Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group

Requests for BAG membership

Archive

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 section here (directly below this heading), where informal discussion and comments on the candidate's suitability may be made. 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

DASHBot misbehaving

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)

I don't know about that but I've had quite the opposite problem, DASHBot isn't running some of the things it's supposed to be running. For those of us that work in images, DASHBot taking over Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request was a lifesaver. It seems that function is no longer being done by the bot. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes fixes

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)

Your bot needs to do it in one edit, checking for redirects. Running through all the articles making a cosmetic change like that, simply to stop yourself from having to check for redirects (which should be a really straightforward check) is not really acceptable. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to do it this way. Please unblock my bot to perform other tasks and continue this task the way you suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Snotbot 6

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)

Do I need a BRFA for this?

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)

You most likely do, yes. Also, is AlexNewArtBot not running anymore? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fire up a BRFA tomorrow. And yes, AlexNewArtBot hasn't run for two months, talk page messages and emails go unanswered. tedder (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Only six active members?

That is a serious problem. Tony (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you prose a solution to this? There have been far and few successful nominations. Without too much ranting, BAG is not the most grateful work around Wikipedia and any bot task consensus problems are related back to BAG member(s) who approve/deny the bots. I can see the editor reluctance to work in this area, but then again I have no real solutions either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)