Revision as of 04:38, 18 March 2008

This page was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep (reform).

• ]

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.

Help requested at ANI

Could someone from BAG comment on this ANI thread. I don't think the issue can be resolved without some competent supervision from BAG members. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Discussion got auto-archived to here while waiting for resolution or constructive discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passed, Martinp23 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my turn.

• SQL (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• I'd like to request BAG membership. I do run a bot, and, I am a developer on a bot framework. I mostly know my technical stuff, and, I'm pretty decent when it comes to policy. I think, an extra BAG member or two right now, would be a great help, in clearing out the present backlog. I'm more than willing to help out with this. :) Thanks, for your consideration, SQL 06:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Seems like a reasonable and competent operator and we need qualified people to work this backlog. MBisanz 06:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - Knows his stuff. Soxred93 | talk bot 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong support - Competent bot operator, trustworthy. I see no reason to refuse this request. -- Cobi 01:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. — E 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

omg, you're not already? Certainly, we should fix that! MaxSem 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Me too

Seems a good time to join BAG. I've been running a bot for over a year, and comment here fairly often. Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · logs) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see you around a lot, commenting on BRFA's. You seem to know your stuff. Plus, it seems like additional help is needed :) Thanks for volunteering! SQL 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support He's a reasonable fellow person. MBisanz 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dittohead

Might as well try again. Was in under the old system for like 2 days or so until I removed myself because I had a differing opinion on the Bot process, but {{sofixit}}, might as well help again. Q 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Knows his stuff. -- Cobi 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• You obviously know your stuff, and, seem willing to help with the backlog. Support. SQL 10:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I went looking for Dittohead (talk · contribs) :) Support. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved

Could BAG members please remember to list approved Bots on this page? Both AWeenieBot and HBC AIV helperbot5 were not flagged last mpnth because they weren't listed on that page. Its generally helpful to have a record of all approved Bots and particularly so for bureaucrats if those listings make it clear what Bots do or do not require flags... WjBscribe 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation (MaxSem)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as successful. I'd hoped someone else would close this one, but, as no one has yet, and it's obviously got overwhelming support (as far as the amount of attention these get), I've decided to close this. SQL 04:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I used to be a BAG member under the old 'trial' system, and now I'd like to join on permanent basis. Currently, there's a backlog at WP:BRFA and extra hands could be useful. Thanks. MaxSem 11:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support They need the skilled hands more than ever. MBisanz 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Yay Max! —Reedy Boy 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, has the knowledge. — E 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support but of course! Snowolf 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support More... Help... Needed! :) Looks good to me! SQL 03:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nine days passed... Time to close it? MaxSem 11:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few ready to close... If I were uninvolved, I'd do it, but, I already supported, sorry. SQL 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Helping out

I notice you guys have a backlog. Is there any way I can help out? Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The best way to help out is to look at new bot requests and start to get experience in the system, and start commenting on them, so we can see that you're prepared to join the group. Once you're ready, you can submit yourself on this page for a 1-week approval vote, after which you become a member. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly oppose this user joining this group, for reasons set out at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Geo.plrd 3/Daniel's notes. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me such. I actually encourage you to read the information that Daniel has been thoughtful enough to post, if I decide to attempt to join, I will respond then. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If BAG were to create a helper (clerking) system, or if this user were to apply for BAG membership, I would have to oppose (do I even get an !vote as a non-BAGer?). First there is this incident with the Motto of the Day project. Normally, I wouldn't bother to mention something so old, but it doesn't appear at the time, he understood there was something wrong with a strict hierarchy system. And based on a recent conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Can_I_help.3F, which led to this old issue, which indicates somehow an action/inaction led to an Arbcom, I'd say BAGers should think carefully about users who have sought perceived-status positions without fully understanding them. MBisanz 02:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mbisanz, I never said i was applying for membership. I simply asked about helping out Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to vote in BAG elections, those that are uncontested may be closed after a week by any BAG member, those that are close should be referred to a crat or uninvolved BAG member. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally anyone at all is welcome to comment on any BRFAs in their capacity as a community member. Martinp23 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and BAG

See WP:ANI/Betacommand#BCBot_indefinitely_blocked, where I have proposed that one of the preconditions for BetacommandBot being unblocked is that Betacommand should be removed from the Bot Approvals Group.

Apart from the issues around BCB performing tasks without approval, there seems to me to a conflict of interest between running a controversial bot and being one of the gatekeepers for approval of bots: some separation of powers seems appropriate.

Please note that I do accept that that much of the criticism directed at BCB's image-related work is from editors who do not understand why the work is necessary. However, that's not the only issue with BCB, and even if it was the only issue it seems to me to be quite inappropriate for the role of operator-of-extraordinarily-prolific-bot to be combined with that of bot-approver. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seperation of powers is not really needed because BAG members should not be approving their own bots. Betacommand has failed to show he has improved his behaviour post reinstatement with several instances like this coming up. I haven't read all of the ANI thread nor am I in a position to comment on it. I would suggest something like a 3 month block would be in order.-- maelgwn - talk 11:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, wait just a second.

• Has Betacommand been approving his own bots?
• Has Betacommand been approving inappropriate bots?
• Has Betacommand been making inappropriate comments at BRFA?
• What specifically has Betacommand been doing in relation to his duties at the bot approvals group that warrants his removal? SQL 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not speaking in favor of his removal, I believe the objection stems from his failure to follow Bot policy, namely running tasks on his bot that are not approved (Cats and main page run-up) and abusing his bot's powers (spamming a user's page). The argument to make is that individuals who fail to follow bot policy with their own bots, should not be permitted to approve other bots. MBisanz 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose this request as a continuation of a witch hunt that has been going on for months. Betacommand does not approve his own bot. No grounds whatsoever to remove this individual from BAG. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Following the logic behind your argument, BrownHairedGirl, I shouldn't be a member of the BAG either, as I am also the operator-of-an-extraordinarily-prolific-bot. However your argument would include several of the BAG members. And, it would seem that several people would disagree with you. -- Cobi 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Cobi that COI issue really isn't applicable in this case. If we say that Bot ops can't be BAGs, then Admins shouldn't vote in RfA and Crats shouldn't close RfBs and MedCommers certainly shouldn't approve new MedCommers. Now the issue of BAGer behavior in operating their own bot, might be a criteria in determining if they should remain on BAG, but as I said above, thats a different argument. MBisanz 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that I've been a consistent voice on the Betacommand issues - including one that chastises when I think he's crossed the line. However, I can say that until/unless I see Betacommand approve tasks for his own bots, or in any way cross a rather strong ethical line, I do not support his mandatory removal. - Philippe | Talk 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, who else than a bot operator is best suited to evaluate the technical merits of a bot request? I would go so far as to suggest that BAG members should have operated a bot for a significant amount of time (and I've suggested as much long before BCBot was a hot issue). The very idea is ludicrous. Why not require that all BAG members have at least 3 FA while we're at it? Because it's not relevant to evaluating bot proposals. That's why. Bot experience? That is. — Coren  04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This hasn't been a witch hunt, he has continued to do this wrong. BAG should have some response to that. -- maelgwn - talk 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Community communication

Since I've commented at the BC RfAR and been quoted further, I feel I should offer some explanation here. I follow your group's work regularly and I think you do a fantastic job on the technical aspects and spot many of the community approval aspects also. I have no particular desire to end up trawling for diff's to cast BAG in a bad light. The concerns I've tried to express are those I try to express to any real-life group of chip-heads: communication skills and understanding the requirements of your customer are way more important than knowing the syntax of the particular command. As a dedicated bit-monger myself, I take for granted that I should have excellent technical skills, I ensure that all by myself, but then I go on to the hard work of figuring out the whole context of why I'm doing it and what my work is supposed to achieve. My concerns with BAG is the appearance of it being a "closed group" concentrating on only the technical aspects. I say "appearance" because I've seen lots of examples where BAG has specifically questioned whether a proposed bot is actually performing a community-approved task. What I would suggest is that BAG consider some form of, ummm, community outreach? That is to say, restructure yourselves to include some avowedly non-bot participants who could bring a wider community perspective to your deliberations. I'd suggest in particular Carcharoth, he's taken an interest, nail him with the responsibility. There are several others who could also be useful. Beyond the specifics of the recent drama with BC and BCBot, which are easily diff'able, that pretty much sums up any unsupported concerns I've raised. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Franamax, tx for your comment.

I'd qualify for "avowedly non-bot participant who could bring a wider community perspective," yet becoming a BAG member is not something I'd do in the short run (even if asked). Here's why, it's really very simple: do as I do: put a few of the bot-approval pages on your watchlist. The bot and task approval pages are open, there's your wider community perspective. I've commented on bot requests (although not so much lately), and most of the time found other participants (including BAG members) collaborative & communicative: suggestions are taken seriously, etc. Yes, a few proposed bots never made it (in part) due to my comments, or got better features, etc. I'm sure I spotted issues not spotted by those looking primarily at the technical side, because of being aware of community sensitivities in some domains: once mentioned, BAG members have proven (at least in my experience) to take such suggestions at heart. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All the things you say are valid and I agree that the BAG members are generally committed to getting it right. I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of a specific role within BAG for some non-technical members who are charged with examining the community aspects of every bot request (and bot complaints too, I suppose). This could even involve a change in approval - at least one tech-geek has to approve and also at least one policy-wonk. Something like that anyway. I see a bit of a vacuum right now where BAG is charged only with the technical side and there is no solid counterpart on the community/policy side. Franamax (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not, fundamentally, a bad idea but it's also not likely to work in practice: evaluating the technical correctness (or, at least, its likelihood) is a well defined task with clear objectives and criterion. Gaging "community feeling", on the other hand, is a basically impossible task for any person or small group of persons. Look at AfD: the only reason the process works (and even then it has problems) is because it gets input, mostly, from people who care about the article and are able to evaluate the nom on its merits. And even then, it's often a painful and acrimonious process.

The best any non-techie could do is guess whether a task is likely to be controversial or not— something any experienced editor is just as able to do, and with just as much accuracy. I've sent bot proposals to the VP on occasion to try to gather consensus, and denied bots with "unlikely to be supported by the community" as rationale— but I don't think the BAGgers are any less likely to be correct than other random editors at that guesstimation— and indeed, those of us who have been yelled at before because of a bot are more likely to be conservative than not.

If you can suggest a method by which the community, at large, can be made interested to comment on bot proposals, please do! In fact, I could use some feedback myself: I've got a bot proposal pending that is possibly controversial enough that more feedback would be needed, but all three attempts to get feedback (Twice on AN, once on VP) have met with a resounding "Meh.". — Coren  23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, I never said it would be easy. It's quite difficult to bridge the gap between establishing the strict procedural basis for an automated task, and the expectations of a user who can quite easily tell you the rules, and in the same breath tell you why this example works too, because X*Y+Z=Q and Joe said so. I'm suggesting that you aim to recruit some really high-level clueful people. At the least, if you open that space, when some admin-type comes along to wank, you can always respond with "good point, join us and try it for real". Alternatively, you're not a group of collective dullards, create among yourselves an improved process - how about, no task can be approved unless one uninvolved editor/admin puts a check box in? Sure, you'll get a backlog, but it will be dealt with like any other WP backlog: those who care will show up... Franamax (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kbdankbot

I have been peeking at the trial run for this and it appears to have run as expected. Could someone approve it? Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And lockalbot? Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Joining the Team (Werdna)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obviously successful. Overwhelming support, and, I don't see anyone closing this one anytime soon either. SQL 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, all. I'm interested in joining the approvals group team. Most of you know that I'm a long-time Wikimedian (although not much of a Wikipedian in recent days), and that I occasionally provide tech support at the village pump, and a developer. A former bot operator, I understand the bot policy and system, and I think I could bring my development and bot operation experience to the team (in dealing with matters of performance and so on). — Werdna talk 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great! You've got my support, obviously ;-) Snowolf 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Owns several clues, most of which are of high quality.  :-) Support. — Coren  16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support but I wish you would get your bot back up. β 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. MaxSem 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, good rep MBisanz 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Gimmetrow 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Martinp23 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a no-brainer. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. SQL 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Message to BAG

I am sorry I did't know!!!!!.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.109 (talk • contribs)

Moving message from subpage.--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about category work by BetacommandBot

I would like to draw the attention of WP:BAG to the discussions taking place at these two threads:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#How can a BCbot task be rescinded?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Analysing previous bot run on categories

Hopefully Betacommand will respond there, but if not, can WP:BAG say here what action they feel needs to be taken, whether they feel they can take any action, and where those concerned about this should go if not here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there are specific issues which I want reviewed, I have asked in this edit at WT:BRFA for BAG to advise of its procedures for reviewing BCB's tasks.

I have made it clear that I do want these specific issues wrt to addressed, but also that I think that the availability of otherwise of a review mechanism for bot tasks is relevant to the hope expressed by arbitrators that the community can resolve these issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Multi-task bots

One of the problems with multi-task bots such as BetacommandBot, is that the edits for different tasks are difficult to analyse when the tasks are run at different times without any particular schedule. Some filtering can be done by namespace and edit summaries, but would it be possible for WP:BAG to initiate a change in bot policy (if this is not already covered) to require better documentation for multi-task bots?

I'll quote what BrownHairedGirl has said elsewhere:

"Before any bot run, I assign a job number, and create a page describing the task, and then proactively seek input before I start. BHGBot's jobs are wikiproject-related, so I seek input from the relevant projects, and only start work when a consensus is established. As one example, see User:BHGbot/Job0007; discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#BHGbot stub tagging and at User talk:BHGbot/Job0007, and each edit tagged with the job number (see this example). Everything is documented, so that anyone encountering an edit has a direct link to an explanation of the job's scope and purpose and to evidence that consensus was sought. Sure, sometimes discussion in advance will miss a problem and a job will still cause unforeseen problems or need to be stopped ... but the small amount of extra effort required in doing it this way is not a big overhead when set against a few thousand edits, and it potentially saves a lot of time for all the hundreds of editors who see the edits in their watchlists."

This sounds like a good model for best practice. Could WP:BAG members please comment on how feasible it would be to enforce a requirement like this and whether it would help make the operations of multi-task bots more transparent. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots which do one type of task are generally self-documenting. CfD bots, for instance, are encouraged to link the specific CfD in the edit summary. It may be a reasonable idea to have some sort of log for jobs outside the usual operations of a bot, but this could be a burden for the jack-of-all-trades bot ops. Gimmetrow 15:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The trade-off is with the burden for the editors who come across a bot edit in an article they have watchlisted, and want to find out what is going on, but the edit summary is next to useless. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth is right. If the bot operator does not accept the small burden of documenting a task, the result is a burden on many other editors.

I also note that the apparently CFD-related edits which I have seen by BCbot do not link to the specific CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal on WT:BRFA

Please offer input there if you have any :). Martinp23 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)