Commons:Bots/Requests/BetacommandBot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

BetacommandBot

Operator: Betacommand

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Auto

Programming Language(s): Pywikipedia

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):continuous

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Y

Functions: Moving images to commons from en.wikipedia see w:en:User:Betacommand/Commons for the full details

Discussion

  • I moved this from the adminship section to the bot section. If you are requesting an admin flag for this bot please explain why. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It was added to the adminship section in this edit. I'd also like to know why.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Presumably Betacommand (talk · contribs) doesn't know how things get nominated and so forth, or did not follow directions, or did not understand them. Surely no malice was intended, but it does give a bit of pause. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • it was a error in placement, Im sorry (I thought I placed it in the bot section) this is my First BRFA on commons. Betacommand 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems like a good system, but it would be good to know more about the "trusted users" process. ie that the people are sensibly sceptical when interpreting copyright claims. If we find that an image transferred has a problem, will we be able to trace it back to the "trusted user" who OK'ed it? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) For example this one Image:(Bird Dream Sequence -4(72.003).jpg rings some alarm bells for me. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of trusted users on the list. I don't, myself, recall asking for trusted user status but I am on there and I'm not totally sure I trust my own judgement :) ... Per Pfctdayelise, unless there is a log that is referenced from the moved image somehow, or some other tracking mechanism, I suspect tracking down who OKed the move might be somewhat challenging. I agree that the example given seems like it might not have been the best move and would like to understand more about that particular image and its history, as a way to better understand the workings of the bot. Also, please discuss if there are other processes or bots that would be superceded by this (for example ToCommons???) Also, how responsive to questions and concerns will the bot owner be? ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
One, Im very responsive, To my knowledge this wouldn't superced any current process. and as for tracking Im planning on adding a line to each uploaded image. "transwiki to commons was approved by [[w:en:User:<USERNAME_OF_USER_HERE>]]" and as for the trusted list Im re-evaluating that now, By default I included all admins on en but since then I have changed my mind. that list will be chopped some more soon. Betacommand 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. What about the concerns raised by the example? ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I was a n00b, I was just randomly copying PD images. Ive since read up more. Betacommand 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Just for convenience, here is the link to the BRFA on enwiki. Sorry if it was already here, I just didn't notice it. TheFearow 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it might actually be here instead (did you check to see that the link was red before you saved? I always forget to do that! :) ) ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, on almost all other wikis wp: is the prefix, apparentally it isn't here. Anyway, just for clarification, the RfA in BRFA is a request for approval, not adminship. That may have caused some confusion. TheFearow 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No objections. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Same here. Betacommand knows what he is doing. ~ Wikihermit 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sure Betacommand does know what he is doing, but it's not him that is going to be the worry! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To BetaCommand: Note that this is not a request for approval. I'm not a bureaucrat, but I believe that you can already do some test runs without your flag. That will also give us something we can check. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Bryan that I would like to see a test run without the flag... and further I agree with Eugene's implication that perhaps we DON'T want this flagged, so that the images brought over get flagged in recent changes so we have a beter chance to catch un/miscategorised images and so forth. So yes, please do a test run for us and point at some of the results you think are significant. (we can hunt through contribs but knowing when to look helps) If the consensus is that the flag is not desireable, we can mark this request as "unobjected to" and not give the flag... ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment:
    1. Sometimes sections headers are unbalanced (see Image:1983 pontiac parisienne.jpg as example).
    2. Many images are without categories (see car images as example). So bot flag will only decrease their chances to be categorized.
    3. Could you please remove {{To Commons}} for description before transfer?
  • EugeneZelenko 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm I agree, this should probably run without flag. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we call this as soon as we've reviewed the test run, then. My read here is that no one has any serious objections to this bot running here, once the test run looks good, as long as Betacommand stays amenable to correcting issues identified. If the bot goes amok, we can block it till it is fixed. But we should NOT set the flag for this bot, for this set of tasks, because it's important that we see the changes in the change records, especially recent changes. If later BetaCommand wants to run other tasks that need a flag, I'd suggest he get a second ID and go through it for the other tasks. Is that a fair summation? Anyone have a pr0blem with this course of action? ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

whether or not this bot is flagged, I dont care. the reason I came here was to get bot approval. I have fixed the problem with unbalanced headings, and by default all images are uploaded and placed into Category:Images transwikied by BetacommandBot I also remove the move to commons templates (there are a few of them) I am also working on a few other minor tweaks. Like always suggestions are welcome. Betacommand 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WE do care whether it's flagged or not. As for approval, you did, in my view, the right thing to seek it, even if in the end a flag isn't needed, and it's looking good. Since there is apparently no need to have a flag granted, it's really just a consensus thing. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

that is the key reason that I did this, to get community approval. Betacommand 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumping all the images in Category:Images transwikied by BetacommandBot is REALLY not ideal. It would be better if the volunteers were requested to write what category/ies the image should be added to on Commons. Then BCBot could only use this maintenance category if none were suggested.

Secondly BCBot really should use the {{information}} template, or request the volunteers to use it. If CommonsHelper can do it, I'm sure BCBot can. Also the links should be converted a little more carefully. Edit summaries like this: <a href="/wiki/User:Arbor" title="User:Arbor">User:Arbor</a>) aren't great. [[plain links]] on Wikipedia should be converted to [[w:prefixed links]] here.

Thirdly what will be the process for contacting the enwp volunteers? Will Commons admins contact you, or contact the volunteers directly? For example I would like to see a source link for Image:Hemp farm.jpg. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This has been here in this state for a few days. How do we drive this to closure? Are the objections and concerns raised serious enough? Thoughts from Commonists? Betacommand, do you have any comments? I would like to see this resolved once we know what is what. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think categorization is most serious issue in this case. --EugeneZelenko 14:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The category the bot puts these images in is an orphan, just as a note. What sort of supercat should this cat go into? Same one as the flikr related categories? Also, once images have had categories added to make them useful (category:Volkswagen Beetle for an image of a green beetle for example) should they be REMOVED from this category or left? thoughts?++Lar: t/c 15:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I created the category as kinda a holding pen so that images could be reviewed and then removed once they are checked. As for contacting en users you can do it any way that you like either through me the transwiking user or the uploader. Betacommand 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This will not help too much. If image will appear in Recent changes it has more chances to be categorized. Could you make topic-related batches (car, animals, etc)? --EugeneZelenko 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created the category Category:Images transwikied by BetacommandBot then recategorized which is a subcategory of Category:Images transwikied by BetacommandBot. I am (using AWB as Larbot) moving images that one user recategorised there. If you know of other users that also recategorised I can do the same run... I suggest that others do the same as they review the category the bot placed them in... keeping it empty would be a goal. This should help, but I welcome comments. Note that ANY topic category is sufficient to trigger a move by my AWB rules so the images might not be in the RIGHT topic categories but they are in SOME anyway. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, the creation of this subcategory has not met with the adulation and universal acclaim I had hoped for... :) (see my talk page) Where should we discuss this further? My thinking is that the original category is sort of a slushpile, all the images in it are in need of categorization. But even if some intrepid volunteer does it, the images ought still to be tracked as having come over this way and as being suspect (if you don't believe me, go look at some and decide for yourself). Or maybe not... is one human passing through these enough? At this point it's no trouble at all to AWB this new category off the reviewed images and change the instructions. But once it's removed, going back, if that's decided, is a bit harder. Not impossible but a bit harder. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If the point of the category is to mark it as being transwikied by BetaCommand Bot, then it's a bad idea. Use Gallery. If the point of the gallery is to mark it as potentially needing descriptive categories, then it's still not a great idea, and at least use a category name that makes it clear that's the point. If the point of the category is to act as a "people should recheck this source", then it's not a great idea either. Having a system where we intentionally check things 6 times is not efficient. Instead we should expect the en.wp people to be diligent, and have them removed where they are found not to be. So I want to know, what is the point of the category? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any diligence by the en:wp people. The images arrive here and in just about every case, they have no useful categories at all brought along.. just a license category and that's it... NOTHING that would help the images actually get used. A volunteer (not anyone that had anything to do with bringing them here, just someone that I mentioned that the task needed doing, who took it on to be helpful) has been looking at them and adding additional categories. She's getting some well categorised, and some, not so well. I think additional eyes are helpful but maybe I'm wrong. The name of the category could be changed I guess... but right now we have a big slushpile of images brought over by this bot, and a smaller slushpile of images that at least have had some (but not a lot) of thinking about what categories they ought to go in. I don't think 6 checks are needed. but two would be better than one. This category says (or tries to say) one person looked. The second person could take the image out of the category. I'm open to other ideas and certainly am not wedded to the category name. But right now most of the images brought over by the bot seem pretty unlikely to get (found and) reused unless someone HERE categorises them. They certainly are not coming over with usable categories IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The bot appears to be quite active. The issue about using {{information}} has not yet been addressed. The issue about adding categories has also not been adressed. There are tools that can deliver the wanted output (being CommonsHelper with the use of CommonSense). I think it would be a good idea if BetaCommand would address these issues quickly. Using Template:BotMoveToCommons for images without categories would also be nice... All this functionality is in imagecopy.py, a pywikipediabot script, by the way... Cheers! Siebrand 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I do use commonsense to attempt to categorize images. I did not know about Template:BotMoveToCommons or I would have used it instead of a category. Users who want to manually add cats on en wiki can they just have to prefix the link with [[commons:Category:foo the bot will remove the the prefix and it will become a commons cat. Betacommand 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I would switch to using the template instead of the category going forward, I think. Also, how hard would it be to not move the image, but instead warn the person who approved the image that they need to categorise, if there is not at least one valid commons category present in the image? The person who approved the move presumably has some idea about categories... ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The bot has recently transferred some images with fair-use tags (thus immediately marking them for deletion). For example, Image:Winners Dont Use Drugs.png and Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg. The first one appears OK, so I've removed the speedy delete; but the second probably should be deleted. The images in question had PD as well as fair use tags, which may be what fooled the bot. It really should be more careful to prevent transfer of non-free images, or we'll have more problems as more people use it. --Davepape 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
those images are in fact free, but for some reason also had a fair use tag. Betacommand 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
How hard would it be to not move the image, but instead warn the person who approved the image that they need to correct the fair use tagging before the image can be moved? That would reduce some of this potential for deletion... ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
that could take some prodding but its do-able Ill have to pass the word around on en.wiki though. Betacommand 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
I have some serious concerns about Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg (which is not, in fact, free), how it came here via BetacommandBot, and how it persists here under the questionable judgement of Betacommand. I would like to invite all of you who have participated in the discussion of bot status for BetacommandBot to also participate in the discussion of Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the bot should take on board all license information on the en page and if there are any non-free tags should NOT upload. As the deletion request shows, that image is not appropriate for the Commons. It shouldn't be hard to code that kind of exception given the standard format of non-free templates now.--Nilfanion 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps the bot request with the most comments I've seen in a very long time. I'm not sure I see a clear consensus here. I think that thinking was that we would not flag it. Betacommand has been making significant changes in how things are done, functionality is now in place that requires that at least one (topical ??) category be present in the request to bring the image over. Are we satisified? How do we get this to closure? We should not let this drag on indefinitely... ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This bot *really, *really* has to start using {{information}} for moved images. Using CommonsHelper is de facto stardard for moving images and its output can be post-processed. The current way the bot is transferring images is against our best practices and in my opinion unwanted. Cheers! Siebrand 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no objections, believing that Betacommand will address the above issues. Cary Bass demandez 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    The issue of {{information}} has not been adressed, even though it was mentioned over a month ago (23/8 to be precise). The bot has uploaded 1000+ images since then, and new images continue to be uploaded. This is a big issue. Siebrand 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see {{information}} used. If I understand Siebrand, there are already bots that do this job, and allegedly do it better. So I think issues are here that need resolving. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Siebrand and Lar on this - new uploads need to use {{information}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Im working on that. Betacommand 10:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the bot should be uploading anything at all until that's resolved. There are other ways to get images to commons, after all. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Should be working now. Betacommand 13:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)