User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

Suggested rename of User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

Cross-posted to User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, User talk:ST47, User talk:Martinp23, User talk:SQL, and User talk:Betacommand.

Would you (all four of you) consider asking for a rename of this bot to User:NFCC Bot (10c)? The reason is that I hope the proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance will gain support, and part of that is a plan to create the following bot accounts to take on the roles of enforcing compliance of those aspects of WP:NFCC that can be checked by bots. User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Since the code proposed to run on User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is a clone of BetacommandBot's task of enforcing the bot-enforceable part of NFCC#10c, I think the rename I am proposing will help make things clearer. Could you post replies at User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do object. NFCC is just a bunch of letters. Non-free Content Compliance means a hell of a lot more. the bot enforces that policy also. instead of trolling and trying to find every possible reason for stopping the bot why not keep your mouth closed and let us get back to doing what we do best, Improve the Encyclopedia?. β^_command 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, I'm not trying to stop the bot, I'm only asking for a rename to avoid misleading people. The bot does not enforce anything except the bot-enforceable part of NFCC#10c (ie. article name not present on image page = failure to meet NFCC#10c). Of the bot-enforceable parts of the NFCC, it does not enforce NFCC#3a, NFCC#3b, NFCC#7, NFCC#9 or NFCC#10b. This is why calling the bot User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is misleading. If you object to the letters, do you object to a rename to User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (10c)? Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The lazy typist in me, wants a shorter username :). However, lazy often != good.... I think, it'd be best if the bot's name isn't a cryptic acronym (that's one of the complaints, with the messages it leaves already, no?). As far as tacking (10c) onto the end, I could go either way with that, really. SQL^{Query me!} 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to hit my talkpage, I have read this. (As could probably be said for the rest of us, as I imagine this is on all of our watchlists) SQL^{Query me!} 01:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec with bc)Now, as far as what you're proposing goes. Sorry, I can't help you. I am not nearly familiar enough with python, to muck with something as complex as BcBot. You'll want to speak with the developer, User:Betacommand. Might I suggest, that, if you don't already, learn a programming language, and implement a better bot, with all of the features you wanted? Win-Win, for all involved, if you ask me. SQL^{Query me!} 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't be sure it was on all your watchlists, so a note on each talk page redirecting things here seemed best. The rename has nothing to do with the bot's coding, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. I would love to learn a programming language and program a bot. Maybe I will one day. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I misunderstood :( I thought, you meant splitting what the bot does, into subtasks under different usernames, mea culpa. SQL^{Query me!} 02:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The wider problem with the name is that it sounds official. While some bot names should sound official, it is an interesting question whether this one should. I will raise this elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing this with you, and, I think, we've all had enough AN/ANI/ANB/AN* today. This is most likely the most appropriate place to be discussing this. Personally, I don't feel that the name sounds overly official. I believe, that it is very descriptive of what it actually does, assists with NFCC compliance. How would "Non-Free Content Compliance Helper Bot" sound to you? (It is getting a little long, however... what about "Non-Free Image Helper Bot"?) SQL^{Query me!} 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind it staying with this name, as long as Betacommand or others actually commit to writing bot code to help enforce the other parts of NFCC, and then running it under this account. The whole point of WP:NFCC-C was to get lots of people writing bots to check different things, and to increase NFCC compliance. My concern is that all the focus will remain on the "image name" part of 10c (which is what BetacommandBot does) and that the rest of the NFCC will be neglected. But the ideal win-win situation is to have Betacommand writing the code (which he is good at), and have others operating the bot and preparing the notices to be used and the scheduling of image runs, and so forth. This won't work though if Betacommand tries to control the bot operators and make demands of them. They have to insist that he concentrate on working on the code. Betacommand, are you considering writing code to check images for compliance with the other bot-enforceable parts of NFCC? Would you have time to take part in discussions over what exactly such bots would need to do? Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if you will give me a hand and grab a cluestick and start beating people over the head with it, I might me able to get back to doing what I do. phase four of BCBot should have been in full swing in September, but due to admins who did not understand the Non-free policy, users who needed help, and the countless trolls I have yet to even begin to start coding for phase four. this is the tenth month of operating NFCC tagging, and I have yet to get fully operational. If you will stop complaining, and start helping we might be able to get this in full swing. once that is done we can look at other possible NFC bot task. but until I get this one fully operational Im not looking to write any more. but once this is done Ill gladly talk with you and others about other possible bots. β^_command 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is as co-operative as you've been for some time on these issues. I know it must be hard for you sometimes (what BrownHairedGirl said on her talk page sums this up well, see here), but if you did just agree to some people's well-meant suggestions some of the time, things would be a lot easier. User:BAGBot and User:AfDBot use acronyms in their usernames. I will try and encourage others to support your non-free image work - the most convincing argument is the sheer volume of images needing to be dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I try to be very co-operative, talk with anyone who regularly works with me (note I said with and not against). Yes some bots do have abrevations in their names, but neither of the two you pointed to will interact with users on the same level as this one will. I take and impliment as many feasable suggestions that are possible. Its gotten to the point where I have decided to just revert/ignore offensive/troll comments, and get back to what I enjoy. β^_command 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Status

I feel in the dark here... should I be expecting an email or something regarding the code and how the bot should be run or is this nothing to do with me? Martinp23 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

once the flame wars stop Ill send you and ST47 the code and instructions. β^_command 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh good. Martinp23 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Before operating this bot, I suggest the documentation on the front page be updated. User talk:BetacommandBot had some good links, even if the tone of the language and the warning hand were, shall we say, contested. Please also ensure that the initial discussions here are archived properly. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add, that, re-opening the bot's BRFA (again....) is being discussed here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)