The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Id Like approval for running a ORFU (orphaned Fair Use) tagging bot. basicly to find unused images under Category:Fair use images and if they are un-used add {{ orfud}} Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems that he has a dry run going on toolserver. Its not editing, but I suppose we can take this as his sample. It looks like he is checking images out of some list or category. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

What template are you adding? ST47 Talk 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

If you don't want to use the standard form for approvals, then you still have to give us the required information. We need to know if it's automatic or manually assisted, what language it's in, the edit period, and the edit rate requested. Also, like ST47 said, what template will you be adding? {{ orfu}} doesn't exist. Also, how are you getting the data? You're using query.php, right? OK, done with the exhaustive list :-) — METS501 ( talk) 23:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Fixed the template link, edit period = as long as wikipedia has Orphaned Fair Use images, like all my bot request they are python (pywikipedia), and automatic once I know they are operating without error, same as all my previous tasks and for the edit limit it will be 10-15, per minute same as with all my tasks. I thought this was known all ready as this is only my 8^th bot request that you guys have handled. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, I'm not bag, but I'm sure Beta has this one down. I've seen the dry run demonstrated by the toolserver link above, there were no false hits. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. 100 edits. I'm sure that you've planned this already, but remember to subst {{ orfud}}. Mart inp23 10:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I've blocked the bot as concerns were raised that it was not correctly recognising {{ notorphan}} and variants. Also, the trail was over running by several hundred edits, which isn't really acceptable for a deletion tagging task, where false positives have the potential to cause significant damage. Mart inp23 15:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

False positive here and here although these are both links from talk space. Not sure if ignoring non main space links was intentional. Nardman1 15:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Likely intentional, fair use shouldn't be in Talk: namespace. ST47 Talk 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It looks like an "intentional false positive" - indeed, this is the bot's behaviour as designed, but those pages both show valid uses of fair use images (in an article). Could the bot ignore images used in subpages of the talk space, which contain {{ notorphan}} (or a variant)? If this isn't possible, I see no real problem in allowing the deleting admin to decide. If an image is only used in the non-mainspace, could the bot orphan all other uses (if only to bring false positives to peoples' attention before deletion)? Mart inp23 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The issue with FU images is they need to be used in the ns0. many people dont do that and add {{ notorphan}} and avoid the issue. as for the way the bot works it looks for ns0 use of the image if it doesnt find it, it tags it orfud. as for removing other links Eagle 101's Gnome bot is doing a task like that. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

id like another test run as I'm going to implement a new feature, check what links here, for mainspace usage of the image. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, do another trial, 100 edits. ST47 Talk 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Trial done 106 edits. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I checked the edits and they looked okay. I also talked through the operation of the bot with betacommand. The only room I see for mis-tagging is where the images was incorrectly tagged by someone else such as someone putting non-free templates on free images. There is no way to detect those, and orphan tagging is a time honored method for getting them fixed. :) -- Gmaxwell 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

[1] [2] [3] [4] Can you have it ensure that there isn't already a tag there :) ST47 Talk 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I asked Betacommand about this last night and he said he checks now. -- Gmaxwell 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah and im now adding a tag backup check for redundancy this should prevent further errors. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

 Approved. Mart inp23 16:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.