Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BJBot 6

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

Request Expired.

BJBot 6

Operator: BJ^Talk

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Python w/ pywikipedia

Function Summary: Tag images that don't comply with Wikipedia:NFCC#10c

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Edit rate requested: maxlag=5

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

Function Details: This is basically the same as Betacommand's version. It checks nonfree images for the title of every page that uses it (link or not) and if the titles are not there (indicating lack of FUR for every use) tag the image. It then will leave a message on the uploaders user talk and the talk page of the articles the image is in use on. It will not follow {{nobots}} but it will follow the openly editable opt out list. From what I can tell this is what BetacommandBot is doing, minus the ability to unilateral destroy Wikipedia or take over small countries. The source will be released but due to the nature of the bot it should not be cloned. Let the drama commence! The source code

Discussion

It sounds good to me so far. Once the code is released, and, we get some more commenting on this fairly important task, I'd really like to see a trial. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, however (not require), that you run this bot under a separate username. That's another of the common complaints associated with this task. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot task should definitely use a separate user account in case it is approved. I also strongly suggest to not use language like "Let the drama commence". This is entierly unneeded and inflammatory. As such I do have some doubts if Bjweeks is the right person to execute this delicate task. After all, we have seen where this leads to. --Ligulem (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to split NotifyBot out in to a different account, leaving BJBot to only dealing with image tasks. BJ^Talk 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This response by BJ clearly shows that he is unsuitable for running this task here. This request should not be approved. --Ligulem (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? By that standard Betacommand shouldn't run anything. Are we here to see if my code is reliable or count how many kittens I saved this month? BJ^Talk 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are indeed not here to just check whether your code is reliable or not. --Ligulem (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, I must have missed the "character review" section in every other BRFA. BJ^Talk 13:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those tasks that does require a certain personality. How are you at dealing with irate people posting incomprehensible demands and veiled threats on your talk page? Are you good at answering the same question over and over again? How's your understanding of fair-use policy? --Carnildo (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the response. Strongly-worded, yes. Needlessly so, perhaps not. — Werdna talk 08:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot approve this, actually I will move to deny this bot. the user does not have a really firm grasp on the Non-Free Image policy, and the code is not runnable due to a lot of problems. β^_command 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair, I really don't know enough about the Wikipedia:NFCC#10c task to code and run a bot by myself, I had hoped this BRFA would show me where my logic and code was wrong. It seems to me that you're the only person who can actually understands the task from top to bottom and that was the major point of writing an open version of the bot, so everybody else can understand what is going on. BJ^Talk 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still pursuing this request? The problems seem to be with your understanding of fair-use policy. There is no reason that you cannot learn a bit more about it, and, demonstrating your knowledge of the policy in the way the bot has been written (and responses to objections to it), show that you understand fair-use policy. — Werdna talk 08:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this be archived as not approved, without prejudice to re-filing once the function details and coding issues have been fully addressed. Alai (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Expired. — Werdna talk 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.