312:. Whether that has answered your question depends, I suppose on what phase we are in. I'm sure there is a prominent notice somewhere saying what phase we are in, but I can't find it right now... (all sarcasm aside, I believe phase 3 is effectively finished, and any tagging for that is now routine checking of new uploads, and that phase 4 is due to begin in April sometime, though as always, ask Betacommand directly if you want a definitive answer). The no-bot question wasn't answered.
1060:
47:
801:
to give the code to Jimbo, is he? Now, if BAG wants to vote on who will have access to it, sure, but it must be understood that this is only happening at the pleasure of Beta, and he has effective veto power over any choices. My understanding of the choices are that they are BAG members who participate in the WP:NFCC enforcement. If you object to anyone above, please state your concerns.
910:
on the basis of one-bot-one-owner? That may require the creation of several new bots running
Betacommand's code (which could be called NFCCbot1, NFCCbot2 etc), but at least the anyone concerned would know which user was responsible for any perceived problems caused by the bot, and know who to contact about them. --
829:. I agree that his changes go too far, and that Betacommand should (and de facto does) have ultimate veto here. I'm just asking for the wording to be changed. What I will do is edit the proposal to what I think is a neutral and sensible wording, and then revert, and then provide a link to the old version.
707:(of original proposal) then, as basically a device to shield a bot operator from discussion about or responsibility for their bot, functionally this proposal is absolutely no different to betacommand creating the separate bot himself, as I understand he already allows operation of bcb by trusted proxies.
800:
The group needs to be kept small, and the group needs to consist of people who
Betacommand trusts to obey his conditions of release. If BAG chooses, say, Jimbo Wales, and Betacommand doesn't trust Jimbo to not change the bot's code without permission, or to not release the code, then Beta isn't going
653:
The point is that people can then submit their own code, as an improvement, and request that it be run instead or in parallel. That was impossible with
BetacommandBot, but might be possible here. A bot with multiple operators and programmers might seem like a nightmare, but BetacommandBot already has
503:
Now this request has been reopened, is it acceptable to change the wording of the request, or not? My proposed changes are above. Anti-fair-use people do not have a special status on this project, and do not need shielding from anything except the normally unacceptable stuff. Furthermore, fair use is
909:
this is to be done, I am alarmed by the precedent of a role account being created. Regardless of the other concerns expressed here about the wording of the proposal (and I share many of those concerns), may I ask that if the idea of others running
Betacommand's code is to be pursued, that it be done
202:
Currently, BetacommandBot runs a set of closed-source Python scripts to do various tasks, including tagging fair use images for deletion and notifying the uploader. Due to the high-volume capacity of the scripts (up to 600 edits per minute), Betacommand has been reluctant to release the source code.
991:
The account will only be used by one "entity" - that is the BCBot code. This code may be executed by one of the three users mentioned above. If you cut out the code "layer" (which does all the editing) and leave the operators and the account, then yes, I suppose the account is shared. Of course,
676:
just as a notice, the planned method of operation for this bot will not change. I am the sole programmer, its users that I trust. Other uses will not be able to submit code. If the operators have questions they known to come talk to me. I have an understanding with them. My proposal stands as a all
333:
there appears to be a growing consensus from more than just a fringe group of editors that all of BCB's functions regarding userpages and usertalk should be NoBots compliant. Unless that consensus materially changes, I'd have to oppose this bot being activated unless there is an affirmative answer
972:
The bot will only be operated by us. The idea is that I will be the primary operator, betacommand gives me changes, I review them, I run the bot. All three of us will be able to run it, in case I happen to be unavailable, and also to provide additional oversight. We are planning on making a log of
791:
First, I think this is poorly worded. Note that since the operators are the ones with the power to run it, beta is already forced to change the bot code if the operators all agree that it is defective. Betacommand has already stated that the bot is closed-source, that is completely acceptable, and
686:
Then would you mind changing the name of the bot to include your name? At the moment, the name makes it sound like a general purpose NFCC-compliance bot. There are other people who can write bots to deal with NFCC-compliance stuff, and it would be nice if a stable of NFCC-compliance bots was built
630:
From a programming perspective I'm pretty sure there's not much difference between saying functions can be added to the bot, and saying the existing code can be changed to do different functions. Either way, if betacommand is under no obligation to change the code according to requests agreed with
527:
Current issues: Betacommand and his bot encounter a high volume of comment due to the nature of the bot's work. A change in ownership of the bot task has been community-requested to separate discussion of issues with the bot from issues with the way the bot is operated, and from other tasks that
940:
I don't see how a bot operated by more than one editor could work unless the account is shared. If I have missed something, and it is not the intention to share the account, please could someone clarify how it is intended that this bot could be operated by the three listed users
746:
Betacommand to separate BCBot's tasks into separate bot accounts. I saw this request as an official request to split it off into another bot, and let others run it. Because all of the other users listed are well-respected bot operators, in, I dare say, better standing in the
1024:
down, and leave. MickMacNee, I'm surprised your ass hasn't been indef blocked yet. BetaCommand's code is his business, not yours or anyone else’s. He codes python for a living, just leave him. Close this already. Please, and for REAL this time.
504:
needed for a 💕, and making references to "anti-fair-use people" is divisive. Anyway, it should all say "non-free-use" rather than "fair-use", and the bot name in the proposal doesn't match the name of the actual bot, unless someone has created
826:
360:
786:
Betacommand complies in a reasonable time to requests for change of the bot code if agreed by the group of operators, or agrees to release the code for such a purpose, or by default, rescinds this bot approval
782:
Now, my comments on the proposed amendments. I'm going to ignore the first strikeout in the "Current issues" section as flamebait. Let's keep to the topic of the bot and relevant policy, eh? Second addition
885:
then? What actual community concerns expressed over pages and pages of ANI/B are met by this change apart from once again pandering to betacommand as some sort of super-wiki-editor who is above all others?
807:
To sum everything up: Your addition under point 4 is partly unnecessary, partly unreasonable. Your addition under point 5 is not viable, as
Betacommand has 'final say' in who he sends his code to. --
765:
for this, but it shouldn't be rushed through. People may have valid concerns, and two minutes is not enough for possible concerns to be raised. Could someone let
Betacommand and the others know?
935:"User accounts must only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."
291:
If I could ask the question of which of BCB's 4-phase NFCC approach have been included in this bots approach? Will this bot follow the no-bot tag rules for userspace and usertalkspace?
1112:
90:
85:
761:
Thanks for agreeing to re-open this. Please don't take it personally. My view is that it won't harm to have a bit more than two minutes in which to discuss this. I reiterate my
120:
795:
Recognizing that Beta has written the code and is not under any obligation to release the code, the trusted members of BAG agree to...Be approved by a majority of the BAG
105:
722:
Betacommand is not the bot operator. The responsibility for operation of the bot, as always, lies with the actual three editors. In this case, ST47, SQL and me.
248:
BetacommandBot will be able to continue doing the various things that it does (archiving, ref fixes, etc.) without worrying about an uproar over image taggings.
751:
eyes. Since the code has been running before, I thought there would be no opposition to speedily approving this request. Anyway, it has been reopened. --
577:
Recognizing that
Betacommand has written the code and is not under any obligation to release the code, the aforementioned nominated members of BAG agree to:
567:
Betacommand continues to maintain and write his code for the Non-Free
Content Compliance Bot, subject to approval by BAG for any new non-free content tasks.
905:
a very good one, as is the overdue step of separating out the NFCC tasks from any other bot-related tasks for which
Betacommand may be approved. However,
100:
80:
95:
21:
962:
919:
554:
61:
609:
Any problems with this? I changed the wrong bot name and the fair use bits were changed to non free. The major addition is the following
1083:
1052:
1001:
986:
967:
924:
895:
852:
838:
820:
774:
755:
731:
716:
696:
681:
667:
640:
622:
517:
492:
438:
429:
414:
397:
372:
342:
321:
299:
286:
276:
213:
Betacommand releases the source of the script(s) he uses for fair use image tagging to a trusted group of BAG members. (The script will
229:
Recognizing that Beta has written the code and is not under any obligation to release the code, the trusted members of BAG agree to:
804:
Finally, for the same reasons as above, I'm ignoring the changes under "advantages", as that has no bearing on the bot's operation.
654:
multiple tasks, so it is not as silly as it sounds. As long as the operators make clear which code is running at what time (as any
596:
There will be a group of operators to respond to community concerns and communicate these concerns to the programmer (Betacommand).
1043:
930:
877:
As per the request, the reason this bot exists is to shield/protect/deflect criticism of the bot he still controls away from him
329:
I had an idea of an alternate way to implement phase 4, which I hoped would reduce the removal of appropriate images. Also, at
929:
I'm probably teaching grannies to suck eggs, but just thought that I should clarify that my previous comment was based on
465:"People will find it much harder to demonize or blame if there's a trusted group of BAG people versus a single individual"
874:
Betacommand is removed from any obligation to talk to anyone regarding the way the bot works (will we notice the change?)
245:
People will find it much harder to demonize or blame if there's a trusted group of BAG people versus a single individual.
447:
For the record, though I thoroughly support this proposal, I was taken aback by the rather biased wording used above (
381:
611:"Others may also submit code to be approved and run by this bot for other non-free content compliance requirements."
980:
814:
779:
The bot is still flagged, and I'm not going to have it unflagged just because that would be unnecessary crat work.
479:. That is insufficient time for the community to participate in discussion of the wording used here. Please could
992:
it would be making no non-bot edits so I fail to see how it could be different to any other bot in that respect.
958:
915:
459:
should be modified to indicate that
Betacommand is part of a collaborative editing project where he has to work
251:
The script(s) are already written (no BAG time wasted) and the work can be divided among the trusted BAG users.
425:
272:- Code has been thoroughly tested, I see no problems with this proposal, as long as Betacommand agrees. --
1037:
217:
be available to all members of BAG, only those who will be actively involved in the operation of the bot.)
1075:
678:
422:
283:
1029:
954:
911:
891:
848:
834:
770:
712:
692:
663:
636:
618:
513:
505:
488:
410:
368:
317:
825:
Who are you talking to? You seem to be replying to me, but discussing MickMacNee's proposed wording
997:
727:
631:
the new operator group, as the spokespeople and contact point for this bot, then what's the point?
605:
BetacommandBot and its operator will be able to continue doing its other tasks without distraction.
561:
792:
BAG will not set code release in any way as a condition of the approval or operation of this bot.
571:
402:
How is this disruption? What is wrong with my ammendment? Note betacommand's first response too,
266:
1021:
539:
330:
17:
593:
The script(s) are already written and the work can be divided among the nominated BAG users.
535:
223:
Betacommand continues to run his bot for all tasks except those relating to fair use images.
547:
480:
887:
844:
830:
766:
708:
688:
659:
632:
614:
509:
484:
406:
388:
364:
313:
220:
A new bot account is created (User:FairUseBot) and the BAG members run the bot as a group.
206:
Current issues: Betacommand and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images.
473:"Betacommand feels that he and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images."
1070:
993:
977:
946:
811:
723:
135:
1106:
882:
405:, that it will "rot in hell". Is betacommand being attacked, or doing the attacking?
361:
Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot/ammended
336:
293:
46:
421:
I propose you not maximize the drama by accusing others of disruption, Maxim.
602:
Discussion about the bot will not be influenced by concerns over other tasks.
557:) to run this code and the aforementioned BAG members run the bot as a group.
974:
942:
808:
752:
273:
131:
901:
I think that idea of separating the code-writing from the bot operation is
871:
Betacommand still has total control over the bot's use (by approving users)
580:
Not reuse, modify, or release the script(s) without Betacommand's approval.
469:"Betacommand and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images."
677:
or none deal. the operators in question fully understand and agree to it.
950:
868:
Betacommand can still refuse changes in operation as he controls the code
570:
Others may also submit code to be approved and run by this bot for other
359:
Despite the speediness of this acceptance, I propose the ammendment here
140:
542:-use image tagging to a nominated group of BAG members. The script will
483:
re-open the request so that the more extreme wording can be toned down?
550:, only those who will be actively involved in the operation of the bot.
455:, and criticism should not be confused with attacks). Also, the terse
613:
If this is going to be a group/role account, let's do this properly.
583:
Have their access to the code be subject to approval by Betacommand.
232:
Not reuse, modify, or release the script(s) without Beta's approval.
226:
Betacommand continues to maintain and write code for the FairUseBot.
163:
Tagging non-free non-compliant images and notifying their creators.
687:
up, with this one (the obvious name) being the group-operated one.
1091:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
363:
to tone down the language and better reflect the situation.
742:
Evidentially I was mistaken. I thought that the community
310:"all current phases will be transfered to the new account"
564:) for all tasks except those relating to non-free images.
973:
who runs it when, most likely in the bot's userspace. --
457:"as long as the users in question follow my directions"
403:
327:
305:
282:
as long as the users in question follow my directions.
144:
115:
110:
75:
658:
bot operator should always do), then it will be fine.
475:. I note that this page was created and then approved
449:"Anti-fair-use people would be shielded from attacks"
304:
I asked Betacommand on his talk page, and he replied
1097:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
1020:
Enough. This has been going on long enough. Put the
931:
Knowledge (XXG):User account policy#Sharing_accounts
254:
Anti-fair-use people would be shielded from attacks.
42:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
1014:
ATTENTION: Please put the stick down and walk away.
1113:Approved Knowledge (XXG) bot requests for approval
538:releases the source of the script(s) he uses for
326:Thanks for the diff. As I explained on his page
378:I propose you stop your intentional disruption.
36:The following discussion is an archived debate.
881:So how is this not just a proposal to create a
8:
334:on NoBots from BC or one of the operators.
599:The bot operation can be better scheduled.
467:should be removed or rewritten. Finally,
331:Knowledge (XXG):AN/B#Community_proposal
560:Betacommand continues to run his bot (
170:(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run)
235:Be trusted / approved by Betacommand.
199:Clone of BetacommandBot's NFCC work.
7:
555:User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot
864:As it is now then, for newNFCCbot:
546:be available to all members of the
499:Changing the wording of the request
523:Proposed wording (from Carcharoth)
175:When bot operators have the time.
28:
147:as an operator, April 8th, 2008.
44:The result of the discussion was
1058:
45:
843:Actually, my wording is above.
151:Automatic or Manually Assisted:
62:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot
553:A new bot account is created (
1:
589:Advantages of the proposal:
528:BetacommandBot carries out.
241:Advantages of the proposal:
572:non-free content compliance
451:- this should not preclude
1129:
1084:21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1053:20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1002:20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
987:20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
968:15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
925:15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
896:12:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
853:12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
839:11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
821:11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
775:10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
756:08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
732:20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
717:12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
697:12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
682:12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
668:12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
641:12:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
623:12:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
518:10:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
493:08:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
439:01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
415:01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
398:00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
373:00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
343:20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
322:13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
300:08:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
287:23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
277:23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1094:Please do not modify it.
155:Programming Language(s):
39:Please do not modify it.
471:should be rewritten as
185:Already has a bot flag
22:Requests for approval
463:other people. Also,
179:Edit rate requested:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Bots
562:User:BetacommandBot
481:Knowledge (XXG):BAG
355:Proposed ammendment
548:bot approval group
1082:
985:
966:
923:
819:
477:two minutes later
436:
427:
393:
197:Function Details:
161:Function Summary:
1120:
1096:
1081:
1078:
1073:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1051:
1046:
1040:
1032:
983:
957:
914:
817:
536:User:Betacommand
430:
426:
395:
391:
387:
384:
339:
296:
271:
265:
49:
41:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1092:
1076:
1071:
1068:
1059:
1049:
1044:
1038:
1030:
1026:
1017:
955:BrownHairedGirl
912:BrownHairedGirl
740:
525:
506:User:FairUseBot
501:
435:
394:
389:
382:
380:
357:
337:
294:
269:
263:
261:
126:
65:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1126:
1124:
1116:
1115:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1087:
1086:
1035:
1011:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
989:
953:)? Thanks. --
947:User:Martinp23
938:
879:
878:
875:
872:
869:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
805:
802:
798:
797:
796:
789:
788:
787:
780:
739:
736:
735:
734:
702:
701:
700:
699:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
646:
645:
644:
643:
607:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
575:
568:
565:
558:
551:
524:
521:
500:
497:
496:
495:
444:
443:
442:
441:
431:
418:
417:
386:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
260:
257:
256:
255:
252:
249:
246:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
227:
224:
221:
218:
167:Edit period(s)
136:User:Martinp23
125:
124:
118:
113:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
78:
76:Approved BRFAs
73:
66:
64:
59:
57:
55:
54:
32:
30:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1125:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1098:
1095:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1065:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1047:
1041:
1034:
1033:
1023:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1003:
1000:
999:
995:
990:
988:
982:
979:
976:
971:
970:
969:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
939:
936:
933:, which says
932:
928:
927:
926:
921:
917:
913:
908:
904:
900:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
884:
876:
873:
870:
867:
866:
865:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
823:
822:
816:
813:
810:
806:
803:
799:
794:
793:
790:
785:
784:
781:
778:
777:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
745:
737:
733:
730:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:Strong oppose
698:
694:
690:
685:
684:
683:
680:
675:
669:
665:
661:
657:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
642:
638:
634:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
591:
590:
582:
579:
578:
576:
574:requirements.
573:
569:
566:
563:
559:
556:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
533:
532:
529:
522:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
440:
437:
434:
428:
424:
420:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
385:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
362:
354:
344:
341:
340:
332:
328:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
298:
297:
290:
289:
288:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
268:
258:
253:
250:
247:
244:
243:
242:
234:
231:
230:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
212:
211:
210:
207:
204:
200:
198:
194:
192:
189:
186:
182:
180:
176:
174:
171:
168:
164:
162:
158:
156:
152:
148:
146:
143:
142:
137:
133:
130:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
58:
52:
48:
43:
40:
34:
33:
31:
23:
19:
1093:
1090:
1069:
1063:
1028:
1027:
1019:
1013:
1012:
1010:
996:
934:
906:
903:in principle
902:
883:role account
880:
863:
762:
748:
743:
741:
726:
704:
703:
655:
610:
608:
588:
543:
530:
526:
502:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
432:
379:
358:
335:
309:
292:
262:
240:
214:
208:
205:
201:
196:
195:
190:
187:
184:
183:
178:
177:
172:
169:
166:
165:
160:
159:
154:
150:
149:
139:
128:
127:
70:
56:
50:
38:
35:
29:
749:community's
888:MickMacNee
845:Carcharoth
831:Carcharoth
767:Carcharoth
709:MickMacNee
689:Carcharoth
660:Carcharoth
633:MickMacNee
615:Carcharoth
531:Proposed:
510:Carcharoth
485:Carcharoth
423:Bellwether
407:MickMacNee
365:MickMacNee
314:Carcharoth
259:Discussion
209:Proposed:
153:Automatic
129:Operators:
116:rights log
106:page moves
1064:Approved.
943:User:ST47
656:organised
453:criticism
267:BotSpeedy
181:maxlag=5
145:Withdrawn
132:User:ST47
111:block log
1107:Category
1045:Contribs
963:contribs
951:User:SQL
920:contribs
738:Reopened
540:non-free
141:User:SQL
86:contribs
51:Approved
20: |
763:support
338:MBisanz
295:MBisanz
157:pywiki
984:(st47)
978:ʎʇɹnoɟ
959:(talk)
949:, and
916:(talk)
818:(st47)
812:ʎʇɹnoɟ
744:wanted
390:(talk)
1072:Reedy
1022:stick
998:inp23
975:uǝʌǝs
809:uǝʌǝs
728:inp23
383:Maxim
308:that
188:(Y/N)
91:count
16:<
1039:Talk
1031:CWii
994:Mart
892:talk
849:talk
835:talk
827:here
771:talk
753:Cobi
724:Mart
713:talk
693:talk
664:talk
637:talk
619:talk
514:talk
489:talk
461:with
411:talk
369:talk
318:talk
306:here
274:Cobi
121:flag
101:logs
81:talk
71:BRFA
1077:Boy
961:• (
918:• (
544:not
215:not
96:SUL
1109::
981:ʇs
945:,
907:if
894:)
851:)
837:)
815:ʇs
773:)
715:)
695:)
666:)
639:)
621:)
516:)
508:.
491:)
413:)
371:)
320:)
270:}}
264:{{
193:N
138:,
134:,
1067:—
1048:)
1042:|
1036:(
965:)
941:(
937:.
922:)
890:(
847:(
833:(
769:(
711:(
691:(
679:β
662:(
635:(
617:(
512:(
487:(
433:C
409:(
367:(
316:(
284:β
191::
173::
123:)
69:(
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
