Misplaced Pages

talk:Bot Approvals Group: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:43, 26 December 2007 editMets501 (talk | contribs)24,644 edits →BAG: response← Previous edit Revision as of 19:24, 26 December 2007 edit undoST47 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Administrators75,908 edits →BAGNext edit →
Line 179: Line 179:
:::Yes, I was refering to Mets and co., the members who were already on the BAG when Beta resigned and were approved with the old system. <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC) :::Yes, I was refering to Mets and co., the members who were already on the BAG when Beta resigned and were approved with the old system. <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I've got no objections. Everyone deserves a second chance. —<span style="color: red;">] (])</span> 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC) ::::I've got no objections. Everyone deserves a second chance. —<span style="color: red;">] (])</span> 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

:There appears to be a consensus to reinstate, so consider it done. --]]]<small>(st47)</small> 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:24, 26 December 2007

Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep (reform).
Shortcut
  • ]
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 August, 2006 and earlier
Archive 2 September, 2006—March, 2007
Archive 3 March, 2007—May, 2007
Archive 4 May, 2007—October, 2007
Archive 5 October, 2007—January, 2025

Information

This is the talk page for the Bot Approvals Group. Specific bot requests should be placed on the Requests for approval page. See the Bot policy page for more information on bot policy. This page is specifically for issues related to the approvals group. At the moment there is no formal policy for adding and removing members of the approvals group, but one will likely be formulated in the future. This is, however, the correct page to discuss member changes.

Discussion

Post a comment to add a new topic of discussion.

Time to formalise the new process?

I haven't been active here for a while, but it looks like the new process for BAG membership is running without controversy. If so, I'd suggest it's time to remove the disclaimer about it being temporary. --kingboyk 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, though a lack of controversy doesn't mean anything in my opinion. Perhaps we should open it up to the community for a few days (routine notification on the Village Pump or whatnot) and see what it thinks. — madman bum and angel 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I prefer a tweak. Continue with the anyone in good standing may join scheme, but change the foot note from "new system" to "new member" and remove it after a period (say 30-45 days) (where those members vest in to unnoted members). If there are issues during this time, anyone can bring it up here on talk to discuss removal. If the new "new member" makes no contributions during this time they can be removed, but free to rejoin later. Comments? — xaosflux 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a bad idea at all. I do think that we need to move to inactive anyone on the list who has been on the list for more than three months and has not contributed to BRFAs in the last three months. I can have MadmanBot generate a list. — madman bum and angel 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have boldly moved three members to Inactive Members who joined more than three months ago and who have not contributed to BRFAs in at least three months. Any of these members may feel free to move themselves back to Active Members, as usual, but should keep in mind that Bot Approvals Group members are expected to comment and take action on BRFAs. — madman bum and angel 01:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Andrevan (last contribution: 2007-08-01T05:37:47Z)
  • Freakofnurture (last contribution: 2007-07-19T06:56:15Z)
  • Ral315 (last contribution: 2006-10-11T07:51:38Z)

Attention please for this section break

As a bcrat, I'd like to say that the new process is a little too free-willy for my liking. I tend to trust the BAG approvals a lot and I'd rather not have to do lots of background checking for every time I press the makebot button. While it shouldn't be an inquisition to join BAG, I think there should be some dicsussion and demonstration that a user is trusted. I haven't done many makebots lately, but I have done a large number and I'll do them again whenever needed. - Taxman 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly suggestion. Might I suggest that only bot operators (current? recent? ever?) should be members of the BAG? It insures (a) minimal trust, (b) understanding of bot working and (c) interaction with the community as a bot operator; all three of which seem what we'd like in a BAG member. — Coren  00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
... although I can't help but notice that, despite the almost-nil entry requirements, the BAG has not been overrun with hopefuls. I admit that I'm a little disappointed in the benefits myself— the Porsche I was sent is only a 2005, and the twelve million dollar fund is being invested too conservatively and only gets 10-15%. Perhaps that's why not many people volunteer?  :-) — Coren  00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You got a Porsche?! All they sent me was a clapped out Lada! "Seriously", the irony of the "free for all" not attracting many more members and a crat saying "you know what, I liked the system before" is not lost on me :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As a non bcrat, I echo Taxman's sentiments ;). Suggestions I made last time this was brought up received general agreement (look at the archive if you care), yet inertia/agendas resulted in this move. The BAG is effectively defunct, given that someone can add themselves to the group and immediately trial/full approve a bot, possibly with no oversight at all from existing members. It's a joke, really. Call me an elitist twat, call me over cautious, call me whatever you like, but the fact remains, as I and others with whom I've discussed see it, that this isn't the right model to use. look in the archives if you want to see my arguments - I'm not going to rehash them here Martinp23 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as someone who observes BAG but is not a member, I have to agree. The fact that I could pretty much just add myself to BAG now and immediately approve a bot on behalf of the group, is a real issue. It means that there is very little joined up thinking, with members able to ignore concerns raised by others without further discussion and approve a bot anyway. Worse, there is a false sense of security being created with people thinking a bot is approved by BAG, therefore it must be alright, when in reality almost anyone could have added themselves to the group and given that stamp of approval, with little or no experience. I think this is leading to the approval of a number of bots that technically may do what they intend to do correctly, but may not result in any net benefit (for example bots which are effectively "clones" of existing bots with different code and are actually less well coded than what we have already). What is required is some kind of reform, not to make the group elitist, but to ensure it can remain quite static in membership, that members are competent at what they are doing, and to ensure that there is consistency between members in what they approve. Will (aka Wimt) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Various inactive Bots with inactive owners

Looking through those Bots currently flagged there are a number that have been inactive for many months and whose owners have similarly ceased to edit. Having these accounts around makes it more difficult to track current Bots though Special:Listusers and is a potential security risk were a vandal to hijack any. Given that flagging and deflaggings can be done locally it is a fairly trivial matter to remove flags from inactive accounts and restore them later on request. I therefore propose, with BAG's approval, to remove the Bot flags of the following accounts:

  • Dlyons493 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (unknown operator) "speedy" deflagged per discussion below
    I have no idea why this account has a bot flag. It has clearly been performing non-Bot functions.
    Account claims to have "mungled" its password - no edits since December 14, 2006

There are other accounts that perhaps also should no longer be flagged but these appeared to me to be the most obvious examples. Comments? WjBscribe 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I support de-flagging all these bots, however it should be for community to decide, so posting to WP:VPP would be more appropriate. Some of these bots could be de-flagged immediately, for example Dlyons493 was flagged by mistake, IsraBot predates WP:BOT and had been abandoned for too long time and MelsaranAWB is indef-blocked anyway. MaxSem 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've striken several bots that I don't think we should deflag yet, mostly where they are currently inactive, but would be welcome to return, and haven't been gone that long. While deflagging is technical in nature, this request really seems to be about deauthorizing these bots, and if (when) cross published to community noticeboards should be advertised along that nature. BOts deauthorized should be indef blocked as well, with a block reason of no longer authorized, but welcome to reapply (unless banned or something). — xaosflux 13:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense - I've gone ahead and deflagged Dlyons493 (talk · contribs) given that, as MaxSem pointed out, that account should never have been flagged in the first place. No need to block that account as its a personal account of a user whelcome to return. WjBscribe 13:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with deflagging the bots on this (edited) list; should the operators return, it's a simple matter to fast track reapproval. I also think they should be indef blocked with a friendly note for security reasons— let's be sure the message is clear that the block is strictly a technical measure, however. — Coren  13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Pile-on agreement. Daniel 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree Ill also get a list of bots that are flagged and have not edited in the last 18 months β 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. — E BAG 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose the summary: "Flag withdrawn due to inactivity" and a message on both the Bot and user's talkpage explaining that the Bot has been deflagged as both operator and Bot have been inactive for many months but that they are welcome to reapply for approval should they wish to run the Bot again in future. WjBscribe 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Once we have the list we can get a bureaucrat that has some free time to go through and have some fun *sarcasm* — E BAG 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite willing to do the deflagging if we're agreed here. WjBscribe 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please use the {{BotDeflaggedNotice}} template which I have created for this purpose. Usage terms are on the template page itself and should be placed on both the botop and bot talk pages in the format on the template page. Don't forget to replace 'bot' with the bot's actual username (e.g. EBot). — E BAG 01:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Flags removed and notifications left. I haven't blocked the accounts - feel free to do this if you think its necessary. WjBscribe 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm impressed out how well this has worked out so far (if only WT:RFA was as simple!). Anyone else think this should lead to a proposed change in the Bot Policy, that inactive bots will be deauthorized after some sort of period (even if it is long like 18 months)? — xaosflux 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a time frame, but I think 18 months is too long, Im thinking 6 months. here is a list of all bots that have not edited in 18 months. β 04:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
bots that have not edited in the last 6 months β 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
bots that have not edited in the last 3 months
bots that have not edited in the last 30 days
The time (18-6 months) refer to the bot's inactivity or the bot's master's inactivity? I suggest to consider only the user's inactivity. Snowolf 09:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good first step with these Bots that are inactive but have active operators is to contact the operator and ask if they still require the Bot account. One of the examples that stands out on Beta's list is AMABot (talk · contribs) which is redundant now the AMA is non functional - I'm sure Martinp23 would agree to its retirement. We should bear in mind that with some of the interwiki link Bots, messages will need to be sent to the operator on their home projects as they may not frequently check for messages here. WjBscribe 13:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Martinp23 confirmed that the flags for AMABot and RefDeskBot were no longer needed. I have accordingly withdrawn both flags. WjBscribe 14:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still around but User:Kingbotk has been inactive. I'd like to hold onto my flag please, and will of course check current conditions and wiki moods before running him again! --kingboyk 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question :)

Would anybody mind if I join the group? Snowolf 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently most anyone is welcome to join, just add your name to the list, it may be best to avoid any controversial bots at first :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I joined

I just added my name to the list. I've taken part in bot discussions before I recently became confident with visual basic. I look forward to helping out--Phoenix-wiki  20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, glad to have you helping! Redrocketboy 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BAG

I think its time that I rejoin, Ive proven myself. are there any objections? β 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any type of bot requests that you think you would be best to avoid making approvals/denials in? — xaosflux 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
there are no type but there may come an individual request here or there. β 05:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Snowolf 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No objections. MaxSem 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some input from the old BAG members, IMHO ;-) Snowolf 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I resemble that remark! I'm not old, I'm mature.  :-) — Coren  18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
he was referring to long term BAG members, IE the length they have been on bag not their age. β 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was refering to Mets and co., the members who were already on the BAG when Beta resigned and were approved with the old system. Snowolf 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got no objections. Everyone deserves a second chance. —METS501 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus to reinstate, so consider it done. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)