Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2

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

WT:BRFA

. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator:

Programming language(s): Python, mwclient

Source code available: Yes, from https://github.com/wikigit/Commons-fair-use-upload-bot

Function overview: Cross-wiki bot. If an image currently in use at En is going to be deleted on Commons, a Commons administrator may choose to tag it with {{

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This is a request to renew authorization after the expiration of the bot's 7-day trial in April 2011 (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot). The bot ran for about 15 months after that without authorization (I forgot to renew - my fault), and was recently blocked. See recent ANI discussion, which was archived prematurely and so inconclusive. I've added to the bot's user page to clarify its precise function and link to requests for approval as a result of that discussion.

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Roughly 2-5 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, not needed

Function details: Most details of operation already described above. Full page and file history is included for license compliance. The bot runs once an hour. The bot also sometimes uploads images that are PD in the US but not in their source country, which are permitted here but not on Commons. Such works are tagged with the {{

I should note that, due to a bug in User:CommonsDelinker, images will still be removed from articles when they are deleted from Commons even if they have been reuploaded here using Commons fair use upload bot. I just looked up the old thread in which I contacted the bot manager and they said "I cannot fix that. Patches for CommonsDelinker are appreciated. The code is in pywikipediabot's svn.". So there is a possibility they might accept a patch for this.

Commons fair use upload bot now reverts edits by CommonsDelinker that are affected by the redirect bug, including the cases affecting Commons fair use upload bot's re-uploaded files. It would still be preferable to fix CommonsDelinker if we can find a way to do this, but so far I haven't been able to get in touch with anyone who can help me do that.

Discussion

As one that commented before, I think the assurances (particularly tagging for rationale) is appropriate. I wonder if we also need to tag {{Di-no license}} if the reasoning that the image can't be used at Commons is unclear. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would probably depend on the image. Usually the author/source/license information is accurate, but sometimes (when the claimed license is invalidated during the deletion request on Commons), the false license tag should really be removed before tagging it with Fair use delete. In such a case Di-no license seems like a good idea, and it may be possible for the bot to detect that no license tag is present. Dcoetzee 02:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on the timeline: The bot was approved for trial in April 2011, and performed the trial then. Then there was some discussion about an alternative implementation, and then the operator did not respond to requests for a status update, and the request was closed as expired on 2 July 2011. Then the bot started operating again on 15 July 2011, and apparently no one who noticed it running noticed that it was never approved until recently. Anomie⚔ 02:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops thank you for the update, my mistake. I don't remember what happened before as it was a very long time ago, but I think I just wasn't checking on the request page and was under the misapprehension that it was already approved. The bot seems to work fine in its current condition and I'm not planning an alternative implementation any longer. Dcoetzee 03:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a different issue: I once reported that there was a problem with transfers preserving template codes in image description pages that have incompatible meanings on Commons and on en-wp, especially the {{copyvio}} template. Has this been fixed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are removed in the current version. Not all such templates have yet been discovered but I can add them easily at a moment's notice. Dcoetzee 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about {{

Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That one seems pretty rare and I think it can be handled manually after re-upload for now. Dcoetzee 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be using regex to parse templates, for reasons vaguely outlined here. A Python package for template parsing exists at http://pypi.python.org/pypi/mwparserfromhell/ . →Σσς. 07:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I was not aware of this package and it looks excellent and I'll use it, although for the moment I think the regex parsing is sufficient. Dcoetzee 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a JavaScript port for this template parser? -- Rillke (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another common "free in USA only" tag, {{

Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that would be another good one to add. Another one is for works that meet the threshold of originality in their source country but not the US. However, I need to work on the support for multiple kinds of reupload tags, which is currently ad hoc, so this would be a feature to add later. Dcoetzee 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please expedite this request? It is a necessary function, and having it blocked at this end is problematic for the wider functioning of xwiki issues, and will more likely result in the loss of viable images. The functionality is required, it has the base requirements, user is trusted and competent, so that leaves the requirement around the bot edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]