This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I've opened a discussion concerning whether it really is a good idea to have this task around. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am requesting to reopen the BRFA for Snaevar-bot. As an answer to Hellknow´s question, my bot is a manual one and uses the -async parameter, running in the main article space. Finally, the Request needs to be changed so it reflects that the bot currently runs from nn.wiki, but not is.wiki.-- Snaevar ( talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of my request for review at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6 has stalled with nothing added after my post on 11 May. What now? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
An issue was brought up at TTObot BRFA, which I have myself wondered about. Basically, quoting: "The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion." So why are we not transcluding BRFAs post-trial? Without gathering empirical statistics, I would think this is when the most comments and feedback would occur. I understand the main concern here is page size and loading times. But I don't think this has stopped other noticeboards. After all, low participation is one of BRFAs major problems. Lately, there are not as many open BRFAs and the ones under prolonged marination need to be closed anyway. So I propose we transclude at least "trial complete" BRFA discussions and possibly "in trial" ones. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 15:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to be bold and do it, since there are no objections for almost 2 weeks. We only have 11 BRFAS right now, so it won't bloat the page that much. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 15:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I had previously discussed this with DASHBot's operator User:Tim1357 last month [2] but have not received an adequate reply. I also mentioned this issue at WikiProject Album where it was suggested I come here.
The bot's Approval states that it should be reducing the image width to 325 px. However, the bot's last run on 5th September 2011 [3] confirms that the bot is not functioning correctly. memphisto 14:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked Lightbot for deployment of unapproved functionality — replacement of already manually converted units with calls to the {{ convert}} template — behind misleading edit summaries. Last five edits: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
Headbomb is insisting that he approved this functionality, and seems unperturbed by his inability to point to any record of relevant requests, discussion, consensus and approval. Unless one credits that Headbomb would twist the truth to defend a friend, one can only conclude that Headbomb has taken to unilaterally approving bot functionality behind the scenes without community disclosure or input. Either way, Headbomb is the wrong BAG member to be acting on this. I am asking for other BAG members to step in and get this back on track.
Discussion is at User talk:Lightmouse#Dynamic conversion deemed bug. and User talk:Lightbot#Messages.
Hesperian 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
<shrug> You can see why I am asking for a fair-minded BAG member with a modicum of decorum to pick this up. The facts of the matter are
Hesperian 12:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I enjoy writing in python and also enjoy editing wikipedia and it's natural to want to bring those two things together - quick question first about the bot approval process - does is apply to all bots, or just ones that make edits? For example if I, to explore how the api works, write a python script that, once a day, checks a list of pages (a 'super' watchlist) and then emails me if they've changed - would that count as a bot that needed approval and its own account, or would that be a seperate thing? Failedwizard ( talk) 13:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
So I had a somewhat philosophical question about bots, and bot approvals. I've currently using AWB to diffuse a few of the Magic: The Gathering set categories. Since I still have a flagged bot account with AWB access that is currently dormant it came to my mind that I could just let my bot do it, however I was hesitant without approval. It seems overly bureaucratic to put in a request for ~99 edits, but at the same time I see the side that we can't just have bots running wild. I think what I'm trying to get at is that maybe there should be some kind of exemption for small scale (<100 edits) but repetitive tasks, being handled by an experienced editor and with presumed consensus, can be run on flagged accounts without formal approval. Thoughts? Crazynas t 22:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Recently I denied Snotbot 8, on the basis of a lack of consensus for the task to run at this time. Snottywong has requested that I reconsider my decision, and as such I would like some input from BAG/the bot community. Primarily my decision was based on this discussion which would indicate to me, that those at WikiProject Articles for creation, don't particularly support this bot ("I really don't like the idea of bots declining submissions, even if only for "quick-fail" criteria." User:The Earwig). As well as this, I don't think the discussion in the BRFA adequately addressed the concerns raised by the IP address. I don't think any benefit would have come from keeping the BRFA open or having another trial. In this case, I felt that the consensus was not very clear, and as such the BRFA was not the correct place to continue the discussion. Particularly regarding the WP:BITE concerns raised, I feel that it needed wider community input and discussion such as the village pump. Any thoughts from others, am I being too harsh/conservative? -- Chris 02:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6#AfC bot discussion seem to show that there is a level of support for the task, and as such I have reopened the BRFA. I will leave it to another BAG member to decide what needs to be done next. The other point however, regarding the trial, is perfectly valid and I think reflects a flaw in BAGs current design/operations. It stems from the fact that generally speaking members of BAG make decisions based on their own judgment, and there is little discussion between BAG members regarding decisions (apart from occasionally on the IRC channel). In most cases this is fine, however in cases like this, where judgment may differ, BAG members' decisions can obviously come into conflict or contradict each other. I think it might be an idea, to look into possibly implementing some BAG guidelines, to avoid conflicts like this in the future (the guidelines could also help for setting out some other unwritten rules among BAG, such as when to speedy approve a request). -- Chris 11:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Can a BAG member please review this task and approve it for trial? Thanks. — Ganeshk ( talk) 01:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been using Wiki.java to do small scale automated tasks a few times before. Now, for the cleanup of WP:IEP, I may need to do some minor edits to a large amount of pages (~500 each time). These edits will mainly involve tagging and untagging pages. I do use a throttle (5 seconds per edit), even though I have the noratelimit userright (from the acctcreator usergroup). When I used to do small scale edits, I used to check every edit, but now it may not be possible. I'm basically posting here to:
Thanks, ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I just saw an image tagged for non-free reduce via this task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9 that was just approved today. While the general idea of a bot to tag images larger than a certain size is a good idea, there was no notification at WT:NFC where in the past we have been rather against using automated bot tools to tag images (once tagged, reduction by bot is ok as per DASHBot 9, however). While the rational for the bot task is sensible, the problem is that there are legitimate cases to use images larger than the 160k-ish limit the bot suggests; even a non-free image at 1 megapixels could be potentially legitimate under NFCC#3a, and a bot will not know that.
I do note that Sven (who supported the bot) did bring to WT:NFC a discussion about aligning the appropriate image size to 160k per DASHBot (see [14]) but this was not in light of this tagging bot. Again, as in this discussion, our past consensus on NFC is not to have bots attempting to maintain image size.
I would recommend that the bot task be put on hold until we can resolve this with NFC policy. We do not want another BetaCommand situation coming about again, and while we're not talking about deletion of images, this needs a few additional things, such as either a flag to prevent the bot from tagging images with a specific oversized template, or having a warning about how to prevent the image from being resized, etc. -- MASEM ( t) 06:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be useful if the bot linked directly to the "Image resolution" section of WP:NFC. Colin° Talk 09:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this bot as currently implemented is a good idea, assuming that people are aware that it's OK to undo a tagging when the bot makes an inevitable bad guess, like here (and that was only a bad guess because bots have no way of parsing a deletion discussion that came to the conclusion that the existing image size was OK.) I saw a few other images I watch tagged, and the tags were all correct. I've got no reason to presume either Fastily or the bot will edit-war over these tags. 28bytes ( talk) 20:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If the point is to generate a worklist for editor review, having the bot generate a page (like User:Fbot 9/nonfree images for possible reduction) with file links, pixel size, and links of articles that use the file would be less obtrusive than tagging the image file. postdlf ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me make it clear after thinking about this: there are two issues at play.
The fixed limit of 160k does not work for all types of images. CD cover art is about 5 by 5 inches; an 80 dpi image is 400 by 400 pixels or 160k. Magazines may be 8 by 11 inches; a 45 dpi image is 360 x 495 or 178k. The bots assume that an 80 dpi CD cover is OK but a 50 dpi magazine is verboten. The image must be large enough to see the information that the "non-free use rationale" justifies. When the bot runs on the Non-free content page it will tag an allowed example image that has been there for over 5 years. The Bill Ripken baseball card is 384 by 534 pixels or 205k. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll be blunt: I think you're all terribly wrong about what does and does not deserve to be exempt from resizing. I see a good deal of bad arguments, and bad examples of files that shouldn't be reduced, both here and on Fastily's talk page. I also think that people here want to have things both ways in that they want to keep the official standard for non-free images at 100,000 pixels, but that things slightly over 160,000 shouldn't be a problem. Pick a standard and stick with it please. I personally advocate for the 160,000 standard, but that didn't get much love above.
Additionally, I think that the concern about two bots and zero humans having input is incorrect; an admin does have to check over the resize before performing the revdel. Let's be honest here too, the only admins that would be doing this are the dozen or so that work in file related admin tasks, so they know what they're doing.
That being said, and assuming Fastily says yes, I think that I'd be okay with modifying the task so that Fbot instead of tagging them lists them in a category for manual review. I'll warn you in advance that very few people actually care about this (or files at all) enough to clear that category, and I'm one of them, so chances are a lot of things will still get resized; at the same time though, I do ever so much better reductions than the bot, because I crop out borders, blank space, etc., and also use a much less lossy compression algorithm and a higher dpi (96 vs 72) than DASHbot does.
Do note that I'm saying this with gritted teeth, because it's going to translate into dozens or hundreds of hours of my time to fix this. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This image was originally uploaded at a larger size, but has since been shrunk in accordance with the
non-free content criteria. While in most cases the image should be kept at this reduced size, if there is a compelling reason to do so, it is possible for administrators to retrieve the original image. Requests for restoration should only be made or honored if the file was marked as non-free erroneously, is undeniably unusable in its current size, or if consensus has formed for the restoration. |
This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law. According to Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible. In particular, non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work. A high-resolution non-free image is questionable fair use and may be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright policy.The size of an image may be reduced in an image editing program or by saving and re-uploading a suitably sized thumbnail. Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with {-{Non-free reduced|17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)}-}.
This non-free media file has been tagged as unnecessarily large it will be automatically reduced in size to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law. According to Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible. In particular, non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work. A high-resolution non-free image is questionable fair use and may be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright policy. Currently files lager than 160 000 pixels (405x405) will be adjusted downwards.The size of an image may be reduced in an image editing program or by saving and re-uploading a suitably sized thumbnail, or by ignoring this message and allowing a remote program (bot)called DASHBot 9 to do the task. In rare cases tag the image {-{bot|Rbot=ignor}-}or {-{Rbot|stop|For manual attention|The specific reason such as: avoiding moiré patterns}-} Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with {-{Non-free reduced|17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)}-}.
Here's my two bits; I know almost everyone's aware of the background info I'll include here, but bear with me.
I just wish to note here, that I think that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DPL bot 2 was rushed through too quickly, without time for appropriate checking and evaluation.
I know that some brief testing was done, and it does indeed show some were fixed. What it cannot do though, is show how many people were irritated by alerts over something that is, frankly, fairly trivial.
There were many points raised in an earlier discussion, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Update and Request for Comment - User dablink notification. I have a feeling that these notifications will irritate quite a large number of users; I think we should be cautious. A single added disambig link isn't a problem - I realise the notes are supposed to be friendly, but I don't think they're particularly clear - and a message of this type from a bot will look like some kind of 'warning' regardless of the intent. Chzz ► 06:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"Trivial" I also have to object to this. Anything that degrades the user experience is a problem, and should be fixed. Even something as simple as clicking a wikilink to British and getting a disambig instead of an article about British people is a negative user experience. But even more importantly, it often isn't obvious which article the author intended, which is indeed serious, because then a reader hits a dead end in their navigation. If we can get the author to let us know what they meant while they're still around, the article benefits. Also, by asking willing editors to clean up dablinks they were simply unaware of, that frees up resources on the DPL project to tackle the truly difficult dablinks instead of fixing a hundred links to British. (There are still over 650,000 links to disambiguation pages to fix.)
"Some were fixed" I'd say raising a 10% fix rate for the control group to 60% for the messaged group is a phenomenal result!
The message Regarding the message, I'm happy to make any changes. I wanted to make it as short as possible, not feel pushy, and give a quick explanation of what a disambig is. I would welcome any help in making it more coherent.
Irritation to users In the original brfa, I explained why I think the messages would be more irritating to Maintainers than Content Creators. Accordingly, I've done what I can to avoid messaging Maintainers, and have made DPL bot exclusion compliant.
Not knowing how many were irritated I doubt that. Wikipedians are not very good at dishing out praise, but if you upset them, you can bet you'll hear about it! The response has been very mild so far. I am worried about filling people's talk pages up with messages, though. I want to strike while the iron's hot, and ask the user for help while the work is fresh in their memory, but I don't want to make people feel harassed. There's always opt-out, of course, and I'm open to suggestions. -- JaGa talk 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Templating the regulars This isn't a warning template, and new editors are excluded, so I'm not sure that essay really applies. I'd hate to throw out this opportunity for fear of antagonizing some editors who can simply opt out of the messages. I see your point though, and agree we need to tread carefully.
Dangerous precedent MOS mistakes are different in that they don't block the user from gaining knowledge. In the brfa, I used an example of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, which has linked to Magnetic resonance since February 15. Now, imagine a user is reading about these lectures, and wanting to learn more about this thing called magnetic resonance (very possible, these lectures were intended to introduce non-physics majors to physics). The user clicks the link, and what happens? They get a "Did you mean..." page! Well, heck, they aren't going to know. They'll be confused, and probably drop that line of inquiry. So this isn't just a "pet peeve" issue. It's an attempt to make the information we offer to the public as complete and accessible as possible. -- JaGa talk 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I'm not going to run the bot while this discussion is going on. -- JaGa talk 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, here's the new features (you can see samples at User:JaGa/Sandbox):
-- JaGa talk 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The User:DPL bot DPL bot was used at Captain Bill Bellamy MC and although it did what it was supposed to (largely) it also replaced every [] and . with # leaving the article in rather a mess. I suggest this bot be examined again. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the situation is unclear with respect to the growing number of situations where non-bot editors are instructed to seek BAG approval for large-scale tasks; see WP:MASSCREATION and now possibly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop#Large scale editing prohibited except under conditions.
I don't think too much needs to change, though. We'd want a different version of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InputInit that didn't ask for "Operator", "Exclusion compliant", or "Already has a bot flag", and asks "Manual or Script-assisted" and for programming language/source code "if script-assisted". Then we'd want a new version of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Instructions for bot operators. Would we want new categories too, instead of Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval and such? What should they be called? And then, of course, I'd have to update AnomieBOT.
Any other thoughts? Anomie ⚔ 20:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This brfa created a bit of a problem, mainly because the bot had messed up a lot of edits in a 5000 edit trial, and there was a bit of a dispute over the need of nuking the edits.
I feel that all this could have been avoided if the bot had worked on a mirror wiki, containing the pages from the affected category. I propose that we make this an optional process to limit collateral damage from bot tests. There are three different ways i can think of doing this:
For a bot op, implementing these changes isn't too much work; all you have to do is encapsulate your edit and login methods, and have it edit the relevant wiki depending on some flag.
I doubt that it will be too much trouble for the wmf to set up the test wikis (I don't know about this, though), and cleaning up after a trial isn't that hard.
Note that all of this should be optional for the bot op, it's mainly a way for the bot op to run a trial without having to worry about collateral damage.
Just wanted to put this idea out there, make of it what you will!
ManishEarth
Talk •
Stalk 05:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I've opened a discussion concerning whether it really is a good idea to have this task around. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am requesting to reopen the BRFA for Snaevar-bot. As an answer to Hellknow´s question, my bot is a manual one and uses the -async parameter, running in the main article space. Finally, the Request needs to be changed so it reflects that the bot currently runs from nn.wiki, but not is.wiki.-- Snaevar ( talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of my request for review at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6 has stalled with nothing added after my post on 11 May. What now? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
An issue was brought up at TTObot BRFA, which I have myself wondered about. Basically, quoting: "The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion." So why are we not transcluding BRFAs post-trial? Without gathering empirical statistics, I would think this is when the most comments and feedback would occur. I understand the main concern here is page size and loading times. But I don't think this has stopped other noticeboards. After all, low participation is one of BRFAs major problems. Lately, there are not as many open BRFAs and the ones under prolonged marination need to be closed anyway. So I propose we transclude at least "trial complete" BRFA discussions and possibly "in trial" ones. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 15:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to be bold and do it, since there are no objections for almost 2 weeks. We only have 11 BRFAS right now, so it won't bloat the page that much. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 15:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I had previously discussed this with DASHBot's operator User:Tim1357 last month [2] but have not received an adequate reply. I also mentioned this issue at WikiProject Album where it was suggested I come here.
The bot's Approval states that it should be reducing the image width to 325 px. However, the bot's last run on 5th September 2011 [3] confirms that the bot is not functioning correctly. memphisto 14:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked Lightbot for deployment of unapproved functionality — replacement of already manually converted units with calls to the {{ convert}} template — behind misleading edit summaries. Last five edits: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
Headbomb is insisting that he approved this functionality, and seems unperturbed by his inability to point to any record of relevant requests, discussion, consensus and approval. Unless one credits that Headbomb would twist the truth to defend a friend, one can only conclude that Headbomb has taken to unilaterally approving bot functionality behind the scenes without community disclosure or input. Either way, Headbomb is the wrong BAG member to be acting on this. I am asking for other BAG members to step in and get this back on track.
Discussion is at User talk:Lightmouse#Dynamic conversion deemed bug. and User talk:Lightbot#Messages.
Hesperian 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
<shrug> You can see why I am asking for a fair-minded BAG member with a modicum of decorum to pick this up. The facts of the matter are
Hesperian 12:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I enjoy writing in python and also enjoy editing wikipedia and it's natural to want to bring those two things together - quick question first about the bot approval process - does is apply to all bots, or just ones that make edits? For example if I, to explore how the api works, write a python script that, once a day, checks a list of pages (a 'super' watchlist) and then emails me if they've changed - would that count as a bot that needed approval and its own account, or would that be a seperate thing? Failedwizard ( talk) 13:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
So I had a somewhat philosophical question about bots, and bot approvals. I've currently using AWB to diffuse a few of the Magic: The Gathering set categories. Since I still have a flagged bot account with AWB access that is currently dormant it came to my mind that I could just let my bot do it, however I was hesitant without approval. It seems overly bureaucratic to put in a request for ~99 edits, but at the same time I see the side that we can't just have bots running wild. I think what I'm trying to get at is that maybe there should be some kind of exemption for small scale (<100 edits) but repetitive tasks, being handled by an experienced editor and with presumed consensus, can be run on flagged accounts without formal approval. Thoughts? Crazynas t 22:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Recently I denied Snotbot 8, on the basis of a lack of consensus for the task to run at this time. Snottywong has requested that I reconsider my decision, and as such I would like some input from BAG/the bot community. Primarily my decision was based on this discussion which would indicate to me, that those at WikiProject Articles for creation, don't particularly support this bot ("I really don't like the idea of bots declining submissions, even if only for "quick-fail" criteria." User:The Earwig). As well as this, I don't think the discussion in the BRFA adequately addressed the concerns raised by the IP address. I don't think any benefit would have come from keeping the BRFA open or having another trial. In this case, I felt that the consensus was not very clear, and as such the BRFA was not the correct place to continue the discussion. Particularly regarding the WP:BITE concerns raised, I feel that it needed wider community input and discussion such as the village pump. Any thoughts from others, am I being too harsh/conservative? -- Chris 02:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6#AfC bot discussion seem to show that there is a level of support for the task, and as such I have reopened the BRFA. I will leave it to another BAG member to decide what needs to be done next. The other point however, regarding the trial, is perfectly valid and I think reflects a flaw in BAGs current design/operations. It stems from the fact that generally speaking members of BAG make decisions based on their own judgment, and there is little discussion between BAG members regarding decisions (apart from occasionally on the IRC channel). In most cases this is fine, however in cases like this, where judgment may differ, BAG members' decisions can obviously come into conflict or contradict each other. I think it might be an idea, to look into possibly implementing some BAG guidelines, to avoid conflicts like this in the future (the guidelines could also help for setting out some other unwritten rules among BAG, such as when to speedy approve a request). -- Chris 11:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Can a BAG member please review this task and approve it for trial? Thanks. — Ganeshk ( talk) 01:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been using Wiki.java to do small scale automated tasks a few times before. Now, for the cleanup of WP:IEP, I may need to do some minor edits to a large amount of pages (~500 each time). These edits will mainly involve tagging and untagging pages. I do use a throttle (5 seconds per edit), even though I have the noratelimit userright (from the acctcreator usergroup). When I used to do small scale edits, I used to check every edit, but now it may not be possible. I'm basically posting here to:
Thanks, ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I just saw an image tagged for non-free reduce via this task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9 that was just approved today. While the general idea of a bot to tag images larger than a certain size is a good idea, there was no notification at WT:NFC where in the past we have been rather against using automated bot tools to tag images (once tagged, reduction by bot is ok as per DASHBot 9, however). While the rational for the bot task is sensible, the problem is that there are legitimate cases to use images larger than the 160k-ish limit the bot suggests; even a non-free image at 1 megapixels could be potentially legitimate under NFCC#3a, and a bot will not know that.
I do note that Sven (who supported the bot) did bring to WT:NFC a discussion about aligning the appropriate image size to 160k per DASHBot (see [14]) but this was not in light of this tagging bot. Again, as in this discussion, our past consensus on NFC is not to have bots attempting to maintain image size.
I would recommend that the bot task be put on hold until we can resolve this with NFC policy. We do not want another BetaCommand situation coming about again, and while we're not talking about deletion of images, this needs a few additional things, such as either a flag to prevent the bot from tagging images with a specific oversized template, or having a warning about how to prevent the image from being resized, etc. -- MASEM ( t) 06:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be useful if the bot linked directly to the "Image resolution" section of WP:NFC. Colin° Talk 09:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this bot as currently implemented is a good idea, assuming that people are aware that it's OK to undo a tagging when the bot makes an inevitable bad guess, like here (and that was only a bad guess because bots have no way of parsing a deletion discussion that came to the conclusion that the existing image size was OK.) I saw a few other images I watch tagged, and the tags were all correct. I've got no reason to presume either Fastily or the bot will edit-war over these tags. 28bytes ( talk) 20:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If the point is to generate a worklist for editor review, having the bot generate a page (like User:Fbot 9/nonfree images for possible reduction) with file links, pixel size, and links of articles that use the file would be less obtrusive than tagging the image file. postdlf ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me make it clear after thinking about this: there are two issues at play.
The fixed limit of 160k does not work for all types of images. CD cover art is about 5 by 5 inches; an 80 dpi image is 400 by 400 pixels or 160k. Magazines may be 8 by 11 inches; a 45 dpi image is 360 x 495 or 178k. The bots assume that an 80 dpi CD cover is OK but a 50 dpi magazine is verboten. The image must be large enough to see the information that the "non-free use rationale" justifies. When the bot runs on the Non-free content page it will tag an allowed example image that has been there for over 5 years. The Bill Ripken baseball card is 384 by 534 pixels or 205k. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll be blunt: I think you're all terribly wrong about what does and does not deserve to be exempt from resizing. I see a good deal of bad arguments, and bad examples of files that shouldn't be reduced, both here and on Fastily's talk page. I also think that people here want to have things both ways in that they want to keep the official standard for non-free images at 100,000 pixels, but that things slightly over 160,000 shouldn't be a problem. Pick a standard and stick with it please. I personally advocate for the 160,000 standard, but that didn't get much love above.
Additionally, I think that the concern about two bots and zero humans having input is incorrect; an admin does have to check over the resize before performing the revdel. Let's be honest here too, the only admins that would be doing this are the dozen or so that work in file related admin tasks, so they know what they're doing.
That being said, and assuming Fastily says yes, I think that I'd be okay with modifying the task so that Fbot instead of tagging them lists them in a category for manual review. I'll warn you in advance that very few people actually care about this (or files at all) enough to clear that category, and I'm one of them, so chances are a lot of things will still get resized; at the same time though, I do ever so much better reductions than the bot, because I crop out borders, blank space, etc., and also use a much less lossy compression algorithm and a higher dpi (96 vs 72) than DASHbot does.
Do note that I'm saying this with gritted teeth, because it's going to translate into dozens or hundreds of hours of my time to fix this. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This image was originally uploaded at a larger size, but has since been shrunk in accordance with the
non-free content criteria. While in most cases the image should be kept at this reduced size, if there is a compelling reason to do so, it is possible for administrators to retrieve the original image. Requests for restoration should only be made or honored if the file was marked as non-free erroneously, is undeniably unusable in its current size, or if consensus has formed for the restoration. |
This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law. According to Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible. In particular, non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work. A high-resolution non-free image is questionable fair use and may be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright policy.The size of an image may be reduced in an image editing program or by saving and re-uploading a suitably sized thumbnail. Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with {-{Non-free reduced|17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)}-}.
This non-free media file has been tagged as unnecessarily large it will be automatically reduced in size to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law. According to Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible. In particular, non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work. A high-resolution non-free image is questionable fair use and may be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright policy. Currently files lager than 160 000 pixels (405x405) will be adjusted downwards.The size of an image may be reduced in an image editing program or by saving and re-uploading a suitably sized thumbnail, or by ignoring this message and allowing a remote program (bot)called DASHBot 9 to do the task. In rare cases tag the image {-{bot|Rbot=ignor}-}or {-{Rbot|stop|For manual attention|The specific reason such as: avoiding moiré patterns}-} Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with {-{Non-free reduced|17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)}-}.
Here's my two bits; I know almost everyone's aware of the background info I'll include here, but bear with me.
I just wish to note here, that I think that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DPL bot 2 was rushed through too quickly, without time for appropriate checking and evaluation.
I know that some brief testing was done, and it does indeed show some were fixed. What it cannot do though, is show how many people were irritated by alerts over something that is, frankly, fairly trivial.
There were many points raised in an earlier discussion, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Update and Request for Comment - User dablink notification. I have a feeling that these notifications will irritate quite a large number of users; I think we should be cautious. A single added disambig link isn't a problem - I realise the notes are supposed to be friendly, but I don't think they're particularly clear - and a message of this type from a bot will look like some kind of 'warning' regardless of the intent. Chzz ► 06:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"Trivial" I also have to object to this. Anything that degrades the user experience is a problem, and should be fixed. Even something as simple as clicking a wikilink to British and getting a disambig instead of an article about British people is a negative user experience. But even more importantly, it often isn't obvious which article the author intended, which is indeed serious, because then a reader hits a dead end in their navigation. If we can get the author to let us know what they meant while they're still around, the article benefits. Also, by asking willing editors to clean up dablinks they were simply unaware of, that frees up resources on the DPL project to tackle the truly difficult dablinks instead of fixing a hundred links to British. (There are still over 650,000 links to disambiguation pages to fix.)
"Some were fixed" I'd say raising a 10% fix rate for the control group to 60% for the messaged group is a phenomenal result!
The message Regarding the message, I'm happy to make any changes. I wanted to make it as short as possible, not feel pushy, and give a quick explanation of what a disambig is. I would welcome any help in making it more coherent.
Irritation to users In the original brfa, I explained why I think the messages would be more irritating to Maintainers than Content Creators. Accordingly, I've done what I can to avoid messaging Maintainers, and have made DPL bot exclusion compliant.
Not knowing how many were irritated I doubt that. Wikipedians are not very good at dishing out praise, but if you upset them, you can bet you'll hear about it! The response has been very mild so far. I am worried about filling people's talk pages up with messages, though. I want to strike while the iron's hot, and ask the user for help while the work is fresh in their memory, but I don't want to make people feel harassed. There's always opt-out, of course, and I'm open to suggestions. -- JaGa talk 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Templating the regulars This isn't a warning template, and new editors are excluded, so I'm not sure that essay really applies. I'd hate to throw out this opportunity for fear of antagonizing some editors who can simply opt out of the messages. I see your point though, and agree we need to tread carefully.
Dangerous precedent MOS mistakes are different in that they don't block the user from gaining knowledge. In the brfa, I used an example of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, which has linked to Magnetic resonance since February 15. Now, imagine a user is reading about these lectures, and wanting to learn more about this thing called magnetic resonance (very possible, these lectures were intended to introduce non-physics majors to physics). The user clicks the link, and what happens? They get a "Did you mean..." page! Well, heck, they aren't going to know. They'll be confused, and probably drop that line of inquiry. So this isn't just a "pet peeve" issue. It's an attempt to make the information we offer to the public as complete and accessible as possible. -- JaGa talk 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I'm not going to run the bot while this discussion is going on. -- JaGa talk 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, here's the new features (you can see samples at User:JaGa/Sandbox):
-- JaGa talk 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The User:DPL bot DPL bot was used at Captain Bill Bellamy MC and although it did what it was supposed to (largely) it also replaced every [] and . with # leaving the article in rather a mess. I suggest this bot be examined again. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the situation is unclear with respect to the growing number of situations where non-bot editors are instructed to seek BAG approval for large-scale tasks; see WP:MASSCREATION and now possibly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop#Large scale editing prohibited except under conditions.
I don't think too much needs to change, though. We'd want a different version of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InputInit that didn't ask for "Operator", "Exclusion compliant", or "Already has a bot flag", and asks "Manual or Script-assisted" and for programming language/source code "if script-assisted". Then we'd want a new version of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Instructions for bot operators. Would we want new categories too, instead of Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval and such? What should they be called? And then, of course, I'd have to update AnomieBOT.
Any other thoughts? Anomie ⚔ 20:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This brfa created a bit of a problem, mainly because the bot had messed up a lot of edits in a 5000 edit trial, and there was a bit of a dispute over the need of nuking the edits.
I feel that all this could have been avoided if the bot had worked on a mirror wiki, containing the pages from the affected category. I propose that we make this an optional process to limit collateral damage from bot tests. There are three different ways i can think of doing this:
For a bot op, implementing these changes isn't too much work; all you have to do is encapsulate your edit and login methods, and have it edit the relevant wiki depending on some flag.
I doubt that it will be too much trouble for the wmf to set up the test wikis (I don't know about this, though), and cleaning up after a trial isn't that hard.
Note that all of this should be optional for the bot op, it's mainly a way for the bot op to run a trial without having to worry about collateral damage.
Just wanted to put this idea out there, make of it what you will!
ManishEarth
Talk •
Stalk 05:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)