Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:BAG)
Jump to: navigation, search

Requests for BAG membership[edit]

Requests to join the Bot Approvals Group are currently made here, although other methods have been proposed. Users wishing to join BAG, or to nominate another user to become a member, should start a new nomination page via the form below (replacing "UserName" with the nominee's) and transclude the discussion in a section below. Please note that notification to WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON is required. After a suitable length of time (usually one week unless the nomination has not received a reasonable level of support), the discussion will be closed by a bureaucrat.


Other discussion[edit]

Feedback on the design of a bot-centric web API[edit]

(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)

No more interwiki bots[edit]

(discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Bot policy)

Time to add more active BAG members?[edit]

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)

Well, considering that I'm still willing to help, but I haven't done much BRFA work because of RL and my continued work on my bots and my new tool, so I won't likely receive sufficient support.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ran Josh Parris' sql from above again for more up to date information.
Can I suggest we trial a peer review system, whereby any bot operator in good standing can trial and approve another's bot request (i.e. a seconder), provided:
  1. The request is at least seven days old
  2. The request is uncontested and unlikely to be controversial
  • Any BAG member may overrule these decisions
930913 {{ping}} 15:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No please :( Legoktm (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to pick up some slack soon, this is hardly a new phenomenon and I'd rather have bot requests waiting than bad bots approved. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
While the situation is problematic, we've already tried a trial system in the past and it did not work out well. Bots have a lot of potential to cause damage and upset editors. I suggest that we instead once again point out that a) everybody is welcome to comment on pages, and that is very helpful b) people should candidate themselves for the BAG :) Snowolf How can I help? 17:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think backlog has seriously reduced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

IP apparently running a bot[edit]

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!  —SMALLJIM  13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot policy allows editing in the operator's userspace without requiring approval. Would be nice if they used an account though. Legoktm (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Ha, thanks for that – I didn't read down far enough, did I? However that statement must be subject to the overriding requirement that everything done here must be to help build the encyclopedia, which isn't obvious from the edits (though we can AGF for now); and continuing to produce edits at the rate they have done today (93 edits in a bit over 2 hours) might run the risk of being considered disruptive. Isn't there a test wiki that they can use for extensive initial testing like this?  —SMALLJIM  14:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The IP is responsive, I replied on its talk page. — xaosflux Talk 00:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)