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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Josh Parris seems a candidate for inactive (last edit July) as does Snowolf, (no edits for a while no BRFA edits for along time), ST47 (who seems to have turned into a bot then vanished by his edit history), Tim1357 seems flat out looking after Dashbot and doing mass edits.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC).
Moved to
WP:BON.
Rich
Farmbrough, 11:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
As some of you know, I am developing a bot platform and I will soon be running tests so I have created an account, PalletBot. To avoid confusion I have put in a usurpation request, to change the username from PalletBot to Pallet (have a look at the request to see my reasons). Xeno has wisely pointed out with this change the bot platform may not received approval from BAG. To avoid another usurpation request if that is the case I like to check with BAG now if this will be a problem when the platform comes up for approval? Thanks. d'oh! talk 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same idea but its no longer asking editors for their password. I no longer see using one account is possible since its goes against the bot policy, since the bots will not be doing the same or close to the same edits, for example one could be adding categories to articles, while another could be reverting vandalism. The idea has changed a lot from the WP:BON, you can see the idea developing here. The code has changed a lot from the WP:BON example, it now look like this:
#pages = articles.category('Computer jargon').limit(10); foreach (#pages as #page) { delete #page.categories.search('Computer jargon'); }
The bots function can be quickly change from a few minor changes in the code, plus new functions can be easily written into the bot by the bot's creator, using regular expression or just editing the page contents directly:
#pages = articles.category("Computer jargon"); foreach (#pages as #page) { #page.content = ' ... '; }
As the language and platform develops, the bots can become more and more complex bots:
object item { method doSomethingCool ( #something ) { ... do something to #something ... return self.doSomethingCoolToo(#something); } method doSomethingCoolToo ( #something ) { ... do something to #something ... return #something; } } #pages = articles.category("Jargon"); foreach (#pages as #page) { #website = website.url('http://example.com/' + #page.title); #result = object.doSomethingCool(#website.content); #page.content = #result; }
-- d'oh! talk 15:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35 has been waiting for a reply of someone from the BAG for a few days now. The bot operator has lowered his requested trial run size to the barest minimum ;-), and there is not much else he can do now but wait for a reply or further discussion... Fram ( talk) 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom has asked for BAG input. If no action is taken on this, it will put BAG in an awkward position with regard to the open BRFAs. Gigs ( talk) 01:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this would be an appropriate venue to ask for more input for the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rich_Farmbrough_2, since it really needs a good understanding of the practicalities of operating bots to move the discussion forward. Rd232 talk 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably the wrong place but whatever, I am sure some kind soul will fix that for me :-)
One of the standard responses in WP:OTRS is to point people to WP:RA. That is pretty much a complete waste of time. It would be really good if a botmaster could code a bot to remove all bluelinked items from the requested lists, date all new entries, and archive entries not addressed after, say three months. Most of them are garage bands or near equivalents in notability, nobody ever bothers to decline them. Guy ( Help!) 01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear all. It seems that this year it is my turn to run the WP:CUP update bot, a task that I have just filed a BRFA for. The competition begins on 1 January; might someone be able to assess whether a trial can be approved for the first X days of the competition within the next 48 hours? And we can take it from there? Thanks, - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was having a discussion User_talk:Crispy1989#The_Cluebot_knowledgebase and I was told to ask here if you guys know of a "very simple" Perl-based bot that I can experiment with in my own user space. I need no user-interface and no algorithms, etc. Just the basics of where one looks to see what edits were made, write a simple report to own user-space etc. I will then extend it. Help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
User:MediationBot1 is down because the operator's toolserver account has been deleted, and the editor who initially wrote the bot is no longer active on Wikipedia. Is there anybody out there with time to code a replacement, even just for the core function of case-management? ST47's bot was exceptionally useful and we're really missing it over at RFM. It'd be much appreciated! AGK [ • 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been scripting for Wikipedia for a few years now, and, though I haven't created any bots yet, I know my way around the API. I also do a bit of developing for
WP:ACC. I'm probably not suited for the BAG as I've not done any bot-related work, but, as you have a shortage, I'd like to help out.
If this nomination fails (It probably will), I'd still like to help out at BAG, doing clerk-like tasks. Please let me know what I can do.
ManishEarth
Talk •
Stalk 04:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course answering is not mandatory, regards Petrb ( talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43 has been sitting on my desktop waiting for me to press go since the first of January. Perhaps I should do it manually?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
Several days ago I posted a question on the talk page of User:Tim1357, who operates this bot, asking why it had performed some tasks that are not listed on the bot's userpage, and which I believe should not be performed. I have had no reply, but the bot continues to run. There seems to be no way to switch off the bot, as the bot's switchoff pages are all fully protected, nor any other way to get the operator's attention. Can someone here help please? Colonies Chris ( talk) 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Since my bot blocked today I would like to request something. There is an effort to standardise infoboxes about persons and fix/remove invalid parameters caught by tracking categories. I have approval to do edits like this using AWB through my bot account. The main problem I encounter is that for simplification reasons I need the infoboxes to be in "Infobox..." form and even better in there original name. This allows me to use AWB's standard code without having to program extra. I figured out that it would be easier to first make a genfixes run to all pages with Infobox about persons and bypass the redirects to infoboxes and then fix the parameters as a second edit. Is it OK if I do this or I have to spend my time creating a custom module to do the edits at once? I would prefer the first solution because I am bust in real life and there is a lot of work to be done with the infoboxes. I was almost done with the first part when by bot got blocked. Please tell what I should do and I 'll proceed accordingly. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
As advised, I've raised a review request at Snotbot 6#Review request. If that's not the correct format, or location, please let me know. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm finishing coding on my bot to replace the missing-in-action AlexNewArtBot, which searches new articles and posts results either inside AlexNewArtBot (default) or at a custom location (about 50/50 utilization of these, see the list).
I'd like to invade the userspace of AlexNewArtBot and continue posting search results there. I'm using rules from there, and I'd like to post to the search result pages because they are watched and transcluded. Are there objections to this? Do I need to file a BRFA for it? tedder ( talk) 08:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a serious problem. Tony (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this will make life easier, but I added {{ BAG_Tools}} to Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval so the toolbox will show when editing all BRFA pages. SQL Query me! 08:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
JPG-GR has requested that I tag all templates involved in a mass TfD nomination with the {{ tfd}} tag. Tagging even 10 templates manually is pretty annoying, and doing over 50 is unreasonable. So I have prepared a script to perform this task for me.
However, its first job will be to tag more than 700 templates in one go. Do I need to seek some sort of approval for such a large-scale mass edit? The bot policy seems not to mention cases such as this, so I am puzzled. Also, can I run this job from an alternative account? — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I requested at the BRfA that the bot trial for TTObot be revoked. There are no links to community discussions, and the bot owner did not post at the most obvious community board because it "is very quiet."
4 minutes is barely enough time to read the proposal, much less to approve it without community input.
The second place for community input about bots is during the BRfA. No matter how poorly involved the community is in discussions that take place there, the community still has the right to some time to become involved in the discussion.
There is no note in the approval explaining the reason for granting approval for a trial 4 minutes after the request was made, without any community discussion or allowance for discussion.
Please remove this bot approval, request community input at templates, and then allow time for community input in the BRfA. -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This is a BAG courtesy notice. Please discuss the issue at the BRfA. here -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 04:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for BAG members to be so hostile to community input? If someone is discussing an issue with a bot operator in an RFBA and a BAG member disagrees with the community member, how about something else besides hostility and a rapid closing of the RFBA by the involved and disagreeing BAG member?
Again, really no wonder why so few community members want to discuss issues at BRFA when BAG members treat their input like scum to shut up as soon as possible.
Why? Why is there so much hostility at BRFA? And on wikipedia in general?
I am still in the process of discussing an issue with the bot operator here.
I suggested two hours, Headbomb disagreed with me, so he/she suggested otherwise and approved the BRFA to shut me and the discussion up.
Can BAG include manners as a requirement for members? Can BAG include listening to community input when it is given? No, in fact the community does not want bots or anyone tagging articles closely on the heals of contributors. Maybe BAG members could learn about the community. -- 72.208.2.14 ( talk) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please drop a line here to say you are still active. Anyone who hasn't responded within a week (or maybe two weeks), will be moved to inactive. -- Chris 02:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings-
I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. I am looking for members of the Bots Approval Group to interview regarding their experiences on Wikipedia and opinions of technical and governance issues on the site. The interview can be conducted in a manner convenient for you (via an IM client, email, Skype, telephone, or even in-person) and should take approximately 30-45 minutes.
Your participation will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors and programmers like you.
My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.
If you would like to participate or have any questions, please contact me directly via email or by leaving a message on my talk page. Thank you in advance for your interest.
Randall Livingstone
UOJComm ( talk) 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This group may wish to be aware of this proposed remedy in an active ArbCom case. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, we currently have three inactive members who have not edited at all in at least 12 months. User:Fritzpoll has retired and not edited in almost two years, User:Lightdarkness has been virtually inactive for 4 years and the last edit dates back from November 2010 (he has made one logged action in nov 2011 to keep the sysop bit tho) and finally User:Richard0612 has not edited in close to three years. I suggest that there is no point in listing them as inactive, and that we should, as was done in the past, move members who have not edited Wikipedia in any capacity for such lenghty periods of time to the Former Member section. Helps keeping it clean and I see no disadvantage in doing so. Snowolf How can I help? 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There were some prior indicators that permitting this editor to become a bot-op might have negative consequences. Should we have looked for them, asked for them to be disclosed, AGF'd, or something else? If they were disclosed, would the approval process have been any different? Josh Parris 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I recall it used to be common practice to announce BRfAs at WP:VPP; what if we make it common practice that new ops announce their intentions at WP:VPP, and make it clear that part of the approval process consists of approving the op? I hope it's clearly implied that subsequent BRfAs would assume ongoing community support for the op in that role. Josh Parris 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Some BAGgers have said that future requests are invited; given a decision to remove bot-op authorization, what is needed to regain it? Josh Parris 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't wondering about procedures; they'll sort themselves out. But to be clear between ourselves and others, if approval is withdrawn for reason X, once reason X is demonstrably no longer the case, applications are welcome again? Or is there a minimum time frame for BAGgers? Is it simply a matter of impressing a single BAGger that they ought to approve a BRfA, or hoping none of them deny one? Or should a consensus be formed at the time of reapplication? A community consensus, or a BAG consensus? Josh Parris 10:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Not that anyone here really cares about my opinion at this point but this whole thing was blown way out of proportion and was primarily brought about by an overreaction to a minor and easily fixed problem by editors with article ownership issues. I was fixing any real problems as they were brought to my attention as fast as I could and had I been allowed to actually fix the problem they would have been fixed and done long ago. Secondly, there was only one of the approved BRFA's with a problem so the revokation of all of them was a petty knee jerk reaction here as well and completely unnecessary, last the BRFA was open for almost 2 months. All editors had an opportunity to review it, voice there concerns and have their voices heard. With all that said, at this point I have completely lost my appetite for having a bot or even general editing at this point so there is no need to restore anything but there is also not a need to "change the process" and make it even harder and more time consuming to get a bot account. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Do we have an opinion on how a BRFA should be marked as "revoked"?
Personally, I prefer #1. It just seems clearer to me what exactly happened with the request. Anomie ⚔ 20:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Just for what its worth I still think this was a needless knee jerk reaction to a minor problem. There was only one BRFA that was a problem so there was non need to revoke all of them. Additionally, I have removed my name and my bot from the list of AWB users, the bot is stopped and I have no intention of turning it back on so there was really no need to revoke them all. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:49, 25 February 2012 (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.
I just want to state that all these discussions about changing policies and making it even harder to get a bot approved, just because of my bot, is stupid and a waste of time. The whole issue with my bot was easily fixable and would have been resolved long ago if editors with article ownership issues (you can't tag these articles cause they belong to my project not yours) would have been checked. Then I finally get fed up with Markvs88's shenanigans and I submit them to ANI and guess what, I get blocked by an overzealous admin because I made a sarcastic statement to an editor who has done nothing but break policy after policy with no one telling them anything except me. Then that block prevents me from responding to the multi forum shopping spree that editors opened up discussing the same issue. Which I still think was the whole point of the block, if I can't respond, I lose and so does WikiProject United States. Then I leave one comment using my bot just to let them know I was blocked and because of that my bot tasks were revoked and I lost the trust of the community. A trust that was based on several years and hundreds of thousands of edits was easily forgotten in the period of three hours. Yes I am pissed and I have made a few stupid comments because I have seen just how rotten the community can be to a fellow editor who just wants to improve the place. Thats ok now though, because I have all but stopped editing. I really really enjoyed editing and spent thousands of hours on it. So it really rubs me raw that so much energy is being devoted into unnecessary discussion about how to keep editors from submitting bots. We should be encouraging editors to do stuff not trying to find more ways to limit activities. Now I said I was going to take this page off my watchlist and I still intend too but when I see discussions that are clearly directed towards me and my bot I reserve the right to comment and set the record straight. Since it seems apparent that no one is going to bother to ask before making assumptions or actually look into the history of the situation rather than just take action on the last edit. All because a couple editors wanted to break policy and the community didn't bother to assume good faith from an editor with years and years of devotion trying to make the place better. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I really don't want to give the impression that I'm kicking a man while he's down. I understand that Kumioko has been frustrated in his attempts to determine WikiProject United States's scope, by the bot approval process, by his efforts to code his tasks correctly, and by other contributors' reactions to his automated editing. However, in the discussion that has surrounded his latest task, I've become aware of a couple factors that I don't think were considered when his tasks were approved:
In each of these discussions, Kumioko has expressed his frustration in a less than civil manner, has characterized the objections to his tasks as one or two contributors complaining about a few mistakes out of thousands of edits, and has expressed his displeasure at having to stop his bot and engage in discussion. He's justified his tasks by saying they make it easier to code other automated tasks (with which I don't think most experienced programmers would have a problem) and that they speed up the rendering of articles and talk pages (which shows a lack of understanding of how MediaWiki parses and renders pages). He has now been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring over articles that he tagged and, most distressingly to me of all of the above, he used his bot account to evade his block and continue discussion [3] [4].
I hate to be the bad guy here, but I believe Kumioko's violated the trust of the community that's a prerequisite to operating a bot; he's also violated AWB rules of use, the bot policy, and principles established by the Arbitration Committee. I propose that existing approvals for his bot be revoked and that it be removed from the bot group by a bureaucrat. — madman 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't really care at this point about the bot revokation but it should be noted that this is all a knee jerk reaction to en overreaction of a couple editors with article ownership issues and WikiProject United States/Kumioko hateitis. The bot wasn't faulty, the list I gave the bot had a couple bad articles in it, about 161 of roughly 11, 000. Thats about 1.4% It should also be noted that if you bother to look at what my block was for, it was an extremely stupid disagreement with an editor who has shown a strong dislike for AWB in the past (CBM) and tends to overreact to any use of the tool. With that said, after all the work I tried to do to improve this place the community has shown quite clearly to me over the last few days how much my work is appreciated so its better that a useful bot with useful tasks be blocked than to have it make an easily fixable mistake. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
After this discussion this is the best news I've seen around WP in quite awhile. Glad people wised up. Brad ( talk) 10:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, this is incredibly dumb. I reviewed a set of 4 contested edits some time back, each of them was correct. Removing the bot flag is completely over the top. It is one thing to expect bot owners to be responsive, civil etc, it is quite another to hold them to an inhuman (or should I just say supra-Wikipedian) standard. Perhaps before BAG makes these kinds of decisions they should take a better look at realistic standards for behaviour. I am left shaking my head yet again.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC).
What we should do with the bot's tasks? Should these tasks carried on by another bot/editor or just discontinue? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to raise a couple of points for discussion regarding bot trials.
Attention to detail and low tolerance for errors are highly desired attributes for owners of flagged bots. BotPol says that it's not BAG's role to QA bots in trial; is there some way to point out that to ops, and to add a note that if BAG - or anyone else in the BRFA process - finds something the op didn't disclose it makes us grumpy? Should our first question after TrialComplete be "What errors occurred?" followed by "How have you prevented them in the next trial?"
Also, I think the size of the initial trials I've seen approved is too large. I assume a small trial will show glaring errors, and prefer to follow with a larger one to find weird ones. 100 edits is too many to closely review, 50 is a lot of work - especially if many of them are flawed. Are other BAG members trusting the ops to locate every mistake? Should we?
Should we even be trialing "manual" BRFAs? Josh Parris 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Due to medical reasons I'm going to be out of action for a week or two starting Monday. Please feel free to step in wherever needed. Josh Parris 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm helping organize the Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June 2012 in Berlin, Germany. We're going to be discussing and working on the hosted Wikimedia Labs development environment and bots infrastructure, Toolserver, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, MediaWiki's web API, the new Lua templating system, and various upcoming MediaWiki features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
That's one of the upcoming Wikimedia developers' events and I hope some of you can make it.
Registration will probably open next week, and travel subsidies will be available.
- Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here on English Wikipedia or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrator review/MBisanz 2 to help me become a better editor and BAGer. Thanks. MBisanz talk 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there some kind of "speed limit" for interwiki bots? I'm trying to remove some wrong interwiki links here, but the bots keep replacing them before I'm able to remove them from all language editions of the article. — Ruud 22:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
<!-- [[nl:David de Haen]] --> <!-- [[sv:David de Haen]] -->
This ANI thread might be of interest to BAG members. Specifically, it includes a discussion on whether a particular task that is being carried out with AWB requires a BRFA. -Scottywong | gab _ 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone-
I wanted to let you know that my dissertation, "Network of Knowledge: Wikipedia as a Sociotechnical System of Intelligence" is now available on my website with a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. Over a year ago I began this project with the WMF Research Committee and the University of Oregon IRB's approval. Nearly 50 bot operators, WP contributors, and WMF administrators were kind enough to participate in the study, offering their time, opinions, and expertise on issues around bots and bot creation. Feel free to download the document or peruse it online, and I look forward to your comments either on the site or via email.
The manuscript is a bit long (~320 pages) and includes some standard dissertation sections (literature review, methods chapter, etc.). Interviewee contributions are featured most in Chapters 5 and 6 (if you want to skip to the good stuff).
I am at a new institution now and will be going through a new IRB approval process to continue this research, but I do indeed want to continue chatting with the bot and semi-automated tool community. Please let me know if you're interested in connecting this fall, and thank you so much to those who have already participated!
Randall Livingstone UOJComm ( talk) 23:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "SVN" column is outdated, now that MediaWiki development takes place in Git and Gerrit. Should we rename the column to something like "MW Dev"? And should the column indicate anyone with a Gerrit account, or just people who can actually merge to mediawiki/core (AFAICT, that's this list plus Wikimedia Ops people)?
Or should we just remove the column entirely? Anomie ⚔ 16:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why we have the 'crat and admin columns?
Rich
Farmbrough, 02:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
The last person to join BAG did so in 2011, meaning we haven't had a new BAGer for the entirety of 2012. As current members' schedules change, it's becoming harder and harder to promptly respond to BRFAs. If everyone could keep their eyes out for potential new members, it would be most appreciated. Thanks. MBisanz talk 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Some fun data: (thanks to MZMcBride for helping me with the query)
Extended content
|
---|
mysql> /* SLOW_OK */ -> SELECT -> rev_user_text, -> COUNT(*) -> FROM revision -> JOIN page -> ON rev_page = page_id -> WHERE page_namespace = 4 -> AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%' -> AND rev_timestamp LIKE '2012%' -> GROUP BY rev_user_text -> ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC; +---------------------------------+----------+ | rev_user_text | COUNT(*) | +---------------------------------+----------+ | AnomieBOT | 475 | | Hellknowz | 351 | | Madman | 315 | | MBisanz | 216 | | Josh Parris | 216 | | Rcsprinter123 | 159 | | Legoktm | 146 | | Rich Farmbrough | 119 | | Anomie | 114 | | Headbomb | 106 | | Chris G | 105 | | Joe Decker | 101 | | Hazard-SJ | 95 | | Snowmanradio | 93 | | Cyberpower678 | 89 | | GoingBatty | 78 | | Kumioko (renamed) | 76 | | The Earwig | 63 | | Magioladitis | 62 | | Ceradon | 56 | | Jarry1250 | 53 | | Blevintron | 52 | | Kwamikagami | 51 | | Bgwhite | 48 | | Mabdul | 48 | | Ankit Maity | 45 | | Ryan Vesey | 42 | | Slakr | 42 | | Kingpin13 | 42 | | 28bytes | 39 | | Wolfgang42 | 37 | | CBM | 37 | | OrenBochman | 34 | | Dcoetzee | 34 | | Riley Huntley | 32 | | Snowolf | 30 | | Vacation9 | 30 | | Jtmorgan | 29 | | TParis | 29 | | درفش کاویانی | 28 | | とある白い猫 | 26 | | Eagles247 | 25 | | Thine Antique Pen | 24 | | Thehelpfulone | 23 | | Amalthea | 23 | | Dschwen | 22 | | MGA73 | 22 | | Makecat | 22 | | Hmains | 21 | | Addshore | 21 | | Mahdiz | 21 | | SD5 | 21 | | Hyperdeath | 18 | | Wbm1058 | 18 | | Jamo2008 | 18 | | Nettrom | 17 | | جواد | 16 | | Stefan2 | 16 | | ClueBot III | 16 | | Penyulap | 15 | | Shubinator | 15 | | Nathan2055 | 15 | | Vibhijain | 15 | | Jmorgan (WMF) | 15 | | Mmovchin | 15 | | Sven Manguard | 14 | | Dipankan001 | 14 | | Scottywong | 14 | | Σ | 13 | | Ganeshk | 13 | | Hersfold | 13 | | Hedwig in Washington | 13 | | Meno25 | 13 | | Kumioko | 12 | | Petrb | 12 | | Allens | 12 | | Avicennasis | 12 | | Tom Morris | 12 | | Hersfold non-admin | 12 | | Hair | 11 | | Noommos | 11 | | JordanKyser22 | 10 | | DePiep | 10 | | Ethen12 | 10 | | Crashdoom | 10 | | Jesse V. | 10 | | Pigsonthewing | 9 | | Dpmuk | 9 | | Fox Wilson | 9 | | MZMcBride | 9 | | Maximilianklein | 8 | | Robert Skyhawk | 8 | | Stuart P. Bentley | 8 | | Rjanag | 8 | | Feedintm | 8 | | Justincheng12345 | 8 | | Timotheus Canens | 8 | | Stillwaterising | 8 | | MaxSem | 8 | | EncMstr | 8 | | Femto Bot | 8 | | H.b.sh | 8 | | Fastily | 8 | | Traveler100 | 7 | | Multichill | 7 | | 66.127.55.46 | 7 | | Carnildo | 7 | | Danhash | 7 | | Bulwersator | 7 | | Xqt | 7 | | Ocaasi | 7 | | Samoon | 7 | | Razimantv | 6 | | TreyGeek | 6 | | Spinningspark | 6 | | YFdyh000 | 6 | | پسر یاس | 6 | | Enzaiklopedia | 6 | | Steenth | 6 | | Sitongpeng | 6 | | 68.107.140.60 | 6 | | Dede2008 | 6 | | Tow | 6 | | Colonies Chris | 5 | | JaGa | 5 | | AhMedRMaaty | 5 | | A proofreader | 5 | | Heatherawalls | 5 | | Severo | 5 | | Secretlondon | 5 | | Sfan00 IMG | 5 | | Maryana (WMF) | 5 | | Rjwilmsi | 5 | | Tim Schulz | 5 | | Bility | 5 | | Addihockey10 | 5 | | Avocato | 5 | | Mcarling | 5 | | 101.119.18.208 | 5 | | Tony1 | 4 | | Fram | 4 | | Mrt3366 | 4 | | Piandcompany | 4 | | Arb | 4 | | John F. Lewis | 4 | | VolodymyrB | 4 | | संतोष दहिवळ | 4 | | Aviyal | 4 | | Dispenser | 4 | | David1217 | 4 | | PleaseStand | 4 | | Invertzoo | 4 | | Chrisrus | 4 | | Fæ | 4 | | Steven (WMF) | 4 | | WhatamIdoing | 4 | | EauOo | 4 | | Jenks24 | 4 | | Fajr18 | 4 | | Yoenit | 4 | | OsamaK | 4 | | Boghog | 3 | | KTC | 3 | | PedR | 3 | | Fylbecatulous | 3 | | Hurricanefan24 | 3 | | Kizar | 3 | | Vinniyo | 3 | | Alpha Quadrant | 3 | | AnkitAWB | 3 | | Metriki | 3 | | DrTrigon | 3 | | Jc3s5h | 3 | | Renessaince | 3 | | Hypejar | 3 | | Julia W | 3 | | Theopolisme | 3 | | 68.107.131.23 | 3 | | Grashoofd | 3 | | Stepheng3 | 3 | | Materialscientist | 3 | | Kevin12xd | 3 | | 71.163.243.232 | 3 | | Cdwn | 2 | | AliReza | 2 | | Richardguk | 2 | | DrKiernan | 2 | | The Earwig (alternate) | 2 | | Gimmetoo | 2 | | Ralgis | 2 | | Ucucha | 2 | | Djsasso | 2 | | Ryan Ajie | 2 | | ChrisStyles | 2 | | VIAFbot | 2 | | AussieLegend | 2 | | Braincricket | 2 | | Saehrimnir | 2 | | This is also Sven Manguard | 2 | | Warddr | 2 | | Nyttend | 2 | | 124.149.84.97 | 2 | | Firilacroco | 2 | | Calliopejen1 | 2 | | Rillke | 2 | | Timrollpickering | 2 | | Plastikspork | 2 | | Beetstra | 2 | | Kaldari | 2 | | 93.182.168.155 | 2 | | VoxelBot | 2 | | Od Mishehu | 2 | | WJBscribe | 2 | | Davykamanzi | 2 | | Maxim | 2 | | Sun Creator | 2 | | Grandiose | 2 | | Colourful Bling | 1 | | CommonsDelinker | 1 | | 69.255.179.102 | 1 | | Noiratsi | 1 | | Sval972bot | 1 | | WikHead | 1 | | Markhurd | 1 | | Routsatyahcu | 1 | | Warofdreams | 1 | | TedPavlic | 1 | | Xqbot | 1 | | 75.86.137.22 | 1 | | Bwilkins | 1 | | Tim1357 | 1 | | Krellis | 1 | | Masem | 1 | | Intbot | 1 | | Moonriddengirl | 1 | | 83.60.39.124 | 1 | | Worm That Turned | 1 | | Future Perfect at Sunrise | 1 | | AGK | 1 | | LeadSongDog | 1 | | PrimeHunter | 1 | | Cntras | 1 | | WilliamThweatt | 1 | | Jason Quinn | 1 | | Pichpich | 1 | | Ezhuttukari | 1 | | SporkBot | 1 | | GiantSnowman | 1 | | Ebe123 | 1 | | Butwhatdoiknow | 1 | | Nard the Bard | 1 | | Sbouterse (WMF) | 1 | | PsBot | 1 | | Billinghurst | 1 | | 172.218.192.19 | 1 | | MetrikiBot | 1 | | Frietjes | 1 | | Tsor | 1 | | Osarius | 1 | | Mr Stephen | 1 | | MahdiBot | 1 | | BattyBot | 1 | | ThundaBot | 1 | | Avraham | 1 | | Almost-instinct | 1 | | Dalahäst | 1 | | Bencherlite | 1 | | Ramesh Ramaiah | 1 | | Δ | 1 | | 211.235.45.13 | 1 | | Kolega2357 | 1 | | Bibliomaniac15 | 1 | | SarahStierch | 1 | | Lionelt | 1 | | JamesR | 1 | | Shmomuffin | 1 | | 131.230.81.166 | 1 | | John Vandenberg | 1 | | 84.189.74.14 | 1 | | Nouniquenames | 1 | | TBrandley | 1 | | Jayron32 | 1 | | Toa Nidhiki05 | 1 | | John of Reading | 1 | | 67.117.145.9 | 1 | | Mabeenot | 1 | | Mainulmizan bot | 1 | | Geoff Rounding | 1 | | Svick | 1 | | Gigs | 1 | | Rschen7754 | 1 | | Light-jet pilot | 1 | | Dicklyon | 1 | | Simeondahl | 1 | | Hmainsbot1 | 1 | +---------------------------------+----------+ |
Legoktm ( talk) 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see: this bot problem. If one of you folks could have a look and fix this problem, it would be appreciated. — Ched : ? 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look at the discussion on User_talk:Bishonen and give their expert opinion if the edits from the 91.x.x.x Deutsche Telecom range look they might be bot-like or script-assisted? They are mostly formatting changes, some of which involve finding and removing non-visible elements like HTML comments, which is hard for me to imagine how they could be done manually with that kind of proficiency... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 07:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
For example, how did Special:Contributions/91.10.0.199 find five articles in under two minutes, all having the same "formatting comments"? 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 11:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask. I've been working on a bot that creates some maintenance lists for WikiProject Physics. The bot is only ever editing pages in its own user space, so I understand from WP:BOTAPPROVAL that it doesn't need formal approval. However, one of the tasks might be of interest also for many other wikiprojects, so I'd like to ask for advice before letting the bot create a lot of pages. I think it should not get a bot flag since it's desirable that its edits show up on watchlists of interested users. The question is if it should still get formal approval or if an informal tumbs-up is sufficient (or if you think it's a bad idea to run it at all...). — HHHIPPO 13:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, bot approvals are really handled by this group and bureaucrats simply apply a rubber stamping because only crats have the technical ability to add the bot flag. Is this the best way to do things, or does it make more sense to simply make a new userright for bot approval group members so bureaucrats don't have to apply the rubber stamp?
Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucrat tools. AutomaticStrikeout ? 17:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Could some respond at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 24, please? Is there a general backlog? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I asked a question at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Link to blocked editor, and I think the bot operator may be on a wikibreak, so I'm posting here in case anyone else can answer my question there. I'm somewhat eager to get an answer because, depending on the answer, there may be a problem with block evasion. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion at AN is now concluded. I would like to explore further what it would take to make it so that bots would be able to reject requests from blocked users. Although a variety of opinions have been expressed by various editors, I think that it has become apparent that it is desirable to start working on this – not urgently, but as an improvement that eventually ought to be made. If I understand correctly, it would be good to start testing OAUTH, and subsequently to start finding ways to work it into the bot request process. Do I understand correctly? Is this realistic? Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please forgive my lack of expertise, but on re-reading above, I see that there is also something called TUSC. Do I understand correctly that it, unlike OAUTH, is far enough along that it could be used in principle, other than that it would be a lot of work for which there is low enthusiasm? What are the advantages and disadvantages of TUSC relative to OAUTH in this context? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've rejiggled the BAG-member activity list
-- Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user,
-> (
-> select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where
-> rev_page in (
-> select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
-> and rev_timestamp>'20131001000000'
-> and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> and
-> rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) as sub
-> where user_id=rev_user
-> group by user_name
-> having brfas>1
-> order by user_name
-> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie | 11 |
| Hellknowz | 24 |
| Josh Parris | 35 |
+-------------+-------+
3 rows in set (0.11 sec)
-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user,
-> (
-> select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where
-> rev_page in (
-> select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
-> and rev_timestamp>'20130101000000'
-> and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> and
-> rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) as sub
-> where user_id=rev_user
-> group by user_name
-> having brfas>1
-> order by user_name
-> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Addshore | 86 |
| Anomie | 31 |
| Chris G | 30 |
| Hellknowz | 77 |
| Jarry1250 | 8 |
| Josh Parris | 36 |
| Kingpin13 | 11 |
| MBisanz | 88 |
| Madman | 6 |
| MaxSem | 2 |
| Maxim | 14 |
| Quadell | 2 |
| Snowolf | 2 |
| The Earwig | 12 |
+-------------+-------+
14 rows in set (0.10 sec)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Parris ( talk • contribs)
Just wanted to check where the BAG stand on this issue. If a user has an approved AWB bot, do they have to run a new BRFA for every task, or if it is a small run (eg. <200 pages), can they just run that without approval? Thanks, -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 08:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
We have 3 "active" BAG members and a collection of semi-active BAG members. Based on the fact that we have bot tasks falling off of WP:BOTREQ and WP:BRFA requests withering on the vine, I have to ask if we need to add annother BAG member or two to ensure that requests are being actioned in a reasonable timeframe. This may include putting forth my own candidacy for BAG. Thoughts? Hasteur ( talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user,
-> (
-> SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE
-> rev_page IN (
-> SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
-> AND rev_timestamp>'20140401000000'
-> AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> AND
-> rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) AS sub
-> WHERE user_id=rev_user
-> GROUP BY user_name
-> HAVING brfas>1
-> ORDER BY user_name
-> ;
+-----------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-----------+-------+
| Hellknowz | 2 |
| MBisanz | 13 |
| MaxSem | 2 |
| Slakr | 9 |
| Tawker | 2 |
+-----------+-------+
5 rows in set (0.07 sec)
-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user,
-> (
-> SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE
-> rev_page IN (
-> SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
-> AND rev_timestamp>'20140101000000'
-> AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> AND
-> rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) AS sub
-> WHERE user_id=rev_user
-> GROUP BY user_name
-> HAVING brfas>1
-> ORDER BY user_name
-> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie | 6 |
| Hellknowz | 22 |
| Josh Parris | 7 |
| MBisanz | 15 |
| MaxSem | 2 |
| Mr.Z-man | 2 |
| Slakr | 9 |
| Tawker | 2 |
+-------------+-------+
8 rows in set (0.06 sec)
I think backlog has seriously reduced. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
See User:Williamrochira: Revision history and User talk:2.96.110.80. Confirmation of my interpretation of policy and – if the IP requests it – further expert advice would be welcomed. Thanks! — SMALL JIM 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard because I'm not sure if people read both pages).
Greetings bot developers and administrators! I'm the author of a software library called WikiBrain that democratizes access to Wikipedia-based algorithms from the fields of natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and GIScience. We would like to make these features available to bot developers and Wikipedia researchers through a web API, and have written an individual engagement grant that would support this work.
We need your help in designing the API! Do you have a bot that wants a bigger brain? Head over to the use cases feedback page, review the features WikiBrain offers, and add a sentence or two to tell us what you'd like included in the API. I'd also love pointers to other places to get in touch with bot developers. Thanks! Shilad ( talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am not really passionate about running bots, but I need to solve the T-cedilla problem (replace T cedilla (Ţ) with T comma (Ț) instead) and it would be too much work for asking others to do it. T cedilla (Ţ) was wrongly atributed to Romanian language and in fact no language is using T cedilla (Ţ). It must be eradicated everywhere in Wikipedia articles, by the way (except just a few articles like cedilla).
All the categories that contain a T-cedilla in their title must be renamed (replacing T-cedilla with T-comma) and the articles must be moved into the new category. For example, the articles inside Category:H.C.M. Constanţa handball players must be moved into Category:H.C.M. Constanța handball players. There are about 139 such categories, for some of them the work is already done - I listed them here: User:Ark25/Robot#T Cedilla - Categories. I started to do the work manually with my bot candidate: Special:Contributions/ArkBot. I am already using ArkBot at Romanian Wikipedia ro:Special:Contributions/ArkBot and I am fairly used with AWB - tens of thousands of edits (more than 20.000 for sure.). Although I would be very happy if someone else would take care of removing the T cedilla infestation, by the way :). — Ark25 ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It stopped on December 8, don't know why, I need to check my Tool labs account, but I can't access it, I think I need a new key to do that. Lbertolotti ( talk) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I solved the problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 January 2015
Just formally noting that I've proposed am arbitration motion that mentions the BAG. Don't think it really has much effect on y'all really, though. Courcelles 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
(discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Bot policy)
Which bot checks external links to make sure they are still good (and not dead)? Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Request_for_comment:_Bot_flags_and_bureaucrats for a proposal to adjust the way that the bot flag is assigned. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 20:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
A user came to complaining that the BRFA process is slow at the moment. Need another user to help out?— cyberpower Chat:Online 01:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi fellow BAG's, active members have likely been called to this discussion. Please review Special:PermaLink/726543278#Statement_by_Xaosflux - am seeking consensus for formally removing prior approval for these old tasks (not currently running due to arbcom sanctions). Should the general sanction be lifted I suggest they be represented if desired to give opportunity for community discussion. — xaosflux Talk 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's what I had already in mind. No old task should be resumed. Most of them are outdated, completed or now done by other bots in a more optimal way. Any bot run should go through the normal bot approval process. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It would have been courteous to ping me about this discussion. I came across it reviewing Xaosflux's contributions for their RfB.
More - it would have been sensible to sound me out about the proposal, to obviate the need for discussion, as I quite willing to re-apply for the tasks.
I take it that FemtoBot 7 would not need re-application, as suggested by Xaosflux in the amendment request.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC).
I've indeffed InternetArchiveBot as it is apparently malfunctioning. Not entirely sure of the protocol as it's the first block I've ever done on a bot. Owner notified, any admin may unblock withour further reference to myself. Mjroots ( talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't have a formal "activity" requirement for BAG membership, however User:EdoDodo appears to have left Wikipedia, with no edits in 5 years - baring any objections I think we can take that as a retirement notice from BAG. Any objections? — xaosflux Talk 16:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently blocked Yobot for making cosmetic-only edits. The discussion is at User talk:Yobot#Expanding templates. It then transpired that many of these edits do not actually have consensus in the first place, in some cases actually being vigorously opposed. The problem seems to be that there is no quality control on the contents of AWB general fixes. I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes. Spinning Spark 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
My point is that some general fixes do not have consensus to do at all, either by themselves or as part of a more substantive edit, and nobody is controlling this.Is this still your point? I've been taken to ANI, threatened to be blocked and asked to be blocked for something AWB's genfixes did that was not "consensus". This includes removing blank lines between items in a list for accessibility. This includes moving TOC so screen readers can access the article. This includes making a cosmetic edit minutes after the issue was fixed, and they thought one cosmetic edit is one too many and bot should be blocked. This also includes fixing brackets, headlines and defaultsort. What you call uncontroversial is controversal to others and visa versa.
The very first complaint should have instantly got it taken out of AWB.... Then AWB would have no fixes. The TOC fixes were given approval on BAG and the accessibility page. It is in MOS. I was still taken to ANI multiple times because there was no general consensus or editors of that page should decide TOC placement. Removing the blank lines was given approval on BAG and accessibility pages, plus posted to proposal pump. It is also in MOS. Again, people wanted it to stop and there were requests for me to be blocked because there was no general consensus or it was "trivial edit". No AWB genfixes has "consensus". You are holding Yobot hostage and demanding all AWBs stop until your AWB's pet peeve is fixed. My bot's bad block came from an admin who thought the bot shouldn't be "fixing" their articles, even though the "fix" is in MOS and the issue can cause problems. They blocked me out of the blue and wanted it to stay blocked until their pet peeve was removed. It was quickly overturned and there was a "fun" discussion on should the bot be doing that at all.
I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes.Bender the Bot, Josvebot and JJMC89 bot are examples where genfixes was asked to be turned off or bot was denied. Add the bot approvals from above that stated genfixes would be used. The answer is yes, BAGs do exercise control. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Bgwhite: Just to be clear, Fluxbot task 6 does not use genfixes at all. It only uses a specific find/replace table to target the malformed tags it is approved for. I don't really like genfixes for my bot in general, and never run them. — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The real issue here is a small number of AWB bots for which the maintainers do not put in effort to prevent cosmetic-only edits. There are other AWB bots whose maintainers manage to avoid that problem, so the issue is not AWB itself. The solution of simply having AWB bots (in fact, all bots) only perform the specific changes which they are approved to make, and not apply other "general fixes", would certainly solve this issue. And it would be in line with the idea of bot approval. In general, if there is clear consensus for a certain style to be implemented everywhere, a bot could be approved to make that change, so there is no need for bots to make extra unapproved "fixes" while carrying out approved tasks. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Another example would be the changes that Dexbot is currently making, such as this . This is adding a template that changes the appearance of an external link from Official website to Official website. There's no problem with the former version, and in fact it is explicitly permitted by our guidelines ( WP:ELOFFICIAL): the use of templates in this area is strictly optional. The change isn't a "fix" at all: it is cosmetic and appears to be the personal preference of an editor. As far as I can tell from the records, the decision to try and change every such link on the wiki to use a template appears to have been taken here, back in August, by a single member of the BAG. No RfC that I can find, no wider discussion, including on the relevant guidelines page. I don't think this sort of wiki-wide change should be carried out without establishing consensus first. Hchc2009 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Fram has now cleared out nearly all the template redirects from AWB, I think mostly in frustration at this problem. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation. As AWB genfixes are being carried out by a large number of editors as well as bots, I propose that BAG treat AWB itself as a bot and require approval for additions to genfixes, and retrospectively require approval to be sought for existing genfixes. If this isn't done we will only end up with genfixes filled up with controversial stuff again in the future. Spinning Spark 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Most of AWB's general fixes are based on Guidelines and Documentation. I try to keep a record of all of them in WP:GENFIXES and WP:AWB/H. Today one of the last longstanding problem, the newlines between the headers has been removed from "general fixes". After redirects discussion, I think there is still one issue to be resolved with one way or another and we are done. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Glad to be part of BAG! :D As one of my first orders of business, I wanted to propose renaming the "Bot Approvals Group" to simply "Bot Approvers"... As flattering as it may be to be part of it, I personally think "Bot Approvals Group" sounds like some elitist cult, and the "BAG" acronym sounds quite silly when used as a descriptor. E.g.
Magioladitis is a wonderful bag [member]
,
Slakr is one of the best bags
, or
Xaosflux is one of the oldest and baggiest bags
(pings intentional, plz don't mind the humour). One might confuse "bot approver" as being a real user group, but I think that's OK. The current name just sounds weird when the obvious and more straightforward "bot approver" can be used, as most people have no idea what BAG stands for. I know
The Earwig mentioned he wasn't too fond of the name, are we alone on this? Perhaps it's too big of a deal to carry out a rename (all the pages, templates, etc.), for something so simple? I noticed the nifty
WP:BA redirect is linked all of
17 times, so we could hijack it —
MusikAnimal
talk 01:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Spinningspark, would you mind looking at the discussion at User talk:Ladsgroup#Cosmetic edits, and decide whether Dexbot should be blocked? I asked him to stop, but he has resumed.
Ladsgroup is a Wikidata developer and works for Wikimedia Deutschland. Magioladitis asked him to convert all official websites links to templates for Wikidata purposes, like this. Wikidata-enabling edits are a contentious issue on the English Wikipedia. In addition, the guideline says that using templates is optional. So (a) this task has no consensus, (b) it ignores the relevant guideline; and (c) the bot operator arguably has a conflict of interest—not an issue if he has consensus; without it, it's an additional problem. SarahSV (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Following on from earlier conversations, I've been trying to get User:Ladsgroup to explain when the BAG approved the task behind the cosmetic edit here. So far, the conversation User talk:Ladsgroup#Latest Dexbot changes... hasn't got very far; if I understand Ladsgroup correctly, he accepts that the change is cosmetic and that the task wasn't approved by the BAG and shouldn't have been undertaken by his bot, but would be grateful if User:Xaosflux or another member of the BAG could confirm - Ladsgroup isn't very clear about this sort of thing normally. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:03, 24 December 2016 (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.
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Activity_requirements for a proposed amendment to the bot policy. — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 3 December 2016 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Josh Parris seems a candidate for inactive (last edit July) as does Snowolf, (no edits for a while no BRFA edits for along time), ST47 (who seems to have turned into a bot then vanished by his edit history), Tim1357 seems flat out looking after Dashbot and doing mass edits.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC).
Moved to
WP:BON.
Rich
Farmbrough, 11:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
As some of you know, I am developing a bot platform and I will soon be running tests so I have created an account, PalletBot. To avoid confusion I have put in a usurpation request, to change the username from PalletBot to Pallet (have a look at the request to see my reasons). Xeno has wisely pointed out with this change the bot platform may not received approval from BAG. To avoid another usurpation request if that is the case I like to check with BAG now if this will be a problem when the platform comes up for approval? Thanks. d'oh! talk 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same idea but its no longer asking editors for their password. I no longer see using one account is possible since its goes against the bot policy, since the bots will not be doing the same or close to the same edits, for example one could be adding categories to articles, while another could be reverting vandalism. The idea has changed a lot from the WP:BON, you can see the idea developing here. The code has changed a lot from the WP:BON example, it now look like this:
#pages = articles.category('Computer jargon').limit(10); foreach (#pages as #page) { delete #page.categories.search('Computer jargon'); }
The bots function can be quickly change from a few minor changes in the code, plus new functions can be easily written into the bot by the bot's creator, using regular expression or just editing the page contents directly:
#pages = articles.category("Computer jargon"); foreach (#pages as #page) { #page.content = ' ... '; }
As the language and platform develops, the bots can become more and more complex bots:
object item { method doSomethingCool ( #something ) { ... do something to #something ... return self.doSomethingCoolToo(#something); } method doSomethingCoolToo ( #something ) { ... do something to #something ... return #something; } } #pages = articles.category("Jargon"); foreach (#pages as #page) { #website = website.url('http://example.com/' + #page.title); #result = object.doSomethingCool(#website.content); #page.content = #result; }
-- d'oh! talk 15:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35 has been waiting for a reply of someone from the BAG for a few days now. The bot operator has lowered his requested trial run size to the barest minimum ;-), and there is not much else he can do now but wait for a reply or further discussion... Fram ( talk) 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom has asked for BAG input. If no action is taken on this, it will put BAG in an awkward position with regard to the open BRFAs. Gigs ( talk) 01:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this would be an appropriate venue to ask for more input for the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rich_Farmbrough_2, since it really needs a good understanding of the practicalities of operating bots to move the discussion forward. Rd232 talk 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably the wrong place but whatever, I am sure some kind soul will fix that for me :-)
One of the standard responses in WP:OTRS is to point people to WP:RA. That is pretty much a complete waste of time. It would be really good if a botmaster could code a bot to remove all bluelinked items from the requested lists, date all new entries, and archive entries not addressed after, say three months. Most of them are garage bands or near equivalents in notability, nobody ever bothers to decline them. Guy ( Help!) 01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear all. It seems that this year it is my turn to run the WP:CUP update bot, a task that I have just filed a BRFA for. The competition begins on 1 January; might someone be able to assess whether a trial can be approved for the first X days of the competition within the next 48 hours? And we can take it from there? Thanks, - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was having a discussion User_talk:Crispy1989#The_Cluebot_knowledgebase and I was told to ask here if you guys know of a "very simple" Perl-based bot that I can experiment with in my own user space. I need no user-interface and no algorithms, etc. Just the basics of where one looks to see what edits were made, write a simple report to own user-space etc. I will then extend it. Help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
User:MediationBot1 is down because the operator's toolserver account has been deleted, and the editor who initially wrote the bot is no longer active on Wikipedia. Is there anybody out there with time to code a replacement, even just for the core function of case-management? ST47's bot was exceptionally useful and we're really missing it over at RFM. It'd be much appreciated! AGK [ • 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been scripting for Wikipedia for a few years now, and, though I haven't created any bots yet, I know my way around the API. I also do a bit of developing for
WP:ACC. I'm probably not suited for the BAG as I've not done any bot-related work, but, as you have a shortage, I'd like to help out.
If this nomination fails (It probably will), I'd still like to help out at BAG, doing clerk-like tasks. Please let me know what I can do.
ManishEarth
Talk •
Stalk 04:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course answering is not mandatory, regards Petrb ( talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43 has been sitting on my desktop waiting for me to press go since the first of January. Perhaps I should do it manually?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
Several days ago I posted a question on the talk page of User:Tim1357, who operates this bot, asking why it had performed some tasks that are not listed on the bot's userpage, and which I believe should not be performed. I have had no reply, but the bot continues to run. There seems to be no way to switch off the bot, as the bot's switchoff pages are all fully protected, nor any other way to get the operator's attention. Can someone here help please? Colonies Chris ( talk) 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Since my bot blocked today I would like to request something. There is an effort to standardise infoboxes about persons and fix/remove invalid parameters caught by tracking categories. I have approval to do edits like this using AWB through my bot account. The main problem I encounter is that for simplification reasons I need the infoboxes to be in "Infobox..." form and even better in there original name. This allows me to use AWB's standard code without having to program extra. I figured out that it would be easier to first make a genfixes run to all pages with Infobox about persons and bypass the redirects to infoboxes and then fix the parameters as a second edit. Is it OK if I do this or I have to spend my time creating a custom module to do the edits at once? I would prefer the first solution because I am bust in real life and there is a lot of work to be done with the infoboxes. I was almost done with the first part when by bot got blocked. Please tell what I should do and I 'll proceed accordingly. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
As advised, I've raised a review request at Snotbot 6#Review request. If that's not the correct format, or location, please let me know. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm finishing coding on my bot to replace the missing-in-action AlexNewArtBot, which searches new articles and posts results either inside AlexNewArtBot (default) or at a custom location (about 50/50 utilization of these, see the list).
I'd like to invade the userspace of AlexNewArtBot and continue posting search results there. I'm using rules from there, and I'd like to post to the search result pages because they are watched and transcluded. Are there objections to this? Do I need to file a BRFA for it? tedder ( talk) 08:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a serious problem. Tony (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this will make life easier, but I added {{ BAG_Tools}} to Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval so the toolbox will show when editing all BRFA pages. SQL Query me! 08:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
JPG-GR has requested that I tag all templates involved in a mass TfD nomination with the {{ tfd}} tag. Tagging even 10 templates manually is pretty annoying, and doing over 50 is unreasonable. So I have prepared a script to perform this task for me.
However, its first job will be to tag more than 700 templates in one go. Do I need to seek some sort of approval for such a large-scale mass edit? The bot policy seems not to mention cases such as this, so I am puzzled. Also, can I run this job from an alternative account? — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I requested at the BRfA that the bot trial for TTObot be revoked. There are no links to community discussions, and the bot owner did not post at the most obvious community board because it "is very quiet."
4 minutes is barely enough time to read the proposal, much less to approve it without community input.
The second place for community input about bots is during the BRfA. No matter how poorly involved the community is in discussions that take place there, the community still has the right to some time to become involved in the discussion.
There is no note in the approval explaining the reason for granting approval for a trial 4 minutes after the request was made, without any community discussion or allowance for discussion.
Please remove this bot approval, request community input at templates, and then allow time for community input in the BRfA. -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This is a BAG courtesy notice. Please discuss the issue at the BRfA. here -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 04:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for BAG members to be so hostile to community input? If someone is discussing an issue with a bot operator in an RFBA and a BAG member disagrees with the community member, how about something else besides hostility and a rapid closing of the RFBA by the involved and disagreeing BAG member?
Again, really no wonder why so few community members want to discuss issues at BRFA when BAG members treat their input like scum to shut up as soon as possible.
Why? Why is there so much hostility at BRFA? And on wikipedia in general?
I am still in the process of discussing an issue with the bot operator here.
I suggested two hours, Headbomb disagreed with me, so he/she suggested otherwise and approved the BRFA to shut me and the discussion up.
Can BAG include manners as a requirement for members? Can BAG include listening to community input when it is given? No, in fact the community does not want bots or anyone tagging articles closely on the heals of contributors. Maybe BAG members could learn about the community. -- 72.208.2.14 ( talk) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please drop a line here to say you are still active. Anyone who hasn't responded within a week (or maybe two weeks), will be moved to inactive. -- Chris 02:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings-
I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. I am looking for members of the Bots Approval Group to interview regarding their experiences on Wikipedia and opinions of technical and governance issues on the site. The interview can be conducted in a manner convenient for you (via an IM client, email, Skype, telephone, or even in-person) and should take approximately 30-45 minutes.
Your participation will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors and programmers like you.
My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.
If you would like to participate or have any questions, please contact me directly via email or by leaving a message on my talk page. Thank you in advance for your interest.
Randall Livingstone
UOJComm ( talk) 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This group may wish to be aware of this proposed remedy in an active ArbCom case. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, we currently have three inactive members who have not edited at all in at least 12 months. User:Fritzpoll has retired and not edited in almost two years, User:Lightdarkness has been virtually inactive for 4 years and the last edit dates back from November 2010 (he has made one logged action in nov 2011 to keep the sysop bit tho) and finally User:Richard0612 has not edited in close to three years. I suggest that there is no point in listing them as inactive, and that we should, as was done in the past, move members who have not edited Wikipedia in any capacity for such lenghty periods of time to the Former Member section. Helps keeping it clean and I see no disadvantage in doing so. Snowolf How can I help? 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There were some prior indicators that permitting this editor to become a bot-op might have negative consequences. Should we have looked for them, asked for them to be disclosed, AGF'd, or something else? If they were disclosed, would the approval process have been any different? Josh Parris 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I recall it used to be common practice to announce BRfAs at WP:VPP; what if we make it common practice that new ops announce their intentions at WP:VPP, and make it clear that part of the approval process consists of approving the op? I hope it's clearly implied that subsequent BRfAs would assume ongoing community support for the op in that role. Josh Parris 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Some BAGgers have said that future requests are invited; given a decision to remove bot-op authorization, what is needed to regain it? Josh Parris 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't wondering about procedures; they'll sort themselves out. But to be clear between ourselves and others, if approval is withdrawn for reason X, once reason X is demonstrably no longer the case, applications are welcome again? Or is there a minimum time frame for BAGgers? Is it simply a matter of impressing a single BAGger that they ought to approve a BRfA, or hoping none of them deny one? Or should a consensus be formed at the time of reapplication? A community consensus, or a BAG consensus? Josh Parris 10:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Not that anyone here really cares about my opinion at this point but this whole thing was blown way out of proportion and was primarily brought about by an overreaction to a minor and easily fixed problem by editors with article ownership issues. I was fixing any real problems as they were brought to my attention as fast as I could and had I been allowed to actually fix the problem they would have been fixed and done long ago. Secondly, there was only one of the approved BRFA's with a problem so the revokation of all of them was a petty knee jerk reaction here as well and completely unnecessary, last the BRFA was open for almost 2 months. All editors had an opportunity to review it, voice there concerns and have their voices heard. With all that said, at this point I have completely lost my appetite for having a bot or even general editing at this point so there is no need to restore anything but there is also not a need to "change the process" and make it even harder and more time consuming to get a bot account. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Do we have an opinion on how a BRFA should be marked as "revoked"?
Personally, I prefer #1. It just seems clearer to me what exactly happened with the request. Anomie ⚔ 20:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Just for what its worth I still think this was a needless knee jerk reaction to a minor problem. There was only one BRFA that was a problem so there was non need to revoke all of them. Additionally, I have removed my name and my bot from the list of AWB users, the bot is stopped and I have no intention of turning it back on so there was really no need to revoke them all. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:49, 25 February 2012 (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.
I just want to state that all these discussions about changing policies and making it even harder to get a bot approved, just because of my bot, is stupid and a waste of time. The whole issue with my bot was easily fixable and would have been resolved long ago if editors with article ownership issues (you can't tag these articles cause they belong to my project not yours) would have been checked. Then I finally get fed up with Markvs88's shenanigans and I submit them to ANI and guess what, I get blocked by an overzealous admin because I made a sarcastic statement to an editor who has done nothing but break policy after policy with no one telling them anything except me. Then that block prevents me from responding to the multi forum shopping spree that editors opened up discussing the same issue. Which I still think was the whole point of the block, if I can't respond, I lose and so does WikiProject United States. Then I leave one comment using my bot just to let them know I was blocked and because of that my bot tasks were revoked and I lost the trust of the community. A trust that was based on several years and hundreds of thousands of edits was easily forgotten in the period of three hours. Yes I am pissed and I have made a few stupid comments because I have seen just how rotten the community can be to a fellow editor who just wants to improve the place. Thats ok now though, because I have all but stopped editing. I really really enjoyed editing and spent thousands of hours on it. So it really rubs me raw that so much energy is being devoted into unnecessary discussion about how to keep editors from submitting bots. We should be encouraging editors to do stuff not trying to find more ways to limit activities. Now I said I was going to take this page off my watchlist and I still intend too but when I see discussions that are clearly directed towards me and my bot I reserve the right to comment and set the record straight. Since it seems apparent that no one is going to bother to ask before making assumptions or actually look into the history of the situation rather than just take action on the last edit. All because a couple editors wanted to break policy and the community didn't bother to assume good faith from an editor with years and years of devotion trying to make the place better. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I really don't want to give the impression that I'm kicking a man while he's down. I understand that Kumioko has been frustrated in his attempts to determine WikiProject United States's scope, by the bot approval process, by his efforts to code his tasks correctly, and by other contributors' reactions to his automated editing. However, in the discussion that has surrounded his latest task, I've become aware of a couple factors that I don't think were considered when his tasks were approved:
In each of these discussions, Kumioko has expressed his frustration in a less than civil manner, has characterized the objections to his tasks as one or two contributors complaining about a few mistakes out of thousands of edits, and has expressed his displeasure at having to stop his bot and engage in discussion. He's justified his tasks by saying they make it easier to code other automated tasks (with which I don't think most experienced programmers would have a problem) and that they speed up the rendering of articles and talk pages (which shows a lack of understanding of how MediaWiki parses and renders pages). He has now been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring over articles that he tagged and, most distressingly to me of all of the above, he used his bot account to evade his block and continue discussion [3] [4].
I hate to be the bad guy here, but I believe Kumioko's violated the trust of the community that's a prerequisite to operating a bot; he's also violated AWB rules of use, the bot policy, and principles established by the Arbitration Committee. I propose that existing approvals for his bot be revoked and that it be removed from the bot group by a bureaucrat. — madman 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't really care at this point about the bot revokation but it should be noted that this is all a knee jerk reaction to en overreaction of a couple editors with article ownership issues and WikiProject United States/Kumioko hateitis. The bot wasn't faulty, the list I gave the bot had a couple bad articles in it, about 161 of roughly 11, 000. Thats about 1.4% It should also be noted that if you bother to look at what my block was for, it was an extremely stupid disagreement with an editor who has shown a strong dislike for AWB in the past (CBM) and tends to overreact to any use of the tool. With that said, after all the work I tried to do to improve this place the community has shown quite clearly to me over the last few days how much my work is appreciated so its better that a useful bot with useful tasks be blocked than to have it make an easily fixable mistake. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
After this discussion this is the best news I've seen around WP in quite awhile. Glad people wised up. Brad ( talk) 10:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, this is incredibly dumb. I reviewed a set of 4 contested edits some time back, each of them was correct. Removing the bot flag is completely over the top. It is one thing to expect bot owners to be responsive, civil etc, it is quite another to hold them to an inhuman (or should I just say supra-Wikipedian) standard. Perhaps before BAG makes these kinds of decisions they should take a better look at realistic standards for behaviour. I am left shaking my head yet again.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC).
What we should do with the bot's tasks? Should these tasks carried on by another bot/editor or just discontinue? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to raise a couple of points for discussion regarding bot trials.
Attention to detail and low tolerance for errors are highly desired attributes for owners of flagged bots. BotPol says that it's not BAG's role to QA bots in trial; is there some way to point out that to ops, and to add a note that if BAG - or anyone else in the BRFA process - finds something the op didn't disclose it makes us grumpy? Should our first question after TrialComplete be "What errors occurred?" followed by "How have you prevented them in the next trial?"
Also, I think the size of the initial trials I've seen approved is too large. I assume a small trial will show glaring errors, and prefer to follow with a larger one to find weird ones. 100 edits is too many to closely review, 50 is a lot of work - especially if many of them are flawed. Are other BAG members trusting the ops to locate every mistake? Should we?
Should we even be trialing "manual" BRFAs? Josh Parris 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Due to medical reasons I'm going to be out of action for a week or two starting Monday. Please feel free to step in wherever needed. Josh Parris 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm helping organize the Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June 2012 in Berlin, Germany. We're going to be discussing and working on the hosted Wikimedia Labs development environment and bots infrastructure, Toolserver, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, MediaWiki's web API, the new Lua templating system, and various upcoming MediaWiki features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
That's one of the upcoming Wikimedia developers' events and I hope some of you can make it.
Registration will probably open next week, and travel subsidies will be available.
- Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here on English Wikipedia or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrator review/MBisanz 2 to help me become a better editor and BAGer. Thanks. MBisanz talk 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there some kind of "speed limit" for interwiki bots? I'm trying to remove some wrong interwiki links here, but the bots keep replacing them before I'm able to remove them from all language editions of the article. — Ruud 22:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
<!-- [[nl:David de Haen]] --> <!-- [[sv:David de Haen]] -->
This ANI thread might be of interest to BAG members. Specifically, it includes a discussion on whether a particular task that is being carried out with AWB requires a BRFA. -Scottywong | gab _ 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone-
I wanted to let you know that my dissertation, "Network of Knowledge: Wikipedia as a Sociotechnical System of Intelligence" is now available on my website with a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. Over a year ago I began this project with the WMF Research Committee and the University of Oregon IRB's approval. Nearly 50 bot operators, WP contributors, and WMF administrators were kind enough to participate in the study, offering their time, opinions, and expertise on issues around bots and bot creation. Feel free to download the document or peruse it online, and I look forward to your comments either on the site or via email.
The manuscript is a bit long (~320 pages) and includes some standard dissertation sections (literature review, methods chapter, etc.). Interviewee contributions are featured most in Chapters 5 and 6 (if you want to skip to the good stuff).
I am at a new institution now and will be going through a new IRB approval process to continue this research, but I do indeed want to continue chatting with the bot and semi-automated tool community. Please let me know if you're interested in connecting this fall, and thank you so much to those who have already participated!
Randall Livingstone UOJComm ( talk) 23:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "SVN" column is outdated, now that MediaWiki development takes place in Git and Gerrit. Should we rename the column to something like "MW Dev"? And should the column indicate anyone with a Gerrit account, or just people who can actually merge to mediawiki/core (AFAICT, that's this list plus Wikimedia Ops people)?
Or should we just remove the column entirely? Anomie ⚔ 16:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why we have the 'crat and admin columns?
Rich
Farmbrough, 02:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
The last person to join BAG did so in 2011, meaning we haven't had a new BAGer for the entirety of 2012. As current members' schedules change, it's becoming harder and harder to promptly respond to BRFAs. If everyone could keep their eyes out for potential new members, it would be most appreciated. Thanks. MBisanz talk 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Some fun data: (thanks to MZMcBride for helping me with the query)
Extended content
|
---|
mysql> /* SLOW_OK */ -> SELECT -> rev_user_text, -> COUNT(*) -> FROM revision -> JOIN page -> ON rev_page = page_id -> WHERE page_namespace = 4 -> AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%' -> AND rev_timestamp LIKE '2012%' -> GROUP BY rev_user_text -> ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC; +---------------------------------+----------+ | rev_user_text | COUNT(*) | +---------------------------------+----------+ | AnomieBOT | 475 | | Hellknowz | 351 | | Madman | 315 | | MBisanz | 216 | | Josh Parris | 216 | | Rcsprinter123 | 159 | | Legoktm | 146 | | Rich Farmbrough | 119 | | Anomie | 114 | | Headbomb | 106 | | Chris G | 105 | | Joe Decker | 101 | | Hazard-SJ | 95 | | Snowmanradio | 93 | | Cyberpower678 | 89 | | GoingBatty | 78 | | Kumioko (renamed) | 76 | | The Earwig | 63 | | Magioladitis | 62 | | Ceradon | 56 | | Jarry1250 | 53 | | Blevintron | 52 | | Kwamikagami | 51 | | Bgwhite | 48 | | Mabdul | 48 | | Ankit Maity | 45 | | Ryan Vesey | 42 | | Slakr | 42 | | Kingpin13 | 42 | | 28bytes | 39 | | Wolfgang42 | 37 | | CBM | 37 | | OrenBochman | 34 | | Dcoetzee | 34 | | Riley Huntley | 32 | | Snowolf | 30 | | Vacation9 | 30 | | Jtmorgan | 29 | | TParis | 29 | | درفش کاویانی | 28 | | とある白い猫 | 26 | | Eagles247 | 25 | | Thine Antique Pen | 24 | | Thehelpfulone | 23 | | Amalthea | 23 | | Dschwen | 22 | | MGA73 | 22 | | Makecat | 22 | | Hmains | 21 | | Addshore | 21 | | Mahdiz | 21 | | SD5 | 21 | | Hyperdeath | 18 | | Wbm1058 | 18 | | Jamo2008 | 18 | | Nettrom | 17 | | جواد | 16 | | Stefan2 | 16 | | ClueBot III | 16 | | Penyulap | 15 | | Shubinator | 15 | | Nathan2055 | 15 | | Vibhijain | 15 | | Jmorgan (WMF) | 15 | | Mmovchin | 15 | | Sven Manguard | 14 | | Dipankan001 | 14 | | Scottywong | 14 | | Σ | 13 | | Ganeshk | 13 | | Hersfold | 13 | | Hedwig in Washington | 13 | | Meno25 | 13 | | Kumioko | 12 | | Petrb | 12 | | Allens | 12 | | Avicennasis | 12 | | Tom Morris | 12 | | Hersfold non-admin | 12 | | Hair | 11 | | Noommos | 11 | | JordanKyser22 | 10 | | DePiep | 10 | | Ethen12 | 10 | | Crashdoom | 10 | | Jesse V. | 10 | | Pigsonthewing | 9 | | Dpmuk | 9 | | Fox Wilson | 9 | | MZMcBride | 9 | | Maximilianklein | 8 | | Robert Skyhawk | 8 | | Stuart P. Bentley | 8 | | Rjanag | 8 | | Feedintm | 8 | | Justincheng12345 | 8 | | Timotheus Canens | 8 | | Stillwaterising | 8 | | MaxSem | 8 | | EncMstr | 8 | | Femto Bot | 8 | | H.b.sh | 8 | | Fastily | 8 | | Traveler100 | 7 | | Multichill | 7 | | 66.127.55.46 | 7 | | Carnildo | 7 | | Danhash | 7 | | Bulwersator | 7 | | Xqt | 7 | | Ocaasi | 7 | | Samoon | 7 | | Razimantv | 6 | | TreyGeek | 6 | | Spinningspark | 6 | | YFdyh000 | 6 | | پسر یاس | 6 | | Enzaiklopedia | 6 | | Steenth | 6 | | Sitongpeng | 6 | | 68.107.140.60 | 6 | | Dede2008 | 6 | | Tow | 6 | | Colonies Chris | 5 | | JaGa | 5 | | AhMedRMaaty | 5 | | A proofreader | 5 | | Heatherawalls | 5 | | Severo | 5 | | Secretlondon | 5 | | Sfan00 IMG | 5 | | Maryana (WMF) | 5 | | Rjwilmsi | 5 | | Tim Schulz | 5 | | Bility | 5 | | Addihockey10 | 5 | | Avocato | 5 | | Mcarling | 5 | | 101.119.18.208 | 5 | | Tony1 | 4 | | Fram | 4 | | Mrt3366 | 4 | | Piandcompany | 4 | | Arb | 4 | | John F. Lewis | 4 | | VolodymyrB | 4 | | संतोष दहिवळ | 4 | | Aviyal | 4 | | Dispenser | 4 | | David1217 | 4 | | PleaseStand | 4 | | Invertzoo | 4 | | Chrisrus | 4 | | Fæ | 4 | | Steven (WMF) | 4 | | WhatamIdoing | 4 | | EauOo | 4 | | Jenks24 | 4 | | Fajr18 | 4 | | Yoenit | 4 | | OsamaK | 4 | | Boghog | 3 | | KTC | 3 | | PedR | 3 | | Fylbecatulous | 3 | | Hurricanefan24 | 3 | | Kizar | 3 | | Vinniyo | 3 | | Alpha Quadrant | 3 | | AnkitAWB | 3 | | Metriki | 3 | | DrTrigon | 3 | | Jc3s5h | 3 | | Renessaince | 3 | | Hypejar | 3 | | Julia W | 3 | | Theopolisme | 3 | | 68.107.131.23 | 3 | | Grashoofd | 3 | | Stepheng3 | 3 | | Materialscientist | 3 | | Kevin12xd | 3 | | 71.163.243.232 | 3 | | Cdwn | 2 | | AliReza | 2 | | Richardguk | 2 | | DrKiernan | 2 | | The Earwig (alternate) | 2 | | Gimmetoo | 2 | | Ralgis | 2 | | Ucucha | 2 | | Djsasso | 2 | | Ryan Ajie | 2 | | ChrisStyles | 2 | | VIAFbot | 2 | | AussieLegend | 2 | | Braincricket | 2 | | Saehrimnir | 2 | | This is also Sven Manguard | 2 | | Warddr | 2 | | Nyttend | 2 | | 124.149.84.97 | 2 | | Firilacroco | 2 | | Calliopejen1 | 2 | | Rillke | 2 | | Timrollpickering | 2 | | Plastikspork | 2 | | Beetstra | 2 | | Kaldari | 2 | | 93.182.168.155 | 2 | | VoxelBot | 2 | | Od Mishehu | 2 | | WJBscribe | 2 | | Davykamanzi | 2 | | Maxim | 2 | | Sun Creator | 2 | | Grandiose | 2 | | Colourful Bling | 1 | | CommonsDelinker | 1 | | 69.255.179.102 | 1 | | Noiratsi | 1 | | Sval972bot | 1 | | WikHead | 1 | | Markhurd | 1 | | Routsatyahcu | 1 | | Warofdreams | 1 | | TedPavlic | 1 | | Xqbot | 1 | | 75.86.137.22 | 1 | | Bwilkins | 1 | | Tim1357 | 1 | | Krellis | 1 | | Masem | 1 | | Intbot | 1 | | Moonriddengirl | 1 | | 83.60.39.124 | 1 | | Worm That Turned | 1 | | Future Perfect at Sunrise | 1 | | AGK | 1 | | LeadSongDog | 1 | | PrimeHunter | 1 | | Cntras | 1 | | WilliamThweatt | 1 | | Jason Quinn | 1 | | Pichpich | 1 | | Ezhuttukari | 1 | | SporkBot | 1 | | GiantSnowman | 1 | | Ebe123 | 1 | | Butwhatdoiknow | 1 | | Nard the Bard | 1 | | Sbouterse (WMF) | 1 | | PsBot | 1 | | Billinghurst | 1 | | 172.218.192.19 | 1 | | MetrikiBot | 1 | | Frietjes | 1 | | Tsor | 1 | | Osarius | 1 | | Mr Stephen | 1 | | MahdiBot | 1 | | BattyBot | 1 | | ThundaBot | 1 | | Avraham | 1 | | Almost-instinct | 1 | | Dalahäst | 1 | | Bencherlite | 1 | | Ramesh Ramaiah | 1 | | Δ | 1 | | 211.235.45.13 | 1 | | Kolega2357 | 1 | | Bibliomaniac15 | 1 | | SarahStierch | 1 | | Lionelt | 1 | | JamesR | 1 | | Shmomuffin | 1 | | 131.230.81.166 | 1 | | John Vandenberg | 1 | | 84.189.74.14 | 1 | | Nouniquenames | 1 | | TBrandley | 1 | | Jayron32 | 1 | | Toa Nidhiki05 | 1 | | John of Reading | 1 | | 67.117.145.9 | 1 | | Mabeenot | 1 | | Mainulmizan bot | 1 | | Geoff Rounding | 1 | | Svick | 1 | | Gigs | 1 | | Rschen7754 | 1 | | Light-jet pilot | 1 | | Dicklyon | 1 | | Simeondahl | 1 | | Hmainsbot1 | 1 | +---------------------------------+----------+ |
Legoktm ( talk) 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see: this bot problem. If one of you folks could have a look and fix this problem, it would be appreciated. — Ched : ? 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look at the discussion on User_talk:Bishonen and give their expert opinion if the edits from the 91.x.x.x Deutsche Telecom range look they might be bot-like or script-assisted? They are mostly formatting changes, some of which involve finding and removing non-visible elements like HTML comments, which is hard for me to imagine how they could be done manually with that kind of proficiency... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 07:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
For example, how did Special:Contributions/91.10.0.199 find five articles in under two minutes, all having the same "formatting comments"? 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 11:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask. I've been working on a bot that creates some maintenance lists for WikiProject Physics. The bot is only ever editing pages in its own user space, so I understand from WP:BOTAPPROVAL that it doesn't need formal approval. However, one of the tasks might be of interest also for many other wikiprojects, so I'd like to ask for advice before letting the bot create a lot of pages. I think it should not get a bot flag since it's desirable that its edits show up on watchlists of interested users. The question is if it should still get formal approval or if an informal tumbs-up is sufficient (or if you think it's a bad idea to run it at all...). — HHHIPPO 13:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, bot approvals are really handled by this group and bureaucrats simply apply a rubber stamping because only crats have the technical ability to add the bot flag. Is this the best way to do things, or does it make more sense to simply make a new userright for bot approval group members so bureaucrats don't have to apply the rubber stamp?
Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucrat tools. AutomaticStrikeout ? 17:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Could some respond at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 24, please? Is there a general backlog? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I asked a question at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Link to blocked editor, and I think the bot operator may be on a wikibreak, so I'm posting here in case anyone else can answer my question there. I'm somewhat eager to get an answer because, depending on the answer, there may be a problem with block evasion. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion at AN is now concluded. I would like to explore further what it would take to make it so that bots would be able to reject requests from blocked users. Although a variety of opinions have been expressed by various editors, I think that it has become apparent that it is desirable to start working on this – not urgently, but as an improvement that eventually ought to be made. If I understand correctly, it would be good to start testing OAUTH, and subsequently to start finding ways to work it into the bot request process. Do I understand correctly? Is this realistic? Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please forgive my lack of expertise, but on re-reading above, I see that there is also something called TUSC. Do I understand correctly that it, unlike OAUTH, is far enough along that it could be used in principle, other than that it would be a lot of work for which there is low enthusiasm? What are the advantages and disadvantages of TUSC relative to OAUTH in this context? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've rejiggled the BAG-member activity list
-- Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user,
-> (
-> select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where
-> rev_page in (
-> select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
-> and rev_timestamp>'20131001000000'
-> and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> and
-> rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) as sub
-> where user_id=rev_user
-> group by user_name
-> having brfas>1
-> order by user_name
-> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie | 11 |
| Hellknowz | 24 |
| Josh Parris | 35 |
+-------------+-------+
3 rows in set (0.11 sec)
-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user,
-> (
-> select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where
-> rev_page in (
-> select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
-> and rev_timestamp>'20130101000000'
-> and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> and
-> rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) as sub
-> where user_id=rev_user
-> group by user_name
-> having brfas>1
-> order by user_name
-> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Addshore | 86 |
| Anomie | 31 |
| Chris G | 30 |
| Hellknowz | 77 |
| Jarry1250 | 8 |
| Josh Parris | 36 |
| Kingpin13 | 11 |
| MBisanz | 88 |
| Madman | 6 |
| MaxSem | 2 |
| Maxim | 14 |
| Quadell | 2 |
| Snowolf | 2 |
| The Earwig | 12 |
+-------------+-------+
14 rows in set (0.10 sec)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Parris ( talk • contribs)
Just wanted to check where the BAG stand on this issue. If a user has an approved AWB bot, do they have to run a new BRFA for every task, or if it is a small run (eg. <200 pages), can they just run that without approval? Thanks, -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 08:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
We have 3 "active" BAG members and a collection of semi-active BAG members. Based on the fact that we have bot tasks falling off of WP:BOTREQ and WP:BRFA requests withering on the vine, I have to ask if we need to add annother BAG member or two to ensure that requests are being actioned in a reasonable timeframe. This may include putting forth my own candidacy for BAG. Thoughts? Hasteur ( talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user,
-> (
-> SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE
-> rev_page IN (
-> SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
-> AND rev_timestamp>'20140401000000'
-> AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> AND
-> rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) AS sub
-> WHERE user_id=rev_user
-> GROUP BY user_name
-> HAVING brfas>1
-> ORDER BY user_name
-> ;
+-----------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-----------+-------+
| Hellknowz | 2 |
| MBisanz | 13 |
| MaxSem | 2 |
| Slakr | 9 |
| Tawker | 2 |
+-----------+-------+
5 rows in set (0.07 sec)
-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user,
-> (
-> SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE
-> rev_page IN (
-> SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
-> AND rev_timestamp>'20140101000000'
-> AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
-> )
-> AND
-> rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
-> 1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
-> 590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
-> 134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
-> ) AS sub
-> WHERE user_id=rev_user
-> GROUP BY user_name
-> HAVING brfas>1
-> ORDER BY user_name
-> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie | 6 |
| Hellknowz | 22 |
| Josh Parris | 7 |
| MBisanz | 15 |
| MaxSem | 2 |
| Mr.Z-man | 2 |
| Slakr | 9 |
| Tawker | 2 |
+-------------+-------+
8 rows in set (0.06 sec)
I think backlog has seriously reduced. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
See User:Williamrochira: Revision history and User talk:2.96.110.80. Confirmation of my interpretation of policy and – if the IP requests it – further expert advice would be welcomed. Thanks! — SMALL JIM 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard because I'm not sure if people read both pages).
Greetings bot developers and administrators! I'm the author of a software library called WikiBrain that democratizes access to Wikipedia-based algorithms from the fields of natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and GIScience. We would like to make these features available to bot developers and Wikipedia researchers through a web API, and have written an individual engagement grant that would support this work.
We need your help in designing the API! Do you have a bot that wants a bigger brain? Head over to the use cases feedback page, review the features WikiBrain offers, and add a sentence or two to tell us what you'd like included in the API. I'd also love pointers to other places to get in touch with bot developers. Thanks! Shilad ( talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am not really passionate about running bots, but I need to solve the T-cedilla problem (replace T cedilla (Ţ) with T comma (Ț) instead) and it would be too much work for asking others to do it. T cedilla (Ţ) was wrongly atributed to Romanian language and in fact no language is using T cedilla (Ţ). It must be eradicated everywhere in Wikipedia articles, by the way (except just a few articles like cedilla).
All the categories that contain a T-cedilla in their title must be renamed (replacing T-cedilla with T-comma) and the articles must be moved into the new category. For example, the articles inside Category:H.C.M. Constanţa handball players must be moved into Category:H.C.M. Constanța handball players. There are about 139 such categories, for some of them the work is already done - I listed them here: User:Ark25/Robot#T Cedilla - Categories. I started to do the work manually with my bot candidate: Special:Contributions/ArkBot. I am already using ArkBot at Romanian Wikipedia ro:Special:Contributions/ArkBot and I am fairly used with AWB - tens of thousands of edits (more than 20.000 for sure.). Although I would be very happy if someone else would take care of removing the T cedilla infestation, by the way :). — Ark25 ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It stopped on December 8, don't know why, I need to check my Tool labs account, but I can't access it, I think I need a new key to do that. Lbertolotti ( talk) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I solved the problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 January 2015
Just formally noting that I've proposed am arbitration motion that mentions the BAG. Don't think it really has much effect on y'all really, though. Courcelles 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
(discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Bot policy)
Which bot checks external links to make sure they are still good (and not dead)? Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Request_for_comment:_Bot_flags_and_bureaucrats for a proposal to adjust the way that the bot flag is assigned. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 20:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
A user came to complaining that the BRFA process is slow at the moment. Need another user to help out?— cyberpower Chat:Online 01:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi fellow BAG's, active members have likely been called to this discussion. Please review Special:PermaLink/726543278#Statement_by_Xaosflux - am seeking consensus for formally removing prior approval for these old tasks (not currently running due to arbcom sanctions). Should the general sanction be lifted I suggest they be represented if desired to give opportunity for community discussion. — xaosflux Talk 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's what I had already in mind. No old task should be resumed. Most of them are outdated, completed or now done by other bots in a more optimal way. Any bot run should go through the normal bot approval process. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It would have been courteous to ping me about this discussion. I came across it reviewing Xaosflux's contributions for their RfB.
More - it would have been sensible to sound me out about the proposal, to obviate the need for discussion, as I quite willing to re-apply for the tasks.
I take it that FemtoBot 7 would not need re-application, as suggested by Xaosflux in the amendment request.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC).
I've indeffed InternetArchiveBot as it is apparently malfunctioning. Not entirely sure of the protocol as it's the first block I've ever done on a bot. Owner notified, any admin may unblock withour further reference to myself. Mjroots ( talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't have a formal "activity" requirement for BAG membership, however User:EdoDodo appears to have left Wikipedia, with no edits in 5 years - baring any objections I think we can take that as a retirement notice from BAG. Any objections? — xaosflux Talk 16:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently blocked Yobot for making cosmetic-only edits. The discussion is at User talk:Yobot#Expanding templates. It then transpired that many of these edits do not actually have consensus in the first place, in some cases actually being vigorously opposed. The problem seems to be that there is no quality control on the contents of AWB general fixes. I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes. Spinning Spark 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
My point is that some general fixes do not have consensus to do at all, either by themselves or as part of a more substantive edit, and nobody is controlling this.Is this still your point? I've been taken to ANI, threatened to be blocked and asked to be blocked for something AWB's genfixes did that was not "consensus". This includes removing blank lines between items in a list for accessibility. This includes moving TOC so screen readers can access the article. This includes making a cosmetic edit minutes after the issue was fixed, and they thought one cosmetic edit is one too many and bot should be blocked. This also includes fixing brackets, headlines and defaultsort. What you call uncontroversial is controversal to others and visa versa.
The very first complaint should have instantly got it taken out of AWB.... Then AWB would have no fixes. The TOC fixes were given approval on BAG and the accessibility page. It is in MOS. I was still taken to ANI multiple times because there was no general consensus or editors of that page should decide TOC placement. Removing the blank lines was given approval on BAG and accessibility pages, plus posted to proposal pump. It is also in MOS. Again, people wanted it to stop and there were requests for me to be blocked because there was no general consensus or it was "trivial edit". No AWB genfixes has "consensus". You are holding Yobot hostage and demanding all AWBs stop until your AWB's pet peeve is fixed. My bot's bad block came from an admin who thought the bot shouldn't be "fixing" their articles, even though the "fix" is in MOS and the issue can cause problems. They blocked me out of the blue and wanted it to stay blocked until their pet peeve was removed. It was quickly overturned and there was a "fun" discussion on should the bot be doing that at all.
I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes.Bender the Bot, Josvebot and JJMC89 bot are examples where genfixes was asked to be turned off or bot was denied. Add the bot approvals from above that stated genfixes would be used. The answer is yes, BAGs do exercise control. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Bgwhite: Just to be clear, Fluxbot task 6 does not use genfixes at all. It only uses a specific find/replace table to target the malformed tags it is approved for. I don't really like genfixes for my bot in general, and never run them. — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The real issue here is a small number of AWB bots for which the maintainers do not put in effort to prevent cosmetic-only edits. There are other AWB bots whose maintainers manage to avoid that problem, so the issue is not AWB itself. The solution of simply having AWB bots (in fact, all bots) only perform the specific changes which they are approved to make, and not apply other "general fixes", would certainly solve this issue. And it would be in line with the idea of bot approval. In general, if there is clear consensus for a certain style to be implemented everywhere, a bot could be approved to make that change, so there is no need for bots to make extra unapproved "fixes" while carrying out approved tasks. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Another example would be the changes that Dexbot is currently making, such as this . This is adding a template that changes the appearance of an external link from Official website to Official website. There's no problem with the former version, and in fact it is explicitly permitted by our guidelines ( WP:ELOFFICIAL): the use of templates in this area is strictly optional. The change isn't a "fix" at all: it is cosmetic and appears to be the personal preference of an editor. As far as I can tell from the records, the decision to try and change every such link on the wiki to use a template appears to have been taken here, back in August, by a single member of the BAG. No RfC that I can find, no wider discussion, including on the relevant guidelines page. I don't think this sort of wiki-wide change should be carried out without establishing consensus first. Hchc2009 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Fram has now cleared out nearly all the template redirects from AWB, I think mostly in frustration at this problem. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation. As AWB genfixes are being carried out by a large number of editors as well as bots, I propose that BAG treat AWB itself as a bot and require approval for additions to genfixes, and retrospectively require approval to be sought for existing genfixes. If this isn't done we will only end up with genfixes filled up with controversial stuff again in the future. Spinning Spark 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Most of AWB's general fixes are based on Guidelines and Documentation. I try to keep a record of all of them in WP:GENFIXES and WP:AWB/H. Today one of the last longstanding problem, the newlines between the headers has been removed from "general fixes". After redirects discussion, I think there is still one issue to be resolved with one way or another and we are done. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Glad to be part of BAG! :D As one of my first orders of business, I wanted to propose renaming the "Bot Approvals Group" to simply "Bot Approvers"... As flattering as it may be to be part of it, I personally think "Bot Approvals Group" sounds like some elitist cult, and the "BAG" acronym sounds quite silly when used as a descriptor. E.g.
Magioladitis is a wonderful bag [member]
,
Slakr is one of the best bags
, or
Xaosflux is one of the oldest and baggiest bags
(pings intentional, plz don't mind the humour). One might confuse "bot approver" as being a real user group, but I think that's OK. The current name just sounds weird when the obvious and more straightforward "bot approver" can be used, as most people have no idea what BAG stands for. I know
The Earwig mentioned he wasn't too fond of the name, are we alone on this? Perhaps it's too big of a deal to carry out a rename (all the pages, templates, etc.), for something so simple? I noticed the nifty
WP:BA redirect is linked all of
17 times, so we could hijack it —
MusikAnimal
talk 01:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Spinningspark, would you mind looking at the discussion at User talk:Ladsgroup#Cosmetic edits, and decide whether Dexbot should be blocked? I asked him to stop, but he has resumed.
Ladsgroup is a Wikidata developer and works for Wikimedia Deutschland. Magioladitis asked him to convert all official websites links to templates for Wikidata purposes, like this. Wikidata-enabling edits are a contentious issue on the English Wikipedia. In addition, the guideline says that using templates is optional. So (a) this task has no consensus, (b) it ignores the relevant guideline; and (c) the bot operator arguably has a conflict of interest—not an issue if he has consensus; without it, it's an additional problem. SarahSV (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Following on from earlier conversations, I've been trying to get User:Ladsgroup to explain when the BAG approved the task behind the cosmetic edit here. So far, the conversation User talk:Ladsgroup#Latest Dexbot changes... hasn't got very far; if I understand Ladsgroup correctly, he accepts that the change is cosmetic and that the task wasn't approved by the BAG and shouldn't have been undertaken by his bot, but would be grateful if User:Xaosflux or another member of the BAG could confirm - Ladsgroup isn't very clear about this sort of thing normally. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:03, 24 December 2016 (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.
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Activity_requirements for a proposed amendment to the bot policy. — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)