Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 12

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.

JJMC89 bot 12

Operator: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 05:46, Monday, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pending

Function overview: Enforce WP:NFCC#10c

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:Bot requests#Non-free image bot (permalink)

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Millions

Exclusion compliant: Yes

Already has a bot flag: Yes

Function details: For files in Category:Wikipedia non-free files (recursive):

For links via redirect to a page the file is being used on, replace redirect with the redirect's target.
- For links to be replaced, they must use WP:Wikilink syntax, or the title must be the value of |article=.
- Example: File:Arjun College Of Technology.jpg: Arjun College Of Technology → Arjun College of Technology
For pages using the file but the file lacks a fair use rationale as determined by the page title not being in the wikitext of the file's description page, comment out the file. (WP:NFCC#10c)
- This currently works for WP:File link syntax, <gallery>...</gallery>, and template parameter values.
- Example: JNTUH College of Engineering Manthani: | image_name = Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad cover.jpg → | image_name =

Discussion

If #1 isn't wanted, I will disable it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that you could also find these cases with SQL query (imagelinks table join with pagelinks table). Of course, it wouldn't work 100% perfectly, but it could ease the job. And redirect fixing (#1) would ease the query. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using links is that a link is not required for the FUR to be valid. Only the name of the article must be present. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that we had a bot doing this in the past, and it proved to be problematic because it's very easy for newbies to feel bitten and the operator at the time had trouble dealing with them appropriately. What sort of edit summaries will your bot use when removing images from articles? Will you watch for people adding {{nobots}} to exclude your bot instead of dealing with the issue? Are you prepared to deal politely and constructively with upset newbies who find their way to your or your bot's talk page, explaining the policy and either helping them resolve good-faith issues or helping them find people who will do so? PS: your function description seems to have left out saying what it will do in #2, although the example gives a good hint. Anomie ⚔ 12:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie: The current edit summary is [[WP:NFUR|Non-free use rationale]] missing for this page; see [[WP:NFCC#10c]]. Suggestions/improvements are welcome. I'm working on adding a userspace log of failures to save edits, which would include being stopped by {{bots}}. (If I don't get it working, I can still review my logs on Tool Labs.) Making the bot not be exclusion compliant is also an option if people feel that there is no need for it. I'll explain and help with what I can; however, I'm not a NFC expert, so anything out of my depth I'll refer to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (or any specific editors that wish to assist). Fixed – thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend adding an invitation to a discussion page (even just "Questions? [[Some appropriate page|Ask here]].") and/or replacing the link to WP:NFCC#10c with an essay (possibly in userspace) explaining in more detail what exactly is necessary and recommended. Checking your logs on Tool Labs for failures due to nobots is enough, IMO. Anomie ⚔ 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm normally rather sensitive to biting newbies, but I just want to note that this is one of the areas where we can't be too sensitive. Copyright violations represent very serious legal risks for the site, our editors, and anyone who re-uses our content. A very large percent of these will be outright copyright violations. The rest represent violations of a policy based on legal considerations, which is serious. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Strictly enforcing the policy" and "explaining the situation in a friendly manner" are not mutually exclusive. Anomie ⚔ 12:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie: I've updated the edit summary to [[WP:NFUR|Non-free use rationale]] missing for this page. See [[WP:NFCC#10c]]. Questions? [[WP:MCQ|Ask here]].. Depending on the questions asked, I may develop a userspace FAQ/essay to add to the edit summary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather there be an essay linked that explains the issue better than the terse WP:NFCC#10c. WP:NFC#Implementation is better but not quite perfect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can use that link for now. If anyone wants to write something up, they are welcome to do so. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Unless there other comments, I'd like to get a trial started. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how it works out.

Approved for trial (2 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's constrict this trial to 2 days - but not to exceed 600 edits please. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. ~600 edits Note from logs: The only failure to remove an image as intended was related to File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, which was added to {{Politics of Canada}}. Therefore, it could not be removed from each page it was used on, but it was removed from the template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Is there a need for further trials, or can this be approved? — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:10, 18 May 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.