This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I would like to request a bot to scrutinize Anon deletions of sections. I lurk with VandalFighter; and I can easily discern (based on characters removed) where an Anon has come in and removed significant (or even all) text from a section from a stable article. They may even do this multiple times to the same article, in effect deleting the article piecemeal. Perhaps the bot could also be more aggressive in reverting deletions from articles over a certain age (like a 1 or 2 years old), which are more likely to be decent articles; which are likely not to need sections removed. - Roy Boy 800 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added myself to the BAG so I can give a hand when I have the chance. I understand bot policy well enough, and have (I think) a demonstrated grasp of the technical aspects of writing and operating a bot. I'll recuse myself if there are objections. — Coren (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I guess many people here know me, I have enough knowledge of bots and policy, so I think I could be useful. If someone disagrees, they're welcome to revert me. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/BOTarate. We should end up all on the same page (or close to it) so we are consistent with these. As this is an unapproved bot, I've blocked it, but should it be barred from requesting access, if so for how long? — xaosflux Talk 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking through those Bots currently flagged there are a number that have been inactive for many months and whose owners have similarly ceased to edit. Having these accounts around makes it more difficult to track current Bots though Special:Listusers and is a potential security risk were a vandal to hijack any. Given that flagging and deflaggings can be done locally it is a fairly trivial matter to remove flags from inactive accounts and restore them later on request. I therefore propose, with BAG's approval, to remove the Bot flags of the following accounts:
There are other accounts that perhaps also should no longer be flagged but these appeared to me to be the most obvious examples. Comments? WjB scribe 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose the summary: "Flag withdrawn due to inactivity" and a message on both the Bot and user's talkpage explaining that the Bot has been deflagged as both operator and Bot have been inactive for many months but that they are welcome to reapply for approval should they wish to run the Bot again in future. WjB scribe 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a good first step with these Bots that are inactive but have active operators is to contact the operator and ask if they still require the Bot account. One of the examples that stands out on Beta's list is AMABot ( talk · contribs) which is redundant now the AMA is non functional - I'm sure Martinp23 would agree to its retirement. We should bear in mind that with some of the interwiki link Bots, messages will need to be sent to the operator on their home projects as they may not frequently check for messages here. WjB scribe 13:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still around but User:Kingbotk has been inactive. I'd like to hold onto my flag please, and will of course check current conditions and wiki moods before running him again! -- kingboyk 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Would anybody mind if I join the group? Snowolf How can I help? 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been active here for a while, but it looks like the new process for BAG membership is running without controversy. If so, I'd suggest it's time to remove the disclaimer about it being temporary. -- kingboyk 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As a bcrat, I'd like to say that the new process is a little too free-willy for my liking. I tend to trust the BAG approvals a lot and I'd rather not have to do lots of background checking for every time I press the makebot button. While it shouldn't be an inquisition to join BAG, I think there should be some dicsussion and demonstration that a user is trusted. I haven't done many makebots lately, but I have done a large number and I'll do them again whenever needed. - Taxman Talk 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I just added my name to the list. I've taken part in bot discussions before I recently became confident with visual basic. I look forward to helping out-- Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think its time that I rejoin, Ive proven myself. are there any objections? βcommand 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some input from the old BAG members, IMHO ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The summary about these requests says that they can be reopened at any time. Does this mean that {{tl:BT}} and {{tl:BB}} (ie the thread is archived) should not be added because new comments can be placed in that section and the discussion is not technically closed? -- maelgwn - talk 09:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering...how does a bot work? Does the runner have access to the scripts?, and if so, can they manipulate it? Best Rt . 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll throw myself into the mix. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi thar! :)
Just letting know that I've created ( per request) and set up Wikinews Importer Bot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights).
It imports news from Wikinews to Wikipedia portals as explained on it's userpage. Quite a low volume (for now at least), obeys maxlag and has a standard 1 edit/10 seconds throttle, so no need for a flag. Thus, just letting know. Cheers, Миша 13 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure enough, Cobi is in BAG, as I suspected when I made my post in this section. Just wondering about the group response to the concerns I raise... Franamax ( talk) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
User:SkiersBot has been warned by me to improve his use of templates or be blocked. I'm not particularly happy that his bot approval failed to notice the problems with his edits, nor that my previous suggestion to him about not placing boilerplate text on talk pages has been ignored.
Talk:Douglas Ferreira (footballer) is an example of this bot's tagging. The edit summary contains a typo. The talk page contains this text:
{{WikiProject Biography|class=stub|importance=}} <!-- begin Bot added message --> This article has been automatically assessed as '''Stub-Class''' because it uses a sub-category of <nowiki>[[Category:People stub]] on the article page.
</nowiki>
I think as an AWB developer, author of the {{ stubclass}} template and much {{ WPBiography}}, developer of a talk page templating plugin, former BAG member, and operator of a bot which has performed several hundred thousand talk page template edits I know what I'm talking about in this area of Wikipedia; if these edits don't improve I will block the bot and/or remove AWB access. This isn't rocket science, and I'm concerned that the operator of a bot carrying out so many edits clearly hasn't understood the templates he's working with.
I've also recommended that he use my plugin, although it's totally optional it would solve some of these problems. I'm planning to release a new version in the next couple of days which will be slightly more compatible with talk page banner containers and which will build it's regular expressions dynamically based on current redirects to the template, so that in effect it's harder for the plugin to be out of date and double tagging becomes rather less likely. -- kingboyk ( talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Have any of you guys thought of a framework where less than trivial bots could be written for Wikipedia? At first glance, most of the bots I have seen around are still quite simple and pretty effort intensive in terms of precious human hours that is required to babysit them. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies and point me to a non-trivial bot. Else, could you please post your ideas here? My first thought is to use the lexicon of Wordnet to automate a few things that still need much human effort. For instance, I saw that User:RussBot still requires its owner to make disambiguation decisions. But I think about 90% of the decisions on linking French to France vs French people could be automated with a simple expert system that would decide if the page is about a person (easy to decide if there is a category anyway, but there can be other rules) and then look up word frequecy co-occurances via Wordnet and make a decision. In general, this type fo expert system framework can then be offered to users at a much later stage, say 2 years, after testing. In a nutsell (pun intended) it would be a simple expert system shell that could be used to write useful bots. My driving thought is that "Wikepdia seems ever so effort intensive" and could use some more automation. Afterall, this is/was the computer age until a few years ago. The key item that would help, of course, would also be an API to a suitable high level language way above Perl or Python. But to begin with one may have to just use those. I had a few Perl-based routines that did reasoning a few years ago, and could try and find them. But before that it would be useful to hear what the group here thinks. And from a practical standpoint, it would be of tremendous algorithmic help if one had access to a page visit affinity table of some type. Of course at the page granularity level, this would be expensive, but one could use multi-categories for this, just as most supermarkets do for thier semi-item-level affinity tables. Do any of you know if such a table exists within Wikipedia, and if so, if it can be accessed? Anyway, your suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not strictly a BAG issue, but I thought bot-type issues might be related and so of relevance. An issue at ANI involves whether an editor can view and/or edit Wikipedia while running a script. Could people here advise on how easy it is for this sort of inability to arise, and how easy it is to get around? The idea is that editors should be able to respond to concerns and queries while running such scripts. This was an image deletion script running for 2 hours after a manual check. The thread is here. Any opinion on whether such "script-blindness" situations are common, and what the guidelines/workarounds should or could be, would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked before if scripts could be classified as bots, and I have always gotten the resonse that they cannot. → Aza Toth 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
}} 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 Wikipedia: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:
— 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)
(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 talk 07:05, 23 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 :)) Mart inp23 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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 ♦ Talk? 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. WjB scribe 11:34, 31 January 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 talk 17:32, 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.
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(
t|
c|
b) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia: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.
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)
Any comments, positive or less so, welcome here. My rationale for the chagnes can be seen above and in the most recent archive. Thanks, Mart inp23 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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
talk 20:15, 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.
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 How can I help? 13:32, 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.
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)
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)
Bots approval does include knowing the task is in accord with policy and general consensus. Any editor with a wide range of wiki experience could usefully provide input on that angle. We don't do spell-checkers not only because of the technical difficulties in programming, but also because of policy reasons. Gimmetrow 05:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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... WjB scribe 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Per my comment on ANI with regards to the NFCC Bot BRFA, I am now undertaking my promise to send a short message to all BAGers to serve as a reminder of the sentiments expressed at the not-so-recent MfD.
The most recent situation is this. A BRFA was closed early, reopened and then clsoed again a relatively short time later. Speedy approval is only rarely appropriate as far as I can see - in very uncontroversial cases where a trial is not needed, eg an uncontroversial clone. The NFCC bot is, for all intents and purposes, a clone. However given the drama which the original BCBot has spawned over time, it should have been clear that this was something that needed input. So be it if that input might end up being "trolling" - action should be taken when that happens and not pre-emptively.
BAG members are chosen for being experts on the technical issues of bot operation. Thus I suppose it is a consequence that we might not take enough account of community consensus for many tasks. This is the key point - where there is any possible controversy, we need to give people the chance to comment. To start with, this is probably best done by posting "spam" messages (or having the requester do it) to various noticeboards. With time I'd hope that BRFA would become watched in its own right by the community at large and thus the need to spamming would be reduced to only the most (potentially?) controversial cases - I'm thinking of NFCC Bot here.
I'd also suggest the following guidelines:
This lays out my feelings (based on my interpretations of the MfD) on the issues facing BAG at the moment and how we can overcome them. Let's move forward and discuss ( here) :) Thanks, Mart inp23 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhm. Sorry that I missed the recent discussion. Well, I don't think I've ever speedily approved a request, so I do agree that they're exceptionally cases, yes. As for the two BAGgers and one non-member needed to approve, uhm, ok but: what about speedies? Or interwiki bots (I do think that interwiki bots are more non-controversial than the others, usually)? And of course I do agree that trials are not technical tests only. Just my two cents. Snowolf How can I help? 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I for one have no problem with this list, if only because I think it describes the current process fairly well.
With, perhaps, the caveat that well known bot writers, code bases, or very simple functions are usually given less scrutiny— I think our primary function is to determine if it is likely that the bot will damage the encyclopedia, and those factors do significantly reduce that probability.
The extreme, where we normally enter speedy territory, is a bot that (a) uses code known to work, (b) is run by an experienced operator and (c) performs a function that is already believed to be acceptable (which is almost implicit given point (a)). If an experienced bot operator were to take SineBot's code and wanted to run a spare signer, it'd almost certainly be speedily approved— as should be. 69.70.54.210 ( talk) 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
I notice you guys have a backlog. Is there any way I can help out? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I did't know!!!!!.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.109 ( talk • contribs)
I would like to draw the attention of WP:BAG to the discussions taking place at these two threads:
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
Please offer input there if you have any :). Mart inp23 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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 T C 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Any further opinions on this? I don't see any consensus. — Werdna talk 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
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. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Self-declaring yourselves as arbcom for bots? :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Promoted by ST47 - 8 April 2008
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)
In my judgment there is no consensus to approve this request. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are template taggings that you disagree with, please come to my talk page. The science behind determining whether or not a template is still actively used certainly isn't perfect, which is why there is a seven-day wait before deletions are done, and the template creator is notified on their talk page. However, it's incredibly helpful if editors come to me and point out a pattern of templates so that I can filter them from my list. It isn't always apparent that templates are related, especially when they don't use categories and are sorted by a suffix or something obscure. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus reached. Request is granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus reached. Request granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, this is a bit unusual, but, bear with me here. I would like to nominate Krimpet for BAG. She does run a bot, KrimpBot. Krimpet has a great handle on wiki coding, and I think would be a very fair BAG member, considering both technical and non-technical issues in closing BRFAs. Krimpet has a m:Toolserver account, and, has used that to develop the tool we presently use to detect TOR nodes. We need a more diverse group, of active BAG members at this time, in my opinion. It is my firm belief, that Krimpet would be a hard-working, valuable addition to the BAG team. SQL Query me! 06:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Consensus reached. Request granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, A second one. I've seen MBisanz commenting a lot on WP:BRFAs. Honestly, and I mean no offense to you, MBisanz, this user is not the most technically minded person I have ever interacted with. But, they seem to have a great grasp on the community, and it's feelings, as well as great communication skills. His comments have just about always been right on target, and, he does have a good knowledge of the bot policy. It is my pleasure to nominate MBisanz for BAG membership today. SQL Query me! 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz, if you would, please indicate your acceptance of this nomination here: I accept, now let the thrashing begin. MBisanz talk
MBisanz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Consensus reached. Request granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much what to say here... While I've never run an actual bot, I do run high-speed javascript and I have a general good knowledge of bots and I think I can be a useful voice here. Maxim (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Maxim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Consensus reached, adding to WP:BAG - Taxman Talk 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I currently run Giggabot, and have been commenting regularly on BRFAs of late. I admit my technical knowledge isn't the greatest, so I would certainly defer to other BAG members in cases that were over my head—conversely, I probably have more mainspace experience than many BAG members ( 9 FAs and all), so in cases more pertinent to article content, I believe my experience could be an important factor in bot decisions.
Thanks for taking me into consideration. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Well this is a mess so it looks like a fully fresh start would be better. Some of the opinions here aren't terribly helpful, but with so little participation it can't be called a consensus either. - Taxman Talk 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was part of the bag under the other system but I didn't reapply when the system was reverted because, I though it would distract me from status bot a task that I had been neglecting for some time. Now that I've got status bot fixed up I would like to rejoin the bag. Also is it still the practice to spam all the notice boards? I know it has been in the past but I'm not to sure at the moment with all the bag changes going on -- Chris 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I would like to request a bot to scrutinize Anon deletions of sections. I lurk with VandalFighter; and I can easily discern (based on characters removed) where an Anon has come in and removed significant (or even all) text from a section from a stable article. They may even do this multiple times to the same article, in effect deleting the article piecemeal. Perhaps the bot could also be more aggressive in reverting deletions from articles over a certain age (like a 1 or 2 years old), which are more likely to be decent articles; which are likely not to need sections removed. - Roy Boy 800 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added myself to the BAG so I can give a hand when I have the chance. I understand bot policy well enough, and have (I think) a demonstrated grasp of the technical aspects of writing and operating a bot. I'll recuse myself if there are objections. — Coren (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I guess many people here know me, I have enough knowledge of bots and policy, so I think I could be useful. If someone disagrees, they're welcome to revert me. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/BOTarate. We should end up all on the same page (or close to it) so we are consistent with these. As this is an unapproved bot, I've blocked it, but should it be barred from requesting access, if so for how long? — xaosflux Talk 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking through those Bots currently flagged there are a number that have been inactive for many months and whose owners have similarly ceased to edit. Having these accounts around makes it more difficult to track current Bots though Special:Listusers and is a potential security risk were a vandal to hijack any. Given that flagging and deflaggings can be done locally it is a fairly trivial matter to remove flags from inactive accounts and restore them later on request. I therefore propose, with BAG's approval, to remove the Bot flags of the following accounts:
There are other accounts that perhaps also should no longer be flagged but these appeared to me to be the most obvious examples. Comments? WjB scribe 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose the summary: "Flag withdrawn due to inactivity" and a message on both the Bot and user's talkpage explaining that the Bot has been deflagged as both operator and Bot have been inactive for many months but that they are welcome to reapply for approval should they wish to run the Bot again in future. WjB scribe 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a good first step with these Bots that are inactive but have active operators is to contact the operator and ask if they still require the Bot account. One of the examples that stands out on Beta's list is AMABot ( talk · contribs) which is redundant now the AMA is non functional - I'm sure Martinp23 would agree to its retirement. We should bear in mind that with some of the interwiki link Bots, messages will need to be sent to the operator on their home projects as they may not frequently check for messages here. WjB scribe 13:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still around but User:Kingbotk has been inactive. I'd like to hold onto my flag please, and will of course check current conditions and wiki moods before running him again! -- kingboyk 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Would anybody mind if I join the group? Snowolf How can I help? 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been active here for a while, but it looks like the new process for BAG membership is running without controversy. If so, I'd suggest it's time to remove the disclaimer about it being temporary. -- kingboyk 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As a bcrat, I'd like to say that the new process is a little too free-willy for my liking. I tend to trust the BAG approvals a lot and I'd rather not have to do lots of background checking for every time I press the makebot button. While it shouldn't be an inquisition to join BAG, I think there should be some dicsussion and demonstration that a user is trusted. I haven't done many makebots lately, but I have done a large number and I'll do them again whenever needed. - Taxman Talk 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I just added my name to the list. I've taken part in bot discussions before I recently became confident with visual basic. I look forward to helping out-- Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think its time that I rejoin, Ive proven myself. are there any objections? βcommand 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some input from the old BAG members, IMHO ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The summary about these requests says that they can be reopened at any time. Does this mean that {{tl:BT}} and {{tl:BB}} (ie the thread is archived) should not be added because new comments can be placed in that section and the discussion is not technically closed? -- maelgwn - talk 09:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering...how does a bot work? Does the runner have access to the scripts?, and if so, can they manipulate it? Best Rt . 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll throw myself into the mix. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi thar! :)
Just letting know that I've created ( per request) and set up Wikinews Importer Bot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights).
It imports news from Wikinews to Wikipedia portals as explained on it's userpage. Quite a low volume (for now at least), obeys maxlag and has a standard 1 edit/10 seconds throttle, so no need for a flag. Thus, just letting know. Cheers, Миша 13 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure enough, Cobi is in BAG, as I suspected when I made my post in this section. Just wondering about the group response to the concerns I raise... Franamax ( talk) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
User:SkiersBot has been warned by me to improve his use of templates or be blocked. I'm not particularly happy that his bot approval failed to notice the problems with his edits, nor that my previous suggestion to him about not placing boilerplate text on talk pages has been ignored.
Talk:Douglas Ferreira (footballer) is an example of this bot's tagging. The edit summary contains a typo. The talk page contains this text:
{{WikiProject Biography|class=stub|importance=}} <!-- begin Bot added message --> This article has been automatically assessed as '''Stub-Class''' because it uses a sub-category of <nowiki>[[Category:People stub]] on the article page.
</nowiki>
I think as an AWB developer, author of the {{ stubclass}} template and much {{ WPBiography}}, developer of a talk page templating plugin, former BAG member, and operator of a bot which has performed several hundred thousand talk page template edits I know what I'm talking about in this area of Wikipedia; if these edits don't improve I will block the bot and/or remove AWB access. This isn't rocket science, and I'm concerned that the operator of a bot carrying out so many edits clearly hasn't understood the templates he's working with.
I've also recommended that he use my plugin, although it's totally optional it would solve some of these problems. I'm planning to release a new version in the next couple of days which will be slightly more compatible with talk page banner containers and which will build it's regular expressions dynamically based on current redirects to the template, so that in effect it's harder for the plugin to be out of date and double tagging becomes rather less likely. -- kingboyk ( talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Have any of you guys thought of a framework where less than trivial bots could be written for Wikipedia? At first glance, most of the bots I have seen around are still quite simple and pretty effort intensive in terms of precious human hours that is required to babysit them. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies and point me to a non-trivial bot. Else, could you please post your ideas here? My first thought is to use the lexicon of Wordnet to automate a few things that still need much human effort. For instance, I saw that User:RussBot still requires its owner to make disambiguation decisions. But I think about 90% of the decisions on linking French to France vs French people could be automated with a simple expert system that would decide if the page is about a person (easy to decide if there is a category anyway, but there can be other rules) and then look up word frequecy co-occurances via Wordnet and make a decision. In general, this type fo expert system framework can then be offered to users at a much later stage, say 2 years, after testing. In a nutsell (pun intended) it would be a simple expert system shell that could be used to write useful bots. My driving thought is that "Wikepdia seems ever so effort intensive" and could use some more automation. Afterall, this is/was the computer age until a few years ago. The key item that would help, of course, would also be an API to a suitable high level language way above Perl or Python. But to begin with one may have to just use those. I had a few Perl-based routines that did reasoning a few years ago, and could try and find them. But before that it would be useful to hear what the group here thinks. And from a practical standpoint, it would be of tremendous algorithmic help if one had access to a page visit affinity table of some type. Of course at the page granularity level, this would be expensive, but one could use multi-categories for this, just as most supermarkets do for thier semi-item-level affinity tables. Do any of you know if such a table exists within Wikipedia, and if so, if it can be accessed? Anyway, your suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not strictly a BAG issue, but I thought bot-type issues might be related and so of relevance. An issue at ANI involves whether an editor can view and/or edit Wikipedia while running a script. Could people here advise on how easy it is for this sort of inability to arise, and how easy it is to get around? The idea is that editors should be able to respond to concerns and queries while running such scripts. This was an image deletion script running for 2 hours after a manual check. The thread is here. Any opinion on whether such "script-blindness" situations are common, and what the guidelines/workarounds should or could be, would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked before if scripts could be classified as bots, and I have always gotten the resonse that they cannot. → Aza Toth 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
}} 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 Wikipedia: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:
— 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)
(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 talk 07:05, 23 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 :)) Mart inp23 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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 ♦ Talk? 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. WjB scribe 11:34, 31 January 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 talk 17:32, 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.
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(
t|
c|
b) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia: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.
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)
Any comments, positive or less so, welcome here. My rationale for the chagnes can be seen above and in the most recent archive. Thanks, Mart inp23 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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
talk 20:15, 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.
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 How can I help? 13:32, 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.
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)
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)
Bots approval does include knowing the task is in accord with policy and general consensus. Any editor with a wide range of wiki experience could usefully provide input on that angle. We don't do spell-checkers not only because of the technical difficulties in programming, but also because of policy reasons. Gimmetrow 05:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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... WjB scribe 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Per my comment on ANI with regards to the NFCC Bot BRFA, I am now undertaking my promise to send a short message to all BAGers to serve as a reminder of the sentiments expressed at the not-so-recent MfD.
The most recent situation is this. A BRFA was closed early, reopened and then clsoed again a relatively short time later. Speedy approval is only rarely appropriate as far as I can see - in very uncontroversial cases where a trial is not needed, eg an uncontroversial clone. The NFCC bot is, for all intents and purposes, a clone. However given the drama which the original BCBot has spawned over time, it should have been clear that this was something that needed input. So be it if that input might end up being "trolling" - action should be taken when that happens and not pre-emptively.
BAG members are chosen for being experts on the technical issues of bot operation. Thus I suppose it is a consequence that we might not take enough account of community consensus for many tasks. This is the key point - where there is any possible controversy, we need to give people the chance to comment. To start with, this is probably best done by posting "spam" messages (or having the requester do it) to various noticeboards. With time I'd hope that BRFA would become watched in its own right by the community at large and thus the need to spamming would be reduced to only the most (potentially?) controversial cases - I'm thinking of NFCC Bot here.
I'd also suggest the following guidelines:
This lays out my feelings (based on my interpretations of the MfD) on the issues facing BAG at the moment and how we can overcome them. Let's move forward and discuss ( here) :) Thanks, Mart inp23 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhm. Sorry that I missed the recent discussion. Well, I don't think I've ever speedily approved a request, so I do agree that they're exceptionally cases, yes. As for the two BAGgers and one non-member needed to approve, uhm, ok but: what about speedies? Or interwiki bots (I do think that interwiki bots are more non-controversial than the others, usually)? And of course I do agree that trials are not technical tests only. Just my two cents. Snowolf How can I help? 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I for one have no problem with this list, if only because I think it describes the current process fairly well.
With, perhaps, the caveat that well known bot writers, code bases, or very simple functions are usually given less scrutiny— I think our primary function is to determine if it is likely that the bot will damage the encyclopedia, and those factors do significantly reduce that probability.
The extreme, where we normally enter speedy territory, is a bot that (a) uses code known to work, (b) is run by an experienced operator and (c) performs a function that is already believed to be acceptable (which is almost implicit given point (a)). If an experienced bot operator were to take SineBot's code and wanted to run a spare signer, it'd almost certainly be speedily approved— as should be. 69.70.54.210 ( talk) 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
I notice you guys have a backlog. Is there any way I can help out? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I did't know!!!!!.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.109 ( talk • contribs)
I would like to draw the attention of WP:BAG to the discussions taking place at these two threads:
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
Please offer input there if you have any :). Mart inp23 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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 T C 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Any further opinions on this? I don't see any consensus. — Werdna talk 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
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. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Self-declaring yourselves as arbcom for bots? :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Promoted by ST47 - 8 April 2008
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)
In my judgment there is no consensus to approve this request. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are template taggings that you disagree with, please come to my talk page. The science behind determining whether or not a template is still actively used certainly isn't perfect, which is why there is a seven-day wait before deletions are done, and the template creator is notified on their talk page. However, it's incredibly helpful if editors come to me and point out a pattern of templates so that I can filter them from my list. It isn't always apparent that templates are related, especially when they don't use categories and are sorted by a suffix or something obscure. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus reached. Request is granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus reached. Request granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, this is a bit unusual, but, bear with me here. I would like to nominate Krimpet for BAG. She does run a bot, KrimpBot. Krimpet has a great handle on wiki coding, and I think would be a very fair BAG member, considering both technical and non-technical issues in closing BRFAs. Krimpet has a m:Toolserver account, and, has used that to develop the tool we presently use to detect TOR nodes. We need a more diverse group, of active BAG members at this time, in my opinion. It is my firm belief, that Krimpet would be a hard-working, valuable addition to the BAG team. SQL Query me! 06:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Consensus reached. Request granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, A second one. I've seen MBisanz commenting a lot on WP:BRFAs. Honestly, and I mean no offense to you, MBisanz, this user is not the most technically minded person I have ever interacted with. But, they seem to have a great grasp on the community, and it's feelings, as well as great communication skills. His comments have just about always been right on target, and, he does have a good knowledge of the bot policy. It is my pleasure to nominate MBisanz for BAG membership today. SQL Query me! 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz, if you would, please indicate your acceptance of this nomination here: I accept, now let the thrashing begin. MBisanz talk
MBisanz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Consensus reached. Request granted. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much what to say here... While I've never run an actual bot, I do run high-speed javascript and I have a general good knowledge of bots and I think I can be a useful voice here. Maxim (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Maxim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Consensus reached, adding to WP:BAG - Taxman Talk 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I currently run Giggabot, and have been commenting regularly on BRFAs of late. I admit my technical knowledge isn't the greatest, so I would certainly defer to other BAG members in cases that were over my head—conversely, I probably have more mainspace experience than many BAG members ( 9 FAs and all), so in cases more pertinent to article content, I believe my experience could be an important factor in bot decisions.
Thanks for taking me into consideration. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Well this is a mess so it looks like a fully fresh start would be better. Some of the opinions here aren't terribly helpful, but with so little participation it can't be called a consensus either. - Taxman Talk 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was part of the bag under the other system but I didn't reapply when the system was reverted because, I though it would distract me from status bot a task that I had been neglecting for some time. Now that I've got status bot fixed up I would like to rejoin the bag. Also is it still the practice to spam all the notice boards? I know it has been in the past but I'm not to sure at the moment with all the bag changes going on -- Chris 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)