BetacommandBot, (currently) centralized discussion

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] BetacommandBot,...

Status of cloak requests

Nathan

18 Feb 2008 18 Feb '08

5:23 p.m.

Interested folks should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Beta…ommand>. It is a hopefully centralized discussion aimed at finding a solution to the ongoing problems with Betacommand, BetacommandBot and image tagging. There is also some question about the "deadline" that is upcoming for removing non-free images, a question that could perhaps be directed to Foundation reps. That I think is at a different thread at WP:AN, since it doesn't directly relate to Betacommand. Nathan

Show replies by date

Tony Sidaway

22 Feb 22 Feb

5:48 a.m.

On 18/02/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Alex G

6:01 a.m.

I doubt it. Somehow, discussing with BC is a concept that went out of fashion when he started doing something useful. On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 18/02/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Interested folks should take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Beta… < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betaco…

. It is a hopefully centralized discussion aimed at finding a solution to

the

ongoing problems with Betacommand, BetacommandBot and image tagging.

There

is also some question about the "deadline" that is upcoming for

removing

non-free images, a question that could perhaps be directed to

Foundation

reps. That I think is at a different thread at WP:AN, since it doesn't directly relate to Betacommand.

I'm continually mystified by the antics of people who seem unable to understand that to communicate with Betacommand it is only necessary to place a message on his talk page. In this respect he is exactly like every other user on Wikipedia. I've proposed that the page thus be merged with betacommand's user talk page. Perhaps realizing that they're meant to discuss things *with* him might lessen the massive flood. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list)

23 Feb 23 Feb

8:47 p.m.

Maybe part of the problem is that half the time someone posts to his talk page it's a rant something along the lines of "WTF HOW CUD U DLETE MI PIX" I'm not saying he ignores anything put on his talk page, but he may experience negative emotions whenever he sees "you have new messages..." That means it's a little more difficult for him to AGF, no matter how hard he tries. That may be why he comes off as rude sometimes. And when he comes off as rude, people are discouraged from talking to him directly. So whenever there is a problem, everyone goes over his head at ANI etc. This makes him more upset, perpetuating the cycle. Yes, he does need to better control his emotions in the short run. In the long run, we either need to make an exception to WP:CIVIL, accept that he will eventually go crazy and leave us with no bot (of course someone could probably write a new one, restarting the cycle), or find a different approach to handling BCBot and its flood of complaints, such as a group managed method. On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Alex G <g1ggyman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I doubt it. Somehow, discussing with BC is a concept that went out of fashion when he started doing something useful. On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/02/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Interested folks should take a look at > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand>

...

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betaco…

. It is a hopefully centralized discussion aimed at finding a solution to

the

ongoing problems with Betacommand, BetacommandBot and image tagging.

There

is also some question about the "deadline" that is upcoming for

removing

non-free images, a question that could perhaps be directed to

Foundation

reps. That I think is at a different thread at WP:AN, since it doesn't directly relate to Betacommand.

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- Sincerely, [[User:Thinboy00]]

Ron Ritzman

25 Feb 25 Feb

2:21 a.m.

Perhaps scenarios like this are what are annoying people... In the early 2000's, somebody creates an article about the notable actress [[Francene Foo]] Somebody finds a publicity photo, ffoo.jpg, uploads it and links it. It gets deleted because the uploader forgets to give it a license. It's re-uploaded and properly tagged as fair use. It gets tagged for deletion because someone feels it can be replaced with a free image. It survives. On another part of enwp, it's decided that fair use images should have rationales. It's tagged again. A rationale is added. The rationale is disputed because someone else feels that someone somewhere must have a free image. It survives again. Another group of Vogons decide that fair use rationales should include the name of the article they're used in. Some bot comes along and flags it. The rationale is updated one day before deletion. After a discussion on [[talk:Francene_Foo]], it's decided that the article should be moved to [[Franny_Foo]] since she is better known by that nickname. The bot comes back and tags the article again. The rationale is once again updated to reflect the article's new name. Franny Foo then marries Billy Bar and starts to use the name "Franny Foo Bar" professionally. The article is then moved again. Here comes that frackin bot again. Lather rinse repeat. Someone then decided to use ffoo.jpg in [Angels with Pogo Sticks] which is a movie Franny starred in. Once again the bot tags the image. This is kind of an extreme scenario but I can now see why some are annoyed.

Nathan

3:22 a.m.

Sure, but what would you suggest as an alternative Ron? Would you prefer that the policy be unchangeable, so that project content can never be forced to conform to changed/improved/new policies? There is a whole world of content out there that violates some policy or other, and in many cases it predates the policy - advocating grandfathering policy-violating content would seem to be the wrong way forward. So I admit its irritating, but there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. If you'd prefer that the policy went back to its original form, that is I suppose a valid opinion that simply lacks consensus or approval from WMF. Nathan

Matthew Brown

4:33 a.m.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

So I admit its irritating, but there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. If you'd prefer that the policy went back to its original form, that is I suppose a valid opinion that simply lacks consensus or approval from WMF.

I'd prefer a practise that tries to preserve rather than delete in cases where the image was policy-compliant when uploaded, and is only not standards-compliant right now on technicalities. -Matt

George Herbert

8:36 a.m.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So I admit its irritating, but there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. If you'd prefer that the policy went back to its original

form,

that is I suppose a valid opinion that simply lacks consensus or

approval

from WMF.

I'd prefer a practise that tries to preserve rather than delete in cases where the image was policy-compliant when uploaded, and is only not standards-compliant right now on technicalities. -Matt

Which, we probably can't code into a bot. Perhaps... shift the operational policy, have the bot tag not result in auto deletion 7 (or n) days later, but require a manual review to shift it into an auto-delete n days later category? Eventually someone will have to deal with the ones that nobody fixes, but requiring a human being to pull the trigger on "this isn't used per policy" would be useful. Perhaps an automated tool that would let people shuffle articles from bot-tagged to either "Policy compliant but needs rework on justification" or "Not policy compliant" categories. Out of curiosity, is there a macro that expands to "What links here" ? If that were part of the bot tag, that would make the job of people looking at the tag to reclassify it much easier... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Sherool

7:29 p.m.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:36:20 +0100, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip>

...

Perhaps... shift the operational policy, have the bot tag not result in auto deletion 7 (or n) days later, but require a manual review to shift it into an auto-delete n days later category?

A lot of people seems to be confused on this point. Let's clearify: There is no such thing as automatic deletion categories. Yes there have been a couple of icolated incidents where an admin have gotten a bit carried away and used a script of some kind to delete everyting in such a category without first reviewing the contents, but that's *NOT* policy, that's misuse (or at least irresponsable use) of admin powers. What often does happen is that someone will review a tonne of images over the course of a couple of hours/days and then when only "bad" images remain in the category use a tool or script to delete them with one click. It might be hard to tell the difference by just looking at the deletion log, but it's a very importnat distinction. Bottom line is automatic deletion of images should not be happening and if it does the problem lies with the admin carrying out the deletion, not the fact that the tags placed on the images say that they may be deleted after a scertain deadline if they don't comply with policy. Humans *are* supposed to review them first to make sure they do not in fact comply with policy (and hopefully fix the ones that can be trivialy made to comply with policy as well). These humans can and do naturaly screw up and make mistakes from time to time, but remember it's always possible to undelete images later if the reason for deleting them are found to be lacking. <snip> -- [[:en:User:Sherool]]

geni

6:47 p.m.

On 25/02/2008, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'd prefer a practise that tries to preserve rather than delete in cases where the image was policy-compliant when uploaded, and is only not standards-compliant right now on technicalities.

We did that. Current policy has been pretty much unchanged since November 2005. I feel giving people well over 2 years to fix such issues satisfies the above. -- geni

5905

days inactive

5912

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

9 participants

tags (0)

participants (9)

Alex G
geni
George Herbert
Matthew Brown
Nathan
Ron Ritzman
Sherool
Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list)
Tony Sidaway