Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

MBisanzBot

Operator: MBisanz ^talk

Automatic or Manually Assisted:Automatic

Programming Language(s):AWB

Function Summary:Remove copyrighted WMF logos from User, User talk, Talk namespaces

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):When I'm around

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):Y

Function Details: Bot will check referenced namespaces for the following images:

if found, bot will comment them out by adding ":" after the first bracket. This is due to the strong discouragement to diluting the WMF brand image through overuse of copyrighted images on user pages. Other policy discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WMF_Logos. Specifically the issue is that by reusing the logo in such a regular fashion, we prevent the free-distribution of the database, by making userpages and user talk pages contain non-free content. Additionally, per Mike Godwin's implication, we dilute the trademarks of the WMF by failing to maintain Nominative use of the logos, thus making it harder to go after outside individuals who would attempt to violate the trademark protections of the logos.

Discussion

This will be controversial; strongly suggest it be raised at relevant village pumps before this goes ahead (nothing yet). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done to VP-Pol, MCHD, WPJ-FU, and WT:NFC, in addition to AN. MBisanz ^talk 10:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine, now wait a few days for comments. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way in hell. -- Ned Scott 10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have (possibly for the first time?) a direct statement from our lawyer, Mike Godwin, that we should treat these as fair use images [1]. NFCC is very clear that fair use images cannot be used outside of namespace 0. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He actually said we should treat them as 'nominative' use images only, which seems to me to be much the same thing, except applying to a trademark rather than a copyright. We have an article. That makes it a valid task to perform, however I'm going to hold off on trialing it until at least tonight, and I'd ask others to do the same, so we can get an idea from the community on what we think about this. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a delay is definitely warranted, since there will be objections either way. In the end, the question is whether to (continue to) make an exception to NFCC. Technically, these images already violated NFCC when they were used on user pages, but we have historically not removed them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion shouldn't be happening here. -- Ned Scott 11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that. The main discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WMF_Logos, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valid task. I'm not a BAG member, but if I were, I would have trialed it. (No I wouldn't, I've a COI on this one.) This is simple. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Edit rate please? NonvocalScream (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the BAG got rid of that question, in any event, I'll set the AWB lag to 2 secs between saves. Given my internet connection and hardware, this produces a max of 8 saves per minute and an average of 4-5. I will be nobots compliant. It will respect protected pages. MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: And the expected time to edit (UTC please) NonvocalScream (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a bit more tough. I'm usually on 1UTC to 8UTC. I could time-restrict this task to only a certain UTC window, but was hoping to keep it flexible to my availability. MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses, my concern was the load, however at the edit rate, I don't think peak/non peak will be an issue. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm told by more experienced bot ops, its technically impossible for an AWB bot on its own to mess with the load. MBisanz ^talk 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly correct, probably why the question was removed from the template. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no objection to waiting another day or so to get a fuller response before trial. When I am approved, I'll compile the AWB user settings for all 100 images and then take the trial run. After final approval, this will be a long process because most of the commons images only list the first 500 instances of en-wiki use. This will mean running the list at 500-limits per image until all images have been done several times. For things such as the WMF logo, I may just upload a local copy to get the benefits of "what links here" and then delete it. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The task seems appropriate to me. Sad that the legal situation means it has to be done, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe this is the right person and right bot for the job. Bstone (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm strongly in favor of putting this request on hold for the moment while discussion continues about which images should be removed and where. There really is no rush, these images have been where they are for years. Also, a broader consensus and more explicit community approval will make the edits go much smoother.

In addition, having the bot simply disable the images seems rather silly. In my opinion, it should either replace or remove the image, so as to not make pages look simply goofy. However, this really isn't the venue for that kind of discussion, so I'll go find the appropriate place to make that comment. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no reason we can't take our time with this, and give proper evaluation to the situation. Not every use on user pages needs to be banned, either. Jumping up with this bot request the moment Mike says "tone it down" is an extreme over reaction. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask a silly question. Does this mean that you intend to remove the {{administrator}} template from every admin's page? Unless or until the foundation says "thou shalt not use the Wikipedia admin mop logo on your user page", having a bot remove it is an all-around bad idea. --B (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this bot isn't touching any templates. It disabling individual uses of the image on userpages. No templates, such as {{administrator}} are impacted by this. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then what about someone that has substed that template onto their user page? How would you differentiate between the substed template and someone just using it because it looks pretty? --B (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was substed, then it would be replaced. But AFAIK, the mop template isn't substed. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is some places. Soxred93 (u t) 03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mop with wikiglobe icon needs to be replaced generally, including in the templates, but that is beyond the scope of the scope of the current bot request. Dragons flight (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Mike Godwin for clarification. Despite the wording of the tags, he now states that all WMF logos may be used on any WMF wiki userpage. Withdrawing this apparently misguided BRFA. Might someone want to fix the copyright tag to reflect this exception? MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that (it's protected), but I'll see if I can put Common's version of {{editprotected}} on it.

Withdrawn by operator. Soxred93 (u t) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note; I've fulfilled the editprotected request. [2] dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.