Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

Accusations of "trolling"

Now we have ST47 accusing me of "trolling" for questioning BC's "all or none" rhetoric regarding the proposal. If the thread should go here at talk, fine. But do not make trolling accusations against a user participating in good faith. That's not acceptable, in any way, shape or form. Bellwether ^B_C 20:42, 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)

This is amazing

I add a new section, per the instructions left when the discussion was prematurely closed. The new section is reverted, and the page protected. This is so wildly inappropriate I don't even know where to begin. Bellwether ^B_C 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too am unhappy with this. I raised a specific query about this being a role account, contrary to clear policy, and by the time I saw the reply, the discussion had been closed. This is not a proper way of dealing with that sort of query: so far as I can see, this account breaches policy. I will take this to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Shared_user_account:_Non-Free_Content_Compliance_Bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Put the stick down"

"BetaCommand's code is his business, not yours or anyone else’s."

The bot runs at high speed as a blunt instrument, tagging wildy different compliance cases all with the same brush, and all into the same unhelpful category, with a 7 day deletion deadline. In one day it tagged 20 images in my watchlist, and I know of a user that had 90 tags in 2 days. It's his business? Where do you even start with this sort of comment on a bot approval page. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH. I've had it with you. BCBot is following all polices set forth. WILL YOU EVER UNDERSTAND THAT? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand it fully, hence the very large and very detailed proposal I put forward to improve it, blanked as an 'attack page'. Are you actually aware of the very small part of a small sub-section of the NFCC policy it actually checks? And all the failure modes it can't check? And the incorrect images it can never tag? And that every tagged image still requires an admin to actually check it properly before fixing/deleting? And that this theoretically has to be done in 7 days. And that 15,000 tags were placed in one day? MickMacNee (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen by your u/p you are 13, so perhaps maybe you weren't. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go buddy.

• I'm 13. Fucking whoop-de-do!
• No bot is perfect. Can you code a bot? Most likely not.
• Admins must still look over images. Your point?
• Policy is Policy.

Done yet? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we're done here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever age you are, putting the phrase "fucking whoop-de-do" in any conversation is probably not a good idea. Also, I'd recommend you not jump into conversations where you're very clearly out of your depth. Bellwether ^B_C 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed source

I thought, it may be best, to start a new section, and get away from whatever happened above, and attempt to address, the issue of closed-source code. Mick, the source code, for this bot, will obviously be provided to at least 2 (from what I've seen... less me, it seems?) of the 3 operators listed. If I recall correctly, both of the two the program is being released to, understand python, so, it is, in fact more than one set of eyes, should something break.

While, personally, I strive to release all of my code, under a free license, that is solely at my own discretion. Neither I, nor this bot's developer, have any obligation whatsoever to do so. In a perfect world, yes, it would be great, if this bot's code was freely licensed. But, in this instance that is not the case, nor does it appear likely to change, nor is it required by common practice or policy that this change. This appears to be a common argument, when, it does not need to be. There are going to be more eyes on this bot, and, in the event that something goes horribly wrong, the developer has historically been very responsive to legitimate bugs.

Anyhow, I hope this helps. SQL^{Query me!} 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be better if the project page were unprotected and the discussion was reopened... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

there is no need. SQL User:Lar also has seen the code. I let those who I trust see it. β^_command 02:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a need, obviously. The whole point is to allow community discussion, but this was closed and approved in a day (I believe). FWIW, I believe bots should be open source without exception. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was "speedily approved" in roughly two minutes time. Then there's the final approval only a day later, followed by an attempt at further discussion, which was reverted with the page protected. This is a pretty bad process, IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A shockingly bad display by a process which generally works quite well imho. See Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group/Message to BAG for one senior BAG member's take on this.

On the subject of open source, I don't believe there is nor should be an open source requirement for programs which edit this wiki. We don't ban IE, for a start, nor should we. --kingboyk (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Further reading at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reverts_and_page_protection_at_bot_approval_page

I'm still of the opinion this needs to be unlocked and reopened for community discussion. It's also annoying to see a bcrat has effectively rubber stamped this... —Locke Cole • t • c 10:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Re-opening this BRFA is being discussed here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this has been discussed in enough places. Maybe we should try moving the discussion to Talk:Antarctica just to throw people off. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 11:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya never know, there might be some penguins out there, that haven't had a chance to comment! :) SQL^{Query me!} 11:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rejected" tag

Since my placing of this tag has prompted a couple of reverts, let me defend it here.

I believe it is generally clear that the BAG approved this BRFA, while the community did not -- and the BAG's reaction was, unfortunately, to shut out the community. This is perfectly summarized by the page having the BAG's approval at the bottom and the community's rejection at the top. Focus on what the template says, because it's quite true -- consensus is unlikely to form, whether active discussion is still occurring or not (and because there are huge messages to stop discussing it, it's quite clearly not).

Any successful attempt to get a consensus to run this bot would almost certainly have to occur on a new page -- and that attempt may not even be necessary now that we have better image bots running.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure it's terribly appropriate, since it invites on the one hand confusion with rejected BRFA (it being, after all, a BRFA, but not a rejected one per se), and with rejected proposals for policies or guidelines (which it isn't, but is what the templates was intended for use on, and links to). Alai (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When it just says "accepted", it's quite misleading. It implies that the bot could just start running today and nobody would mind. I believe the page should indicate that the bot does not have the approval of the community, it only has the approval of a small number of BAG members. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say "accepted" for one, it says "approved". Sheesh, I fixed the headers on about five hundred BRFA's today (normal maintenence, a lot of them were sorted wrong, or, as was the case with this one, did not use {{BT|Approved|botname}}_, I don't even recall doing this one. It's not all a conspriacy. I'm sorry a couple people disagree with the approval, but edit-warring over the templates used is just silly. Why not join (or, since it was a little old restart in a new section) the discussion to reopen the BRFA if consensus is that overwhelming instead? The bot's not even running right now, from what I understand, and I'm not aware of plans for it to run anytime soon, so in reality, the exact wording of the archival template is immaterial right now. Think of it in these terms, if you pulled this sorta stuff with an RfA, what do you think would happen? SQL^{Query me!} 20:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If I "pulled this sorta stuff"? That's a pretty bad-faith way to put it, SQL. I have made two different edits to the page (one of them being the original edit) after ST47 made the gesture to the community of unprotecting it, and justified them on the talk page. The response by BAG members has consisted of reverting and hurling accusations. If you're looking for edit warring, look in your own backyard. I'm certainly not going to hold up my side of the edit war -- I'm off to somewhere more productive. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No no no, I don't think I got what I meant to get out the way I wanted to.... I was referring to the 6 or so edits so far (including my cleanup one), going back and forth with the 'rejected' idea. I'm sorry if that didn't come across correctly. I didn't mean to further the issue or anything by removing the tag (I noticed going through them just now that I did), I was doing those by highlighting everything from the ---- up, and pasting in the right template.... This one seems to have been one of the last, and I likely wasn't paying very much attention by then. Anyhow, again, instead of the back-and-forth reverting by multiple parties, I'm still willing to consider running a 'reverse brfa' for this bot, or, we can try the method that ST47's using at WT:BRFA (I think that's where it is). Anyways, I hope that clarification helps, and, we can work this out like mature adults... SQL^{Query me!} 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing closed requests

It has been pointed out that several edits have been made to this closed request since the protection was lifted, but only some have been reverted.

• Three edits were reverted: This edit (Rspeer adding a 'rejected' tag) and this edit (Locke Cole re-adding the 'rejected' tag) and this edit (Rspeer changing the wording describing the result of the decision) were reverted.
• Two edits were retained: However, this edit (SQL removing himself as a bot operator) and this edit (SQL doing a mass fixing of templates on BRFA pages) were not reverted.

This can be confirmed by looking at this diff.

This raises several issues:

• (1) Should the page be reverted back to the version after the page protection was lifted?
• (2) Does SQL removing himself as one of the bot operators invalidate the request?
• (3) When is it appropriate to edit a closed request?

It seems from the actions of at least one of the BAG members here (SQL) that it is acceptable for him to edit closed requests, but not acceptable for others (Locke Cole, Rspeer) to edit closed requests (as seen by Betacommand's two reverts - using two different accounts in case that confuses anyone). That might be acceptable under the assumption that BAG do need to exert some control over the status of closed requests, but what doesn't seem acceptable is for a member of BAG to change the bot request (remove themselves as an operator) and (however inadvertently) mark it as still approved. I will ask SQL to either revert himself, or mark the request as not approved and requiring a new request to gain approval. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It was using the wrong template, for one (IIRC archive top/bottom, not {{BT}} / {{BB}}). If you *really* want to get into it, I actually edited about 500 closed BRFA's today. SQL^{Query me!} 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Put it back, don't put it back, whatever. I am not interested in operating that bot right now. The rest of the lawyering, I also don't have time to mess with right now. SQL^{Query me!} 02:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually pointed out that you were "doing a mass fixing of templates on BRFA pages", but thanks for the extra detail. I'm not going to touch this page with a bargepole. BAG created this mess, they can clear it up. I will, though, notify ReedyBoy directly that you have withdrawn as an operator, and I will ask him to overturn his approval. Please note that I will support any future discussion to approve this bot, but I do feel strongly that the previous discussion has been invalidated by your withdrawal, and I hope people can respect that without making any accusations. I didn't want this any more than the rest of you, but I hope that this will open up the way for a new discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that works for me. As I noted on the talkpage, my apologies for snapping towards you. I think I've just about reached my limit for silliness with this bot, that has yet to make a single edit (and, is unlikely, in my view ever to). I'm going to take this page off my watchlist at this point. If you need anything further of me, please use my user_talk. SQL^{Query me!} 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that the reverts were somewhat selective, but SQL's last response helped to show that it doesn't matter very much. From the section of discussion above, I think we all see the result the same way, regardless of whether we think it's appropriate for the page to say it: the request is a mess, the bot hasn't made any edits, and it probably isn't going to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that removal of an operator is really grounds for withdrawing approval -- though if the community is understood to have rejected it, then one would think that that would be, unless the BAG really wants to make a point of continuing to note its different view on the matter as being on-going. Whether such changes in current status should be being noted on the original BRFA, or elsewhere, is a different matter, but I very much agree that some sort of consistency would be nice. And by "nice" I mean "essential", if not to say only prudent, especially in the light on on-going review by the arbcom. Alai (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)