotecting articles and/or unblocking users). — xaosflux Talk 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the bot screws up, and suddenly starts deleting images, we won't be able to recover them. I'd also oppose a bot with sysop privileges. alphaChimp laudare 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image undeletion is now possible, but it is a much harder reversal then say, reverting an edit, and it does require another sysop to do. — xaosflux Talk 01:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To address some concerns... The algorithm above is just about the same any human admin would use. Let's stress this again - the bot would delete an image if and only if both of the following conditions were true:

  1. Image is not used (in neither namespace)
  2. Image has been tagged (and the tag warns about the deletion quite explicitly) for a week

The period could be extended, but even at one week it's higly unlikely that an image that shouldn't be deleted was missed before the deadline. And even should this rare case occur, Xaosflux is right - we can undelete an image. The whole idea is to spare a few hundred mindless clicks each day. As of bot control, I understand that being blocked does not stop from deleting pages, but the bot could as well have a (protected) subpage, where admins could place on/off/shutdown tags and the bot would check it out before each deletion. Pgk suggested another forum. I guess you meant the Village Pump. Which section you think would be most appropriate? (This is more an idea of an effective policy enforcement rather than an innovative proposal.) Misza13 T C 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals section of the village pump is a possible. However I would suggest if you are currently deleting images as a mindless click then there is quite possibly an issue there. As I noted above OrphanBot has been criticised for certain circumstances where a rationale is given but perhaps not "properly" formatted, it then goes to remove the image from the pages it is on and tags the image. A human should be able to see that the claim of no rationale is false. --pgk(talk) 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A pointer to any discussion on VP concerning this could also be posted on Wikipedia:AN --pgk(talk) 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a VP thread here. Misza13 T C 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of only two instances of "admin bots", Curps and Cyde -- not Curpsbot and Cydebot, please note. As far as I know, everything they do is reversible, unlike image deletions, as Alpha observes. Having a separate admin bot would require both approval here, and a successful RFA (which I honestly think would be unlikely to succeed, and IIRC has failed in the past). If there's a way to assist in, or semi-automate the process, that sounds like a good idea, but making it operate with no human in the loop at all I'd be very cautious about. Alai 23:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're applying for a bot with sysop permissions, request it at Wikipedia:RFA first, not here. It is technically feasible, but I doubt this will be accepted by the community, so thread with caution. Titoxd(?!?) 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said on the village pump, what prevents someone from putting a fake old-dated ORFUD tag, quickly removing the image from an article (particular ones less-watched), and having an adminbot delete the image? That is, what prevents me from putting {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced|month=August|day=1|year=2006}} (Today's the 10th btw). Oh look, its a free speedy on an image that will get reviewed by noone if I can get it out of articles in time. Speedy delete should not be preformed without human intervention at some level. Kevin_b_er 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you suggested there as well, the time of the tag's addition should be checked. I don't see why the bot couldn't do that by itself. Misza13 T C 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not orphaned fair use because that needs human intervention, but you can start at other non-controversial deletions, such as expired prods and images tagged with {{subst:nld}} and {{subst:nsd}}. I don't think they need any human intervention whatsoever. MER-C 10:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No source isn't a good idea either, because people could add sources after being warned about it but not remove the tag. Kevin_b_er 05:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to my expectations, the proposal has gathered almost no attention outside here and the only opinion out there was negative. Since the backlog on the category seems to be handled as of now and also because most people seem to be overly paranoid towards sysop bots, I am withdrawing the request. Misza13 T C 19:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN BY SUBMITTER
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ORFUbot&oldid=1138382342"