Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot: Difference between revisions

Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operators: User:ST47, User:Martinp23, and User:SQL

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic Programming Language(s): pywiki

Function Summary: Tagging non-free non-compliant images and notifying their creators.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): When bot operators have the time.

Edit rate requested: maxlag=5

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details: Clone of BetacommandBot's NFCC work.

Currently, BetacommandBot runs a set of closed-source Python scripts to do various tasks, including tagging fair use images for deletion and notifying the uploader. Due to the high-volume capacity of the scripts (up to 600 edits per minute), Betacommand has been reluctant to release the source code.

Current issues: Betacommand and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images.

Proposed:

1. Betacommand releases the source of the script(s) he uses for fair use image tagging to a trusted group of BAG members. (The script will not be available to all members of BAG, only those who will be actively involved in the operation of the bot.)
2. A new bot account is created (User:FairUseBot) and the BAG members run the bot as a group.
3. Betacommand continues to run his bot for all tasks except those relating to fair use images.
4. Betacommand continues to maintain and write code for the FairUseBot.
5. Recognizing that Beta has written the code and is not under any obligation to release the code, the trusted members of BAG agree to:
   1. Not reuse, modify, or release the script(s) without Beta's approval.
   2. Be trusted / approved by Betacommand.

Advantages of the proposal:

1. People will find it much harder to demonize or blame if there's a trusted group of BAG people versus a single individual.
2. BetacommandBot will be able to continue doing the various things that it does (archiving, ref fixes, etc.) without worrying about an uproar over image taggings.
3. The script(s) are already written (no BAG time wasted) and the work can be divided among the trusted BAG users.
4. Anti-fair-use people would be shielded from attacks.

Discussion

{{BotSpeedy}} - Code has been thoroughly tested, I see no problems with this proposal, as long as Betacommand agrees. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

as long as the users in question follow my directions. β^_command 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I could ask the question of which of BCB's 4-phase NFCC approach have been included in this bots approach? Will this bot follow the no-bot tag rules for userspace and usertalkspace? MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked Betacommand on his talk page, and he replied here that "all current phases will be transfered to the new account". Whether that has answered your question depends, I suppose on what phase we are in. I'm sure there is a prominent notice somewhere saying what phase we are in, but I can't find it right now... (all sarcasm aside, I believe phase 3 is effectively finished, and any tagging for that is now routine checking of new uploads, and that phase 4 is due to begin in April sometime, though as always, ask Betacommand directly if you want a definitive answer). The no-bot question wasn't answered. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ammendment

Despite the speediness of this acceptance, I propose the ammendment here Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot/ammended to tone down the language and better reflect the situation. MickMacNee (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose you stop your intentional disruption. Maxim_(talk) 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this disruption? What is wrong with my ammendment? Note betacommand's first response too, [1], that it will "rot in hell". Is betacommand being attacked, or doing the attacking? MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I propose you not maximize the drama by accusing others of disruption, Maxim. Bellwether ^B_C 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, though I thoroughly support this proposal, I was taken aback by the rather biased wording used above ("Anti-fair-use people would be shielded from attacks" - this should not preclude criticism, and criticism should not be confused with attacks). Also, the terse "as long as the users in question follow my directions" should be modified to indicate that Betacommand is part of a collaborative editing project where he has to work with other people. Also, "People will find it much harder to demonize or blame if there's a trusted group of BAG people versus a single individual" should be removed or rewritten. Finally, "Betacommand and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images." should be rewritten as "Betacommand feels that he and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images.". I note that this page was created and then approved two minutes later. That is insufficient time for the community to participate in discussion of the wording used here. Please could WP:BAG re-open the request so that the more extreme wording can be toned down? Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing the wording of the request

Now this request has been reopened, is it acceptable to change the wording of the request, or not? My proposed changes are above. Anti-fair-use people do not have a special status on this project, and do not need shielding from anything except the normally unacceptable stuff. Furthermore, fair use is needed for a free encyclopedia, and making references to "anti-fair-use people" is divisive. Anyway, it should all say "non-free-use" rather than "fair-use", and the bot name in the proposal doesn't match the name of the actual bot, unless someone has created User:FairUseBot. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording (from Carcharoth)

Current issues: Betacommand and his bot encounter a high volume of comment due to the nature of the bot's work. A change in ownership of the bot task has been community-requested to separate discussion of issues with the bot from issues with the way the bot is operated, and from other tasks that BetacommandBot carries out.

Proposed:

1. User:Betacommand releases the source of the script(s) he uses for non-free-use image tagging to a nominated group of BAG members. The script will not be available to all members of the bot approval group, only those who will be actively involved in the operation of the bot.
2. A new bot account is created (User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot) to run this code and the aforementioned BAG members run the bot as a group.
3. Betacommand continues to run his bot (User:BetacommandBot) for all tasks except those relating to non-free images.
4. Betacommand continues to maintain and write his code for the Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, subject to approval by BAG for any new non-free content tasks.
5. Others may also submit code to be approved and run by this bot for other non-free content compliance requirements.
6. Recognizing that Betacommand has written the code and is not under any obligation to release the code, the aforementioned nominated members of BAG agree to:
   1. Not reuse, modify, or release the script(s) without Betacommand's approval.
   2. Have their access to the code be subject to approval by Betacommand.

Advantages of the proposal:

1. The script(s) are already written and the work can be divided among the nominated BAG users.
2. There will be a group of operators to respond to community concerns and communicate these concerns to the programmer (Betacommand).
3. The bot operation can be better scheduled.
4. Discussion about the bot will not be influenced by concerns over other tasks.
5. BetacommandBot and its operator will be able to continue doing its other tasks without distraction.

Any problems with this? I changed the wrong bot name and the fair use bits were changed to non free. The major addition is the following "Others may also submit code to be approved and run by this bot for other non-free content compliance requirements." If this is going to be a group/role account, let's do this properly. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From a programming perspective I'm pretty sure there's not much difference between saying functions can be added to the bot, and saying the existing code can be changed to do different functions. Either way, if betacommand is under no obligation to change the code according to requests agreed with the new operator group, as the spokespeople and contact point for this bot, then what's the point? MickMacNee (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that people can then submit their own code, as an improvement, and request that it be run instead or in parallel. That was impossible with BetacommandBot, but might be possible here. A bot with multiple operators and programmers might seem like a nightmare, but BetacommandBot already has multiple tasks, so it is not as silly as it sounds. As long as the operators make clear which code is running at what time (as any organised bot operator should always do), then it will be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

just as a notice, the planned method of operation for this bot will not change. I am the sole programmer, its users that I trust. Other uses will not be able to submit code. If the operators have questions they known to come talk to me. I have an understanding with them. My proposal stands as a all or none deal. the operators in question fully understand and agree to it. β^_command 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then would you mind changing the name of the bot to include your name? At the moment, the name makes it sound like a general purpose NFCC-compliance bot. There are other people who can write bots to deal with NFCC-compliance stuff, and it would be nice if a stable of NFCC-compliance bots was built up, with this one (the obvious name) being the group-operated one. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose (of original proposal) then, as basically a device to shield a bot operator from discussion about or responsibility for their bot, functionally this proposal is absolutely no different to betacommand creating the separate bot himself, as I understand he already allows operation of bcb by trusted proxies. MickMacNee (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reopened

Evidentially I was mistaken. I thought that the community wanted Betacommand to separate BCBot's tasks into separate bot accounts. I saw this request as an official request to split it off into another bot, and let others run it. Because all of the other users listed are well-respected bot operators, in, I dare say, better standing in the community's eyes. Since the code has been running before, I thought there would be no opposition to speedily approving this request. Anyway, it has been reopened. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to re-open this. Please don't take it personally. My view is that it won't harm to have a bit more than two minutes in which to discuss this. I reiterate my support for this, but it shouldn't be rushed through. People may have valid concerns, and two minutes is not enough for possible concerns to be raised. Could someone let Betacommand and the others know? Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot is still flagged, and I'm not going to have it unflagged just because that would be unnecessary crat work.

Now, my comments on the proposed amendments. I'm going to ignore the first strikeout in the "Current issues" section as flamebait. Let's keep to the topic of the bot and relevant policy, eh? Second addition

Betacommand complies in a reasonable time to requests for change of the bot code if agreed by the group of operators, or agrees to release the code for such a purpose, or by default, rescinds this bot approval

First, I think this is poorly worded. Note that since the operators are the ones with the power to run it, beta is already forced to change the bot code if the operators all agree that it is defective. Betacommand has already stated that the bot is closed-source, that is completely acceptable, and BAG will not set code release in any way as a condition of the approval or operation of this bot.

Recognizing that Beta has written the code and is not under any obligation to release the code, the trusted members of BAG agree to...Be approved by a majority of the BAG

The group needs to be kept small, and the group needs to consist of people who Betacommand trusts to obey his conditions of release. If BAG chooses, say, Jimbo Wales, and Betacommand doesn't trust Jimbo to not change the bot's code without permission, or to not release the code, then Beta isn't going to give the code to Jimbo, is he? Now, if BAG wants to vote on who will have access to it, sure, but it must be understood that this is only happening at the pleasure of Beta, and he has effective veto power over any choices. My understanding of the choices are that they are BAG members who participate in the WP:NFCC enforcement. If you object to anyone above, please state your concerns.

Finally, for the same reasons as above, I'm ignoring the changes under "advantages", as that has no bearing on the bot's operation.

To sum everything up: Your addition under point 4 is partly unnecessary, partly unreasonable. Your addition under point 5 is not viable, as Betacommand has 'final say' in who he sends his code to. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? You seem to be replying to me, but discussing MickMacNee's proposed wording here. I agree that his changes go too far, and that Betacommand should (and de facto does) have ultimate veto here. I'm just asking for the wording to be changed. What I will do is edit the proposal to what I think is a neutral and sensible wording, and then revert, and then provide a link to the old version. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my wording is above. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As it is now then, for newNFCCbot:

• Betacommand can still refuse changes in operation as he controls the code
• Betacommand still has total control over the bot's use (by approving users)
• Betacommand is removed from any obligation to talk to anyone regarding the way the bot works (will we notice the change?)
• As per the request, the reason this bot exists is to shield/protect/deflect criticism of the bot he still controls away from him

So how is this not just a proposal to create a role account then? What actual community concerns expressed over pages and pages of ANI/B are met by this change apart from once again pandering to betacommand as some sort of super-wiki-editor who is above all others? MickMacNee (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that idea of separating the code-writing from the bot operation is in principle a very good one, as is the overdue step of separating out the NFCC tasks from any other bot-related tasks for which Betacommand may be approved. However, if this is to be done, I am alarmed by the precedent of a role account being created. Regardless of the other concerns expressed here about the wording of the proposal (and I share many of those concerns), may I ask that if the idea of others running Betacommand's code is to be pursued, that it be done on the basis of one-bot-one-owner? That may require the creation of several new bots running Betacommand's code (which could be called NFCCbot1, NFCCbot2 etc), but at least the anyone concerned would know which user was responsible for any perceived problems caused by the bot, and know who to contact about them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably teaching grannies to suck eggs, but just thought that I should clarify that my previous comment was based on Wikipedia:User account policy#Sharing_accounts, which says "User accounts must only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked.".

I don't see how a bot operated by more than one editor could work unless the account is shared. If I have missed something, and it is not the intention to share the account, please could someone clarify how it is intended that this bot could be operated by the three listed users (User:ST47, User:Martinp23, and User:SQL)? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot will only be operated by us. The idea is that I will be the primary operator, betacommand gives me changes, I review them, I run the bot. All three of us will be able to run it, in case I happen to be unavailable, and also to provide additional oversight. We are planning on making a log of who runs it when, most likely in the bot's userspace. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"All or none"?

Are we, as a community, really going to allow a user to demand that no one modify his proposals or contribute in any way to the smooth functioning of a newly proposed bot? Am I the only one troubled by his "all or none" language, and his ever-increasing stridency? Bellwether ^B_C 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)