Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 5

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.

FastilyBot 5[edit]

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

Time filed: 07:14, Monday, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: When I have written it

Function overview: Find files tagged with both a free and non-free license tag, and apply {{Wrong-license}} to the file description page.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 1-2k

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): yes

Function details: See above -FASTILY 07:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

This will probably mostly return false positives: photos of non-free sculptures both need a non-free copyright tag for the sculpture and a licence from the photographer. Unfortunately, there currently doesn't seem to be a way to tag such files so that they do not end up in both Category:All free media and Category:All non-free media. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it should be fairly trivial to exempt tags which might lead to false positives (e.g. {{Non-free 3D art}}) from the result set -FASTILY 11:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which tags would appear in that list? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an ignore list here; please feel free to add any other titles you can think of! -FASTILY 04:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of non-free 3D artworks often (but not always) use {{photo of art}} to indicate the two copyright tags, so I added that template to the list. I don't know if the current list is complete. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should files tagged as {{NFUR not needed}} also be ignored? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume so. Those files have been identified as free, but the fair use rationale needs to be converted to {{information}} and remains on the page since it provides some information of the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2 and Fastily: Do we feel that we can keep the false positive number low if we ran this through a small trial or two for adjusting the ignore list? If by the second one it's looking abysmal, we could just abort the idea. --slakr^\ talk / 03:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 278 files which appear in Category:All free media and Category:All non-free media and which do not have any of the tags in User:FastilyBot/Task5Ignore. I took 20 random files from that set and checked them.

These files should not appear in both categories, and the file information pages should be edited to remove them from one of the cats:

These files appear in both categories, but should not be tagged with {{wrong license}} by FastilyBot for one reason or another:

File:2 euro mo series1.gif - different copyright tags refer to different parts of the image
File:Internet Explorer 4.png - different copyright tags refer to different parts of the image
File:Opera 7.02.png - different copyright tags refer to different parts of the image
File:Netscape9.png - different copyright tags refer to different parts of the image
File:Peruvian Airlines White Logo.jpg - already has {{wrong license}}, no need to add a second one
File:Internet Explorer 8 InPrivate.png - different copyright tags refer to different parts of the image
File:Nintendo - 1950.png - different copyright tags refer to different countries

It looks as if the number of false positives will go down a lot of {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} is added to the list of exempted templates as it seems that many false positives are screenshots which show a non-free web browser and a Wikipedia page. I'll go through the first set of files in my list above and fix them. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. While I'm not too thrilled about the prospect of false positives, it looks like there's a belief it might be mitigated with proper whitelisting. I'd strongly recommend a dry run. --slakr^\ talk / 02:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll do a few dry runs and try to refine the rule set before actually making any edits. -FASTILY 23:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Have the trials been performed yet? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm doing a series of dry runs to refine the ignore list. Here is the current list of files that would be tagged by the bot if it were live. Anybody is welcome to help review the files and add templates to the ignore list -FASTILY 04:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [1]; fixed one false positive involving {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}}, which has since been added to the ignore list. -FASTILY 06:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the list. Most of the files indeed have problems. There are a lot of files like File:MarcOPoloLogo.png which have correctly been tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, but someone needs to convert {{logo fur}} and similar templates to {{Information}}. I converted some, but there are too many of them. Also, a number of clearly non-free files have a FUR but a free licence. It's maybe useful to add {{free screenshot}} and/or {{GPL}} to the list as software screenshots may show different things with different copyright status. See for example File:Compaadblocker.png and File:Deep note on Audacity.png. It's maybe also a good idea to leave out the deletion process (that is, {{deletable file}} and {{ffd}}) as the deletion tags probably already address the problems with the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me; I've added the suggested templates to the ignore list -FASTILY 04:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} If there are no other objections/comments, could this task please be approved? Thanks! -FASTILY 05:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinging Slakr and @Xaosflux: any chance one of you could review the BRFA? Thanks! :) -FASTILY 05:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: Sorry for the delay. (1) I'm assuming you've fix the missing line break on the tags (2) What I've been looking for is any editor to take any action based on your tagging, I haven't checked every page yet, but it doesn't look like this being followed up on by anyone. I don't see a link above, did anyone ask for this task to be done or are you the requester as well? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes, this is fixed. (2) Yes, I am the requester. This is simply a maintenance/categorization task, and not anything controversial; {{Wrong license}} does not imply impending deletion. Also I should note that the bot is de-facto exclusion compliant per the ignore list, as it will ignore pages transcluding {{Bots}} -FASTILY 04:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - everything looked fine on the trials, good to go. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:35, 17 May 2016 (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.