Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ: Difference between revisions

Bot code extends policy, like DRM extends copyright law

As Larry Lessig discusses in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, software code can become part of the "law" by which users of Internet-based systems must live. The usual example of this argument is digital rights/restrictions management (DRM), wherein copyright law is not merely enforced but enhanced by technological copy-prevention systems.

What we have here is something similar to DRM. A bot designed to enforce policy is accused of overreaching, of tagging for deletion images that are in fact in compliance with those policies. Just as DRM restricts actions that are not really in violation of copyright, this bot stands accused of restricting images that are not really against policy.

One proposed solution to this controversy is to open the code to inspection and comment. This will allow those concerned with the bot's operation to propose (or, by consensus, to require) patches -- rather than merely pleading with the bot operator to make bug fixes. Insofar as the bot works to enforce and extend Wikipedia policy, this would seem to ameliorate the problems. --FOo (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, I guess. If the policy requires a fair use rationale template that must be machine readable, an image lacks such a template and is subsequently tagged... How is that an expansion of the policy rather than an enforcement? In cases where a tag is mistakenly applied it isn't an extension of policy to images that aren't in violation - its a bug. Avruch ^T 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"If the policy requires a fair use rationale template that must be machine readable" — actually, it doesn't. That may be part of the problem, but it doesn't say that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But the bot does not look for templates, what the bot does check for is WP:NFCC#10c a key part of the policy. β^_command 22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from single use images.MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? β^_command 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot does not detect the presence the used here link on a free use claimed image where a single rationale is provided. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

the bot does not work with free use images. The bot does work with non-free images. if you are referring to the file links section, that cannot be part of a rationale. β^_command 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant fair use of course. And why not? A single use claim and a link to the usage, verifiable and acceptable in law. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But that is where you are mistaken fair use is not non-free content. the use of non-free content is a lot stricter than that of fair use. question, I write a rationale for an image and its use on page A, but dont state the page name in the rationale, and later another user adds it to page B, without a rationale and then it gets removed from page A, does the rationale for page A good for its use on page B? the answer to that question is no. that is why we require non-free rationales to include the name of the article for which it is for (WP:NFCC#10c) β^_command 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I meant non-free, not the others. And I now see the point in that case. Now why couldn't that have been explained a few days ago, or placed on a FAQ about NFCC10c? That is not exactly a scenario most people would appreciate when looking at thier image page, I certainly didn't. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked Beta on IRC about notifying projects of images as well, and he told me that the bot checks the edit box text, not the HTML or query API. Will ^(talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Just the sort of thing you might want to know when attempting to understand that situation.MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, because project notification would get images tagged so much faster. It's because coding to do a search for HTML, especially for specific links, is harder than searching for "Article = Foo" or "Fair use (rationale) for [[Foo]]" in an edit box. Will ^(talk) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, Ive been working on project notices, its just very very difficult. as for what the bot looks for you dont need links or the article= parameter. all you need is the exact name (or redirect to) the article in question. β^_command 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Real avoidance of drama

How about we keep this page running through March 2008 (maybe even start archiving bits of it manually to the AN/ANI archives - that will be a problem, both AN and ANI threads have been brought here), as it is quite nice not having the forest fires on AN and ANI. What do people think? After March, we can go back to normal. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus put a notice on AN/ANI directing people here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

There's absolutely nothing that should be discussed here and cannot be discussed on User talk:Betacommand. --TS 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Object That page is full of specific incident matters, and beta deletes threads, often after less than 5 minutes, as he is entitled to do on his own talk page. It is completely the wrong place for the wider discussions for which there is evidently a huge appetite. How many kbytes have you just archived (rather prematurely, but there we go)? Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I dont delete comments. I do archive often. β^_command 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok; anyway, they go. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

oppose, just another attempt to kill the debate. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Would kill the entire discussion because it's pretty hard to have any kind of constructive discussion over there. Enigma ^msg! 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Attempt to end discussion. Not to mention that these are ANI discussions which were moved here to keep them all in one place, hence the subpage (and because half of ANI was Betacommand stuff). It doesn't belong on a user talk page. .:Alex:. 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the tag per WP:SNOWMickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent MfD

See also the archived discussion here regarding betacommandbot and NFCC10c

should not be in the lead. Dont add it unless there is consensus. β^_command 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, do not remove it without consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

it is not approperate for a lead section, stop your harassment and attacks. it will be removed until until there is consesus for it. that should not be in a lead section. <OMIT RANT> β^_command 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop your unwarranted allegation of attacks. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel it is required although it may be useful on this page, the talk page. Does the MfD add context or information to the page itself? I tend not to think so. It is about the page and hence I think it belongs here. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That page is central to this whole page, not just the talk page, attempts to hide it are just that.MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• See talkpages. That's the end of revert warring over that. Black Kite 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely object to the the hiding behind 3RR by certain editors to justify the obfuscation of that page. The page was absolutely not deleted, and any attempts to say so are a complete abuse of process. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, read the MfD closure it was a delete/redirect close. stop trolling and move on. β^_command 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And still you lie. It was closed as re-direct. Nothing more, nothing less, despite what you would like to have happened. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a redirect. We don't slap wikilinks to redirect discussions on articles that have been made the targets of redirects, and project-space pages are no different. Black Kite 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to take it to DRV then, as it is quite clear that page does not deserve summary invisibility on the whim of betacommand. MickMacNee (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand has nothing to do with it. It was closed as redirect by an uninvolved administrator. Black Kite 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly raised at ANI. MickMacNee (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And archived to AN/B, where it should've been raised. Black Kite 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, let's be clear, this is a user issue, not a bot issue. MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No, let's be even clearer, it's your interpretation of a user issue, and given your 6RR earlier, I'd seriously consider whether another tendentious thread at ANI is really in your current interests. Black Kite 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it turns out not to be in my interests, then I guess everyone will see where the project stands with regards to the actions of one user. MickMacNee (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see how the MfD is "central" to this page. It was a discussion on whether a page that was similar to this one should be deleted/merged/redirected/blanked etc. and to me is unrelated to the workings of this page other than the fact the arguments are similar. Could anyone answer this question for me? x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

its MickMacNee's pet attack page. β^_command 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence if it were ever needed for the bad faith reasons for warring over it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For a start that page pre-dated this one. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why must one link the MfD, and not that page itself? x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The page was redirected to this one. Since that was an MfD decision, MickMacNee has attempted to end-run round policy by linking to the MfD argument itself. As I said - we don't do that. Black Kite 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I was waiting on MickMacNee's response to it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So who decided the whole page could just be vanished? That certainly was not the outcome of the Mfd as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? The result of the MfD was to protect and redirect, but this has nothing to do with putting it on this page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So why protect and re-direct, why not just outright delete? There is a difference, and an adequate reason for the difference. betacommand's actions amount to a 'delete' result, which it absolutely was not. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what the result of the MfD is. I want to know why you want the notice at the top. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

x42bn6, hes just pissed that his attack page got removed. and he no-longer has a biased place to vent his BS. As for a redirect vs delete, a redirect protect is a deletion while still maintaining history. β^_command 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You seriously can't help yourself from turning this into a you and me issue, rather than address everybody concerned in that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought one follows the other. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point in notifying users about a page that redirects to this page? Deletion of a notice does not imply the redirect was deleted at all - there's something I'm missing here. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• DRV listed anyhow. MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)