Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 25

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

Hazard-Bot 25

Operator: Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:28, Wednesday June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikipedia + custom script

Function overview: Tagging files with non-free use rationales as non-free.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): BOTREQ, AWB/TA

Edit period(s): One time run planned, but I'd like to have it open for re-runs if necessary, or for other pairs or templates

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: See the overview and links above

Discussion

~~{{BotWithdrawn}} I just noticed there was another request that was already open. Hazard-SJ ✈ 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

The other request, has a different function. It's for generating rationales where none exist. NOT adding licenses to media with existing rationale.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. Hazard-SJ ✈ 21:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If a file has an FUR but no non-free licence, then the file isn't necessarily unfree, so these files would have to be carefully checked manually. Sometimes, a free file has a fair use rationale with a free licence (which just means that someone has tagged the file incorrectly). Also, the request is similar to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 20 in that it tries to remove the need to make sure that the file satisfies WP:NFCC#10b (the other request was about WP:NFCC#10c). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard-SJ, do you have any comments on this? I'm not terribly versed with all the FUR exceptions. How often are files tagged incorrectly like this (I believe previous BRFAs had the same issues - exceptions due to editor mistakes)? And, Stefan2, if non-free license gets added to an incorrectly used fair use rationale, couldn't whoever fixes the FUR later (for something already botched by an initial editor) also fix/remove the license? It's just a template unless I'm mistaken? How high is the false positive rate? Would a bot comment next to it like "added because file has fur, remove and change fur if incorrect" do the job? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the addition of appropriate edit comments. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to withdraw again. Hazard SJ 08:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Hazard SJ 19:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.