On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:30 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: That's not even vaguely what's happening. Your statement fails to match reality. Betacommandbot's runs are taking fair use images that don't have a currently valid fair-use justification, including justification for the specific page(s) it's used on, and tagging them as such. The normal process that follows removes those images if nobody fixes the lack of tags. Some images whose use falls under existing policy are being tagged because they don't have a currently compliant fair-use justification - this is an administrative issue, and one that Betacommandbot is not addressing. If someone doesn't notice and manually fix it then the image will get deleted even though its use was in fact policy compliant. A vast majority of the images so tagged aren't being used in compliant manners, though. It is not useful to throw up grossly false misrepresentations of what's going on when discussing this issue. I agree, as do a lot of others, that the current process for identifying and fixing images that are properly used but not properly tagged right now is inadequate. Some people have spent a lot of effort trying to follow Betacommandbot around and fix those things; I have intermittently tried, but the nature of how it's being run makes that difficult for me. But the accusation that anyone is trying to remove all fair use from the project is simply false. Betacommandbot does nothing to images with current, valid fair-use justifications. Individual editors and admins sometimes review such justifications and challenge those they feel are not policy compliant, but they are not doing so on a wholesale basis trying to rid the project of those images. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: If the image has a current fair-use justification including the page it's used on, then that would be a mistaken tagging, and you should flag that to Betacommand as an error and remove the tag. That rarely happens, but the vast majority of taggings are correct. If you see an image tagged that is used properly but not currently properly justified, add the justification properly and remove the tag. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote: The problem seems to be about bots that make decisions that should be made by humans. Ec

On 25/02/2008, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: I *believe* in practice admins aren't presently auto-deleting stuff with expired tags added by Betacommandbot (I could be wrong). But a smidgeon more process here would be helpful in people feeling better about the process. - d.

On 25/02/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: And inclined to taking the ridiculous quantities of vitriolic abuse heaped on anyone who moves in any way to remove the masses of blatant policy violations uploaded as "fair use." - d.

Johnleemk wrote: While what you say is true, I suspect we *do* have admins who are that trigger-happy. It's especially true, I figure, when you've got AWB all set up so that you can rapidly "review" and speedily perform a bunch of actions, but then, in the manner of a couch potato clicking the remote, you click one too many times, and sail right past something interesting.

On 25/02/2008, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think the main problem remains that people hate having their images taken away, and direct their ire at what is after all Foundation policy at the person who dares work toward it. c.f. the linked ANI comments page. - d.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Very true. But at the same time, a not-insignificant portion of complaints lie in perceivedly automated deletion - if not by BCB (which is incapable of deleting anything, IIRC), then by trigger-happy admins. Johnleemk

Steve Summit wrote: Remotes were a necessary invention motivated by the increasing proportion of programs that are dominated by advertising. :-) Ec

On 26/02/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I just put a note on the bot's talk page suggesting this. BTW, the bot's templates now add: "Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page." So it's telling people what they need to do next. - d.