This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MDP23 (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 18 February 2008 (→Confrmation (Soxred93): close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:30, 18 February 2008 by MDP23 (talk | contribs) (→Confrmation (Soxred93): close)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Shortcut

]

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.

RFC

Template:RFCpolicy}} I am opening this "policy RFC" (does anyone else think {{RFCpolicy}} is a bit "light" compared to the format of other RFCs? is there precedent for opening a real RFC with its own subpage for policy issues?) due to Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7.

If the bot approval group is making decisions on their own opinions of the merits of a task, rather than on purely technical concerns; and is contradicting a consensus that exists in the wider community, it has exceeded the scope for which its existence as a self-selected group answerable to no-one is justified.

An additional concern is WP:ANI#Bot edit?; it's unclear what the status of bots that have been running since before BAG's existence is.

The MFD was closed with a call to reform, such reform does not appear to have happened without further prompting.

I would like one of two outcomes from this discussion:

The membership of the BAG is subject to community consensus (either by allowing the community to select new members (perhaps an RFA-like process), allowing the community to recall existing members, or some combination).
Decisions by the BAG to approve or reject a bot/task are limited to purely technical issues, not otherwise deciding on the merits of a proposed task, and the community invited to comment directly on those matters and come to its own consensus on whether a task should be done.

—Random832 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (edited 20:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Additionally, "Speedy approval" should go. The entire idea is "Even if the _task_ is already approved, and the _code_ is already approved, you still need our rubber stamp to be allowed to run it." If it doesn't need a full BRFA, then logically that means it is already approved and does not need further approval, and "speedy approval" is just an excuse for this group to reassert its claimed authority over this - how did the MFD put it... - "fiefdom". (an exception would be reasonable for bots that should only be run by one person, due to dependency on an external database - but requiring approval for interwiki bots running the same exact code as all the other interwiki bots is just bureaucracy for its own sake.) —Random832 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Random, there is no need for this RFC, as for the issue on ANI, I did not notice that this bot has been operating for as long as it has been. Bots are normally grandfathered in. As for the Polbot issue I am waiting for response from the operator before I give it final approval. Previous discussion about bot written rationales have been that bots should not write them. But given the current discussion I was treading carefully along with the fact that the bot had made a massive un-approved run of doing the same type of edit with a large error rate. the BAG is here to make sure that bots are technically able to do what they are supposed to, that the said task does not violate policy and that there is consensus from the community for said task. If it was up to the community I doubt that BCBot would be doing NFC image tagging. there have been a lot of changes since the MfD. As for the Polbot BRFA the only thing that I am waiting for is input from the operator about a method that Carcharoth proposed. As for the need to approve each bot/task, there have been request that obviously should not be done. Interwiki bots tend to be the exception to most rules, but we still need to have a method of verifing that we can trust the operator and that the operator knows what they are doing. Just because someone can start the Pywikiedia interwiki.py does not meant that by default they should be using it. Does the operator know that they have to regularly update their versions of pywiki? Prior to me re-joining BAG I have noticed some tendances that should not be done. The BRFA process should be very simple and informal. β 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My main concern was Polbot 7; and the fact that the BAG seems to be in opposition to the community on the merits of the task (and you and ST in particular keep moving the goalposts) - the interwiki thing was just a sidenote, something that seemed worth mentioning while we're on the topic of reform. —Random832 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Polbot issue has a lot of previous discussions and policy that has conflicts with the current proposal. (also Please respond to me in IRC). β 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Charcarth??? Who the hell is CHARCARTH? I need a name people can spell right... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed it :P β 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(sorry, I'm not at the computer that I IRC from right now; e-mail me) —Random832 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be at the center of the controversy surrounding the ANI thread cited above, so I might as well respond. I never meant for this entire process to be an indictment of the BAG or the work they do. It was an honest mistake, it happens. and I apologized at ANI and on the talk page of the specific bot in question; the operator of the bot User talk:Jumbuck feels there is no problem. There needs to be some reasonable overight of bot operations; bots can get out of control very fast and do lots of damage; I have no problem with there being a pre-approval process for them. This whole thing seems to have been blown WAY out of proportion from my point of view. If the Polbot 7 issue needs separate, specific discussion that's fine, but please don't conflate the Jumbuck issue with that one. The whole Jumbuck block was my fault and it has nothing to do with the BAG or BRFA. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought that into this mainly in response to your question "but for my own future reference, what exactly IS the policy on bots, and when should an unauthorized bot be blocked?", because I don't think the answer is clear and I thought this discussion could help clarify it. —Random832 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bots should always be blocked if they are not approved, Bots from about July 2006 and before are normally grandfathered in. β 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clarifying that. I just didn't want it to appear that I was being accusatory of others or shifting blame for what was fully my bad... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't have a problem with the bot approvals process, but it would be nice to see the BAG-membership reflect some sort of community-approval. If I understand it correctly, Crats are the ones who "do" the bot-switch flick and have delegated technical approval to the BAG. So why not have a WP:RFR-like page, where people who want to join the BAG can go, list their name, and have a crat then add them to a protected page (There is an automated tool that works that way, AWB I think). MBisanz 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

standard procedure has been very simple and informal, hang around the BRFA process a while show that you know what your talking about and are not a complete fool, then post a note on this talkpage requesting to join. then leave a note on several other high profile pages, AN,ANI,VPP,VPT ect. we have a discussion about joining if there are no serious objections and there is a consensus for that user to be added to BAG it happens. As a long term member of BAG I dont like extra paperwork of a RFA like system. RFA is broken. Personally Ive been working on making the bot process streamlined, quick, and informal. to that degree since I started BAG the response time has been improved from around 30 days from the time that you complete your trial to your flag, to about a day. I have repeatedly asked for wider community input, but that seems to fall on deaf ears. BAG and the BRFA process is normally a fairly simple process. there are certain cases that due to the nature of the task will take longer to work out, but that is nothing new. β 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree RFA is broken, but I like to think RFR has been a quicker process so far. What I think it comes down to is that Bots are a very mysterious thing to many users. Its like a rocket science to a 6th grader sort of thing or smoke & mirrors of a magician. I can't imagine a name sitting on WP:BN for a day while an crats taps "Approved" is that much extra work. I suspect they have more work certain weeks with RFA variability than this would ever create. MBisanz 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the current method for approval that I stated above it involves a discussion prior to joining which should not be removed. As it stands the current method of joining BAG is very simple, clearly handles its self without much issues. If you are interested in joining BAG you just need to diminstrate that you know policy and have been active in prior BRFA related issues. leave a note on this talkpage requesting to join BAG, and spread the word a little, and we will gladly see where that discussion goes, if there are no problems you would be able to join BAG. β 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) As I've mentioned before, I'm happy when I can check my email, let alone scrutinize bot code. Then again I also think Bot complaints should go to the Bot Owners Noticeboard (to centralize debate), but no one ever goes there. MBisanz 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Polbot7 issue was always going to turn on NFC concerns, though ideally (and Quadell did ask for this in the nomination) it would have been limited to technical concerns. Maybe BAG might like to consider options that involve asking the bot operator to gain consensus on policy aspects of a bot before coming to BAG? I'd like to hang around BAG more, but there is only so much time available. If there is a lack on input, maybe some requests could be advertised for more input? Also, BAG should maybe be more aware of potential conflicts of interest? I had assumed that Betacommand, as someone heavily involved in NFC issues, was commenting as an ordinary editor, rather than as a BAG member considering whether to approve the bot or not (I only become aware yesterday that Betacommand had returned to BAG). Obviously with a small group like BAG, recusal might mess things up a bit, but it would have been better if the policy issues had been discussed at one venue (where Betacommand could have raised his concerns there), and the technical issues discussed at BAG (though the discussions would inevitably overlap). From what Quadell said, it is hard to avoid the appearance that the request was being held up by policy concerns made by BAG members, even if that may not have been the case. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be a stupid question, so I'll ask it. What has changed in BAG since April 26, 2007 when the MFD was put up. I think a list of changes x, y, and z might help frame this discussion better. MBisanz 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the archives around the time following the MfD it appears there was a great deal of discussion of many ideas related to change/reform, including splitting BAG functions/creating a wikiproject, changing the composition/election of BAG members, changing the process of OKing a bot, etc and then it petered out due to lack of consensus/further discussion. Without actually comparing policy line by line to see whats changed since then, some of my comments are: This is probably the wrong place to hold an RFC on changing the way BAG operates, as participation would be limited by interest to those who are being asked to change; MfD again is probably a bad idea since the XFD process is more skewed towards eliminating things rather than changing/discussing them; AN/ANI isn't a great place to discuss it due to length, etc. So my suggestion might be to break this RFC off into a subpage of this page and then point at it from WP:BN{they "do bots" in theory), WP:VPR/WP:VPP/WP:VPT. Since I'd like to avoid the appearance of canvassing, does anyone object to this/have a better idea/want it pointed at from diff places? MBisanz 10:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as no one's replied and I don't want to tarnish the issue with future canvassing issues, I'll just leave this RFC alone. I'm sure if its really an issue, it will be brought up in the future here or in another forum. MBisanz 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reform has taken place. Blatantly however, it has not been a useful reform. Speedy approval was discouraged in the past and is so now. The BAG does primarily look at the technical merits of a request, but are also tasked with gauging the community consensus on a request and, if necessary, suggesting that notice of the BRFA is spammed onto various community meeting places. I have made a comment below which will require some past knowledge of the trials and tribulations through which the BAG has been, but looking at the most recent archive of this page should fill you in on my position and more importantly on the changes which have been made. As I note below, I plan to make some changes which will be on a trial basis to start with, but which hopefully can be made to work. If nobody gives me good reason not to, I am likely to make some changes tomorrow, and would strongly request that I am not reverted by anyone for at least a week or two! (ie - give me a chance :)) Martinp23 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot

I have created around 14,000 articles on wikipedia, higher than anybody, and am currently adding Frebnch communes at bot speed around 6 a minute and have requested that my new articles are automatically filtered but noone seems to be concerned. I have addressed this to several people but no one has taken it seriously when I said I was concerned about clogging up new pages. I refused adminship long ago but surely I am respected enough to be regarded as admin level in editing. I always add valuable content and most of my articles are referenced except such stubs. Isn't it time somebody made a decision to help new page patrollers by helping them. I;ve contributed tens times more than many adminstrators on wikipedia who automatically have their page unmarked -shouldn't mine be the same on a permanent basis? I consistenly add new content to wikipedia. It would help patollers a lot. Any idea if you can help me receive permanent clearance? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think they could give your main account User:Blofeld of SPECTRE a BOT tag, since then when you made non-bot edits (RFAs, talk pages, etc) it would look really weird. Two ideas I have are a SpectreBot account that you could log into when doing mass-adds that could be tagged as a bot. The second would be a bot that automatically patrols your new pages. But you'd either need 2 computers or another user who can run multiple accounts froma single connection. Maybe there is some script that could auto-patrol all new pages of yours, there is a userproject for that, but you'd probably be better off just directly contacting a user like Azatoth. MBisanz 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a secretive bot that is going around automatically patrolling your pages. -_- east.718 at 08:35, January 30, 2008

While I'm WP:AGF here, that's not a "Good Thing™", IMHO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot

I am concerned by the circustances behind the original approval of this Bot. It was speedily approved by Dreamafter despite the fact that this was not an automated account, or even (as I understand it) semi automated. Given that the assignment of a Bot flag for such an account was clearly (at the very least) unusual, I think the matter clearly warranted further discussion. The approval was in itself a problem, the fact that it wasn't listed at WP:RFBOT/A as usual and that Kingturtle was asked to flag it also bothers me. An unorthodox use of a Bot flag is proposed and yet the flagging request goes to a bureaucrat who has not had any involvement in the Bot approval process and is therefore ill placed to spot that the request is not straightforward. Bureaucrats have got to have confidence in the advice of BAG members on the flagging of Bots. This process requires a certain amount of trust and this sort of scenario undermines that. To avoid further problems, I think it might be a good idea to clarify the circumstances in which a BAG member may speedily approve a Bot.

I would also encourage more BAG members to review the request (now reopened) to opine on whether this is an appropriate case to grant a Bot flag. WjBscribe 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For note, the bot account is blocked indefinitely, and will only be unblocked when wither the bot flag is removed or a bot flag is granted through proper process. First off, Wimt pointed out to me that we are the "bot approvals group", not the "+bot assignment group". That is to say the request before the group was not to do with a bot at all, but rather an editor who wanted to be able to avoid showing up in recent changes/special:newpages in some way other than becoming an admin. My first interest in this situation was aroused when seeing a discussion between Dreamafter and User:Blofeld of SPECTRE on Blofeld's talk page, where at one stage it was shown that Dreamafter was creating an account (I did misinterpret this as "writing a bot") and a few lines down I saw a notice from Dreamafter speedily approving the bot. The only user to comment on the bot request was Dreamafter. Assuming for a moment that this was the proper forum for the request, at least two BAG members should have commented on it before any action was taken, and a trial would have been prudent. As it is, I don't recall a circumstance where we have given a user not using a tool +bot for the purposes of avoiding RC and NP - if we're going to start doing that, I think another community process is needed.

And now I'm going to complain about this "open membership" system. I don't keep a close eye on BAG, so I can only assume I'm seeing but the tip of the iceberg of what's going wrong under this infernal scheme. That I have made several comments stating that, especially given the open membership, we need to ensure as wide as possible oversight on BRFAs and that these comments have seemingly been ignored by the vast majority disappoints me greatly. I am going to mull things over, seek a sanity check and, if no one gives me any reason to the contrary, I will revert the membership system of BAG to that of mid/late 2007. This new system brings nothing but headaches. (my comments and those of others can be seen above, unless they've been archived) Martinp23 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to change. But if the BAG is no longer an open group, how will people join? Might I suggest either an RFR or RFA like process or some selection by a group of BAG and non-BAG users? MBisanz 05:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, the current system it too open. what Martinp23, is suggesting is more structured, post a request here spam a few notice boards. have a discussion and see that the consensus is. that is how it happened prior to the new method. β 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was hoping it would change to, as opposed to a self-generating board. MBisanz 05:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

that is how it was for the longest time but people did not think it was open enough so we tried this method. I agree with martin about it not being the greatest. I felt that the previous method yielded better results. β 05:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes - let's see how it goes! Martinp23 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Changes don't look that bad. Although I'm not a fan of the idea of "(or, in certain circumstances, an existing BAG member) will close the discussion." can it maybe be left just as a crat thing, I can't imagine BAG membership as an urgent matter. Will those removed at the end of the trial period be notified somehow, here or at their talk page? MBisanz 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust as you see fit ;). I've left messages at their talk pages for all of the former members. Martinp23 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed it and its seemed like its stable for a day now. Given that there are no crat's on BAG, its desirable to separate the people who are on it (BAG) from the people who interpret consensus on who may join (crat), just to avoid the appearance of a clique. MBisanz 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/PartyBOT

Could a member of the BAG properly archive this bot request? The nominator of the bot sent it to MFD instead of withdrawing it, and I closed the MFD and withdrew it for him/her. --Core desat 11:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

just leave as is, in the archive. β 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of trial

Any comments, positive or less so, welcome here. My rationale for the chagnes can be seen above and in the most recent archive. Thanks, Martinp23 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I do agree on the reasoning behind your action, and I'm in favour of the removal of the trial system. I do however disagree with your boldness. Apart that former trial members should be listed, as they indeed approved and rejected bots as normal members, I would suggest a rather less dramatic approach: do not delist trial member, instead, ask who is willing to stand confirmation, and remove them after the first round of confirmation has ended. Snowolf 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is fair. I deliberately commented out the names rather than deleting them, so it's a simple matter of removing a few comment tags to add them to the "former members" list. I shall do that now. As for the reconfirmation thing - yes, perhaps, though I got the feeling that it would be better to have the removed users go through the full vote, and all be on an equal footing as the others who joined in the trial. Martinp23 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Now that's done, I won't revert it, but if BAG trial members want to approve/deny bots while standing reconfirmation, for me they can. Snowolf —Preceding comment was added at 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? The reason I can see is that it'll in theory reduce the workload. Then again, if these users want to be involved in BRFAs, they're giving as much useful input by simply commenting as they are performing approvals/rejections/etc. BAG isn't all about approving/denying bots, and that should only be a small part of the work of BAG members (as in, we also need to ensure that the bot has community support, makes sense, works, and we need to give suggestions to how the bot could be improved). I'm not sure whether to agree with you, to be honest, but nor am I sure that I disagree ;) Martinp23 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How will making it a little more annoying to join reduce workload? Right now, we have less that half of what we had before. And don't forget, a lot of great members were just removed (such as MaxSem, Cobi, Dreamafter). I appreciate being bold, and good faith, but this was just to abrupt, too drastic, and too controversial. Soxred93 | talk count bot 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it means that there's going to be less potential for total corruption in BRFAs, more oversight and better community control of the process. "Abrupt, drastic, controversial" - strong words and while I can see why you might feel that way must assure you that the first two at least are not true. If you'll care to look in the archives of this page at the start of a discussion which clearly all of the BAG members missed about reverting the trial process, you'll see that this has been in the pipeline for ages, if not discussed by anyone who would oppose it. Indeed, if you look above you'll see I left a warning notice, yet not one of the BAG trial members saw that or even posted on this topic until I spammed all of the talk pages. Thus I would humbly suggest that the reason things have panned out as they have is your collective fault for not voicing your concerns earlier at some point during the past 3 to 5 months. Just saying.

Controversial - that goes without saying. I've just removed some sort of right from about 10 very well respected members of the community - what do you expect? Just ride it out. Members undergoing reconfirmation should, as ever, feel free to comment on BRFAs but I'm going to suggest that they avoid closing them, at least not unilaterally. Martinp23 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't have a problem with this. I understand why it was done. I do have one question though: What is, then, the method for joining? As I would like to become a member under the "old" or, rather, the current system. Should I create a new thread, or will this comment be considered the "post to the talk page" stating that I wish to become a member? -- Cobi 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A new thread is probably going to be cleaner, just to make it easy for others to comment as they see fit. Martinp23 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As a non BAG member who does keep a eye on this page, I think reverting to the old system is a good idea. Whilst some people might consider it cliquey, the only way to ensure there is consistency in bot approvals is to make sure there is a fixed list of members at any one time, and that those members have the support of the others. The "new" system in which anyone could add their name on the list and begin approving bots in my opinion was counterproductive in that a bot could be seen to have the "stamp of approval" of BAG when really it was just the view of one member who might not yet be familiar with the system in its entirety. That's not to say that examples of this necessarily occurred, but the risk was there. Will (aka Wimt) 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As per wimt, revert to the old system. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tawker has closed Cobi's reconfirmation by adding him to the current list. No problem with it, but should we update the 'crat only/10 days statement on the page? Snowolf 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, "voting people in", is really, really silly, in my opinion, and, very 'elitist'. If a member has become a problem, why not simply remove them? Is there a real purpose, in voting each in? I mean, the one instance of abuse I saw, was caught, and (albeit in a manner that seemed to disrupt the BRFA) called on it, pretty quickly. A system more like RFCU clerks, would probably be better, as is, people have to wait weeks to months for BRFA's to get approved. Halving the membership, probably isn't going to be the best way to address that problem. Anyhow, I just noticed this, thought I'd add my $0.02 on it. SQL 23:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinp23 when he reverted the trial, had the language say that it should be a crat of BAG member. I changed it to crat, just because it looks questionable that BAG members get to interpret consensus on who can join BAG. I saw Tawker's promotion of Cobi, and since I don't have an issue with Cobi, and no one else said anything, I figured I wouldn't. But it might be nice for the remaining confirmations if a crat could chime in on interpreting consensus. MBisanz 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Two reconfirmations have passed the 10 days (12). So, should a 'crat close or a any BAG member? Also I have to point out that this whole reconfirmation process hasn't attracted much interest in the community or even from the BAG current members :( Snowolf 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it is rather annoying that the VP was spammed and no cross-traffic occured. I'm not seeing any hard closes, but I dropped a line to WP:BN to see if there were any crats around. I'd say if no one stops by by 18:00 Feb 14 (24h), then we may have keep the idea of current BAG members closing requests to join. Maybe I'll drop a line to WP:AN with the same request later tonight, but I'd hope at least some of the crats watch their own noticeboard. MBisanz 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmm I've just spammed AN and VPT "reminding" people (very gently) that they can !vote here, but am not expecting much. I'll start poking 'crats if I can ~~tomorrow~~ later today. Martinp23 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as the crats apparently have no interest in monitoring the process to which they delegated Bot approval, I'll concede my previous edit that only crats should close BAG membership requests. Feel free to edit the project page to reflect that crats or current BAGs can approve membership requests. MBisanz 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates

From what I can tell the trial started on July 27, 2007. ~~Betacommand (talk · contribs)~~ and E (talk · contribs) have dates of joining after that but before the end of the trial. Shouldn't they be included with those who are being confirmed? MBisanz 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Madman (talk · contribs) also joined on the day the trial began, and I don't really feel like parsing diffs to figure out which procedure he joined under, so I'll leave that to someone who was here then. MBisanz 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I did not join under the trial system see Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group/Archive 5#BAG I did the old style appproval. β 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't particularly care about how a person joined, it just seemed weird with the dates. It looks kosher to me, so I've refactored my comments. MBisanz 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)E specifically requested to be approved under the old system. Beta had to as it was already member before and resigned in controversial circumstances. Madman was approved under the old system too. The new trial system didn't excluded approval under the old system. Snowolf 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

see Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group/Archive 4#My hat's in the ring, now? o0; β 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Added to BAG by Tawker here. Mønobi 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation (Cobi)

Per the recent change in the BAG going back to the "old" system, I wish to get confirmed under the "old", or rather, the new system. -- Cobi 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Full support an experienced bot operator, no problem with his work at BRFA so far. Snowolf 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support experienced and knowledgable. Martinp23 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Good bot operator MBisanz 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - May aswell chip in.. —Reedy Boy 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support get a clue :P β 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support tac, done -- Tawker (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support BJ 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support get a bot :P Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Cobi has tons of bots! :p — madman bum and angel 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - strongly. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support – absolutely. — madman bum and angel 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - knows what he's doing. jj137 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support —METS501 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Reconf. successful. Soxred93 re-added to BAG. Martinp23 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Confrmation (Soxred93)

Because of the change in the system, I wish to be reconfirmed as a BAG member. I believe I have done well as a BAG member ,and wish to be readded. Soxred93 | talk count bot 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support but remove the external link from your sig. β 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: What external link, and why?

I think he meant the count link, and for one, because it doesn't currently work. ;) — madman bum and angel 23:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my fault, it's the toolserver's. When yarrow goes back up, it will work again. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIG#External_links dont have them. β 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

River says it's MySql's ;-) Snowolf 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIG. Don't add external links. Mønobi 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Though your signature may violate only the letter and not really the spirit of that policy, I'd have to agree that's another good reason. I was just (semi-jokingly) offering one of many potential reasons; some users are just bothered by them. I don't think any of this has to do with the confirmation at hand, however. — madman bum and angel 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I doub they mean the toolserver, but I'll ask on WT:SIG. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't you use ]? Snowolf 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried, but with an error. Look: tools:~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further comments, anyone? :-) Martinp23 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. -- Cobi 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - if someone could explain the logic behind signatures having an impact in BAG it would be appreciated - I see /dev/null connection. -- Tawker (talk) 18:05, 18 February 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.

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

Confirmed, added to WP:BAG. Mønobi 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation under the old system (Snowolf)

Note: this request was filed before Martin's decision to end the trial, that's why its content may sound unrelated

As in my very personal view the trial membership is a temporary status, I'd like to ask to vote on my confirmation under the "old" system. Snowolf 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ive seen no issues with you, Please post a note on a few notice boards. β 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Snowolf 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support have seen no problems with past experience on BAG. Martinp23 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Support —Reedy Boy 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
+ Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Support jj137 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Confirmation (Dreamafter)

User withdrawn. Soxred93 | talk count bot 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Same as what Cobi (talk · contribs) said. And, you may have seen the recent BRFA I am participating in, I am completly willing to change, and am doing so currently. ~ Dreamy 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ~~:Support - As stated above, one of the better Baggers. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)~~

Oppose - I'm sorry, but looking at recent events, I am not willing to support at this time. Soxred93 | talk count bot 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~ - I don't know. I know I've always been wary of this contributor, especially in the beginning, when he/she was asking many bot operators whether he/she could clone their bots, with no evidence of the knowledge required for their operation. The RfA record also worries me slightly, and I've gotten the impression, as have some others, that this contributor is looking for status for the sake of status. All of these impressions have built slowly over time; I wish I could point to a particular diff and say, "I don't like that." But I really can't (not even the Kmweber diff; I thought that was kind of cute. ;)). Sorry, nothing personal, but for some reason, I just feel like I can't in good faith support at this time. — madman bum and angel 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've caught up, oppose per BaldBot speedy approval, the only discussion of which was on Dreamafter's talk page; there was no evidence of consensus, none of the discussion of the task which had to happen to clarify the bot task, no obvious approval of the operator... BAGgers can't do that. — madman bum and angel 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per recent issues. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per WJBscribe well above. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in response to that, I withdraw my being a part of this, also see here in the first response. ~ Dreamy 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bot issues at WP:AN thread

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable for some bot issues that the Bot Approval Group may need to discuss. My questions would be: (a) Did this bot action need approval? (b) What are the views of WP:BAG on the block of User:BetacommandBot? (c) How can the issue of too many functions being tied up in one bot be addressed? Please try and communicate summaries/answers back to the AN discussion, if possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments.

Yes, this bot task should have been approved. I don't have a problem with a few edits to test in userspace, but there were supposedly over 1200 edits made and they were going to be moved to the most active page on Misplaced Pages. There should have been discussion, approval should have been sought.
Block endorsed by me, devs have that right. If anything, it should be extended until the situation is dealt with, either through AN or ArbCom, whatever happens, and preferably after a statement from BAG.
Betacommandbot is very much overloaded and it would be very helpful if Beta would split it apart. I wouldn't suggest he be forced to, however.

So, to other BAG members: Should the bot be unblocked? Should sanctions be pursued through ArbCom? Should a warning be issued to Betacommand? --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BCBot was already unblocked, see , by Rich Farmbrough. SQL 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well BC took a lot of stuff at AN and did apologize, so I don't think a formal warning is needed, certainly not an ArbCom. My suggestion might be a policy RfC. Specifically it would deal with

How should critical functions (RfC, deletion informing, copyvio search, double redirect, etc) that are done by bots, be made redundant, so that if a BOT op can't perform the duty (blocked, real-life, code-upgrade frys comp, compromised bot account), the tasks could be performed.
The concept of should a bot builder be required to publish/store in a secure place, their code, prior to bot approval.
Security issues with how to identify unauthorized bot work, both from vandal networks and existing bots (especially those like BCB and Polbot that have multiple approved tasks).
Can some BOT functions be ported server side (archiving, catting, delivery, etc) to eliminate the need to rely on a bot? Basically, should a Bugzilla be filed on certain tasks like getting an automatic newsletter delivery system.
How should consensus of approving btos be handled? Right now a single BAG member can contact a crat and notify them consensus has been reached on a bot they approved. Should 2, 3, a majority of BAG's membership be required?

Anything else I'm missing? MBisanz 22:00, 6 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.

User confirmed as BAG member Martinp23 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation (Coren)

While I (Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) have not had the opportunity to remain as active as I would have liked in the BAG lately, I would nonetheless seek confirmation. I have a good handle on the technical aspects and on the procedure, and while I might not be around all the time I can give a hand at intervals. — Coren 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Knows his copy vio bot stuff well. MBisanz 18:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Support —Reedy Boy 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User confirmed as BAG member Martinp23 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(Re)?Confirmation (Reedy Boy)

Not overly sure what I need to put here.. I would like to be confirmed/reconfirmated under the "old" voting system.. Cheers —Reedy Boy 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Support, of course! Snowolf 19:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
+ Mønobi 21:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Always very responsive to bug reports on AWB. MBisanz 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would the Bot Approvals Group consider including non-technical "observers" in their group? Or some other way to have people in the group who aren't bot programmers? If there are such people already in the group, then no problems, but an approach like this might ensure that non-technical viewpoints are represented. Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We welcome their comments and point of view, but they should not be approving bots. β 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that people who don't program bots (mostly) won't understand technical reasons for a bot to be accepted or rejected, but they may well understand the non-technical reasons for a bot to be accepted or rejected, sometimes better than the bot programmers. I think BAG would be better as a mix of bot programmers and non-bot programmers that can work together. You are entitled to your point of view, Betacommand, but I'd like to hear what the rest of BAG think. Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion. I think that in the past, it has generally been understood that the BAG's main job is to assess the safety of a bot. It was made clear some time last year that we have a very pressing need to consider community opinion when approving bots, and I believe this approach is, in general, followed (by means of asking for input at various noticeboards - something I request quite often). However, it remains the fact that the preoccupation of all (?) BAG members is the technicalities. Your suggested approach above is a potential solution - perhaps it could be stated that each BRFA needs to be commented on by both a BAG member and an "observer", where observers are appointed in the same was a BAG members, andw here they should be "trusted community members". On the other hand, we can just keep trying to get community input, quite firmly require that each BRFA needs commenting on by 2 BAG members before approval, and try again to get more community input ;). Martinp23 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)