Misplaced Pages

talk:Bot Approvals Group - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ST47 (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 8 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:05, 8 April 2008 by ST47 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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—December, 2024

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.

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)
Further comment anyone? SQL 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Restore and bump. Gimmetrow 19:55, 8 April 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)
Further comment anyone? SQL 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, most of it can be found here. I was accused of 'fast-tracking' through a bot approval, since in my eyes, the bot policy at that time were that trials were only given once a general consensus was met that the task was needed/helpful/etc and fit the criterion, and as such with my assumption of the above, seeing nothing wrong with the trial run, went ahead and approved the bot. Q 06:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Any further opinions on this? I don't see any consensus. — Werdna talk 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to support. Majorly (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. Are you supporting this nomination, or, indicating that your opinion of the outcome is in favor of the supports, or, pass? SQL 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the consensus to flag is obvious. Majorly (talk) 12:23, 8 April 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)

I think the key (if, to be candid, distinctly understated) qualifier in BHG's statement is "controversial". There's a arguably a role on Misplaced Pages for gamekeepers; there's arguably a role for poachers. I think there can be no reasonable argument for combining the two functions in one person. Regularly ignoring and misapplying bot policy should be a pretty strong disqualifier for being one of the people responsible for policing, or making judgements on, said policy in the case of others. It doesn't help very much if BC hasn't actually both a) filed a BRFA and then b) immediately approved that task himself, if he's simply in effect skipped the whole a) step entirely.

I was mildly boggled when I noticed that BC had been reinstated to the BAG back in December (when he popped up to approve my own BRFA some time later) -- but not in the least surprised to note that there had been Yet Another Controversy Concerning an Unapproved and Fundamentally Misguided Task(TM) on AN/I a matter of days after said reinstatement. I refrained from comment at that time. I noticed his contribution to the discussion on "qualifications" to join the BAG, which seemed to entirely miss the importance of determining consensus for a bot task, and suitability of the person proposing themself as a bot-op, in favour of an explicit assumption that only bot-programmers should be judging the programming and technical operation competence of other bot-programmers, as apparently the only criterion for bot-approval. This was unhelpful in tone, and I believe utterly wrongheaded in content. It would also, it would appear, be somewhat revelatory of BC's thinking on such matters, especially as regards his self-belief in his own suitability to determine what bot-tasks he's entitled to run, and his unwillingness to listen to countervailing opinion from those whom he regards as less qualified, either, or indeed from the very fact of their disagreeing with him. Again, I deferred making an immediate rebuttal. I have to ask myself now, what I have to also ask the BAG -- and the indeed rest of the community -- just how much of this sort of unnecessary and repetitive drama we should accept before expecting, if not to say insisting, that some sort of decisive resolution be achieved. Alai (talk) 02:07, 21 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)

Proposal on WT:BRFA

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

Image bots

I am trying to gather a list of bots that have done, or still do, or are planned to do, image work. Both bots that exclusively work on images, and those that have an image task among their tasks, are of interest. Could people please add to the list below. If anyone wants to trawl through the archives or recent changes in image namespace as well, or the image deletion logs, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List of image bots

Annotate in as much detail as you want (eg. operator and links to the image tasks would be good, and whether it is currently operating). Please feel free to move this list to a useful subpage somewhere if one exists, or create it if it doesn't yet exist, but leave a link from here.

Last updated: 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BAG as 'arbcom for bots'

Some people on the RFAr for BCBot suggest that BAG is not sufficiently active in responding to the community's requests regarding bots. Specifically, they say that BAG should be able to revoke approval or modify terms of approval after the fact, if prompted to do so. Personally, I do not feel comfortable handing down decisions from on high, so I'd like to try a vote-style process for getting BAG to do stuff. It has been asked why BetacommandBot is not using some 'friendlier' tags and it seems that this is a good case to try this on. I'm pretty much going to post my wording and a support and oppose section, please don't do the protest oppose thing, I'll add a separate section for comments on the process and for outsider opinions. The idea is that these be binding, however I suppose strong recommendations can be made as well. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Betacommand is instructed to modify the notification tags used by the image portion of BetacommandBot to fit with the 'friendlier' versions used by OrphanBot or STBotI.

There are 9 active members of BAG, 1 (Beta) recused, and 1 (E) who was inactive at the start of the vote, so 5 votes is a majority. Once one section reaches that many, or after a reasonable amount of time, or once ST47 is lynched for proposing this stupid process, this vote will end.

Support
  1. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. — Coren  00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. — Werdna talk 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Your name here
Recuse/Abstain
  • Betacommand automatically recused, it's his bot.
  • Even though I am currently listed as "inactive" ("semi-active" would be more accurate, really, but oh well), I nevertheless abstain due to requirements that I be impartial in another venue discussing this same issue. I do not have a strong opinion either way at all, and trust my fellow BAG members to decide what they feel is right and use common sense in reaching that conclusion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Background: It's no secret that there's much controversy over the various image bots' messages being 'unwelcoming' to new users. OrphanBot (run by carnildo) has used for quite a while its own tags, and I was asked to change to a similar set on my most resent request for STBotI. Do we support the idea that BetacommandBot also use these tags for notification, rather than using the stock tags, which have been criticized as unfriendly? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you link me to the tags that we are proposing asking BCBot to use? Also, It's my understanding that BCBot uses ordinary templates. Could we not just modify those? SQL 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Personalized versions of User:OrphanBot/nosource, User:OrphanBot/norat, and User:OrphanBot/nocopyright. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, the one Beta would mostly be using, is the norat one. While it is very friendly, it is extremely vague. It should at least link to instructions on writing a fair use rationale. SQL 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from others

I like this proposed method of doing things and support the request to change the message. MBisanz 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, you're fast! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I also support this method. I'm totally for it :). CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on this process

Few comments from me. Is it within the remit of BAG to formally give instructions to bot owners? I know it is within BAG's remit to place conditions upon a bot's approval, that is, "This bot is approved if you do this". If you don't believe that BAG has the ability to order someone to operate in a certain way, think about it this way. We are very hesitant about un-approving bots, whether we can do so or now, under what circumstances. The idea here is that this is a very strong recommendation, and that if it is not followed, BAG may choose to revoke approval for a bot until it is followed. I suppose another way of looking at it is that BAG is modifying the bot's approval, and that if the operator refuses to comply, they are now running an unapproved bot. Either way, BAG's ability to force changes in this way is contingent on the bureaucrats supporting it having this power, and, of course, BAG being willing to do anything in this way. It has been stated here that perhaps BAG should have this ability, I consulted a few people, and it seemed like people were willing to try it. If it is well-received, my goal would be to allow the community at large to put forth a proposal and have it reviewed by BAG, either choosing to action or deny that proposal. This would, I hope, eliminate a large part of the drama associated with high profile bots, users wanting to block them or users trying to get consensus from the community to change something (like the opt out issue - but I didn't want to try anything too dramatic just yet), then having the bot operator ignore it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that ex post facto changes to general bot policy shouldn't be handled in this method. 'BJBot needs to follow policy X' is fine, 'All bots must now follow opt out scheme X', not so much. BJ 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This is intended for specific changes to bots, which I believe to be within the remit of BAG. I do not believe that a blanket change to policy can be made by BAG, so that would have to be done by the community as any other policy proposal. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot policy change proposals

In light of the concerns expressed by the community regarding the current handling of bots and the membership of the Bots Approval Group, members of the BAG are proposing a revised bot policy (with the help of a number of other concerned editors). This proposed wording addresses (a) community selection of BAG members, (b) a process by which the community can arrange for revisiting previous approvals in case of problems and (c) some of the weaker points of current bot policy that have been expressed in the past weeks.

Please read the proposed policy over and feel free to comment on the talk page. — Coren  12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)