Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 2

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Questions

  • I would be interested to know the following.

1. About what part of the abuse BC gets is from people who have received ONE notice about ONE of their images? What part is from people who have received MULTIPLE notices at once? (Obviously these would be guesstimates, at best, but I suspect the answer would be enlightening.)
2. Is there a way--note, not "is there an EASY way"--to modify the workings of this bot so that, instead of twenty or thirty separate notices splashed all over a user page each time BCB runs, the run would be completed, a list for each user would be generated, and ONE SINGLE message, with a list of affected images, could be placed on the user's page?
As you might have guessed, I have a suspicion here: I think much of the rage accorded to this bot (and thus, its operator) is not due so much to what it does, but to the manner in which it's accomplished. Knowing little about GDFL and free use, I'm willing to assume that the bot performs a necessary task; at any rate, it's a task mandated by the Foundation. But I think that people who see what appears to be a Sisyphean task's-worth of "disputed image" messages on their talk page (just for an example, take a look at User talk:Azumanga1--note: this is a completely uninvolved user whose page is only an example) are more likely to get angry than a user who logs on to find a message saying "okay, here's the list" and a link to a clearly-written page of instructions. (I'm a reasonably-intelligent human, but all the "how to write an acceptable rationale" instructions I see have confused me.) Also--and I really hope BC doesn't take this as yet-another attack, because he's been nothing but helpful to me--I think the constant attacks have gotten under BC's skin, and he's developed some less-than-ideal ways of handling perceived criticism. It becomes a vicious cycle: the bot makes edits that honk off users, the users spit fire at BC, BC spits back, matters escalate, and all of a sudden we have twenty-eleven AN threads calling for a ban of both BC and his bot. I'm wondering if reducing the aggregate mass of the warnings would reduce the drama as well. Gladys J Cortez 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

as to your point about BCBot and multi post, Ive been thinking about how to do it for months. there are two main issues that I am having.
1. go back to a single threaded checking method.
the main drawback is what now takes about 8-10 hours to check will take 800-1000 hours to check per run.
2. hack together some method to get 100 seperate threads to talk and play nice together, and avoid random thread crashes due to random server errors.
the main issue here is that it increases the risk of users not getting notified, something that I do not want to happen.
βcommand 16:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't you just make a list as the bot does the tagging over 10 hours, and then run a program to consolidate the listings, and then do a separate run to notify each user once? Delaying the notification of the user by a day could be workable if you make the date and category eight days after notification instead of seven. BTW, what is a "thread crash" - do you mean an "edit conflict"? Carcharoth (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
please see Thread (computer science) for what a thread is. but one of many things can cause it to crash, (Ive tried to catch as many as I can) it could be an edit conflict, spamblack list error, page protection issues, image deletion, or some other random problem that the bot cant handle. it then stops the bot. (given that there are in essance 100 copies of the bot running at a time loosing a few is nothing major.) βcommand 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that users not getting notified would be a bad thing--and again, please recognize that I'm coming from a tech-support-but-no-programming-whatsoever background--but if a user ISN'T notified due to a thread crash or other event during a given bot run, wouldn't the "missed" users from one run get picked up during the next? Not that it's ideal, of course--but I can't help but think there's got to be SOME way to improve the current situation. And again, please don't see my ideas and questions as criticism of you personally; I think you'll agree with me, though, that the current mode of operation is apparently untenable for both the users AND for you. Gladys J Cortez 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
users would not be notified. once an image is tagged BCbot does not re-tag an image if its still tagged. that would mean any images tagged during a run would not get notified if there was a thread crash. Ive been thinking of methods of improvement but they all get shot down for one reason or another. βcommand 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you are trying to do too much stuff in parallel (sounds like multi-tasking) and coming up against technical limits. What I'm asking is can it not make a list somewhere off-wiki of the users that need notification - the list gets consolidated - and then the bot runs again and makes notifications. Actually, this really is a year too late now, but for the future could you really, really try and sort this problem out? There may be other bot runs in future where users will be notified of multiple problems. In fact, I'm sure there could be consensus generated to require bot notices to be given in consolidated format, rather than separately. Call it the Betacommandbot clause if you like. Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
multi-tasking is what I am doing, I give 500 images to each thread and have that thread work on them. Ive got one idea, that Im working on but Im not sure how it will pan out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs)
I have a couple of possible solutions:
  1. If I am correct in assuming that your 100 threads don't edit conflict notifying the same user, then have the bot look for a previous note by itself (using comments or whatever) and find the end of the list and add the name to that instead of simply appending it to the user's talk page.
  2. If your 100 threads do edit conflict notifying the same user, you could have another thread/process running which waited for incoming UDP packets notifying it of new notifications to post. It could then limit it to one thread per user so it wouldn't edit conflict.
  3. Another idea is that you could have the bot log to a MySQL database and have a process come behind and tally everything into a list and post it, maybe once every hour or so and update lists that already exist on users' talk pages.
  4. Or you could continue as you currently do and then run over BCBot's notifications for that run and consolidate them after the run is finished.
Those are my ideas. If you want, I could even help you with implementing any of these, though Python (which is what BCB is written in, if I am not mistaken) isn't my forte. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 07:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Write the list to a subpage of the user's talk. At first it won't exist, so when the first item is found, create the page and leave the user a notice on their talk. As the bot finds new items, add them to the list. The notification only happens once per run (because the page already exists when the second item is found, leaving a notice can be skipped). That would be my suggestion. It can be made fancier by taking dates into account and leaving notices when the first time THIS run an item is found, or make the subpage different for each run. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems brilliant, but I don't code, so I don't know. Here's a simple thought I had, if that isn't possible or something. Instead of the whole long message that the bot leaves now, what if it were just one sentence that linked to the whole template somewhere else. I get that there'd still be multiple section headers, but big deal. Either you're going to fix the images then delete or archive the notices, or you can just rollback the notices. All this over talk page messages. Lara❤Love 08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"All this over talk page messages" - exactly - so why not fix that complaint? Lar's suggestion sounds workable. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem of the user subpage (as with a local file on BCBot's system) is that the threads can edit conflict with each other, and then you're screwed. The user would miss a few images (and complain, a lot :)) -- lucasbfr talk 13:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How does the current system avoid such edit conflicts? Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I never looked at BCBot's code so this is just speculation, but my guess is that every message left on a talkpage uses a new section ("section=new"), which prevents conflicts (Mediawiki does not throw an edit conflict if the conflicting edits aren't in the same section). -- lucasbfr talk 14:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So then you just use new sections on the subpage. The point of the subpage is to avoid an overwhelming list on the main talk page. All that is needed is a link to the list. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because the undo/rollback button or the archive option are such a hassle. Lara❤Love 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Rollback was not designed as a tool for people to tidy their talk pages with. And anyway, I think you are suggesting that if a bot creates a long messy list, a human should tidy it up. Why not get a bot to do the tidying up or avoid the mess in the first place by figuring out a way to add one notice and a list of images with the notice? If you were leaving the notices by hand, would you leave 30 identical notices or one notice and a list of 30 images? Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If a user subpage were to be used, I would think it should be an opt-in kind of thing. Perhaps something like a blank template on the talk page or a category users can add themselves into that basically says (to the bot), 'I know what your warnings are all about, just make me a list on my subpage.' That way people who aren't familiar with the bot's work are still getting talk page notifications (with a paragraph of information, whatever it says) and those that are can just watch their subpage (where it would leave perhaps a note with the title being the image name, and the text being bullet pointed reason and date scheduled for deletion, just one idea). I have concern about creating date based subpages, because then you end up with a ton of pages that will never get looked at and potentially never deleted. It would seem smarter to me to put the list on one subpage (which would be standardized) and let the user clean it up as he/she cleans up the images/deadlines pass/etc.
Of course, if we are throwing out ideas that could involve a lot more work, I would expand upon the template on the talk page idea and add another bot into the picture. This bot would scan the BCB list subpage, remove any redlinked sections (i.e. images that had already been deleted), then update the template on the user talk page with the number of sections on the page, which would then create a note saying 'You have X many images on your BCB page that need attention' (this message can say whatever, this is just an example). This update in turn would then create the watchlist notification (once per day if the bot was run once per day). I guess depending upon how many people opted for this (and unless we have a bot writer like Betacommand who can write a multithreaded bot to attack this problem, I would imagine the number of pages to scan could eventually get a bit large to do quickly. Perhaps the bot could even nominate for deletion any blank BCB subpages. Of course you would end with people who don't clean out their list (which goes back the opt-in bit) and end up with a notification to check images that other people have fixed (to fix that you would need to go back and check if the image fails again, which would be even more work). And of course what I am talking about adds an entire layer on top of the seemingly simple idea of a subpage list (which I would bet most people would ignore or forget about, which is one of my concerns) and perhaps is a bit overkill to a problem that could be solved other ways. Just food for thought (from someone who doesn't really mind the BCB notifications on his talk page). - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire concept of using a bot to raise issues with image tags is not user-friendly. It's about on the same level as automatic voice-mail machines; those delightful systems we all enjoy using so much. Beyond that, I would suggest that some of the comments from the bot's operator are not particularly civil, which surely does not help matters.

Just because there are issues with image tagging, and possibly even most of the users alerted by the bot are not conforming to image upload policy, the end of sorting that out nevertheless does not justify the means. It seems to me that many of those speaking in favour of the bot are merely supportive of policy (which really, there's not much of a leg to stand on for anyone who isn't). However, they might want to consider how the issue should be addressed, even if using a bot is part of the solution. Also, surely it should not be up to one individual to act on image tagging? It seems to me that Betacommand has far too much latitude on the issue, merely through being a bot operator. Indeed surely there should be far stricter conditions on people running bots? zoney ♣ talk 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't only support Betacommand because I support the policy. Betacommand and the work he does with his bot are invaluable to the project. It would be unmanageable without him. As far as the messagse go, they're the same message templates left by editors who do image tagging. It's like the opposition to the welcome bot. People said it was too impersonal. Who cares? The point is that the information gets across. A bot can get so much more done so much faster, which is necessary for a project of this size. Lara❤Love 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the ends do not justify the means. Undertaking the work of tackling image licensing does not place Betacommand or his bot outside criticism. That's the kind of logic that allows all manner of unpleasantry to occur on Wikipedia simply because the contributors are "valued". The unpleasantry meanwhile ensures that a lot of other contributors end up packing it in altogether and making better use of their time.
It is not the case that there is absolutely nothing can be done if the bot is done away with. For example, it might be a better idea to look at avoiding the workload in the first place. Fair use images are a bad idea for one thing. zoney ♣ talk 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Religion tagging

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this page, so started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass-spamming_by_User:John_Carter_and_User:Betacommandbot which has generated some discussion. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a Betacommand issue. Lara❤Love 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Several people there think it is, and are not convinced by by his "I voss only following orders" attitude. Clearly the requester is the primary problem. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why must people always link such stupid bullshit to Nazis? Seriously. Can't you take such things just a little more seriously? Avruch T 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, what's another handy example everybody will understand of somebody deflecting blame by claiming they were doing as told? —Torc. (Talk.) 11:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

People were blaming the bot twice for him acting on my orders to first add tags for the Belarusian Wikipedia and to notify editors of image deletions for X template. Honestly, even if I tell people "send all your questions and comments to me, not to the bot" people still find someway to blame the bot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the 'Attack page'

It seems as if betacommand got his way and the "attack" page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c has been redirected here. I have listed it for DRV if only out of courtesy to all the contributors, we'll see where that goes. In the mean time it seems quite clear what betacommand thinks of any discussion about his bot, and the fact he cannot separate any discussion about him and the bot, treating it all as a 'personal attack'. MickMacNee (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Betacommand

No, this is not another bot thread, this is a question about dealing with its owner, betacommand. I ignored the deliberate vandalism of my talk page, I ignored the total ignorace to repeated requests for information, I ignored the responses about 'bullshit attack pages' is respone to good fatih attempts at centralised discussion, but now, he is basically calling me a liar: "The issue is the page was created with numerous false statements that were knowingly made", and "they knowing pulled shit out of their ass". Seriously, what has this guy got to do to get censored? MickMacNee (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Providing the diffs proving the allegations would be a start. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This perhaps. At some point this thread should be moved to the AN subpage, which is if I recall titled "/Betacommand" not "/BetacommandBot". Avruch T 21:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Talk page vandalism (first response to criticism) [1]
  • First actual response to criticism: [2]
  • First allegation of being a liar: [3]
  • Second: [4]

MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also [5]. I'm also curious why Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) is being expressly used to contribute to an MfD - it splits the edits to debates across two accounts and makes things harder to follow through contribs. Orderinchaos 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If he really said "they knowing pulled sh*t out of their *ss" about other editors, that just isn't on and he should receive a warning at least. Hasn't he had warnings for this recent stuff? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit diff links above are fairly unambiguous. As Betacommand2, he does appear to have said those things. I am going to leave him a warning on NPA and no more, as I am about to step away from the computer for a time, but other uninvolved admins should review in more depth. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have notified Betacommand about this thread. - Philippe | Talk 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mick, please stop it with the threads. At the very least, it's making you look bad. If you want to create a witchhunt, do so in its proper place. Will (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it'd probably be better if you were to be "concerned" somewhere else than AN/I, because I think you're wearing away the good faith of most regulars on this page. As Will says,user disputes are this way. Black Kite 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My comments tward MickMacNee, and several other users are correct. I have repeatedly stated facts and how BCBot operates. these users come forward making BS claims about how BCBot operates, without ever providing proof. these false claims were not based on any facts but where designed to make me/how the bot operates look bad. I pointed out these false statements, yet the users in question keep repeating their same false statments ignoring my comments. I have repeatedly stated how/when BCBot does things either here or on AN. yet the users in question failed to do any research, but instead make lies up about how they think work. βcommand 00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I just left a warning on your talk page, however... you can be entirely correct that your critics are factually wrong, and at the same time saying so in a manner which broaches WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. If you broach those policies and abuse users enough, you will be blocked, even if you were right about the underlying dispute. Abusing people on-wiki is contrary to policy, rude, and destructive to the community. You've been warned about this before and you've admitted that you had a problem staying polite with people before. You know this is a problem. If this keeps up, somethings going to have to be done about it. That doesn't serve you well or the project well. Please take the step back and calm down and stop aggrivating the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Georgewilliamherbert, BC/BC2/BCbot have done many good things for wiki, but the community's patience with lack of response to concerns, his behavior, and his language/incivility seem to be at an end. BC's been warned multiple times. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse, if there are concerns about BCBot that you think that I have not answered please bring them up on my talkpage. I try to stay calm but repeated attacks against me wear me thin, and admins seem to just ignore those making those attacks, while when I react I get hammered for loosing my cool after repeated attacks against me. βcommand 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If there are no objections, I plan to move this thread to the AN subpage in an hour or so. Avruch T 01:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit irritated that we keep moving this off, because I'd certainly like for MickMacNee to see that most ofthe community is tired of this shit. Every single little thing, he runs here. I don't like tattletales. This is ridiculously childish of him. it's the old 'I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you' for five minutes, until he screams 'He HIT me! He HIT me!'. Well, good for him! Really. how much begging for a fight should we tolerate? Let MMN see that no one approves of him, and then he can move on. Hiding it on a subpage means less people saying stop it to him. ThuranX (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree. Let him study up on the proper procedures for uploading images, get out of Betacommand's sandbox (proverbial, not subpage) and move along already. Everyone jumps down Betacommand's ass for his civility and they don't consider the constant poking he gets, and in particular, this month, from MMN. Lara❤Love 08:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • So you don't think the above comments are innapropriate then? If anyone is tired, it's me from being continually abused for having the temerity to start a discussion about a bot, which you and others continually try to derail into unfounded conduct allegations. I realy would love to know what possible self-interest I could have in making BC look bad. MickMacNee (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Considering the constant crap that you give BC (which, by the way, looks an awful lot like harassment at this point), I probably would have said worse. Find something productive to do with your time and stop poking people with a stick. Shell babelfish 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
            • If you think this is harrassment you know where to go, otherwise, keep your weasel words to yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it'd be a Pyrrhic victory for your anti-BCBot campaign. We're all aware of how horrible you find it to have all the images you uploaded without rationales tagged and notified on your talk page; we know you took it as a personal insult, and many of us see your actions since then as a payback for that. I sure do, and all your conduct since then continues to show me you can't accept responsibility for your upload actions, and fix your images. Now quit trying to get a guy doing something that was endorsed by Jimbo in trouble for doing it. You keep poking the animal, the animal tries to bite, then you try to have the animal put down. That's how I see it, and judging by LaraLove's comment above, I'm not alone. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This comment exposes the criticism of me as the phallacy it is. I have never had any images uploaded by me tagged by BCBot (until he chose to mis-use his privelages and vandalise my talk page). Check your facts before making such ridiculous statements. I raised the original issue as a reflection of observed community concern, nothing more, nothing less; your continued assertion that this is a personal campaign due to something I have to gain from it is, in the words of BetaCommand, "bullshit"; and your and LaraLoves attempts to besmirch me for doing so, do not stand up to scrutiny. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not how you spell fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.50.164 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
you need to check your facts, over half of what you say about BCBot is just plain wrong. yet you insist that its right. βcommand 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Anything I may have said about your bot that was actually incorrect has not been repeated once it was corrected by you:- one of the main issues at hand is the lack of accurate information on which to base any complaints at all, and your reluctance to correct any innacurate view promptly, preferring to vandalise talk pages instead. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That is because you dont bother to do any research, Ive clearly stated how/why/what BCBot does countless times. you just dont bother to do any research and instead making baseless claims. βcommand 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If these are issues that come up time and again, why don't you do the obvious thing and link them from the bot page, instead of childishly telling every objector to check the archives? (after vandalising their talk page and generally being a dick) MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're not personally affected by BCBot? Then why are you out here every day looking for ways to get BC and BCBot blocked? Why do you keep poking him with a stick? If you're not affected, you've got even LESS ground to stand on. The only community concern that matters is improving the project. That's achieved by protecting the project from legal troubles. BCand BCBot assist in that. Their actions are noted and approved by the Foundation and Jimbo, as evidenced in the many, many prior threads on this matter. I don't know why you're opposed to his actions, but the net result is that you look like you want the project to be damaged, or even fail. Stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense, day after day. And if you've got no image uploads, then yes, I was wrong to assume you're personally insulted. Fuck if you're not insulting the whole project though. ThuranX (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is your POV opinion of my actions, and again you confuse issues with the bot with issues with the user. Check your facts before making generalisations like this. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? You're going to trying to use NPOV in a discussion about other people's behaviors? That's not what NPOV is about. Further POV=Opinion, so... my POV opinion is my ursine bear. The Issues of the bot are the issues of the user, as you've stated that BC must fix BCBot to your standards, and because BCBot is BC's. When you attack BCBot, you're attacking BC. and so on, this isn't new. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Tone down the rhetoric and watch your language. This is a forum for reasoned discourse not angry comments. FWIW, my comments apply to everyone, let's take a pause before reacting; I find that sometimes works (LOL). Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC).
Toning it down is a good idea, but there is no policy or convention against swearing. NOT#CENSORED and all that. Avruch T 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT applies to articles, not to editors. Wikipedia:Civility on the other hand, does. --Conti|✉ 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think something should be added to the CIV policy about it being thrown in peoples faces constantly at any remark vaguely considered to fall under a corner of that policy, as calling someone uncivil for such remarks isn't really civil in itself. Lara❤Love 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah let's do that. Let's allow people to be uncivil. Almost as good an idea as drive-in liquor stores. What could possibly go wrong with that? You may want to ask Betacommand why he isn't an admin anymore if you doubt that there is a larger issue to be dealt with when it comes to Betacommand's people skills. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also be interested to see how 'bullshit' and 'liar' might be exempted by such a policy. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that would be interesting, since that's not what I said. EconomicsGuy, is that what I suggested? Is it really? No. My comment was directed specifically at the response that "Fuck if you're not insulting the whole project though" was given. The use of "fuck" here is not uncivil. WP:CIV is thrown in peoples faces here constantly, which is really no different that throwing POV-pusher in someone's face. It does nothing whatsoever to help any situation. Srs. Calling someone uncivil does not lighten the mood on a heated thread. It doesn't cool things down. And it's uncivil to call someone uncivil when they're not. Lara❤Love 17:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So telling people that they are pulling shit out of their ass or calling them liars repeatedly in the same mnanner as you describe is not uncivil? Suggesting that they can't be called uncivil for that doesn't de facto make it legal? News to me. Like I said, there is a long and consistent pattern of behavior to consider. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Since you clarified that you aren't supporting Betacommand's foul language I'll let it go. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have "thrown WP:CIV in people's faces", just like User:Avruch hasn't thrown WP:NOT#CENSORED in people's faces. I wasn't even trying to imply that that single "fuck" was incivil, I was merely pointing out that arguing that there is no policy against swearing by pointing at WP:NOT doesn't quite make sense, in my humble opinion. If there is a policy that should be applied when it comes to swearing, it's Wikipedia:Civility, and that's what I wanted to point out. :-) --Conti|✉ 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But there's no reasoning with him. I've been calm in previous threads on this matter, but at this point, nothing less than the firmest and bluntest language seems likely to affect MMN's attitude. CIVIL doesn't extend infinitely. ThuranX (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comparing your last two recent comments shows a more reasoned approach. It still can be an area of contention, focusing on the issue not the submitter is what is required, IHMO (sitting up here in the heavens, looking down on you mere mortals... Not really!) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC).
I've been dealing with him since the creation of his "proposal", which some view as a borderline attack page. There are two issues here. One being that MMN decided to go after BC and his bot without doing any previous research. This after multiple threads here and on AN. And he is relentless in this campaign. And why? He claims on behalf of the community. Then, the other issue is BC and his short fuse. But he's been dealing with the MMN's of Wikipedia for two years. The animal analogy is a good one. You can't keep poking an animal over and over and not expect it's going to eventually try to bite you. If Beta is a beast it's because of all the shit he's taken from people too lazy to go read a policy or get their facts straight before grabbing their pitchfork. Lara❤Love 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Again you seek to mis-represent, I did not choose to 'go after betacommand', I raised issues with the bot that I and as observed, many others held. I consolidated the issues and discussion in a good faith attempt to stop multiple ANI and other threads, and for this I am attacked, for the obvious purpose of making the whole thing go away because you don't like it. The previous research you propose is the frankly ridiculous assertion that no editor has a right to raise issues about the bot before searching hundreds of previous AN and BC talk page archives, that is a ridiculouis position and clearly in bad faithm, and only serves to highlight betacommands woefully inadequate methods of communication. The direction of the rest of your post is frankly not worth adressing. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside the wider issues - nobody gets a pass for constant incivility, so let's drop that as an excuse for behaviourial issues. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dont apply a double standard to me, I see countless attacks against me and no actions are taken against those editors, yet when I respond I get hammered. either enforce it both ways or dont enforce it. As it currently stands there is a double standard. until the attacks against me are handled properly dont expect me not to react once in a while. βcommand 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant. You take a no mercy approach with image upoaders because they're breaking the rules and on the other hand expect to see yourself cut some slack when you break the rules. You've taken on a contentious task and adopted an abrasive manner in doing it. Its pretty much a given that you're going to get flamed. You don't have the self discipline to reign yourself in, but are happy to hold everyone else to the higher standard. Its pretty pathetic to watch. If you can't ignore the flames while you're going about your work you should retire your bot or turn it over to someone with a cooler head. Or install some big stop hand banner thing with a blunt summary of how it is on you user page that covers off retalitory edits and comments. Be sure to cover all the minuate in the rules. Maybe it'll help because you'll surely read that and it'll eventually sink in and the problem will then go away. You need to do what you're doing in a civil manner and ignore the barbs you're inevitably going to take. "Whining and complaining" about having to take critism over such an invasive and crude-mannered bot just doesn't make sense. Its part of the price to pay for doing what you do and the means you've chosen to do it. Suck it up. Wiggy! (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your personal attacks. βcommand 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for proving all of Betacommand's points perfectly. Black Kite 18:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What completely ridiculous and onse sided statements to make. Absolutely ridicuolous. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the actual attempt at discussion of the issues about BCB and NFCC10c 'enforcement' has been closed as a redirect, mysteriously just after betacommand waded in with personal attacks. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

then why does WP:AN/B exist? βcommand 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It probably escaped your attention, such as you pay any attention to criticism, that that consolidation of numerous threads occured after the creation of my page, and covers completely different subjects. But like I say, you clearly can't see the difference, or don't give a shit, either way. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what you're doing here then, those aren't personal attacks? And in regards to your earlier comment, I don't have to go anywhere, its perfectly acceptable to discuss whether or not what you're doing is harassment right here. I would support blocking at this point if you can't get yourself under control - take a breather. Shell babelfish 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you decided to continue this thread in a different place, but there you go. This post is an issue about betacommand's behaviour, brought on himself by his own actions, a perfectly acceptable topic for ANI, and completely separate from the original discussion. I say again, if you have evidence of stalking or personal attacks by me, you know where they can be raised, otherwise, enough of your baseless accusations. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt by Betacommand to obscure disussion [6] MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No It was removed due to a MfD. Im sorry if your little attack page got deleted, but get over it βcommand 20:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How about you learn the languague. Much as you and others realy hoped it got deleted, it wasn't, so again, enough of the mis-representation. Of course we should all talk to you on your talk page outside of third party observation, it's such a helpfull place to be [7] MickMacNee (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go. It has become obvious several times that Betacommand has a free pass to reply as he wish and as long as he isn't an admin anymore (and thank God for that) he can't unilaterally do any real damage. He just shuffles the papers around so an admin can delete the images. Just give it up, stop using fair use and always upload to Commons instead of Enwiki. That way he will be out of work soon anyway and we can all move happily on and forget the whole fair-use war. A lot of people here are going to find themselves without anything to do because this is all they ever do but that's not really our problem. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It occurs to me that none of this would be a problem if we followed the lead of some other wikis and actually tried to become "The Free Encyclopedia" by banning fairuse completely. Black Kite 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Banning or simply deciding that it's more trouble than it's worth would still result in the same. I may not agree with the anti fair use people here but I really can't see the purpose of all this. Kill fair use, turn off local image uploads and just use Commons. Less trouble, fewer bots, more actual content and time spent on article writing. Of course this would also mean that a large number of users would need a new hobby or ZOMG actually write an article or improve one once in a while. In other words, spend time on the things the readers are really here for. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the hundreds of hours of wasted sysop time. I couldn't agree more. Black Kite 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If that could free up enough sysop time to deal with the real threats against Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and collaboration then all the more reason to bury the hatchet and shake hands. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read this whole thread, and I see MickMacNee making valid points and being attacked from all sides by Betacommand and his supporters. I know Betacommand was the first to use the "lies and bullshit" comment, but the same could equally be said of what his supporters are saying about MickMacNee. Will accused MickMacNee of creating a witchhunt, but what I see here is a witchhunt taking place against MickMacNee. Shell's implicit threat of blocking (raising the subject for the first time and supporting it) was completely inappropriate. Everyone needs to calm down here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't blame people for thinking MickMacNee is being disruptive - because he is. After being criticised for opening another ANI thread (this one), he tried to link to the MfD discussion in this subpage, and when it was removed (and he was informed why we don't do that), editwarred with Betacommand to the tune of 6RR. And then blamed Betacommand ([8]). I should've probably blocked both at that point, but protected and warned instead. Then, he decided that the closing of the DRV was all down to Betacommand (despite being told that it was closed by an uninvolved admin by myself and at least two other editors) and tried to start YET ANOTHER AN/I thread attacking Betacommand([9]) which I archived back here immediately, and he then deleted and I suspect, was about to take back to ANI before I warned him I would block him if he did so. So after all that, and another pointless argument on here, he opened a DRV (without informing the closing admin). Good job all round, no? Black Kite 07:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Carcharoth. I note that many share Mick's opinions, maybe not to the extent that he expresses them, but certainly the spirit of them. It gets annoying when anyone who publicly disagrees with BC's actions gets treated like a criminal by those opposite. Orderinchaos 14:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think everyone that raises a concern with Betacommand gets treated like a criminal. I think those who repeatedly and relentlessly pound the same points over and over again, pad valid points with misinformation, and consistently prod Betacommand are the ones that are met with the greatest opposition. A respectful approach can make all the difference. Lara❤Love 14:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict between Betacommand and MickMacNee

Originally written as a reply to Black Kite above

The above ANI thread was perfectly legitimate. Betacommand had stepped over the civility line and subsequently got warned for it. It shouldn't have mattered who opened the thread - I really hope you can see that. Linking to the MfD and DRV discussions is also perfectly fine - that is something I would have done if he hadn't done that. There is nothing wrong at all with noting the MfD and/or DRV discussions of a page that ended up as a redirect pointing here. If the redirect pointed somewhere else, that would be a different matter. You can't say "but it's available in the page history" and then not have the page linked from anywhere so that people forget the page ever existed. The edit warring was sily, as you told both parties (but it is another black mark against Betacommand, in my opinion, that he edit warred over this - when is he going to learn his lesson?), but the ANI complaint MickMacNee made here looks legitimate to me. I would have to check Betacommand's contribs, but if he is going around removing links to the page that was redirected, that is not acceptable. And I just wasted time checking the wrong account. It seems it was Betacommand2. Here is my summary:

  • misleading edit summary
  • claiming the page was deleted
  • Asks closing admin to deal with edit war
  • Accuses MickMacNee of harassment and attacks
  • Complains to another admin and makes the harassment complaint again
  • Accuses MickMacNee of trolling
  • Calls the page "MickMacNee's pet attack page"
  • Refers to the page as an attack page and a 'biased place to vent his BS' (referring to MickMacNee)
  • says "MickMacNee just likes harassing me"

Remember that some of Betacommand's supporters say that MickMacNee runs to ANI to make complaints? Well how is these series of edits by Betacommnd anydifferent in the complaining sense? There is no consensus, as far as I can see, that the page was an "attack page" and should have been dealt with in this way. What I see in the above diffs is Betacommand using an alternate account to carrying on attacking MickMacNee and making over the top accusations that cross the line from strong criticism into misleading and biased attacks. Which is ironic, really. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the swift moving of that thread from ANI to here was not the right way to handle this, and I think the diffs I've provided above are genuine cause for concern. Funnily enough, the place to raise this would be ANI, so I'll go and do that. On the other hand, your (BlackKite's) handling of the edit war, by protecting and warning, was spot on. Carcharoth (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Such an issue is petty, of course, but I understand how Betacommand must've felt over the issue. This isn't nice at all because I don't believe he was obscuring discussion - as the talk page suggests, I don't feel there was always any good idea to put the notice on the page ("There was a page discussing Betacommand(bot) but it got deleted." - is that related to a noticeboard that is a subset of WP:AN or WP:AN/I for Betacommand(bot) issues?). This doesn't help and this is so ironic. What I do feel from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Recent MfD is that MickMacNee really feels that the MfDed page should have stayed but considering Betacommand considers it an attack page I also understand his response. MickMacNee has still not told me why he wants the notice up there (he has managed to not answer the question at all) and managed to deflect the issue towards a DRV ("DRV listed anyhow."), but I'll wait for a response nevertheless. My immediate concern is that this is getting increasingly petty and it should not be Betacommand vs. MickMacNee or, as it must feel like to him sometimes, Betacommand vs. The World - having been in that situation more than once I know how it feels - but the issue should be about how to resolve a bot that malfunctions (does it malfunction? I've read this entire page multiple times and every time people explain how it isn't broken, the thread dies), or that there are communication problems with Betacommand, which is not helped by the diffs above. If Betacommandbot really does cause this much ire, then perhaps it should be stopped. However, I firmly believe the bot is doing work that benefits Wikipedia and if the bot is to be stopped, there must be an alternative. There is a deadline, is there not? And that is not a community deadline. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder...

I have to wonder about the utility of this whole exercise. To my mind, scrapping the damn EDP and having free-only content would be so much easier... But here we are, and so I am also wondering of MickMacNee believes he is getting anywhere with these frequent threads. There has at no point been a consensus that anything other than civility concerns warrant action against Betacommand or his bot. I proposed that he stop using it in order to avert the constant bickering, and because if BCBot stops tagging then the community will be forced to deal with the issue in a more concerted fashion. But that did not achieve consensus on this page, and no other remedy of any sort has been shown to. If MickMacNee or others believe that further action is an absolute requirement, the logical next step is an ArbCom case. Avruch T 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the request for comments stage? Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We seemed to have covered that step pretty thoroughly without the formal appellation. Avruch T 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that the subpage was MfD'd and has now been redirected and the useful discussion there is no longer visible and the redirect has been protected, and we have to use page diffs to point people at it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, for that one page. There have been many, many other discussions (including this page here) where no consensus to change the status quo has been achieved. The lack of a consensus at the discussion stage would indicate that if some believe action is still required, ArbCom is the only other option. Avruch T 02:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
An arbitration also might have the advantage that people would get soundly smacked down if they committed the same level of casual quasi-personal attack that haunts all discussions around this issue. (Three cheers for the new arbitrators, by the way!) - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd have anything to add to an ArbCom case, but there are hundreds if not thousands of editors who do. I would definitely like to see a case proposed - even if the arbitrators declined to hear it, that would send an important message. Happy‑melon 11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Random Proposal

I can end the madness with BCBot, but when the deadline occurs admins delete images on sight that dont have valid non-free rationales. that would make me happy and end the abuse that I take. But I know it would offend the users I am trying to help now by notifying them. βcommand 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people (including me) appreciate the value in what BCBot does tagging images. But just enough people are so outraged by it, and so unable to read or understand the policy and requirements to upload/correct legacy images, that it seems like it might be easier for everyone to have you leave off. When a hundred thousand or however many images there are get deleted en masse, then you can resume tagging images as they are uploaded after the deadline. Folks who want to crusade to have the previously deleted images restored can do so, and it won't involve you. Avruch T 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
would you support my idea? βcommand 02:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Of stopping the bot, and allowing the deadline to hit without you having tagged all non-compliant images? Yes. Support. Avruch T 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
But please dont forget the second part of the proposal, admins delete images on sight without valid rationales. βcommand 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No-one has forgotten you said that, and deletion on sight is called WP:CSD, and WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7 already cover this. See also what I said below. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that'd be left up to the deleting admins and whatever sort of consensus comes about when the deadline hits and there are tens of thousands of non-compliant images. Avruch T 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

this proposal is an all nor none deal. βcommand 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So you are using the current incidents and support from those who feel you are being attacked as credit to force through a speedy deletion criterion without support? You are looking for WT:CSD. You would need support there for such a proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a "random proposal" as Betacommand puts it. I raised this issue at AN less than a week ago and left him a note on his talk page asking him to comment there (he seems to have failed to find the time to comment on an issue that seems to concern him greatly). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline. What I said there was:

    "What I am most concerned about is that people may use this deadline to try and force through some CSD allowing "invalid" images to be deleted on sight. That would be a disaster. There are a variety of possibilities, but the reason I'm bringing this up a month beforehand is to get people thinking of the possibilities and to decide on something now, with discussion, rather than argue about it later in the heat of the moment if some people get the idea in their head that the passing of this deadline means things are changing and deletion will be "easier"." Carcharoth - 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

    I am going to repeat what I said there: Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008? If I can get a clear answer to that, then I'll be happy. What I don't want to see happen is the passing of this deadline used as an excuse for deletion 'on sight'. Betacommand should continue to tag images the way he has always done, and there is no reason not to stick to the current "48 hours to fix new uploads" and "7 days to fix old images" deadlines. That worked OK over the past year, and should continue to work OK. Deletion 'on sight' raises the possibility that admins will miss things such as vandals removing non-free use rationales, or that such rationales will be removed as "invalid" rather than being contested in the right discussion forum (such as IfD). Judging rationales is not easy, and many admins would get it wrong, so discussion would be needed for contested rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Given the headaches of having to reinsert images once they are deleted, commented out of the article by another bot, restored by me, FUR'd , and then tracking down which article it was in, I'd actually prefer BCB continue than that proposed world. MBisanz talk 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Can I suggest, trying to phrase this as delicately as possible, that it's language like his response above that is actually the core of the problem here? There appears to be very little disagrement on the issues of the underlying policy. There appears to be very little objections to the idea of some sort of automated tagging. Almost all of the problems revolve around Betacommand's approach. He's routinely called "unresponsive," "difficult," "incivil," etc.
There is no room on this project for the attitude of "all nor none." This is a work that is contructed by and maintained by volounteers. A pre-requisite is that we contribute in a spirit of compromise and mutual respect. However much we all believe that the image work is required, it does not appear that Betacommand is tempermentally suited to perform it. There are some parralles with use of administrative privledges, where it's accepted that if a person cannot engage in civil discussion regarding the use of the tools than they should consider not using them.
I personally have attempted to discuss with Betacommand that the "abuse he take[s]" stems from his chosen method of discouse. People that you are "trying to help" do tend to get outrages when told to stop whining and complaining. I've not been sucessful in doing so, and my comments are "archived" from his talk with dismaying speed. I don't understand why Betacommand appears to feel compelled to continue running this bot. Is there not any way that the responsibility for this can be transerred to someone less volotile and more communicative?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been suggested before. The standard non-responses are that anyone else would get just as upset (an untested assertion), and that Betacommand is separating out his bots and making the functions more available (there is some evidence of this, but as usual with Betacommand and communication issues, you have to keep asking until you find out what is going on). Ironically, some of this was discussed at a page that has now been redirected. You can read what was said, but it will be in an old version of the page, which might feel a bit strange. I'm currently, with the agreement of the admin who closed the MfD, copying out bits I think were useful. Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Much as I hate to say it, Beta shutting down BCBot and letting all the images get deleted WOULD solve this, but only in a way that will leave MickMacNee crowing for years about hist victory over those who would make Wikipedians suffer things like responsibility and laws. BCBot's actions HELP the community, and those complaining really don't seem to understand the issues of copyright and non-free content well enough to see that BCBot helps us avoid direct and indirect legal hassles, and helps us avoid insulting thousands of creatives who directly or indirectly provide us with the great images we use. Those who've generated free content for us are usually good about this (see the retired David Shankbone, for example), but some aren't. a little AGF shows they didn't mean to forget or not tag, and would be hurt if their saturday afternoon's efforts were wiped out. As for all the images we 'borrow', those persons deserve recognition and credit for their efforts as well. BCBot helps us get that by getting the uploaders to fill in the data. BCBot works in a perfectly fair manner. It tags in proportion to one's own image uploading ability. IF you uploaded a hundred things right, no problems. If you uploaded 100 wrong, you get tagged. It's straight forward, and there's no collateral hits taken. Article editors can see from the edit summaries and article talk what's going on, but aren't interrupted by 'new messages' notes. Ultimately, if your talk pages are filling up, it's your own fault, deal with it. As for Betacommand's civility, MickMacNee keeps saying he wants to keep the bot and the man separate, but he keeps conflating them - see the highly punitive community ban call below. If you were doing all the work Betacommand does for his bot, when that bot points out the lack of responsibility by some editors, the creator takes the hits. After being on the receiving end for months, any one of us would get tired of it. Especially having the same 'Fixing this would take less energy than attacking me for doing the right thing' thought a thousand times a day. It becomes 'leave me alone and fix this shit'. Then just 'fuck off and die'. Is it "right"? Probably not, but it's also just being human. Intolerance for laziness and ignorance increases at an exponential rate relative to exposure. BCBot's got the backing of a wide swath of the community, of the foundation and Jimbo, and it's a legal remedy. Ignoring it, blocking Beta and banning BCBot will get more trouble, not less. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"As for Betacommand's civility, MickMacNee keeps saying he wants to keep the bot and the man separate, but he keeps conflating them - see the highly punitive community ban call below." - you do realise that it was Nick, not MickMacNee that called for a community ban? You seem to be doing some conflating of your own. "BCBot's got the backing of a wide swath of the community, of the foundation and Jimbo" - sometimes I wish the community, the foundation, and Jimbo would help out more, instead of letting Betacommand take the flak. But if you, ThuranX, are not willing to do this, why not? I've helped out on various image desks and on Betacommand's talk page and the bot's talk page. Have you? Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I disagree with "deleting on sight" for the old images (new uploads without rationales should be deleted after 48 hours). I think that it will only cause more drama. There are still old images out there that were uploaded before a rationale was required (for example Image:Album-cover-the-visitor-by-arena.jpg uploaded when WP:NFC looked like this). There are also images which just need the article name fixed, eg [10]. There are quite a few editors now (like User:MBisanz) who are fixing the fixable images. I've disagreed with the mass tagging in the past, but there is a decent system in place now to fix the images that can be fixed. FWIW, Betacommand has been helpful whenever I've asked him/her a question. Betacommand, do you have a number for the amount of images that still don't have a rationale? Do you plan to tag another large amount of images? Bláthnaid 12:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Best to ask him on his talk page. I've tried getting a clear answer to this, but it takes a bit of effort. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll do that, thanks. Bláthnaid 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day

And 6,000 yesterday [[11]]. All to be modified in 7 days or face deletion. How can that possibly be squared with with betacommandbot's stated desire of not wanting to delete images? I have had 7 tags appear in my watchlist today, and looking at comments on the bot talk page from another user with 7 and an 11, that seems about average, with one admin getting an unholy 65 direct talk page tags over the 2 days. I, like other well meaning editors who have not uploaded these images do have a willingness to investigate, fix and educate where necessary, but are simply put off by the sheer number of tags in a short space of time, with no tags applied for the preceeding 5 days. The intransigence/absence of betacommand on the bot talk page is also frustrating many. I have also seen the speedy deletion of images purely on the say so of uploaders getting fed up with the bot and just jacking it in. The majority of uploaders just seem baffled/confused/annoyed, with none really making any headway faced with tag explosions like this. Many image tags wont even be seen by the uploader in 7 days. Something seriously needs to be done about the way this bot is operated/scheduled. MickMacNee (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I am not the only one angered by this. I find it incredibly disruptive and destructive to Wiki. While I understand that the policy is clearly written, the policy was recently changed, but in most of these cases, the image does qualify as fair use, but it simply needs to mention the specific article its already used in. Why can the bot just do this automatically? Some of the users it is notifying aren't even active anymore to change the image. --Veritas (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This policy has been effect since mid 2006. and bots cannot write valid rationales. βcommand 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this. While tagging images is necessary, tagging them at this rate overwhelms the ability of Wikipedians to deal with fixing fair use criteria, the ability of admins to delete the images without a script, and the ability of people to review that the bot did tag the image properly. Please slow down the bot to reasonable levels. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Even still, why does a bot even need to do this? We're sacrificing reason for efficiency at a destructive and brutal pace. If it is not possible for a bot to operate in a constructive manner it should be shut down. It is clearly not capable of fixing problems, but only pointing them out and often to users who are no longer active and unable to do anything about it. Thus, what happens? Images are deleted and we will wait a year or so until someone else comes along to add new images. A ridiculous waste of editor time thus indicating that the bot really isn't all that efficient in the long-term. --Veritas (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree we need a bot to tag these to conform to policy. But given that we have 40+ days, I'd urger that we work on this current backlog past the 7 day limit. Its worked before and can work again. Also, a schedule of when runs would occur, would be most helpful. MBisanz talk 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an example of the intransigence. Just completely brushes aside any criticism. Not everyone has been here since mid 2006, especially many new uploaders, and many images pre-date 2006. This bot has got to be one of the most divisive things I've seen on WP, and yet, no direction is given to a precise summary as to consensus for this bot's usage. This is not about the policy, this is about the effectiveness of the bot to apply it. I have seen nowhere in the myriad of talk pages about this, any actual analysis of whether the bot statistically meets it's stated aim of not seeing an end result of deleted images, rather than being just a very fast and efficient deleter of content, valid or not. Denying that the bot plays any role in the admittedly final human decision to delete is just outrageous, especially given the timescale, numbers, and the reactions to it's tags from users of all experience levels. MickMacNee (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that BC is being intransigent, but that the use of this bot must be monitored and restricted due to its damaging side-effects that tags images faster than other, active, editors can step in to fix the backlog of destruction it leaves behind. BC seems to have a tendency to closely stick to policy. That's the safe route and there's nothing wrong with it save the fact that it doesn't always account for the human element of Wikipedia. --Veritas (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Veritas, when ever BCBot makes a run that day's limit is normally extended. since we are getting closer I thought Id identify as many as possible so they could have time to fix them prior to the deadline. βcommand 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure of the technical aspects of how the bot works, but I know that I haven't had any complaints about it until the past couple days so I'm not sure if something has changed recently. It is troubling though since I do feel that the bot's actions are negating is usefulness. Perhaps we can extend these 7 day deadlines until the back-log is cleaned up? --Veritas (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, why is this convo going on at AN as well as AN/I? --Veritas (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That convo looks like a general gripe, I am raising issue with the incident of NFUR tagging 15,000 images in 1/2 days, and the multitude of issues that comes from that. MickMacNee (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(ecx3)That is reasonable to ID them now so there is a greater opportunity of the uploader seeing and fixing them. Would it be possible to extend the delete date in the tag to say 14 or 21 days to reduce the incidence of uninvolved Admin X wandering across the image, not knowing about the extension on the Cat page, and deleting it? MBisanz talk 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue has come up several times. Part of the problem is that instead of tagging a few hundred images each day, the bot runs on this task only once in a while but tags many thousands of images instead. There is no need to extend the deadline, really, this will create a huge backlog when it comes time to delete these things anyway, so the deadline will effectively slip. It would be nice, though, if this task was run more frequently but at a lower rate. Mangojuicetalk 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What use is that if the tag says 7 days, and people just chuck it in because they haven't a clue what to do? There is no information anywhere about this deadline we are getting close to. Of the 7 images I have seen marked, 2 required a 10 second mod, most had specific tags that can direct to organised interest groups such as applying dvd cover templates, and none actually deserve deletion. Some even date from Nov/Dec 2005, so why are you rushing this through now? Why has there been no attention earlier by people who know what needs to be done to satisfy this bot? MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The copyright tags on the images clearly state what is required of the uploader to fulfill policy. There are also a few hundred active admins and a help desk for anyone confused to contact about what to do. I really don't see how this is something the bot can be faulted for. Lara❤Love 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree and disagree at the same time. Ideally, that is how it should work, but clearly not how it works in practice. I am tending to favor Mango's suggestion here that the bot run the task more often. This would create a far more agreeable tagging to editor-intervention ratio that is actually maintainable. --Veritas (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am planning more runs, I had a massive run about a month ago. this cleared what I missed last time and future runs should not be as bad, Im hoping to run this ~2 times a week. βcommand 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That fits from the admin who said it wasnt her job to explain the procedures on the project page she patrolled, necessitating edits of the instructions by the user themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What project? Lara❤Love 05:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing at all wrong with this. I just cleaned up one myself, and i'm lousy at writing these things. Luckily, it's pretty much boilerplate, and if you can remember most of it, then you're fine, and if you can Cut n paste to fit the use of a given image, then it's easier. there's a bit of mix and match, running down your entire notification list with one clipboard text-set would be bad, but it's not that tough to do. And this doesn't affect every editor, just those who never read the full 'how to upload images' guides, or who disregarded the tough part about writing something. Those editors will get the notes, as will all editors who have any article with such an image in their watchlist. I just grabbed one, and will probably find others in the next few days. This isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be. And, it does keep WP out of legal dangers and hassles. Would it be nice if the tagging bot ran more often than now? Maybe. It would probably irritate the serial violators more and a few might quit uploading, and a few might start writing, and then we'd have less for the rest of us to do. Or maybe not. But that we have 18K unfurred (sounds dirty, don't it?) images is even worse. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I know how to write FUR's, it's easy, I did one right off the bat, but when 7 pop up in your watchlist in one day, in the middle of a big article project yourself, none of which you uploaded but want kept, all of which are not violaters, some pre-dating the policy at all, some that could blatantly be fixed in seconds, some you know full well will not get the attention (it's not all project based images), but the effect of lumping it all in one, and with attitude of the operator, and the complete lack of historical guidance, you have to wonder if the stated aim of not wanting to delete images is correct. Had I just seen one or two flagged, I probably wouldn't be here now, and be none the wiser as to the tip of the iceberg surrounding this bot. MickMacNee (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Three of us on the ice hockey project fixed about 40 images in a very short period of time. There is no reason why we have to hold to a hard 7 day deadline if the backlog cannot be adequately tackled, but if editors with an interest in affected articles and projects are dedicated, it can be handled fairly easily. It just takes some time. Resolute 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Beta just said that he's planning on having the bots do more frequent runs. I am in favor of a large number of these being tagged now so long as the bot does regular and fairly frequent runs in the future so that users interested in maintenance have time to step in to fix the often minor adjustments that are required. --Veritas (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, for the day when there'll be a "11,000 images fixed in one day" thread. MickMacNee, if these images are so easy to fix, why are they not being fixed? Why is it so that years down the track, this bot finds thousands upon thousands of bad images each time it runs? --bainer (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are clear issues surrounding the lack of links and interest from the bot operator to inform aggrieved users of the past discussions about this bot (are there any agreed consensuses? Not about the policy, but the specific use of the bot). The issue is not clear cut when most advocates of the bot are expert admins, and most aggrieved by it are new editors. The issue is clearly affecting many many editors. Just needing a 17 point not my fault header on the bot talk page that has an archive for every month should tell people something is wrong. I say again, has any analysis been done on the effectiveness of this bot on gaining rationales to meet policy? As opposed to just hastening deletion of perfectly acceptable material? MickMacNee (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The material is not acceptable if it's not fixed; that's the policy, and the bot is just alerting admins that there is a deficiency. As for Betacommand and his communication skills, yes, they leave something to be desired, and I've had my own 2 cents to say about that a time or two. Nonetheless, the bot shouldn't stop running just because it's delivering the bad news that there is a lot of stuff that needs fixing). Mangojuicetalk 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You absolutely cannot ignore the scheduling issue, and the complete lack of any historical links or summaries. 'see the archives' is all you will get, if you're lucky. It has changed my willingness to fix things today, it has caused an admin with 60 odd tags to flip out, and caused others to just give up and say they want the images deleted rather than deal with bcb anymore, which were probably fixable. MickMacNee (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images. Also, Wikipedia isn't really hurt by copyrighted images being deleted, appropriate for fair use or not, so it's not damaging the 'pedia. It's an inconvenience for some, obviously, but it's a bigger issue for Wikipedia to be improperly using copyrighted images. Lara❤Love 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I know this probably doesn't matter to the deletionists, but there are a lot of editors (myself included) who have simply given up on uploading images. BCBot takes a subsection of a subsection (10C is it?) and uses it to tag tons of perfectly acceptable images for deletion. Then we have admins who simply plow through the backlog, deleting without bothering to check if it's something simple to correct. I'm done with trying to add images to this project, at least until BCBot is reined in or shut down completely. Bellwether BC 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's silly to say that deleting images doesn't hurt the articles. It's also a little strange to give up on uploading images. It's not hard to do it the right way, if the image is truly appropriate per policy and guidelines. I won't opine on the schedule though. Sooner or later we do need to get to a resting place where most of the images have the data they need. Wikidemo (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that many of the images at hand were uploaded correctly, then the guidelines changed, and suddenly there's a bot coming by screaming about the coming image apocalypse. BCB is bad diplomacy; Wikipedia rules are in flux, and when they change, thousands of articles are affected. How do we deal with this? Do we make it easy to bring the old ones in to compliance with the new rules? Maybe get a bot to fix that? Or do we get lazy and just send a bot out to tell editors they're wrong and their work is being erased. Even if the form is easy now, why should I trust it? Why should I assume the rules aren't going to change again such that the band name or record number has to be included with every album cover, and suddenly BCB rolls by with another 11k nastygrams per day? Allowing this to proceed unabated costs Wikipedia the trust of its editors. —Torc. (Talk.) 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when is the policy change BCB's 'fault'? Your issue is with Jimbo and the board.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't really hurt? A picture tells a thousand words. How about the editors chucking it in left right and centre every time this thing runs like this? In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images, As said above, I do fix images, but on days like today you think what's the point?, especially when you research and see the background to this issue, and see the massive effect one user is allowed to have without comeback. The copyright issue is all well and good, but again, this bot today has tagged in my watchlist sample, 30% of images that were loaded in 2005, and not a single actual copyright violator (after modification to meet a seemingly ever changing policy). Would you create content if you knew you might have to do it 3 times after each deletion retrieval? How does anyone expect any other jobs to get done in the face of that kind of lunacy. MickMacNee (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My main problem is that he's taking a subsection of a subsection, and applying it like it was the effin' tablets brought down from the mountain with Moses. And the admins that mindlessly plow through the backlog, without checking each image carefully aren't doing the project any favors either. There's just next to no common sense applied here. Bellwether BC 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In the time you've spent... is such a horrendously fallacious argument to make. In the time I've spent correcting correctly tagged images so the bot stops bitching I could have made substantive contributions to the project. We have X hours of editor manpower, yet a machine insists on determining exactly how we'll get to use those hours, and it has decided that forcing editors at gunpoint to perform dull, meaningless bureaucracy is the best use of our resources. And those hours are gone: whatever it decides, plus the lost hours from the editors who just bail from Wiki altogether when they get spammed by a machine, plus the lost hours from editors who will eventually have to reupload the same image because there was nothing wrong with it before aside from botardedness. —Torc. (Talk.) 10:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is silly to me is to stop uploading images because of BCBot. Just upload them under the policy. They don't get tagged if they meet the requirements. Lara❤Love 06:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No, what is silly is treating a subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ. And dismissiveness is usually the best option when dealing with those less experienced than you. I uploaded my first image maybe a month ago. I haven't uploaded a new image in a couple of weeks at least, after getting bludgeoned by BCBot, both on images I'd uploaded, and on images at articles I contributed regularly to. I'm tired of it, and I'm not going to be uploading (or working with images at all) until this bot is either reined in or shut down. Bellwether BC 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue is also non-uploaders wanting to fix things, faced with ridiculous conditions to do so, the issue of minimal exposure images being lost due to an arbitrary 7 day deadline, and images that were uploaded under the now out of date correct policy, being tagged multiple times every time a phrase changes. The issue is also the us and them attitude, there is absolutly no link from the bot page for a collaberative effort for experienced editors to fix things in a coordinated manner, nor any links to major consensus regarding the bot, it's all hidden all over the shop, all that exists is a long list of excuses and get out clauses. Most loaders hit by the bot only know to go to the bot page if that, and realy struggle to even comprehend what is required of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What would be a better time frame than seven days? "Arbitrary" doesn't seem appropriate considering these are images that infringe upon copyrights. Lara❤Love 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't confuse Wikipedia policy with U.S. law. The former is far more restrictive than it legally has to be. Most of these images do not infringe upon copyrights; they simply haven't had a specific rationale for fair use written yet. An appropriate time frame would be one that gives actual humans (not bots) time to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to each individual image, and to write a rationale if the image is to be kept. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
They are not infringing until examined and challenged in court. The one I corrected today was patently legally correct, it just did not meet whatever matching criteria the bot uses (these are I believe kept secret, why?). Many of these are not infringing at all, it is purely the bot design that tags them. Giving 7 days notice on an article loaded in 2005 along with 15,000 others at the same time is patently ridiculous. It is also my understanding that an image with a few keywords but filled with gibberish does not get tagged. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I know the quesiton was rhetorical but it would make more sense to tag all the images at once rather than haphazardly, and give people a very short time to correct new uploads but a long time (say, March 1 or March 15) to correct older ones. That way people could plan their work load, and rest assured that once they addressed all their notices they would be done with it. That's not going to happen, but just my $0.02. Indeed, the vast majority of these images don't violate copyright and are perfectly fine for Wikipedia, they just lack some data fields on the image file. Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that people who either don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation policies or don't understand how to write a proper fair use rationale are having their images deleted. It seems to me like they want someone to blame. Either Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admins are taking flak for enforcing the policies laid down by the Foundation. The policy is not decided by Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admin. Also it is not always simple to write a FUR if you are not the uploader. How can I know the source of an album cover that someone probably google searched? Also with regard to Bellwether's comment "No, what is silly is treating subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ." - If any part of this section is not met, the image may be deleted. It's written in the "enforcement" section right below the one I linked to. You may think that 10c is trivial but the Wikimedia Foundation (ie the owners of the servers and they set rules which we cannot override) do not. There's nothing silly about a bot pointing out violations of policy. James086Talk | Email 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are issues on how it is being scheduled. There are people who want to fix things, this bot is not helping by going the extra yard and scaring new users and annoying old users that have complied with a now changed policy. At the very least this should have been an internal project bot to highlight first issues for an experienced group to review/quick fix, without going straight to tagging the uploader, placing a massive incomprehensible tag on the image, and deleting within 7 days (that isn't being enforced because it is not working, so why say it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Plus nobody it seems is aware how the bot checks to decide when and when not to flag, it's whole design and operation appears to be in one persons hands. That to me is wrong when it affects so many other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no-one more suited to writing a fair use rationale than the uploader. If they don't know how, then they shouldn't have uploaded the image. New/inexperienced users may not have known about fair-use and the policy, but the message given by BetacommandBot links to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I think tags such as {{no rationale}} are pretty clear, but if you can think of a better way of phrasing the message that needs to be conveyed by the tag, go for it. Finally; even if the images aren't being deleted within 7 days it provides an incentive to provide a valid rationale now instead of procrastinating. We can't change this policy even if it is overwhelming for new users (I stayed away from fair-use for a long time). James086Talk | Email 07:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The images I'm often seeing tagged are ones where the uploader is usually long gone due to issues like this bot. And I don't get this idea that you can jump straight in and add text without any knowledge, and it will usually be fixed if wrong, yet woah betide you if you add an image with even the most trivial of non-compliances. Only a small subset of images really need the uploader's actual knowledge. Understanding the rules around nfcc is a nightmare. The bot is damaging efforts for new uploaders and experienced fixers at the same time. To suggest all is hunky dory at the moment is daft. The lack of group effort or consensus regarding this bot is also amazing, as fixing furs at the rate they are being tagged is way out of the league of even the most wiki-addicted. MickMacNee (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Replying to MickMacNee: As far as I can tell, the bot has a very simple algorithm. It takes the name of the pages an image is being used on and looks for them in on the image page (note that the links at the bottom of an image page are automagically generated, and so don't count). If any of the images are precisely named on the page (doesn't even have to be linked), ie. including things like "(diambiguation bit)", then the bot passes it. There is even a toolserver link around somewhere to a tool where you can check your images to see if Betacommandbot will tag them or not. So MickMacNee is correct to say that you can write gibberish on a page and the bot won't be able to tell as long as you include the name of the article somewhere. Of course, if a human spots this, the image will be tagged or corrected, and the editor who did this would get warned and, if they didn't stop, blocked. There are images I know of, which lack rationales, but which have the article name on them for other reasons. The most common reason is when the description bit says "picture of random article name" (with or without the link). The bot won't be able to detect these. It does, however, detect ones that say "picture of subject of article" without naming the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If it's Just That Easy™, why does the bot fix the fair use rationale? What information is it missing? For that matter, if it only detects a linked article name if the article has been wikified, that's a bug. A fair use rationale has to name the article it's used in, but does not explicitly have to link to it.
Another bug is that the bot is too stupid to tell when a targeted page has been moved and replaced by a disambiguation page, which triggers a false NFC. If it was a human eidtor who falsely harassed a few dozen users and deleted images under false pretenses, they'd be banned for vandalism by the fifth instance. We should not be more lenient for bots than we are for people.
Another issue is how totally confrontational everything about this bot is. Look at User_talk:BetacommandBot: you're greeted with screen-tall stop sign and 17 rules that all essentially say "piss off I'm right about everything." Then read the discussions below where it gets even worse. (Seriously, read it.) —Torc. (Talk.) 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I especially like the absurdity of Rule #3, "Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer." Just one of the 21 archive pages, User talk:Betacommand/20080101, is TWO HUNDRED AND ONE KILOBYTES LONG. Even without markup, a quick-and-dirty count shows 155,256 characters and approximately 26,000 words. Jouster  (whisper) 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of BetacommandBot

This pains me greatly to even consider such a suggestion as I know how important it is we deal with Non Free content, but the endless personal attacks on Betacommand and his resulting unending incivility is preventing any meaningful work being done to deal with non free content. I suggest asking Betacommand to relinquish his bot flag and request that his bot account be indefinitely blocked, if this isn't forthcoming, I'm quite prepared to ask the community to consider banning the bot (and not Betacommand himself) and asking that the bot flag be removed by a bureaucrat. The fact that we have one noticeboard now devoted to one man and his bot, together with the unending threads at WP:AN and WP:ANI suggests action is very urgently required to deal with the situation facing us. Nick (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a simpler, less harmless, way - everyone just shuts up and lets the bot do its work. Or Beta just ignores the threads on his talk. Will (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I and others have asked Betacommand several times (over the past months) for a schedule for when he intends to run his bot for image tagging. Given the amount of editors willing to work on this, and the wide range of the bot (affecting lots of people), and the number of times he has been asked, why is he not being more responsive? This is an example of the concern raised on the page that was redirected, a concern that was not addressed and was lumped in with the rest as part of an "attack page". Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hah, have you read this page? Or know the opinion of most users who sensibly avoid the drama over here? You'd never get this to pass. -Mask? 11:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The tasks that BCBot runs could be better organised in the hands of another user, I feel. I'm not asking for the work that BCBot does to stop, just that BC's version of the bot stops doing the work, and someone else who is more open to criticism can take over so we can have a much more productive atmosphere. Nick (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Betacommand has written the bot, another bot operatore would first have to go through the whole process of creating the right code, the right settings, which will cost weeks, if not more. The bot does its work perfectly, there are hardly any issues with what is within the grasp of any bot, and what this bot does. The added incivility by the users that attack the bot because they don't understand what is wrong, surmounts the comments by Betacommand by orders of magnitude. Why do we complain about Betacommand, because all returning incivility is concentrated coming from one person. Maybe stopping the bot, as suggested above, and wait for all users whose images got deleted to start complaining that their images got deleted without previous notice will solve the problem? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know something? Not many people work on non-free images, period. Those who work to fix non-free images, save those that need saving, and so on, don't (generally) get all upset when Betacommand and others rumble on regardless. What is needed is for those working on these issues to work together, and Betacommand could do a lot more of that. I've tried reaching out to him many times, and he occasionally responds, but most of the time gives the impression of being, quite frankly, disorganised. That is the only conclusion I can draw from someone who is so poor at distinguishing the genuine concerns from the ones that are not. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been working with Betacommand, no problem there. Generally, he has been helpful, and has offered his help throughout. Even if I did not ask for help, but just mentioned a bot-problem. And I do a some responding if complaints come in on Betacommand/Bots talkpages. I also see that there I have to answer 'that is wrong, maybe you mean this?' .. and those are things you can not teach a bot, it is just impossible. If the categories with images which 'should be deleted/reviewed' becomes to large, then it just takes longer to get through it .. it does not matter there if Betacommand splits jobs up in smaller batches .. it has to be done in the end, and if the tagged images don't get deleted immediately after the 7 days, that only means that the uploaders have longer to repair. I would just say, let it run until the end, and then work through the backlog later. That will now give a burst of further abuse on the talkpage of Betacommand/Bot, but then it is over .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and if Betacommand and his supporters had civilly and calmly said this, like you have, then we wouldn't be here. Instead, Betacommand did a ridiculous attack on MickMacNee, there was a witchhunt against a perfectly OK page, and MickMacNee' legitimate bringing up of concerns has been mischaracterised as harassment and attacking. Oh, and my proposal is still quietly being ignored amongst all the noise and drama. And it is not over by a long shot. There is still the issue of what to do after the deadline passes. See the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline and the (rather obscure) follow-up by Betacommand at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Random Proposal. I don't think admins deleting images 'on sight' will help improve things around here. I'm trying despearately to get people interested in a calm discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, but the inertia of this whole year-long process is immense and proposing details for what should happen after the deadline seems to not be of concern to anyone working on the tagging and deletions at all, which is rather strange. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I predicted this days ago, and you've been denying that a community ban was your goal. Oppose. Your only proposed alternative is that we ignore the law, and keep using images illegally, just so no one gets the talk page messages which are just so horrible; or we let them all get deleted, go through a massive 'why did MY images get deleted angst' wave, massive REuploading without FURs, MORE taggings, and more deleteions because some people will never get it; or, we just eliminate images. None of these seem like good options. As said above, this would never pass. ThuranX (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thuran, fair use is not illegal. Please try and understand the difference between non-free use (Wikipedia), fair use (US copyright laws) and copyright violation (US and international copyright laws). It is difficult, I grant you, but when people tell you what you are saying wrong and you don't listen, it looks like you are doing what you accused MickMacNee and others of - ranting and not listening to those correcting what you say. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd only point out, Nick, that 90% of the unending threads at AN and ANI are either the work of a few editors with agendas, or from people who have correctly received bot-generated warnings and don't understand why. Black Kite 12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. No-one who knows what this is about is denying that. That is old news. The issue is the lack of response to genuine concerns and suggestions for improvements. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would dispute that. A few have agendas, but most of the complaints seem to be first-time recipients who become upset about the treatment they receive and the attitudes they encounter. You could make the same arguments about agendas about the defenders: a small, vocal bunch who no longer are able to view this situation objectively, are exceptionally defensive, and cannot separate legitimate criticism and honest confusion from pointless attacks. The only people I see basing their arguments on things like "we can't do this because it would be a victory for such-and-such" are the people willing to excuse any type of behavior from BC. This whole event largely did not affect me and won't affect me further, but I still took the time to discuss it because I thought the double-standard imposed here was depressing. There is no excuse for the behavior: if you can't perform this function without losing your cool taking abuse and having to explain things over and over to people who don't want to read hundreds of archived pages, figure out how to do it so it doesn't generate this much animosity, or just stop doing it. Excessive stress is not an excuse for rude behavior, and no individual is critical to the project. If BCB doesn't do this work, will the next person who does generate this much friction? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No support. Abolish non-free content, turn off local uploads and make Betacommand and his bot redundant. This also releases a significant amount of sysop time to deal with POV pushers and other far greater threats to the project. I'm far from being a fan of Betacommand but this is clearly more pressure than he can deal constructively with and I'm starting to think this is more trouble than it's worth since we do agree that non-free content should have proper fair use rationales. For the record, we are not violating the law ThuranX. Our non-free policy is sígnificantly stricter than the law. Read up on the issue or stay out of it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the drama has been about BetacommandBot's tagging of legacy images that have been on the wiki for years. Once those images have been dealt with, I think that the controversy will die down. From what I've seen, bot-tagging by Betacommand and others of new uploads and orphaned images have caused very few problems, and there are help desks to promptly help uploaders. Bláthnaid 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That should have been said from the beginning, instead of this huge mishmash of misunderstandings on both sides. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the number of images we are talking about there will be a substantial number of deletions even if we try to tag them with correct rationales. I looked into this before Christmas to see what could be done about the number of album covers that need rationales and without a bot we can't make it before the deadline. It's impossible. Even when this is over and done with there will still be disputes because people will still upload images without proper rationales. I simply don't think this is worth the effort anymore. Other major Wikipedias are getting by just fine without fair use. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand has said that the majority of images have already been tagged, so hopefully there won't be a situation like this in the future. The disputes over the new images that are tagged haven't been too heated, and the bots are doing a good job in catching the new images without rationales (eg [12]). Bláthnaid 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Carch, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that there are not enough people dealing with NFCC. But this is not BetaCommand's fault. From what I've seen, he/she has been resonably willing to deal wait until things were resolved. You yourself said that he/she waited until the alternative proposals ended up failing. Once it became clear that no one else was going to do something, he/she went ahead and did it. It's not his/her fault that the community failed to come up with an alternative. And yes, perhaps it will be ideal if the bot's code is released to someone and if it is seperated and all that. But the reality is, it is not BetaCommand's fault the community has come to rely on his/her bot so much. People are welcome to code alternative bots. Betacommand is not stopping them. Perhaps it is a waste of time to re-invent the wheel but ultimately it is betacommand's work and his/her right to decide what happens to it. It's not as if betacommand has relied on a community of volunteers to help him/her code his/her bot then refused to let others use it. And yes, perhaps betacommand has been a bit incivil. But when you get many of them downright rude, some probably violating NPA and many of them probably blaming betacommand for something which isn't his/her fault, it's not surprising. And yes perhaps betacommand can work with the community to make the bot even better but is not doing so but I presume he/she has a job with limited free time and is already dealing with all the flak from the bot. Ultimately, no one else has coded an alternative bot or even volunteered. For starters, I suspect the code isn't as easy to make as some people seem to think. And given all the flak betacommand receives, I would say it's not surprising even those who are capable have no desire to do so and be the next person that everyone loves to hate. As I said at the beginning, it is not Betacommand's fault that we are in this mess. We had a whole year and we failed to do anything. The sad fact is, we have far to many people who are willing to argue over NFCC, argue for us ignoring our 'free' mission, complain about betacommand/bot, defend betacommand/bot (yes this includes me), revert appropriate taggings without fixing the problem, upload NFC, defend NFC deletions (without fixing the problem) etc etc but far to few people willing to ensure our images comply with NFC, fix them when they are fixable and delete them when they are not. You and some of the people complaining (and defending) here are part of the solution which is good but as you've said there are too few. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't support this, but only because of the timing. Betacommand and his bot have come up over and over and over again as problems, and while the work needs to be done by someone, I think it is definitely worth taking some time to reevaluate each of BetacommandBot's tasks and which has community support, and indeed whether the bot has community support at all. However, we're fiddling while Rome burns here. There are thousands of images on the chopping block, most of which can probably be kept if we start writing rationales for them. I'm going to go add rationales to 100 images now. I suggest everyone else reading this do the same, and we can discuss BetacommandBot's status another time. Mangojuicetalk 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the frustrating thing, the bot does lots of valuable tasks, but every time the bot is blocked for a problem relating to one area it covers, it takes out a vast swathe of the functionality all bots provide. There's a definite need to have all the tasks separated out and run under different accounts (something promised but which remains undelivered). There's erosion of trust and with the recent grossly unacceptable behaviour Betacommand programmed into BCBot this past week to spam messages, many people no longer believe the bot is functioning correctly and no longer trust the operator. There's a perception (completely wrong) that the bot is being used to tag images improperly in some sort of crusade against Non Free content - this is something directly down to the behaviour of the operator. There have been requests made on multiple occasions that the source code should be made available, vetted by trusted bot operators and run under a new account by one or more trusted users. It's just not happening and it's getting to be quite frustrating that we're here yet again, having another discussion about the bot. Nick (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick, Ive had one request for code. that user was un-willing to agree to my terms. βcommand 15:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is a bot running on a free information project by a strong supporter of GFDL content over non-free content closed source? What is so secret about a set of scripts? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Trust, I dont like releasing powerful programs to people I cannot trust. βcommand 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Why should I trust a user who doesn't trust users in good standing with the rest of the community? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of people that I trust, but I have seen a lot, just look at the recent admin desysop. the community was wrong. My position is that you have to be proven trustworthy. that is why I dont make my code public. βcommand 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That still did not answer the original question. Where is the credibility of your commitment to free content when your own bot is closed source. Why should we trust you and your bot when the trust is not returned? How can you not see the problem? Your bot tags images after examining a piece of Wikicode and other trivial stuff. You make it sound as if that is something super sekrit yet I could do the same in AWB with a simple plugin and even run it unattended too. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This is one of clueless-bot-newbies questions: What harm could possibly done by someone with no good intentions if the code of the bot would become open source? I don't see it right now. --Conti|✉ 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
BCBot can reach upwards of 700 edits a minute. that is 35000 edits an hour. that is un-modified. with a few tweaks it can edit a lot faster. AWB only reaches 10-15 edits a minute, and normal pywikipedia maxes out at 60 edits a minute. βcommand 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a limit for normal users on how many edits they could make in a minute? And anyways, isn't it really, really trivial to program a bot that could do lots of edits a minute? That doesn't sound like a strong argument to keep the bot's code secret. --Conti|✉ 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So the bot is written in C? Why do I need to drag this out of you? Speed is not the issue here, it's the actual task of your bot. It isn't exactly rocket science to figure out what the bot does and the Mediawiki API isn't rocket science either. Oh, and non-bot non-admins can't edit that fast anyway due to the limitation set on how fast we can edit regardless of how we do it. So that's rather a non-issue unless you now want to claim that admins would abuse the bot. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. Per this I now understand that not only does he think that, he also somehow gets a stab at OTRS in there. Apparently BetacommandBot is a threat to our very existence. Expect calls from the CIA soon. Quick everyone, run for cover! EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I am requesting your code. What are your terms? Reply here, please. Nandesuka (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only no but hell no. I dont trust you, and you have zero experience with bots. βcommand 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't actually know anything about what experience I've had -- it's far more than you -- but let's leave that aside. What, exactly, are your terms for releasing your source code? Nandesuka (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason to suspect that Nandesuka, whose name I've seen around Wikipedia for a long time, is someone who is likely to run an unauthorized bot, or release the powerful code the bot uses to vandals or something? I myself would like to look at the code, partly because I'm just curious, partly because I've had one or two ideas for bots in the past and would like to see how some of the things are done because I might want to actually build a useful bot, and partly because the more people who know how the bot actually works, the more people can explain the safeguards that are in place in the code to those who complain about it as abusive. I have a programming background. Mangojuicetalk 16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Mangojuice drop me an e-mail. βcommand 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed my question. Would you kindly explain to the community your terms for releasing your source code to another editor? For the sake of discussion, let's assume the editor is one you "trust." Nandesuka (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are my requirements: have six eyes and purple skin. βcommand 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Phew, it took a lot of work to get that answer. In any event, thank you for clarifying that you will not release your source code. Hopefully the next time someone brings up the issue you won't try the "But, but, but, no one has asked!" dodge. Nandesuka (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nandesuka, you just dont get it. I am willing to release the code to those that I trust. my previous comment was a joke. βcommand 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You realize he's under no obligation to release the code, or have a criteria for release other than "Only people with twelve toes and seven fingers, who can write Perl while sleeping"? Avruch T 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. But reasonable people are willing to discuss things in public. Beta has said several times that very few people have asked him for his code (which seems incorrect to me, but let's ignore that), and that the only reason he didn't release it was the askers weren't willing to comply with his terms. Since I assume Beta is reasonable, I'm sure he'll have no problem stating publically what his terms are.
But then, I'm only an admin who has been editing for 3 years with over 11,000 edits and no blocks. So perhaps an untrustworthy scoundrel like me just doesn't have a full grasp on the situation. Nandesuka (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You realize he's under no obligation to release the code But by the same token, I would assume that the community is under no obligation to allow a closed-source bot to do this task - although it would seem, practically speaking, that there is little choice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose : Sorry, but this proposal for a community ban is nonsense, IMO. Almost every bot has had problems here, and we don't ban them. You need to weigh things out here - BCB is an asset to Wikipedia when it comes to non free content. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yawn how many times does this have to be turned down? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. To counter the definition of a ban, I would always be willing to unblock Betacommand as long as his bot is enforcing our image policy. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OpposeCommunity bans don't rewrite 10c. MBisanz talk 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No way Either BCB does it or someone else does it; and when someone else takes up the task, all anger shown here will be shown at the new guy and bot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this like a tradition now? oppose - Same rationale as the last time. Lara❤Love 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot is not the problem

To remind those who have raised the suggestion of banning the bot, the bot is not the problem. The problem is the massive amount of non-free content accumulated by this nominally free encyclopedia project. To complain about the bot is to miss the point: the bot's work on Wikipedia is an essential. It must be done. Don't complain that somebody is doing it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

People aren't complaining about the bot, people are complaining about Betacommand's unresponsive and uncivil reactions to any kind of criticism. --Conti|✉ 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Conti. Enigma msg! 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then try dispute resolution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually a lot of people are complaing about the bot, see the first thread for example Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed The Bot is not the problem. The problem is the FUR. Basically, it's not necessary. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia - they're not selling stuff (E.G "EBAY")

therefore they're not profiting on entries in this encyclopedia, so on that point alone, FUR is not needed. However to protect Wikipedia from spurious lawsuits, I see the 'pedias' need to ensure that copyrighted images are used a little as possible. Yes there needs to be some kind of policy for that. Yes there probably should be some type of explanation for those images. NO we don't have a need for an extensive FUR as we have now. Basically, wikipedia wants to know if the image is copyrighted. That a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. If 'no' then no problem - end of story. If 'yes' then what article is it used on. Again, a simpler form than what we have now. It's not relevant what other pages we want to use the image on, and no a seperate form dosen't need to be filled out - that's pure bureaucracy (WP:NOT#Bureaucracy). It's that simple when entering text into Wikipedia, it should be that simple with image as well. We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea that copyright only applies to commercial exploitation is a canard. Moreover our free license does permit commercial use, so we are enabling and encouraging commercial exploitation of any included works, whether or not we make such a profit ourselves. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a very, very busy discussion page, presently at about 350 kilobytes. I've set up miszabot with an archive period the same two-day period as the parent page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed it, and you've re-added it. I didn't think that archiving was bold enough to fall under bold/revert/discuss, but edit warring over it is fairly petty. If the page is too long, make a manual archive and create a summary or an FAQ. Bot archiving is a sub-optimal solution in search of a problem. To be explicit, I'm opposed to the bot archiving of this page. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Miszabot seems to manage the parent page quite well. Could you be more specific about why you think a human can manage a large, busy discussion page better than a bot? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Compared to the main page, the traffic here is actually pretty minor. I think either one would work, although the Miszabot timeframe should probably be extended to 7 days. What you see here is everything since the page was created, and its still smaller than the admin noticeboards are most of the time. Avruch T 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put the period at 5 days and see how it goes. 350kb in 12 days is pretty huge. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If we look all of one section above, the LaraLove says "I'm only repetitive because I'm responding to the same things over and over and over again." BetaCommand has said many times that he gets sick of responding to the same whining and complaining again and again. And, perhaps this is a bit of a mental leap, but this page serves a totally different purpose than the "parent page." This is a page dedicated to one long, ongoing saga, and having the history where someone can actually look at it avoids the rinse/repeat cycle that the pro-incivility-when-provoked crowd appear to be so sensitive to. Bot are, in the best of cases, blunt tools. If this page is crashing your browser or something, make a meaningful archive, with a summary and a link. Don't let's fall into the trap of "oh, no one has commented for 48 hours, it must be resolved." Then what happens is someone like MikeN has to comment every 48 hours to keep discussion moving forward (in the face of purposeful go-slow, see above.) Then he gets accused of harrasment. See how that's sub-optimal?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care one way or the other, but I wouldn't use the argument that not archiving the page will end the repetitiveness considering we've been repeating ourselves to the same people on this page and others for days now. Lara❤Love 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone forgot the basic step of adding an archive box to the top of the page. Please, let's not risk discussion getting shuffled off to archive pages and lost through not being noted in an archive box. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add an archive box because there was as yet no archive link to put inside it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right. Let's blame the bot then! Silly Miszabot. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

zOMG! Everyone argue about everything! It's fixed. Move on. Lara❤Love 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On dispute resolution

I agree with LaraLove that there's plenty of repetition on this page because the same ideas keep getting raked up over and over again, and failing to gain traction. Archiving the page will not make it more or less repetitive, but it will a least make past discussions easier to locate and present ones easier to read and contribute to.
This page is somewhat outside any meaningful interpretation of our dispute resolution system, but it's clear that many of the issues raised here are related to conduct rather than content or policy. If you want to discuss conduct problems and feel that they haven't been resolved, produce a conduct RfC. If that doesn't help, consider mediation or arbitration. Don't try to use the sheer size of this page to browbeat a user into changing his conduct. You will not be permitted to succeed in such a path. Follow dispute resolution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There are so many obfuscatory comments there, it's hard to know where to begin...
  • I'm not objecting to archiving, only to thoughtless machanical archiving. See where I say "make a meaningful archive, with a summary and a link" up there? Are you even reading other people's posts?
  • I agree that this is mainly a conduct issue. Notice above where I say that?
  • "Don't try to [...] browbeat a user". That's offensive. "You will not be permitted to succeed in such a path." That's highly offensive. Anticipation should apologise for the baseless character smear, verging on personal attack, they have just committed.
Regardless, it's clear that no more meaningful discussion is going to occur in this venue.
06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading your comments, but you haven't explained why a human could do this mechanical and boring task better than a machine.
If you agree that it's a conduct issue, again I can only urge you to consider my advice that you follow the dispute resolution mechanism.
I'm not trying to be offensive, just to warn you away from attempting to use the sheer size of this page as a means of browbeating someone into changing his conduct. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)
Thank you for that warning.

  1. May I offer one of my own, that someone under quasi-voluntary editing sanctions should probably be very careful handing out warnings of that nature?
    • It's not at all a long bow to draw from you giving transparent straw man "warnings" to a block for incivility.
    • Because, this may be hard for you to understand, but saying things that are patently untrue in the vein of stop-beating-your-wife is highly incivil.
  2. With respect to your plea for dispute resolution, I offer:

Again, the arrival of Tony Sidaway means that all meaningful dialog has ended here. If he can't delete this page, he'll archive it to death... I am sure that Tony will insist on having the last word here, so please feel free to say whatever you like, I won't be reading further.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AoaNLAT = Tony Sidaway? That explains a lot. Bellwether BC 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The Betacommand RfC and arbitration related to administrative conduct. Since he is no longer an administrator I don't think they can be seriously described as an attempt to resolve the various disputes expressed on this page. I again urge you to seriously consider dispute resolution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts after reading this page

OK, as someone suffereinf from insomnia, i read through most of this (apoligies if I missed anything important). Here are the thoughts of someone who has dealt with BCbot in both a positive and negative way.

  • As I understand it, BCbot flags images that have improperly written or missing FU rationales
  • However, it only assesses the existence, or lack thereof, of mentioning the article of use (criteria 10.c)
  • Some users believe that this targets images that are most likely covered by fair use but are missing a small portion of the rationale
  • Others say that 10.c is a crucial part of a policy laid down from the foundation that must be respected
  • There is also a concern over the managing of the rate of the bot's operation
  • Users who hold this view claims it makes it difficult for human users to manually fix the image pages by the 7 day deadline
  • Other users say that as the images fail a criteria mandated by the foundation, they should never have been uploaded in the first place, and must be either fixec or speedied,as was previously agreed upon.
  • A further concern, one that does not really bear on this debate IMHO, is the way in which BC runs the bot and responds to comments

I think a key issue here is that many people expect BCbot to validate an articles rationale the way a person would, all it does is search for keywords. As a response to this, and the concerns about timeframes, perhaps the images identified by the bot should be tagged differently. My suggestion would be to add a template saying something along the lines of This image may not have a valid fair use rationale. It has been identified by a bot as not listing the articles in which it is used. As there is a Wikimedia Foundation policy mandating valid use rationales, if it is not fixed it will be delted on May 23rd, 2008 as noted in the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Feel free to destoy my suggestion and tell me how a completed misinterpreted every statement on this page. :) Random89 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A fair-use rationale cannot be valid if it doesn't identify the article to which it pertains, so may not is superfluous in this case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The script is not bulletproof. Mistakes happen, whether due to issues grabbing redirects, or utf-8, or data lag. Gimmetrow 09:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, no bot is perfect. However I don't think that's the reason for the bulk of the complaints. There seems to be a substantial minority of the community that disagrees with the idea of using a simple heuristic to identify the hundreds of improperly used items non-free content uploaded daily. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the only thing we are trying is to get Betacommand to give us an honest answer to a simple question. Unfortunately, as always with Betacommand, this is proving very difficult which is why we are getting increasingly suspicious. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I see a lot of complaints, at least in the first thread, about the bot being too fast, or creating more problems then it's worth or whatever. However what is clear is that we have to delete all fair use images with no valid rationale by March 23rd of this year. And what is also clear is that so far, that I've seen anyone, no one has demonstrated any actual significant problems with the bot. Some people have complained about betacommand's incivility or reluctance to deal with complaints which may be true but is mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only issue is whether is whether there are any demonstratable significant problems with the bot. From what I've seen, so far there have been none. The bot may make a few mistakes but they are few and far between. Most images that have been tagged do indeed have non-compliant rationales. These may be easy to fix in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that they are invalid and as I've said need to be fixed by March 23rd or deleted. If you have a problem with betacommand then follow the appropriate procedures. But don't act as if or complain about the bot as if it is causing major problems when you have no evidence for that Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. For example, this incivil attack on Betacommand appears in the section above. Yet look at the talk page of the editor that made this comment, and what do we find? Lots of BCBot warnings, about many of which the editor has done nothing - for example Image:The red house palgrave.jpg which was tagged two weeks ago as non-compliant but the uploader has ignored it and not provided the correct FUR - yet has the temerity to complain about BCBot. Black Kite 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at how much had to be distorted to make that example fit what you wanted it to. First, the reply is testy, but it's criticism, not an attack. The points he's making are clear and correct: BC demands strict compliance to one set of rules, but frequently breaks rules he feels justified breaking. He seems unconcerned with the feelings of uploaders, but expects them to worry about his feelings. BC knows this is a task that's going to grate on peoples' nerves, yet still takes a caustic, unfriendly approach to the whole thing. "You don't have the self discipline to reign yourself in, but are happy to hold everyone else to the higher standard" - that can't be said better or more clearly. "Its pretty pathetic to watch" is a bit of a flame, granted. "If you can't ignore the flames while you're going about your work you should retire your bot or turn it over to someone with a cooler head." Words worth repeating. "Its part of the price to pay for doing what you do and the means you've chosen to do it.
It's obviously written by an annoyed editor, but its assertions are correct, and they were in reaction to communication received, not some random volley out of thin air. Now for your second point: Lots of BCBot warnings, about many of which the editor has done nothing - for example Image:The red house palgrave.jpg which was tagged two weeks ago as non-compliant but the uploader has ignored it and not provided the correct FUR - yet has the temerity to complain about BCBot. You've just illustrated a perfect example of the flaws with this methodology: BCB WP:FUCs this editor over with SEVEN notices in two days while the editor is clearly busy working on other articles. Despite this, SIX images are fixed, and the seventh requires a different kind of FUR that might take research. The editor gets frustrated and complains here, and points out legitimate problems with the procedure. And how is this summarized by you: "Many of which the editor has done nothing [about]"..."the uploader has just ignored it...has the temerity to complain about BCBot".
Look at that editor's history. He's been here three years and does great work. He has ZERO blocks, and I couldn't even find a single warning for any form of disruptive behavior in his user talk page. Yet because he's critical of something that a few dozen other editors have also criticized, you want to defame him and drag his name through the mud, rather than actually address what he said? This user posts a paragraph with a couple pointed words, which aren't even vulgar; yet you want to crucify him and insist BC and his red ink "lies and bullshit" tirades are totally justifiable? —Torc. (Talk.) 11:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's deal with those inaccuracies one at a time. (1) That wasn't the only image that wasn't fixed - two others were deleted for no rationale, and another editor fixed this one (2) It doesn't require a different type of FUR which requires research, that image just requires a bog-standard FUR just like the others he fixed. (3) There is a WHOLE WEEK to fix those FURs, most of which are a few minutes work (note that the editor fixed the six images that he did fix in 20 minutes) Yet that editor has carried on editing in other areas and not fixed all the images. Perhaps he wanted them deleted - but if he wanted that, then why is he posting anti-BC stuff like the link I posted? I don't understand that. (4) You think "suck it up" and "pathetic" aren't incivil? You might want to rethink that. You might also want to look up "defame" and "crucify" in a dictionary. Criticising is neither of these things. (5) I only criticised that particular comment, not the editor's other work, which is great. That's why it's actually such a good example, because an attack on BCBot by an editor who's normally incivil wouldn't be worth remarking on. Black Kite 12:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
1. That somebody else fixed an image or that he let some get deleted isn't cause to assume he was unwilling to fix them himself. That's an assumption of bad faith. The user has a long history of compliance with these demands. There is no reason to assume he's complaining just for the sake of complaining. 2) Of the recently tagged images, six of those were team logos; the one left unfixed is some painting. It obviously requires different information, some of which he may night have. Your default assumption seems to be he's simply unwilling to fix this and would rather spend time complaining; you assume fault. Yet the reality seems to be that maybe he can't fix this or he doesn't have the information as handy as the team logos. 3) Expecting editors to drop everything to adopt these priorities and fix this, rather then letting them spend their time improving the articles they want to improve elsewhere is part of the problem. It's an attitude that deserves questioning and criticism. 4) I said "pathetic" was borderline. I do not think "suck it up", as colloquial as it may be, is anywhere near as uncivil as peppering a page with big red "lies and bullshit" - yet you went out of your way to call out the editor making the former and defend the editor making the latter. 5) No, you criticized the comment, pointed out the number of warning they received to infer a bias, and then claimed falsely that the editor left multiple images unfixed when only one remains so. You manipulated reality to paint this person in the worst possible light so that he could be dismissed, and by proxy, anybody complaining could be dismissed. Rather than recognizing the positive contributions of this editor and considering that, given his exemplary record, he might be right about this, you assume that what he's saying is wrong and wonder why he's so far off this one time. The same thing can be said about a lot of the critical voices here: many of them are excellent editors who don't typically complain. Why is that? Did they all just go off the deep end this one time for no reason? Or maybe the talk page at BCB and some of the warnings actually are inflammatory and encourage conflict. Maybe the process is more confusing and seemingly unnecessary than the regulars are willing to admit, and the disdainful attitude exacerbates the situation. Maybe the suggestions that editors are making about the process should be considered more carefully and treated with more respect than the regulars are giving them. —Torc. (Talk.) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder if anybody is aware that we have a procedure for dealing with conduct disputes. It doesn't involve repeatedly making free-form complaints on discussion pages. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think dropping {{uw-npa3}} tags or opening another page at WP:ANI is going to help much. —Torc. (Talk.) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(Reclaiming after hijack) Overall, a good summary. Some images do, basically, have an adequate rationale, just a typo or similar issue that is easily corrected. I'd support a proposal for tagging all the images and giving them all until the deadline to be corrected if a bot could be flagged under an admin account to delete all the images on the day of the deadline. Lara❤Love 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I also support that, let the bot do the rest of the images in one final burst, do a second burst next week for those image that do not comply but where the uploaders ignore the bot and reverted the tagging. Then after that it would be good to re-tag the images, but then to find a page outside of the user-talk space to put the warnings (or just a list), so that another group of editors can go through that (as the people who originally were notified specifically choose to ignore, and then may face deletion of the image if the rationale is not easily repaired). After that, the bot can retire from this task. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "this task", but the bot will still be needed to tag new non-free uploads that fail to name the articles they are used in. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we imagine, just for a second, the absolute ****storm that will explode upon us when a admin-flagged bot goes and deletes thousands upon thousands of images because they've not been corrected by XXXX deadline? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Shitstorm or not, the images need to be deleted by the deadline. People want an extension to fix it. Understandable. Tagging all the images and giving them until the deadline gives PLENTY of time to fix them. But that gives NO time to delete them. So, if they want until the deadline to repair, we need a bot to take care of wiping out non-compliant images on the day of the deadline. Lara❤Love 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with you. But I shudder to think of the uproar it will cause. Just look at this page alone; all because a bot is tagging for a policy that's been in place for more than three years. All kinds of grief just over *tagging* images. Can you imagine the hellacious hot water when the images are deleted? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That is why I say, tag all images ASAP, whatever backlog that gives. That gives a clear overview of what needs to be repaired. Re:Carcharoth: I meant the already uploaded images, IMHO, from a certain moment a bot monitoring the uploads/edits to images should tag those that do not have a proper fair-use rationale, while another should keep an eye on where image use gets changed, that does not need to be done in batches, but can be done more continuous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Beestra, as far as I and others have been able to ascertain from asking Betacommand, all images have been checked and tagged. Only small batches will continue to come through. Continuous bot monitoring of images is something that needs to be done, though, as you say, separated from the response to new images. Would you consider contributing you ideas at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance? Future bot operations concerning non-free images could also be discussed there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way then for the images BCbot has tagged to not be deleted until the 23rd? Because that should calm some of those who are yelling over timeframes and beyond that it is out of our control. List them all on a project page, let people go through and try and fix the 10.c issues, and then have a bot delete them all after the 23rd per foundation policy. If we go about this in such a transparent way, there are plenty of reasonably users who will stand up in favour of the deletions when the "shitstorm" inevitably comes. Random89 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the hatred spewed at Betacommand and his bot

Above, someone wanted evidence of the insults tossed at Betacommand and his bot. A sampling of some of the ever so kind words applied to him and his bot; "Extremely sucky", "fucking bastard", "loves fucking little girls up the ass!)", "Nazi", "Idiot" [13][14][15][16]. I found these with just a casual search. I'm sure there's dozens or hundreds more. These are just the direct insults, much less the tenditious editing warred against him. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And how do these diffs get you or betacommand out of ever responding to any criticism properly or civily, over and above your yawn votes, or his capital letter red font explanations? I seriously do not understand what is being argued here, betacommand gets shit so he's allowed to give it?. It's a simplistic and childish defense. You have a serious perception issue in this case as evidenced above in your opinion that BCB is just doing a run of the mill task just like any other bot, as if several people haven't been tagged massively in a short space of time by this blunt instrument, or as if hundreds of thousands of legacy tags due to policy changes happen every week. MickMacNee (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Folks asked for evidence about abusive comments left to BCBot. Hammersoft supplied it. No one says "Betacommand should be allowed to say anything he wants because people insult him all the time." What they do sometimes say is "We should view his responses to people who criticise him with some sympathy towards the fact that he gets constant abuse on this subject." As I've said above, it isn't an excuse - its mitigation, and something to be aware of. You should very seriously consider toning down your rhetoric against BC and BCBot, because there are valid concerns about some issues, and BC has made inappropriate comments and decisions - but when you adopt an adversarial attitude, it overshadows your legitimate points. Avruch T 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For my part, 100% agreed that some of Beta's words and actions have been inappropriate. But, I chafe against the idea that Beta is supposed to be some impervious angel, who can withstand unending heaps of abuse and never once stray the slightest bit away from being civil. I don't excuse his actions, but I emphatically believe he has a right to be human. And the arguments that "if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen" don't hold water. ANYbody who does this work comes under criticism. For example, just today I got accused of being an "idiot" and a "control freak" [17] because I tagged a fair use image of a living person as replaceable, and informed [18] the person who reverted me on it. The hatred in editors against fair use enforcement is unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to note that it is exceptionally rare for people who spew this hatred to receive any sort of admonishment for their actions. The people who are the recipients of the abuse are left with the options of reverting the abuse, ignoring it, or responding to it...but reporting it and expecting people to support your work is a fairy tale. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But you are taking those comments personally. Why not think "they are angry about the image not at me, I'll let them blow off steam and hope they calm down". In most cases, you'll never hear from them again, so why take it so personally? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for proving my point. You suggest I shouldn't take these comments personally. From this I presume that I'm supposed to consider myself inhuman, incapable of being moved by insults. One insult? Sure. A few? Sure. Unending abuse and lack of anyone doing anything about the abuse? Please. Case in point you not warning the insult in the case I just cited, but instead insisting I not take it personally. Well heck, why not make life easy and replace WP:NPA with "Everyone can and does make insults. The receiver of insults should not take it personally". Much easier to understand policy, and I'm sure it'll increase civility around here. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for proving my point. Some people are more thick-skinned than others and more suited to such work. Some just start sighing and lose patience quicker than others. There is no easy answer, but the two extremes (defend BC to the hilt; and ignore the stresses placed on BC) don't work. Where is the middle way? Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The middle way isn't telling those of us working in the fair use trenches to just take it and shut up about the abuse. How about some defense against insulters? Hmm? Hmm???? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The culture needs to change. Currently, the people working to enforce our non-free content policy are regarded as the enemy, and routinely harassed and abused. The community's response has been essentially akin to yours; if you can't handle the insults, don't do the work, and no insulters are taken to task. Some good faith efforts to back track these insulters would be nice to see. Looking at the last two diffs I first posted in this section and looking at the contributor's talk pages, I see no warnings for civility. Nothing. In fact, I see even more incivility from one one them User_talk:Locke_Cole#Orphaned_non-free_media_.28Image:Blu-ray_Disc.svg.29. But, no cautions, no warnings, nothing. The insulters have free reign to do whatever the hell they want to and NOTHING ever happens to them. Asking for people to help, as you suggest, at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_compliance#Humans would be useful if there was a culture to go after insulters and support fair use workers. But, there isn't, so the suggestion will fall on deaf ears. I'll add something there, but it's an empty effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's been pointed out time and again how betacommandbot is the not be all and end all to ensuring NFCC compliance, and not even the tiny sub-section of 10c. If anything needs an input of culture change, it's that false impression, and the people who hold it up as a support for the actions of betacommand, however he acts or fails to act, as both are equally destructive ways of interacting in what is after all, a volunteer community project. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite my efforts to get some response out of you on suggested alternatives to what BCBot is doing, you've just continued to complain. Maybe it isn't the end all be all. Hell if I know. What I do know is you aren't suggesting a viable alternative...or even an alternative. You wanted categories. It does categories. 11,000 in a category too much for you I guess, but no alternative suggestion on how categories could better handle 11,000 images. Or maybe your suggestion isn't to tag 11,000 images??? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Legacy images

  • And just how long are we supposed to wait for people to fix images? This policy has been in existence for nearly THREE AND A HALF YEARS. After a period of time extending more than half of the project's life, I personally don't give a pair of rabbit's feet about legacy images. FIX the images and stop complaining about the bot. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Case in point, you can't even see how improvements to the bot or it's operation have any possible impact on the wider efforts by volunteers to actually fix images. The fact the policy changed 3 and a half years ago (if this is actually true) just illustrates how daft it was to try and tag 3 and a half years worth of images using such a dumb tool in such a short space of time, that can't even separate legacy images, changed use images, absent uploaders or newbie uploads, and not expect comment about it at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MickMacNee, do you realize this has been going on for about nine months? thats not really a short period βcommand 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Legacy images do not have any special standing past March 23, 2008. The base reality is these images have been non-compliant for a huge amount of time. Are you proposing we should continue to allow these images to remain non-compliant? Are you proposing that images with absent uploaders should have a special status? Are you proposing that images by newbie uploaders should have a special status? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, Yes, Yes. Wow, look, this almost qualifies as a discussion about the operation of BCB. Quick, how are you going to turn this into a personal attack post? MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You understand that your "yes" and "yes" are directly against Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not given my first reply of no. Try and separate the bot's operation from policy enforcement, or do I have to list for the 100th time all the examples of 10c non-compliances that this bot does not and never will flag? MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You can't separate the bot's 10c operation from policy enforcement. It is what the bot does. If you separate this aspect of what the bot does, you'll have nothing. Very confused by your statement here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You certainly can separate it, given it's extremely limited application. It does not even enforce the whole remit of the 10c policy sentence, merely a tiny part of it. Perhaps you and everyone else would understand this basic fact had betacommand bothered himself to post a pseudo-code breakdown or an FAQ, instead of red font rants. MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Your statement is still highly confusing. BCBot's 10c compliance work can't be separated out from it's 10c compliance work, yet that's what you're asking for. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He is saying that if you want full compliance by the March 23 deadline, there is no chance. Many images (including many 'passed' by the bot) will still be non-10c compliant, and many images will still be non-3/8 compliant. The bot doesn't enforce the policy for all images. It finds the subset of non-10c compliant images that don't name the articles they are used on, and enforces the policy for those images. Carcharoth (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So since we can't hope to achieve our goal we should shut down the bot and give up? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, we keep running the bot, but we don't make claims that it is a magic tool that keeps us all safe from lawsuits, or that it is the whole solution. We work together at developing teams and processes involving people and bots, similar to this process, but organised (hopefully) slightly better. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, what special status do you propose for images uploaded by absent uploaders? By newbie uploaders? In particular for each status, please identify how long you think non-compliant images from these sources should be permitted to remain non-compliant before deletion and/or identify how long after the image is tagged and the uploaders are warned? Also, please make a sound argument why these images, in each case, should be in a different status. More particularly, why should newbie editors be held to a lesser standard than experienced editors? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You use categories, it's not rocket science, but is appropriately done by the tagger. And this is not advocation of dealine extension. I am questioning if you actually read BCB's talk page, you spend so much time there, yet can't see differences between basic repeat newie mistakes, general annoyance at mass legacy tagging of previously correct images, general annoyance at expecting 7 days is a realistic limit for fixing when everyone but the bot can see the uploader gave up with WP and left months before, and general annoyance at another editor adding an image to a page invalidating it's previously compliant rationales. All of which have different remedies due to their different causes, and arguably require different tag wording too (but we know that this falls way outside of betacommands desired area of operation). MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When an image is tagged for non-compliance with WP:NFCC 10c, it is placed in a category. For example, Category:Disputed non-free images as of 25 February 2008. So, you're first request has already been answered. When a newbie makes a mistake, the bot places a message on their talk page informing them of their mistake example, so it would seem your second request is already addressed in that newbies are informed and instructed on how to correct their ways. Is there some other action with respect to newbies that you are suggesting? With respect to departed uploaders, images by these uploaders that are in use on articles are identified on the talk pages of those respective articles example. So it would seem your concern with regards to images uploaded by departed users is addressed. I'm not seeing a suggestion of yours that is not already addressed in the bot's operation. If you can suggest a better method, then by all means suggest it. How should we handle newbies and their uploads? How should we handle departed uploaders and their images? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How on earth do dated categories help when they can contain 11,000 images?(see first issue raised and ignored on this page). How does the tag placed on newbie uploaders pages help when it's full of technical terms and contains no links to an FAQ designed to meet the repeat questions, instead passing the problem onto the copyright desk, (or even worse to you at BCB's talk page and his 17-point 'why it's not my fault' box), relying on the copydesks goodwill to answer the same quesions day after day after day, who even had to set up a separate board to deal with the questions. As for departed uploaders, I've seen plenty tagged articles with marginal subjects that would get no attention within the 7 day limit, especially given their lumping in with all other tags, and especially as in my and other editors cases, seeing 15 tagged articles of this type occur in the same day in your watchlist, you lose the will to even start to help. And we have no way of knowing how many non-watched articles suffer the same fate. So no, your dogged defence again falls woefully short of any kind of possible rational explanation so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)
  • Would you prefer 50 categories with 220 images each? Regardless how you subsection it, 11000 is the reality. Do you have a suggestion for how to handle 11,000 images in categorization? You suggested categorization. Could you please demonstrate how categorization would be helpful/useful above and beyond the current categorization method? The message to newbies does contain the relevant links to the guideline which instructs people on how to create an acceptable guideline. For compliance with 10c, that guideline covers it very well. So, I'm quite unclear on what you propose as a replacement. Is the guideline insufficient? Should it be deprecated in favor of a FAQ written perhaps by you? For departed users, you're still in disagreement with the process on handling those images but haven't proposed a replacement process. Please propose a replacement process to handle images from departed uploaders. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course the guideline is insufficient given the amount of repeated questions covering the same topics from newbies. No way can you deny that is not the case, seeing as you haunt the bot talk page poking the newbies all day. For departed users we should ignore all reference to an arbitrary 7 day limit, and set a new deadline that accurately reflects reality, rather than pretending there is absolutely no difference in a newbie pic of a manga character, and a dvd poster that has existed for 3 and a half years, or a picture on an article that gets 1 view a month and has contained a valid image for years. I.e. put them into categories that reflect the likely cause of error, y'know, try and show that a bit of thought has been extended to the lifecycle of what we are doing here, rather than keep blinly claimy that the process is fine as it is, if images are lost, who gives a rats ass, betacommand done good. MickMacNee (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The large bot runs were unfortunate (spreading them out would have been better), as was the holding off on the legacy images (just make sure all the complaints came at once). This is one reason why I kept asking Betacommand for a schedule. Then there could have been a team of people waiting to answer questions. This is what I mean by communication and organisation. And we should learn lessons from this and do better next time. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The bot has been doing runs for months upon months now. It has spread them out. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See the graph - that is not spread out tagging runs. 1000 images a week over a year would have been a much better way of handling this. Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The graph highlights what I've been talking about. The bot has been operating for months and months. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But not with any consistency. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You do know that the operator of this bot is not a machine, yes? He's a real live human, with real life responsibilities, with real life time constraints. I'm sorry he's not available 10.3 hours a week to perform precisely 1,200 image edits per week, with 1.2 hours per week spent on code revisions, and etc..etc..etc.. The bot is a bot, but the operator is not. Ooo! That's catchy! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(de-indent) Im also busy doing other things. I move images to commons WP:MTC, I have an operational image renaming bot in commons, besides what BCBot does on en.wiki, I am also very active myself in the main space, Ive my last 500 edits only date back to feb 10 (looking at only mainspace). this does not include the hours spent working on BCBot code or tools for other users. (just last night I wrote a script for MrZ-man that filters CAT:TEMP, about 30 minutes of coding) along with pywikipedia updates. βcommand 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps he can extend the same logic to the people he is expecting to deal with the tag fall out then, or is it just betacommand whose time-constraints are important? MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That is a valid point. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't a valid point. The policy already allows for lag time in response an in practice the tagged images remain well past seven days anyways. Look at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 12 February 2008 if you don't believe me. That's nearly two weeks. How long are we supposed to wait? Hmm???? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, I suspect the spreading of the load could have been improved. Will you concede that at least? Maybe Betacommand or others can explain some of the peaks. The later ones (in 2008) are the legacy images. And, you know what? If the bot had been available for several editors to run, the load of operating the bot could have been spread among several people. You know, a collaborative community that works together? Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. I don't give a <censored> anymore. Block the bot. MickMacNee, you should be proud. What an ungodly assault you've made. In a different section, I've been trying desperately to pin you to some suggestion and you keep evading, keep complaining, never providing any solutions, just more complaints. And Carc, this is precisely what I'm talking about in another section about unending attacks. Has Mick even been *cautioned* about his attacks? Nope. Not once that I'm aware of. You guys win. I give up. Upload all the god damn imagery you want, and make sure you give yourself all the special clauses, exceptions to the policy, ignorance of policy, etc that you need to make damn sure that no one ever EVER touches one damn image you upload for the god forsaken mistake of not complying with a policy that's been in existence for 3.5 years. 3.5 years it's been policy, and people are STILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL whining about it? Unreal. Absolutely UNREAL. SOMEone please start yet another damn thread to block the bot, and I'll agree to it being blocked. Will that make you happy? I tried to get some solutions out of you Mick, and got NOTHING but more complaints. What the hell do you want? Just tell me and I'll do it. I'm begging you, pleading you, please please please tell me what to do to make you happy. Do you want me permabanned too? I'll agree to that if it'll make you happy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All the suggestions for change and repeated assertions that we did not oppose the policy or advocate dealine extensions, was all in the shocking "attack page" that was vanished. If you remember it was titled Betacommandbot and NFCC10c tagging. Maybe if you had contributed to that in the vein it was started, this mental breakdown you appear to have just suffered might not have occured. MickMacNee (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Now everybody watch as MickMacNee is NOT taken to task for accusing me of having a mental breakdown. Watch! Count on it! Not one DAMN word will be said to him about his personal insults. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It would only follow your general pattern of trying to shut down debate as 'personal attacks' the minute anyone makes a valid point you can't counter. Or do you just not remember that whole discussion? MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So me having a mental breakdown is now a "valid point" that I "can't counter"? Geez, you won't even own up to your own rampant incivility. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, you resorting to this behaviour after a valid point is made which you can't or won't reply to is of course what I meant. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair, Hammersoft, when I read your long post above, it did cross my mind that you were having a bit of a meltdown. I'm going to step away for a bit, and I suggest you do the same. I do think some constructive points and information has emerged, despite the continuing repetition, noise and talking past each other. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, ok, so it's fair to conclude I'm having a meltdown. Therefore, it's ok for MickMacNee to freely insult me. I note you haven't taken the time to caution MickMacNee on his blatant incivility, but instead once again essentially say that I should take it. You just lost all credibility with me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I was saying that I'm concerned for you, and still am. I realise there are humans writing these messages, and the impression I got from your "STILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL" post was that you were seriously overwrought. I'm saying I will back off for now, in the hope that you will calm down. If you have a problem with what MickMacNee said, please ask someone else to comment: I'm too involved here. Sorry if that's not good enough for you. Carcharoth (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, I understand that the operator of the bot is a human. What I was pointing out was that the graph supports the contention that the bot has been operating in spurts, which is why it was posted. Certainly, as you point out, it's been running for a long time, but it's also a certainty that if there are problems with the way the bot is handling the problem ("problems" meaning in its interface with users, not operational difficulties), then those are bound to be more severely felt at those times when the run is largest, as indicated by the spikes on the chart. It's possible (although this is water under the bridge) that if the bot had been run with more consistency, the problems wouldn't have been perceived as being as bad as they are now, because the impact would have been spread out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The bot runs in spurts in part because it's operated by a human. Do you suggest the bot be run unattended??? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, of course not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe the keys of the bot could be handed over to someone else while Betacommand has no time to run the bot? That way, the bot could run more often. --Conti|✉ 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

After the 23 March deadline

Obviously no automated method can flag every case of 10c non-compliance. If it reliably catches a large subset, that a lot of very tedious and repetitive work that humans don't have to do to identify obvious non-compliances.

As I understand it, very shortly (March 23, 2008) we'll be moving into an era where this seven day grace period will no longer operate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • That's correct. I'll virtually guarantee that when that happens, there will be calls to suspend that policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been repeatedly ([19], [20], [21]) asking what will happen after 23 March 2008, so why does the answer suddenly appear out of the blue sky here? Hammersoft, did you miss those questions I asked? ANLA (or rather, Tony), did you miss those questions I asked? Anthere (the Chair of the WMF Board) said the following here: "I'll send a message to the board. Regarding delay... to be honest... I do not think there is much harm in waiting 7 days rather than 2 days." - though that should not be taken as any official WMF position - it seems to be, rather, her personal viewpoint. Carcharoth (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, where was the initial discussion of the 7-day grace period, and where is the discussion proposing to suspend this? Please note that there are two distinct seven-day periods for different speedy deletion criteria (one to do with upload date and one to do with complete lack of any rationale whatsoever), and these shouldn't be confused See WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7. Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are we actually bothered if some non-free images that could be given valid FURs get deleted? This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, after all. Find some free images instead, or do without. Other wikis cope just fine. Black Kite 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of cases where no free alternative is available, and any appropriate re-use by a WP reader would be perfectly acceptable under the same fair-use, that's why it exists as a concept. MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Having worked with fair use a lot, I'd say in 90% of cases where no free alternative is available, the images aren't necessary to the reader's understanding of the article anyway. Most of them are decorative. In the very rare cases where they are required and are deleted, it's easy to restore them. Otherwise we might as well change the top left-hand corner of this screen to "The Occasionally Free Encyclopedia". Black Kite 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • As per the old adage, 'a picture tells a thousand words', I prefer the term 'illustrative' to decorative. And in my experience, they are hard to replace if you were not the uploader, and should you not have gotten there within the 7/2/28 day period, whichever limit is in effect at the time. On the flip side, people like David Shankbone are lauded for contributing a poorly taken 'free' image of some randoms dancing on the the bar of a non-notable nightspot, which decorates 30% of the article space describing the whole of down-town Manhatten, or he adds a second tiny image of a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask, when one was already present in the article in perfect (not as it turns out, copyrighted) full face clarity. Now that is the very definition of superfluous decoration. MickMacNee (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that after march 23rd, all of these images would be subject to being speedied,which means that under CSD#I6 they still have 7 days. But that policy in itelf could get changed. Random89 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW, logos are rarely if ever replaceable by a free image (by definition sort of), given that they make up 71,000/291,000 non-free images, I'd urge a 5-7 day period. MBisanz talk 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BCB and March 23

Regardless of any behavioral problems that BetaCommand (not bot) may be accused of, we need to let the bot finish it's job. As suggested above, we should allow it to blast through all the remaining images in a day, prefaced by a wide-area announcement that Beta's doing this, possibly a watchlist page notfication, but certainly at the VP's and other appropriate sites. The first run should be done ASAP, with the stimupation that the usual 7-day period for correction is waved, but that by March 23, any remaining images will be deleted. We adjust the image upload page simulataneously to express that any invalid rationale images will be deleted on the 23rd. We allow BCB to make another blast on the 21st or 22nd to catch all images between the first run and the second as a final check. Then any images still left tagged are deleted come the 23rd. Make sure this is announced as far and wide as possible. Us administrators prepare to deal with a huge backlash but unlike posting the plans for the demolition of the Earth on Alpha Centuri, we should at least quell most of it by getting that word out. We probably need to do this notification ASAP.

Then, we ask Beta to not run the bot until we can come up with a more amenable solution that all here can respect. If this is another bot besides BCB, fine, but if that bot is not read, we need a "new image task force" to watch all uploaded images and tag appropriately until that bot can get into place. (I've suggestions for a bot + human verification system that works better once we are "caught up" on March 23, but we likely need a more advanced bot to help with that). --MASEM 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Masem, the primary rounds of 10c tagging have been done. its been tagging images since June of last year. I have one more planned phase of BCBot, but that has not been programmed yet. (it would remove images from pages that dont pass the 10c test). I have never said that BCBot is a magic tool, its just one step in a larger process. βcommand 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Stupid question: what about images between "now" and March 23rd that are uploaded? Are these being checked/tagged? --MASEM 16:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I just did a run a few days ago that tagged ~700 images, that run checked 100,000 images. I just did a run about 12 hours ago that checked another 50,000 images. I plan on contunueing this process. Due to the shear size and amount of resources, and time the bot requires to to a full check of the ~290,000 non-free images that we have, it takes about week for a full sweep. If I wasnt having to repeat and defend myself, things would move faster. βcommand 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Schedules

Betacommand, would it help if someone else acted as a buffer between you and others? Someone to collate this information and present it somewhere other than on talk pages? I find it hard to keep track of what is happening, and it would help if you divulged your schedule and plans just a little bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I stated to you my schedual for tagging is about twice a week. I cannot be any more specific as real world things dictate my availability to run the bot. βcommand 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dammit, if you can't be available 24/7 to run exactly the number of iterations of the code that everyone demands you run then by god you should be blocked! BLOCKED I say! How DARE you have a real life! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This Straw man comment was extremely helpful. Thanks. Bellwether BC 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Off topic comments (failed discussion threads)

Co-operation

This suggestion will fail by default as it expects co-operation from betacommand. MickMacNee (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not a very helpful comment. --Conti|✉ 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a truthfull comment. Unless you see any evidence in here of cooperation from him, red-font aside. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering that Beta has repeatedly and routinely been compliant in answering calls for modification of runs, the statement is inaccurate in the least. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Providing information

If this information was readily provided and not teeth-pulled on talk pages that are regularly archived, you would never have to repeat yourself at all. It's a crazy thought. MickMacNee (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, if you have nothing constrictive to say, shut up. These troll like comments are not helpful. and if you bothered to do any research you would know this. βcommand 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That is the problem personified right there, you actually think my comment is trolling, in the same way you think red-font capitals and talk page vandalism are construcive replies to people. Perhaps it is true that no editor will ever be able to separate discussion about operation of the bot from the inevitable discsussion about your own conduct. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to engineer a similar, but better, bot

It's pretty clear that the incivility issues are not going away anytime soon, as the "shut up" comment above clearly demonstrates. And since BC has made it clear he's not open-sourcing his bot, no matter what, I'd say it's time for some of the programming-savvy amongst us to write a simple bot, that does the same or substantially similar things as BCBot, make it open-source, and let the community improve it and modify it as necessary. We don't need this secretive bunker-mentality as part of the project. Something has to give, and perhaps a new bot, reverse-engineered from functionality to code, is the only way to go, given BC's intransigence. Bellwether BC 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe the intransigence of those who absolutely despise our non-free content policies needs to give. The new bot will do what the old bot is doing. Is there something the bot is doing wrong that needs to be improved? If not, then how does re-writing the bot achieve anything? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • See above (all of it). Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Seonded, with an extra-portion of 'it's not rocket science'MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It puts someone at the helm of the bot that will listen to criticism, and opens the code for improvements by others who want to see the tasks done more efficiently. A closed-code accomplishes nothing, and adds to the perception of "us versus them" when it comes to questions regarding the bot. Bellwether BC 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, your "those who absolutely despise our non-free content policies" statement is noted and illustrative of the problems at hand. You're making no attempt to actually understand the core of the problem that people have with BC and his bot. Bellwether BC 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that gaining consensus for a replacement bot to just handle NFCC tagging was part of the proposals included in the shockingly named attack page Betacommand and NFCC10c operation which has been effectively vanished. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Why doesn't someone just take the bull by the horns and do it? I'm just a programming novice, but if something isn't done soon, I'll do it myself. Bellwether BC 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Then do it, and watch how much hatred you suffer for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Enough of the drama, it's clear that betacommand has communication issues, it's clear the bot could be run differently, and it's clear the actual bot code could be more elegant and focused toward the specific task at hand, and not just a footnote to the whole bot. Wailing about how he doesn't have the time because he also does x,y and z only adds weight to the argument that he could relinquish the specific NFCC10c job to someone else, for the benefit of everyone, including as is being implied, him. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
              • You chastise me with "enough of the drama"???? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
              • You keep noting the bot could be somehow better, but refuse to come up with suggestions on what it could do better. You wanted it to categorize images. It does. You wanted it to handle newbies better. It points to the guideline, which you say is insufficient but you're unwilling to do anything about it. You wanted to handle legacy images differently, when the policy's been in play for 3.5 years and it already does a wonderful job of informing interested parties. You've offered no solutions. Just complaints. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually I was plotting something simular before christmas but the annoying thing is... many of the images tagged do have other issues than the back link. Now, in 99% of those cases we could easily insert a fur template using a bot but this has been shut down very effectively and the last person who did this had 5000 edits indiscriminately reverted. But I have thought about this... EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
            • As I've indicated, I'm a programming novice, so I'm going to wait to see if someone with more abilities in the area will step forward. If not, I'll do my best and see what I can come up with. I can guarantee that I won't be telling good-faith contributors and those with questions about the bot to "shut up" (and the far worse things he's said in the past) though. And as it would be open-sourced, if glitches were found, they could be easily corrected by anyone with the knowledge to do so. Bellwether BC 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I think "reverse-engineer" is too strong a term. Surely it should simply be, "Who wants to help me write a new bot?". Surely, writing a new bot is going to be a lot easier than figuring out how Betacommandbot does its own work, when I think the principles are simple: Read, grab, test and move on. I believe that there are frameworks for bots to work upon to make things easier. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
                • You're probably right about terminology. Really, what I'm looking to see designed is a similar, but better, bot with an open code. It's as simple as that. Bellwether BC 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
              • The backlink issue is easily dealt with. The problem is that the onus is on the person inserting the fur template. In other words, invalid rationales can be removed per technicalities like a back link that could be fixed by a bot but a fur template cannot be inserted by a bot because it has been decided that this must be done on an image by image and article by article basis. This despite the fact that as far as CD covers (and to a certain extent logos and book covers) go we already have all the info we need in standardized infoboxes where the covers are used. Any other purely decorative use of non-free media could be removed by a fur fixing bot as well. But no, we aren't allowed to do this and doing it anyway would almost certainly be an instant indef block. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It isn't difficult to write a bot that performs a task of this kind. That isn't the problem, or I would have knocked one up this afternoon using my own framework. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive_2&oldid=1136118763"