Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 22 March 2007

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

It is 09:41:30 on December 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Bot deflagging

Hi - I'm not sure whether it's possible for 'crats to do this (I hope it is :)), but could the bot flag please be removed from User:MediationBot1, so that edits will appear on people's watchlists, considering that it often makes edits (listing new cases, for example) which are of great interest to mediators and others? I understand the the pevious MediationBot, operated by Essjay, was also operated flagless, and as the use the same code.... :) Martinp23 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, bureaucrats can do this. They can flag and de-flag them. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done. :) - Taxman 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please limit this bot's edits to no more than 2-3/min to prevent flooding without a flag. Thanks! — xaosflux 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Martinp23 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bot edits automatically appear on people's watchlist? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do, forgot about that. All the flag does is take it off recent changes. - Taxman 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So why does the flag need to be taken off? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot edits can be turned off in watchlists (although they're on by default). Also, minor bot edits to usertalk pages don't trigger new-messages flags, although I don't think that's relevant here. --ais523 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of exactly why the bot should be defalgged, except that I have been informed that the old mediation bot was. I suspect that many users, after a while, turn off bot edits in their watchlists, but mediators in particular often take great interest in the edits made by the bot to both case pages and the listing pages. I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bot is doing the job of an editor, and that its edits are often important to people when they see them on the watchlist (especially as it should be the only editor to the pending cases page, where new cases are stored). Martinp23 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot's page states that it is operated by the Mediaton Committee. I take it from that that the MC makes concerted decisions regarding the bot's functions. So the question would be: does the MC wants this to be left without a flag? If someone specific is responsible for operating the bot, then the question is directed to whomever it may be. This is only limited by one aspect: as Xaosflux mentioned above, if this is going to be left without a bot flag, then the pace of editing has to be limited. If this would not be desirable, then the bot would have to be flagged, unless some kind of understanding can be reached with the BAG, which are the people responsible for the technical decisions regarding bots. The fact that the previous bot was not flagged would not seem like sufficient reason, especially since MC members can still view bot edits on their watchlists simply by adjusting their preferences, unless they would like to see only this particular bot's edits, but not any others' (which doesn't seem like something that would cover every single member). If that were to be the case, we would just have to reconcile the individual preferences with the technical/policy-related limitations. But the decision can be very much of a practical nature. Redux 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally operate the bot, for the mediation committee. Personally, I have no problem with there being a bot falg in place, but have requested that it be removed on the request of the committee's chair, ^demon. To get a wider consensus from the mediators on the issue, I'll make a post on the mailing list, pointing here to the valid points raised. The bot does have a fairly low edit frequency, and is throttled by the pywikipedia framework, so it is easy to restrict the edit rate, especially as the tasks are not really time critical. Martinp23 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason we ran the original without a flag was because of that very issue, some people do have bot changes hidden on their preferences. Now, as to the speed of the bot...the bot is only set to run at various intervals, it's not running constantly, so the issue of "x number of edits within a minute" is rather irrelevant. The bot might make 5-6 edits max within a 2 minute period, then not edit for a good number of hours, if not a day or so. I had brought up the point of flagging the original MedBot with Essjay at some point, and that was his justification. If consensus is against what we have done previously, and the BAG does not agree to this, then we can flag it, but I would prefer leaving it unflagged, if at all possible. ^demon 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

De-flagging this bot seems like a good idea to me. The MediationBots aren't very active, from what I have seen, but do spread important announcements around from time to time. Also needs to be corrected sometimes.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that being the case, unless the BAG would have any objections, which I don't see happening, we can leave things as is. Cheers, Redux 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A belated note that I agree with ^demon on this. I haven't heard any objection from a MedCommer, either onwiki or onlist, so I presume it's OK. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Psst

Time to close one RFA... Titoxd 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dannyisme

Since Danny has resigned from his position, what shall become of this office account? It's still a bureaucrat and admin, and if Danny no longer works for Wikimedia, would the process be to remove its status? Apparently consensus is needed here before the removal is requested on Meta. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't desysop; you need a steward. You can request this at meta:Requests for permissions#Removal of access. Prodego 23:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, got to read. *bangs head* I would say not in this case, and certainly not on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Prodego 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the bureaucrat's noticeboard? It's as good a place as any, and there was a quick response too. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Bureaucrats? Prodego 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Several bureaucrats have steward rights. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True, some do. Prodego 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 4 do :P Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rights from his Dannyisme account. I presume he simply forgot it when removing his various other rights. — Dan | talk 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• And for those of us that missed the memo... what exactly happened? Titoxd 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This happened. – Steel 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• No idea, Danny just removed all his rights. Brad Patrick created a Former staff page with Danny on it about 12 hours later. Prodego 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. What happens to the office protected pages now he is gone, hate for them to sit there rusting and uneditable? Viridae 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo will appoint someone else. I already asked him. Prodego 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• N.B. I've listed other projects of his on meta RFP. — xaosflux 01:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Another bot deflagging

It seems that the approval for BetacommandBot has been removed: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot 3. (The bot's first approved task (Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot#BetacommandBot New task) and second approved task (Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot 2) were both temporary and seem to have been discontinued; for the bot's other tasks, approval was withdrawn for one (see above) and never granted in the first place for the other Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot, and the bot has also been used for unapproved tasks). As the bot is no longer approved, could its bot flag be removed? --ais523 09:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, here are permalinks to the controversy:

• Betacommand's talk page showing users who wanted him to stop editing. (Shows the controversy in detail)
• Mets501 Talk Page discussing why the approval was removed.
• AN/I where users asked for immediate intervention. There are a number of threads on this page.
• Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group - There was some discussion about removing Betacommand as a member of BAG. Any interested parties can discuss that issue on this page.

Hopefully those links are helpful to any interested parties. -- RM 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a serious breach of process. BetacommandBot has many different task, and they are ongoing, the only task to be "withdrawn" is the newest task and that BRFA was done so due to an error in communication. the only "unapproved" task is the one that had a pending BRFA and that task was limited to WP:WPSPAM subpages. revoking the flag is un called for. BCBot has over 80,000 edits and every issue that has been brought up with the bots actions have been addressed rapidly and effectively. My edits are not linked to the bots task. I did not run anything unauthorized under User:BetacommandBot check its contribs or its talk page. there have been no real issues with it other than very minor errors on WP:SUBST or at categorization error in a wikiproject tagging run I ask that BetacommandBot be given its flag and alwoed to contiune with what it has been approved for, and if there is a request for a de-flagging we have a discussion about it. Betacommand 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are the approvals for the tasks I haven't linked above (substing templates, for instance?) They aren't on any of the pages that follow the usual BRFA naming conventions. --ais523 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How different are the tasks? If they are vastly different, could you instead create two bot accounts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ill pull a link out but BCbot predates the current format, my first BRFA is what actually inspired me to push for the new format and better organization and me becoming a member of BAG. Give me a few minutes to retrieve a link. all the task are minor and there is no need for seperate accounts as their have been no real issues with BCBot. Betacommand 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

request for flag

first bot request

Here's a link to BRFA on 17 May 2006: . I notice that you started to run it for interwikis (which weren't mentioned in the application) on the 16th. Here's a link for the 26th: . You still haven't got approval, but it's been mentioned that you can use the bot account to run in semi-auto mode (which is presumably what you were doing with those substs; this is pretty much what you've linked above as the Archive2 link). The Archive3 link you give is still only approval for a semi-auto bot. Will you confirm that all your edits with the bot, apart from those approved in the three newer BRFAs (including the approval-withdrawn one, because it was approved at the time), were semi-automatic? (I notice that none of the approvals so far seem to mention User:Betacommand/Log, which seems to be for AIV-related work, but as that's in your userspace it doesn't matter so much.) Also, where was the approval for edits such as this (which are presumably uncontroversial, but which still should have been approved). --ais523 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree that the flag should remain for semi-auto substings (I can just-about believe that you can subst at 10/min in semi-auto mode) which still seem to be approved; maybe you could link the bot's approvals on its userpage to stop this sort of thing happening in future? --ais523 16:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Im not even sure why BCBot was brought up none of its actions warranted such actions. My substitutions are auto and that IP link was just a simple substution for replaceing an IP for an actual address. All my tasking is on going. I get request for wikiproject tagging regulaly. and BCBots edits were never in question. so Im not sure why the issue of de-flagging ever came up. But in regard BCbots edits are within approval the /Log page was in direct response to a RFC that was filed, since it was in my userspace I did not think a need for a BRFA was called for. Betacommand 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And this is another sort of edit that doesn't seem to fit into any of the approvals for the bot I've seen yet. (By the way, I'm sure that 51 edits per minute is higher than the recommended rate; robots.txt used to specify a limit of 1 read per second, and you're writing almost that fast.) --ais523 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

that infoboxneeded I thought was covered under the approval for wikiproject tagging as that is almost the exact same thing. Betacommand 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC) PS wikitagging approval

(edit conflict) "this and any other requst that is similar just adding {{Wikiproject...}} to the talk page of the pages" was what you said in the approval (which I knew about; in fact I linked it above); I'd say {{infoboxneeded}} is somewhat different in nature because you have to check if there's an infobox on the page already (that's one extra read hit per page, isn't it, and that might make a difference to an approval, although I agree it won't in this case). Anyway, I'll agree that restoring the flag is probably technically correct, and this conversation should be held somewhere other than WP:BN. --ais523 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

in regard to list of templates I had the same number of reads as I generated the list from what transcludes here and used that as a filter, the exact same method I use for wikiproject tagging. Betacommand 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give this bot back its flag, it has tasks that can use it. Betacommand, I would advise you to put a link to all your approvals on the bots page, that might make things clearer for future cases. —— Eagle101 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone from the WP:BAG group has to approve it first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

the bot was never un approved. there was a task proposal that was denied but there was never a question about approval for the bot (Im BAG too) Betacommand 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr wait, we can remove flags without bag intervention? I believe that it has been clarified that this bot has a use for a flag, and that the removal has been in error. Sounds like a case of WP:IAR, but we can wait on bag to state something if need be. The bot has existing tasks that can use the flag to operate, those tasks have not been unapproved. —— Eagle101 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The flag can be removed if the bot has no remaining tasks that need a flag, surely (but you're right that it should be flagged at the moment, I missed the Archive3 request for semi-auto substing, because it wasn't linked anywhere relevant to the bot). The fact that the bot's been operating outside its approval is probably irrelevant to the flagging, and should be taken up somewhere else (such as WT:BRFA or WP:BONB). --ais523 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... I think a clarification from user:Mets501 would help cause he put it up for 'approval'. See this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A request has been made to restore the bot flag. I have been watching this flurry of activity and trying to help make sense of it. Temporarily blocking a bot and/or removing its flag seemed like a resonable thing to do at the time, and it's not that serious. There is apparently a misunderstanding as to what tasks the bot was approved to do, and some others made the good faith assumption that since the latest task was not denied that the bot no longer had any approved tasks. Given the above discussion, that is apparently not the case. I have not taken the time to look into it deeply (lack of time mainly), but the arguments on the surface seem reasonable. That said, the correct result of the controversial actions by Betacommand should have been to block Betacommand's main user account (and as a result also the bot) under bot policy. If anything, Betacommand was given a lighter reprimand by only having his bot disabled. At the moment I'm not willing to unilaterally authorize the restoration of the flag unless another BAG member agrees that it is a good idea. Taking some extra time to review the previous approvals will not hurt anything. The current bot tasks are not mission critical. As I have time I'll review the evidence and perhaps change my somewhat neutral position. -- RM 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; this comment is in reply to Nichalp's) I think the point is that the bot was approved for more than one task (only one of which has been unapproved; there's still an approval for semi-auto substing), and was also running some unapproved tasks that also need a bot flag (such as full-auto substing). So to answer your question above, yes, the bot's doing lots of different things. --ais523 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2; comment in reply to Nichalp) I think it is quite clear that he has withdrawn approval of that tasking, not the bot, see discussion at User_talk:Mets501#Betacommandbot_3. Regardless, would you like me to drop a message? —— Eagle101 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)In reply to RM, that seems rather punitive, I currently don't see what this is preventing anyway. He has never abused the bot as far as I know of. As far as I know, betacommand stopped his controversial activity upon request, I don't think he is going to do that again. —— Eagle101 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; this reply was aimed at Ram-Man to aid research, but also serves to answer Eagle 101 as it happens) A summary of my research into the last month's and early contribs of BetacommandBot suggests that the bot has been used with approval to add WikiProject tags, stretching its approval to add {{infobox needed}}, with now-withdrawn approval to update subpages of WP:SPAM, without approval to update User:Betacommand/Log, without approval to update external links to Google's IP, and to subst templates automatically when the bot was only approved for semi-auto substing. (I'm not sure whether the CSD work was approved or not.) The bot also exceeded edit rates (managing 51 in a minute at one point). --ais523 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)And at the moment I am unclear as to whether those various tasks that bot are currently doing are all approved. But in any case, the link that Nichalp shown does suggest that approval for the entire bot was removed, not just for that task, however, yes, asking would be appropriate here. I did not authorize the removal of the bot flag and will not authorize its reinstatement either. But the fact is, the main user account was editing very fast, bot like, and under bot policy should have been blocked immediately. If a main user account gets blocked, we always block its associated bots. The fact that only the bot got blocked (which was a mistake in my opinion) was less punitive. -- RM 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot is currently not blocked as far as I know, hence why I'm wondering about this whole removal of bot flags. —— Eagle101 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship