Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group

Archives
Archive 1 August, 2006 and earlier
Archive 2 September, 2006—March, 2007
Archive 3 March, 2007—May, 2007
Archive 4 May, 2007—October, 2007
Archive 5 October, 2007—August, 2024

Information

This is the talk page for the Bot Approvals Group. Specific bot requests should be placed on the Requests for approval page. See the Bot policy page for more information on bot policy. This page is specifically for issues related to the approvals group. At the moment there is no formal policy for adding and removing members of the approvals group, but one will likely be formulated in the future. This is, however, the correct page to discuss member changes.

Discussion

Post a comment to add a new topic of discussion.

Me too

Seems a good time to join BAG. I've been running a bot for over a year, and comment here fairly often. Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · logs) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see you around a lot, commenting on BRFA's. You seem to know your stuff. Plus, it seems like additional help is needed :) Thanks for volunteering! SQL^{Query me!} 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support He's a reasonable fellow person. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comment anyone? SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support — I've heard of him, he seems to know what he's doing. — Werdna talk 05:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Restore and bump. Gimmetrow 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support; this request has been languishing for far too long since we have been distracted by drama. — Coren ^(talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion closed, user promoted. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dittohead

Might as well try again. Was in under the old system for like 2 days or so until I removed myself because I had a differing opinion on the Bot process, but {{sofixit}}, might as well help again. Q ^{T C} 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Knows his stuff. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• You obviously know your stuff, and, seem willing to help with the backlog. Support. SQL^{Query me!} 10:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I went looking for Dittohead (talk · contribs) :) Support. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comment anyone? SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, you say you have "a differing opinion on the Bot process", could you explain what that is? WjBscribe 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of it can be found here. I was accused of 'fast-tracking' through a bot approval, since in my eyes, the bot policy at that time were that trials were only given once a general consensus was met that the task was needed/helpful/etc and fit the criterion, and as such with my assumption of the above, seeing nothing wrong with the trial run, went ahead and approved the bot. Q ^{T C} 06:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems pretty clear to support. Majorly (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. Are you supporting this nomination, or, indicating that your opinion of the outcome is in favor of the supports, or, pass? SQL^{Query me!} 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the consensus to flag is obvious. Majorly (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion closed, user promoted. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image bots

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

List of image bots

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

• User:BetacommandBot
• User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot
• User:STBotI
• User:ImageResizeBot
• User:ImageRemovalBot
• User:MiszaBot
• User:ImageTaggingBot
• User:OrphanBot
• User:FairuseBot
• User:BJBot
  • User:NotifyBot (seems to be the rename for the image task)
• User:CommonsDelinker
• User:ImageBacklogBot
• User:Staeckerbot speedy nominates orphaned duplicate images
• User:MetsBot - various image tasks
• User:John Bot III

Last updated: 01:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BAG as 'arbcom for bots'

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposal passes. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---

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

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

There are 9 active members of BAG, 1 (Beta) recused, and 3 (E, Gimmetrow, and OverlordQ) who were inactive at the start of the vote, so 5 votes is a majority. Once one section reaches that many, or after a reasonable amount of time, or once ST47 is lynched for proposing this stupid process, this vote will end.

The vote has reached a plurality of 5 votes in support. If the vote remains at a plurality in support 24 hours after 22:51, April 11, 2008 (EDT), this request will be considered successful.

Support

1. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
3. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
4. — Werdna talk 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I re-read the nfcc10 template that Carnildo was kind enough to supply. it actually does link to WP:FURG. I'd be a little happier, if it mentioned the specific why, but, I'm satisfied at this point. SQL^{Query me!} 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Your name here

Recuse/Abstain

• Betacommand automatically recused, it's his bot.
• Even though I am currently listed as "inactive" ("semi-active" would be more accurate, really, but oh well), I nevertheless abstain due to requirements that I be impartial in another venue discussing this same issue. I do not have a strong opinion either way at all, and trust my fellow BAG members to decide what they feel is right and use common sense in reaching that conclusion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral till the bot operator states his opinion on such change. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Same as Snowolf -- Also leaning towards oppose, based on the weak templates (no offense, but, they're more vague than the ones left now...) SQL^{Query me!} 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Support. SQL^{Query me!} 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Could you link me to the tags that we are proposing asking BCBot to use? Also, It's my understanding that BCBot uses ordinary templates. Could we not just modify those? SQL^{Query me!} 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Personalized versions of User:OrphanBot/nosource, User:OrphanBot/norat, and User:OrphanBot/nocopyright. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, the one Beta would mostly be using, is the norat one. While it is very friendly, it is extremely vague. It should at least link to instructions on writing a fair use rationale. SQL^{Query me!} 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If User:OrphanBot/norat is too vague, how about User:OrphanBot/nfcc10c? --Carnildo (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot tags shoud definitely make it clear they are from a bot, and as such explain the problem may be completely trivial, and provide a clear list where the potential causes of bot tagging are listed, and also inform the uploader that a third party's actions may have invalidated a valid image. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

the message BCBot leaves is {{Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} and {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}. β^{_{command 2}} 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For the neutrals, I believe BC's opinion was 'for the love of God don't have a vote'. It's on ANI/B somewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually on the talk page of the proposed decision. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Well, it's too late for that now SQL^{Query me!} 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from others

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

Gee, you're fast! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support this method. I'm totally for it :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments on this process

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

I'd just like to note that ex post facto changes to general bot policy shouldn't be handled in this method. 'BJBot needs to follow policy X' is fine, 'All bots must now follow opt out scheme X', not so much. BJ^Talk 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This is intended for specific changes to bots, which I believe to be within the remit of BAG. I do not believe that a blanket change to policy can be made by BAG, so that would have to be done by the community as any other policy proposal. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, this process is a very good idea, especially for de-approvals, problems, or, other such tricky situations. Great work, ST47! SQL^{Query me!} 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot policy change proposals

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

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

Did someone just overstep their remit?

Self-declaring yourselves as arbcom for bots? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my words, they were brought up on the RFAr. I thought that was what everyone was using to refer to the proposal of BAG taking a more proactive role in the operation of bots by reviewing the community's requests to bots. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Scary. So I take it we have a glut of bot writers and operators then? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Just a few who all get on really well... (and then some who don't). In my view, it all boils down to the "technical" issues and the "community approval" (and review and input) issues, including post-approval objections based on policy. As long as BAG realises it needs to deal with both, and deal with genuine concerns, then things should be OK. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If we only have a few, isn't all this overkill?

Query: Is User:Andre Engels a member of BAG, or consulted? ("litmus test")--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The list of members is over there. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a No then. Hmmm, and Rob Church is also not available for advice anymore either, is he? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Also, User:Jimbo Wales, User:Pilotguy, and User:Eagle 101 are not members of BAG. We might as well just shut down, with so little community support - is that what you're suggesting? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind sharing what you're on about then? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So I don't really have anyone to spy on you to be sure you're behaving! O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Do you think Jimbo would make it into BAG though? I'm not sure he's very skilled with bots...

Does a bot operator's withdrawal invalidate a request

Slightly tricky one this, as it was a controversial request and the bot request listed more than one operator. Anyway, one of the bot operators withdrew, but the bot request was not changed and it now looks like it was approved with only the two people listed at the moment. People will only see the change if they look in the page history. My concerns are here. I notified the BAG member concerned. Would other BAG members like to comment? Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why SQL's disinclination to continue operating the bot would have any effect on the bot's approval status. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 03:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But should SQL's original presence on the request, and his subsequent withdrawal after the approval, be noted on the request? Currently there is absolutely no indication of this to the casual reader of the request. I would make the change myself, but the recent page history suggests that all edits by non-BAG members get reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly (and, my reversion of that tag was unintentional), the only revert I can really see a really, really good reason for, was the one where the actual assigned status was monkey'ed with. If it helps, I'll make it clearer that I withdrew from it, on whatever date it was. SQL^{Query me!} 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you add the following somewhere near the current list of two operators: "User:SQL was originally listed as an operator, but withdrew at 07:29, 8 April 2008, a few days after the approval was made." Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'll get it in shortly. SQL^{Query me!} 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done [1], sorry for the trouble. BTW, March was a month ago :P SQL^{Query me!} 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd take this occasion to propose that a new format for bot request be adopted. Something like all the requests in one place, with the updates and so on. This would also facilitate in case we progress on the bot removal (meaning bot removal requests by third parties and subsequent discussion). I'll see if I can draft something on this subject tomorrow or so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Back in the BAG

I was part of the bag under the other system but I didn't reapply when the system was reverted because, I though it would distract me from status bot a task that I had been neglecting for some time. Now that I've got status bot fixed up I would like to rejoin the bag. Also is it still the practice to spam all the notice boards? I know it has been in the past but I'm not to sure at the moment with all the bag changes going on --Chris 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a current change to pot policy which would require an RfA-like application for all BAG applicants, retroactively. If you want to join now, then Support, however you might want to wait until the policy has stabilized and you can do the new vote. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm putting this On Hold until everything is sorted out --Chris 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is presently a legitimate way to do it. Support, if you chose to unhold it, you seem to know your stuff (IIRC we spoke the other day about PHP bots, and you seemed to keep up :) ), and, we could really use more people whom are interesting in participating / closing BRFA's... SQL^{Query me!} 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unholded this and moved it to Wikipedia:AN#BAG_Membership --Chris 08:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I propose that we move this page to Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group over the existing redirect. The attempt to keep everything on Wikipedia about bots as a subpage of Wikipedia:Bots was laudable, but since it is not complete, it's also counterproductive, resulting in an unintuitive title. Of course it's not a problem for the main page, because there's a redirect, but for subpages, it's unnecessary extra hassle to remember that the page is at a silly title. Happy‑melon 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was bold and moved it already. Any objections? Happy‑melon 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You did manage to confuse me thoroughly while you were doing it.  :-) I have no objection to the result, however. — Coren ^(talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I managed to thoroughly confuse myself, never mind anyone else :D! I was utterly convinced I has somehow managed to create a redirect pointing to itself. Happy‑melon 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Handling a case

I have a test case to discuss. A couple weeks ago I noticed a bot malfunctioning and left a message at User_talk:SatyrBot#Serious_bot_errors. I think it's helpful to be able do a few test edits for code validation. Would others handle this differently? How should BAG handle situations like this? (I have my own views how BAG ought to function after a bot is approved, but I would like to hear other ideas too.) Gimmetrow 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that not only should the bot operator respond in a timely manner, and stop the bot if it is currently running, but that they should help correct and/or undo the incorrect edits, using the bot if necessary. Unfortunately, while stopping the bot and starting discussion is usually not a problem, getting a bot operator to actually help fix the problems is not always so easy. Often it is left to others to fix, or everyone gives up and nothing gets done. Which is not good really. The "give up" option usually arises when thousands and thousands of incorrect or otherwise problematic edits are discovered after the fact. Sometimes quite some time after the fact. I would also prioritise fixing of article problems over talk page problems, but still urge that the "bot operators must fix the errors made by their bots" part of the bot policy is actually enforced, and that BAG be given the teeth to enforce this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in looking over the bot's contribs, there appear to be serious errors. As the botop is not responding, I would suggest either temporarily suspending it's approval, or, probably a better option, temporarily blocking it, until it's operator shows that they are aware of the issue, and are working on cleaning up after it. If there are no objections here shortly, I will block it myself, until such time as the criterion I listed are met.

Example major bug edits: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (top 5 talkspace contribs from this bot). I should note, that this bot has not edited the talkspace since 4APR2008, hopefully because it's operator knows there is an issue. Thoughts? SQL^{Query me!} 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, SatyrTN isn't responding right now because he is on a WikiBreak. APK ^{yada yada} 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know. I left the original message only shortly after the bot stopped running. The idea was that the bot not be blocked so SatyrTN could do test edits, but anything except test edits would lead to a block. 05:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but, at this time, the bot's state is unknown, and, it's last known state was running and malfunctioning, with no acknowledgment as of yet from it's operator. As it is flagged, it will not show up in recent changes, and, at this point, I believe that it would be safest to assume that it may restart at sometime in the near future, still broken. In that case, it could go on for some time, unnoticed. In example, it's last edit to NS1 was 4ARP2008, and, you hadn't noticed / mentioned it until 16APR2008. 12 days later. Therefore my suggestion is to block it, until at the very least we hear something from the operator. SQL^{Query me!} 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean 6 April. Gimmetrow 05:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we're both wrong... 5APR208... SQL^{Query me!} 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the bot stopped 5 April, I left a talk message 6 April. Gimmetrow 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not totally related, but a few days ago I found some strange bot tagging here. I went to User:Reedy Bot's page and found the message "bad category tree, please just fix it yourself". For some reason, I can't even find that message anymore. Just noting it here as a fix-your-own-mess concern. Franamax (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Even if someone passes a bot bad data, the bot operator should still have the option to undo its edits. I know this is sometiems difficult, but even just reverting the "top" edits (where the bot made the last edit to the page) and listing the other pages and saying "a human needs to revert these", would be better than nothing. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I would be shouted down with vehemence if I actually proposed it, but I personally think bots should produce detailed and accessible logs of their runs, showing date, page, sub-rule that triggered the action and action-rule executed. Also, if the bot locally stored the "before" and "after" text fragments, back-out would not be that big of an issue regardless of whether it was still the top edit, as in, if the "after" text still exists in the page and is unique, substitute the "before" text. Franamax (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some bot operators do produce more helpful things like this than others. See the bot operated by User:BrownHairedGirl, which is at User:BHGbot. An example is User:BHGbot/Job0001. Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec)Not speaking about this situation specifically, which I haven't reviewed yet, but as reply to Carcharoth ;-) I think that a bot operator that can't or won't fix his/her bot's errors is not suited as bot operator and therefore shouldn't be allowed to run a bot. Whether it's for lack of technical knowledge or lack of will, shouldn't matter. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what is wrong with any of the five diffs provided above as "example major bug edits". Hesperian 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page message. There are three different types of errors. Those listed above (with 5 examples) add a nested=yes parameter to the talk page template, but they aren't put inside a shell template. In most cases there isn't a shell template on the talk page at all. Gimmetrow 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - yes, there does seem to be a problem with "nested=yes" being added, plus some random pipe characters showing up. I will fix that before running the bot again. I'm not sure when that will be, but I'll fix it before starting it up again. FWIW, the bot is programmed to automatically quit if there are unread messages, so Gimmetrow's msg on the 6th stopped it from running any further. Thanks for pointing these out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding. No worries about blocking it from me then :) SQL^{Query me!} 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing nomination archives

Now here's an interesting exercise. Here is an incomplete table of current BAG members (both active and inactive), with a link to their archived candidacies, and the number of contributors to each discussion. Can anyone point me in the direction of the archives which contain the other half of the candidacies :D? Please do add to this table if you can locate any more of the discussions. I have a suspicion that, quite apart from the big kerfuffle over the RfBAG/WT:BAG processes, some of the current BAG members (particularly those who have been there since the beginning) have never been approved by any process. To be honest, I'm not that fussed - they've clearly proven themselves worthy if no one's noticed for two and a half years; I'd just like to get all the data in hand. Happy‑melon 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BAG member	Approval link	!votes cast
AllyUnion	Initial member	??
Betacommand (1st)	approval	5
Betacommand (2nd)	approval	6
Carnildo	Initial member	??
Cobi	approval	13
Coren	approval	2
Daniel	approval	7
E	approval	7
Freakofnurture	Initial member	??
Gimmetrow	approval	5
Kingboyk	approval	4
Lightdarkness	Not voted in	--
Madman	Approval	6
Martinp23	approval	7
MaxSem	approval	5
Mets501	approval	6
OverlordQ	approval	5
Pgk	Initial member	??
Ram-Man	approval	8
Reedy	approval	3
Robchurch	Initial member	??
Snowolf	approval	5
Soxred93	approval	3
SQL	approval	5
ST47	approval	11
Talrias	Initial member	??
Tawker
Voice of All	approval	9
Werdna	approval	10
Xaosflux	Added by Essjay	--

Well if you want mine, just scroll up the page to the Dittohead section. Q ^{T C} 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks (spent so long digging through the archives, never thought it might be right in front of me!). Happy‑melon 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of those date back prior to march 2006. The record keeping back then was fairly bad. Im not sure where or when those discussions took place. β^{_{command 2}} 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo & E are from the trail period. β^{_{command 2}} 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

E is, carnildo is not, he's been in bag forever. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a few I found, still hunting the rest down. Notably, Beta had 2 candidacies, and kingboyk seems to have disappeared. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've finished mostly, tawker seems to have added himself, can't find a vote, and I haven't yet found any justification for the original member list, it may be on the old policy archives, but I've not found it yet. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, a group was selected. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

E wasn't ever a trial member. He specifically asked to be voted in and was voted as such. I recall Misza putting up a tough series of questions ;-) It should be in the archives somewhere. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. Someone screwed up an archive. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How many bot operators

Go on, give us a ballpark guess. How many bot operators are there on the english wikipedia, do you reckon? Happy‑melon 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been counting? Um. 100? :-) (Is this active operators or all those flagged as bots - hang on, that's number of bots, not number of operators). Number of bots flagged on en-wiki is 406 (see here and click next and count 6...). Now, we have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} = 856), but do we have an equivalent for number of bots? Hmm. Seems no: Template:NUMBEROFBOTS. BTW, if you are doing stats, could someone organise the bots or bot tasks by type of job or area? See Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Image bots for my attempt at a list for image bots. I'd love to know how complete that list is. Anyway if the number of bots per operator is somewhere between 1 and 2 (much closer to 1 than 2), then I would say we have about 350 bot operators? Is there a prize for this sweepstake? Carcharoth (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Electing

I'm electing to work with the BAG here, I'd like to add myself to the table. Need consensus to do so. I don't think there needs to be a whole process, just some discussion/consensus. Thanks for the consideration. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• what if any experiance have you had with bots or the bot process? β^{_{command 2}} 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the past I have run a successful bot with the flag, a couple of tasks. I will send the name of the bot to selected users in good standing. Actually scratch that. Why don't we wait untill I can demonstrate this. On hold unless you all are already ok with my working with bag. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do provide me with the bots that you have operated. otherwise I cannot and will not support your request. β^{_{command 2}} 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, I'll wait a couple of months and demonstrate this. So my request is on hold. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My turn.

• MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• I respectfully request BAG membership. While I do not run any official bots on the English Wikipedia, I'm proficient with both JavaScript, Python, and AWB. I'm one of the more knowledgeable users regarding MediaWiki (from the front-end) and I regularly request database queries from the Toolserver to create lists of pages to process that are in long-forgotten parts of the project. I've commented on previous bot requests and I've cleaned up two erratic bots in the past. I'm familiar with the role of BAG, the role of bureaucrats, and bot policy. SQL has been a bit less active than usual lately, and I would be more than happy to help where I can when I can. I would kindly ask that you ask me a couple of questions (this is a discussion after all ; - ) ) before supporting or opposing me, as there are undoubtedly things I have left out of this statement. Thanks for your consideration. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here are some questions that have gotten some informative responses at the RFA style RBAGs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What is your opinion on BAGers flagging bots?

   When this came up on WT:RFA, I commented there (see this). Basically, I think the bureaucrats are more than capable of handling this task. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?

   From what I've been told, BAG used to allow the community-at-large to simply add their names in order to be members of BAG. At some point, this changed from a simple sign-up to be a discussion on this page. If possible, I would be in favor of re-examining the old methods that were once used. If it were practical / feasible to re-implement a more "laid-back" system in which people who were interested could sign themselves up and participate in BAG, I'd be in favor. I've spoken with current BAG members who feel similarly. Community input is a good idea, especially when these bots can have a direct impact on a lot of members of the community (image tagging, Manual of Style changes, etc.). The current seemingly "ivy tower" view of BAG (and those who run it) should be mitigated. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've seen MZMcBride's work and he does understand the technical nature of bots and how the interact with the MediaWiki software. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: MZMcBride is very knowledgeable when it comes to bots and our software. There is absolutely no reason that I would not support his candidacy for BAG. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, MZMcBride really knows his stuff, as pointed out above. He would be a great asset here. SQL^{Query me!} 05:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Has been commenting on bot-related matters for a while. Gimmetrow 05:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I know there's a moratorium on at RFA, but the last 7? requests went without a hitch. Any reason why you think you're special? AKAF (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Policy permits running here. Your oppose makes no sense. SQL^{Query me!} 12:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Policy is unclear, and there is currently a lack of consensus. I have no particular problems with this request method in particular, but I am absolutely unable to see why there should be open requests at both RFA and here at the same time. In the absence of an explanation by MZMcBride, I'm rather forced to conclude that this is an end-run around the community, particularly since waiting a week would probably have avoided the problem. I see a request for BAG membership here at this time, in part, as an effort to reduce the community participation in this request, since the majority of recent notifications have been on RFA, rather than here, or at AN. I would note to other participants that I attempted to include a neutral notice in the correct area at RFA to direct interested parties here, which was reverted by SQL. I see this request as being indicative of poor judgment, and including insufficient communication with the community, both of which have been past criticisms of the BAG. Therefore I am opposing MZMcBride's request at this time. AKAF (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Man has a point and can really oppose for whatever reason regardless if anyone doesn't like it. This is a talk page and not a request page. Seems to me that any approval process of BAG memebers should be as well documented as the one for bots. --Lemmey talk 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • AKAF: To say that the current RfA-style system is simply "disputed" would be an understatement. There is currently polling be done regarding adminship and other similar issues, and one of the questions pertains to BAG nominations being on the RfA page. As it stands, there are 35 opposes and only 5 supports (see here). So, to say that I'm actively going against community consensus is a bit silly. : - ) Also, as SQL has said, there's a moratorium on all new RfA-style BAG requests. I also notified both the bot owner's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard of this request, and I'd be happy to post elsewhere if appropriate, to ensure as wide as possible community input. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support for having sufficient brainpower not to participate in the farce at WP:RFA (hopefully this cancels out the above ridiculous oppose). Martinp23 10:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest support possible A surely welcome addition to the BAG. He knows his stuff and seems to know also everything that goes on :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral (leaning towards oppose) MZMcBride's technical knowledge is sound, but I am concerned by the numerous threads like this, which cast doubt on his judgement and communication skills. I have also had a personal encounter with him making bold deletion sweeps through the template namespace with minimal regard for false positives. I don't have strong enough feelings to strongly oppose this nomination as the issues are not directly bot-related, but I think there are serious concerns that need to be addressed before I can fully trust this user. Happy‑melon 10:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, that was the first thread to ever have me as the primary subject on AN (after over 100,000 deletions). (Though, feel free to correct me.) Yes, it's true that I do a fair number of deletions, though generally it's housekeeping work. At times, a bot will run loose and create thousands of subpages, which requires some cleanup. Most of the time, I do R1s or G8s – pretty uncontroversial for the most part.

    If there are template taggings that you disagree with, please come to my talk page. The science behind determining whether or not a template is still actively used certainly isn't perfect, which is why there is a seven-day wait before deletions are done, and the template creator is notified on their talk page. However, it's incredibly helpful if editors come to me and point out a pattern of templates so that I can filter them from my list. It isn't always apparent that templates are related, especially when they don't use categories and are sorted by a suffix or something obscure. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I object: that was my screw up, nothing to do with the bot :D! As I've said in various places, I generally applaud the work you do in cleaning the Augean Stables that is the underworld of Wikipedia; what we had issues with on the template deletions was that, having decided (usually correctly) that something needed doing, you tend to take a fairly liberal view of such mundane issues as policy or community support for the necessary actions. 99% of the time that's not a problem, because A) you usually guess correctly whether or not an action is good, and B) even when you don't, most of the things you do are tasks that no one else wants to trouble themselves with, and so as long as you don't screw up big time, no one really cares. Don't get me wrong, you're a tremendous asset to Wikipedia; just not, IMO, in a role that involves evaluating community consensus. Happy‑melon 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • /me goes to salt and blacklist forever Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/MZMcBride. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - If it's a question of trusting the candidate's actions when the rest of us may not be watching, then, I do. - jc37 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Out the window with new editors: Bad bots, careless owners

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.

---

What is it about Wikipedia that makes it so that bad bots that attack new editors are run by programmers who don't care what their bots do?

VoABot II is not approved for edits like this.[7]

Its approval says it is approved for "obnoxious banned users/trolls with revolving IPs, general AOL/shared IP vandalism and spam patrol and page move patrol are also included." Then goes on about long-term steady vandalism of pages or vandalbot attacks.

Correctly adding an "s" to two words does not smack of vandalism. Now the editor probably won't make any more edits--I wouldn't, if I got accused of vandalism for correcting poor grammar in an article, particularly if it had been my first edit ever, and I was accused by a bot!

Why is it that bots answer to no-one? And their owners personally attack users who don't like this?[8]

So, assume good faith is out the window for bots, don't bit the newbies is out the window for bots, and no personal attacks is out the window for bots.

Homeobox is a really bad Wikipedia article on a major topic in evolutionary biology and genetics. It needs good editors. When I make substantive edits on Wikipedia one of the first things I do is edit grammar, punctuation and spelling. When I did this as an anon IP, I got reverted a couple of times by bots. So I left the crap in the article. Does Wikipedia want experts or do they want bots? The bots can't write the articles, so they ought not to be charged with interfering with good faith editors who can.

--Blechnic (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And of course, and faulty action any bot won't be reviewed, because any one who accuses a bot of making an error is attacking all bots.[9] Yawn. What's with the "I am your daddy" complex on Wikipedia anyway? There's no way wikipedia could approve a less than perfect bot, so bots can do whatever they want, and if they harm good editing of Wikipedia it doesn't matter, because AFG, BITE and NPA are bull pucky policies, or what? --Blechnic (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DUDE! Bots make mistakes! Chill out and cut the rant! Please. Thank you, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I always tweak code after mistakes are reported too. And the number of reports to edits is very low. I randomly checks diffs sometimes too to look for mistakes. The problem here is how the bot owner is approached. Voice-of-All 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't, not according to VoABot II's owner. And, in fact, you all lie on the Bot page, because you're not allowed to discuss it with the bot's owner, because they don't make mistakes. DUDE! CHILL OUT! NO NEED TO SCREAM AT ME AND ACCUSE ME OF RANTS! --Blechnic (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

However, personally attacking me is probably faster than dealing with the issue or nicer to the ego than admitting a bot made a mistake. --Blechnic (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said they "don't". In fact, each warning says "if this was a mistake". It is on the bot's help page to. Also, calling a comment a "rant" is not a personal attack. At most, it is mild incivility. Voice-of-All 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the edit does not say "if this was a mistake" either in the edit summary, which says:

"23:17, 2 May 2008 VoABot II (Talk | contribs) m (8,599 bytes) (BOT - Reverted edits by Gbirrane {suspicious edits} to last version by DOI bot.) (undo)"

Or in the warning on the user's page which says:

"Your recent edit to Homeobox (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. // VoABot II (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)"

However, I'm not surprised, consider your attitude towards me and the poorly programmed bot, that you don't even know what your bot is doing. --Blechnic (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad your bug report to VoA was so helpful and polite, that certainly made him so much happier about receiving it. And that your comments here have been so open-minded. If you had been an ass to him, and ignored the nature of bots as machines that can make mistakes, it might explain why he was so short to you. Oh wait, you were an ass to him. And you invoke AGF against him for his response when you didn't even begin to consider AGF towards VoABot? You, sir, are the reason that so many bot operators feel so detached and alienated by the community: they receive impolite, sometimes abusive comments about the user's hard work, and then are lynched when they respond in kind. You'd almost think that we were treating bot operators the same as their bots: as though they're machines without feeling. You certainly do know a lot about retaining good editors. Since admins don't write articles either, let's get rid of us. The rest of you can have fun dealing with users who can't be blocked, pages that can't be deleted, and trolls who answer to noone. Oh, and let's get rid of commons, since there are no articles there, userspace, WP:space, fire the board, fire brion and tim, end all development and bugfixing for wikimedia. For the articles! For a new regime of manual labor without automation to assist us! Three cheers for the dark ages of WikiMedia!!! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I didn't criticize the bot's hard work, I criticized its bad work. Try being more accurate when you blow steam at someone. The bot could try being more accurate. And the bot's owner could learn what its bot's message actually say before wrongly quoting them. --Blechnic (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. VoA didn't put any effort at all into writing an anti-vandal bot, it just popped up one day on his computer. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In which case, the bot approval link is false and should be removed. --Blechnic (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And the spawner paid no attention to if it works or not. Soxred93 (u t) 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Even more reason to do away with the whole bot approvals group and process if no one pays attention. --Blechnic (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add another link for reporting errors in the revert summary, to make it even clearer. Voice-of-All 01:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that plus what else you have done is an excellent way, imo, to approach the issue. --Blechnic (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

*Applauds ST47.* And good idea VoA. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(to VoA's useful comment, not the bandwagon jumping stomp the newbie free-for all addition by Compwhizzi -- cough cough) That would have been a nicer start to this whole thing. The sort of thing people like Wikipedia administrators and bot programmers should consider in the first case, not after making accusations and ignoring concerns. But I've been here long enough to expect less.--Blechnic (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ow, the lack of AGF! It hurts! Look, bots make mistakes, and the owners make mistakes when programming. How is that different from when a regular editor makes a mistake, when they overlook something? There really isn't a difference. Soxred93 (u t) 01:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

to VoA's useful comment, not the bandwagon jumping stomp the newbie free-for all addition by Compwhizzi -- cough cough And people wonder why I have a short fuse.... CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct, no difference. So, when the bot makes a mistake, you discuss it with the bot, just like when the editor makes a mistake you discuss it with them, or you revert, or you discuss it on the article's talk page. Oh, wait, there is a difference, you discuss it with the bot's owner. And, this bot owner decided he/she didn't want to discuss mistakes.

Short fuse? You're the one who started by screaming at me "DUDE!" Although that's one step down from being called a Nazi, there was no need to focus on my behaviour ("ranting," which is a personal attack), and to scream at me, then be aghast that people accuse you of having a short fuse. Short fuse implies someone else lit it, not self-immolation. --Blechnic (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I never meant to scream at you. Can we just end this already? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. This whole thing could have simply been done away with by the bot owner just checking the problem with the bot. I suggest to the bot approvals group and to bot owners that this course of action, looking at complaints, rather than attacking the complainers, is better for Wikipedia. Editors who wish to edit content, rather than rant, can do so. --Blechnic (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved, further discussion will just fan the flames further. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

What fans the flames is the way people carry on attacking each other, not discussion of the substantive issue. I strenuously disagree with us allowing bots that revert people's edits just because they are new. This functionality is not approved, and the functionality should be turned off until it is approved, which should be never. Hesperian 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is used for pages semiprotected from banned users (to avoid full-protection). "Evolution" pages were also being patrolled, which has since been turned off. Aaron Schulz 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the Homeobox page badly needs major editing. When you scare off good editors by accusing them of vandalism for something like making a sentence agree in number, then revert to the bad grammer, you run off potentially good editors. The bot won't be editing the Homeobox page, but neither will the editor accused of vandalism for correcting a grammar error. --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept that there can be any extenuating circumstances that justify blanket-reverting people just because they are new. Hesperian 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is better than semiprotection. The bot uses heuristics to apply it to less edits and to very new users based on edits/pages. Semiprotection locks the page from all new users. Full protection locks it from everyone. Aaron Schulz 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The heuristic, then, is the problem. It's already well established that Wikipedia has far too few editors editing and creating new articles on genetics and virology. Some of these areas have topics which are high edit and potentially, therefore, high vandal, targets. When I started editing with an IP I didn't start with my subspecialty, but rather with the higher level articles in my area. Perfectly good edits of mine that corrected misinformation or made grammar edits were reverted (by bots, not some by humans). I see now that you explain this bot, why this happened on the major articles, but not generally on more obscure articles.

New editors who come to explore Wikipedia, then, become the more usual targets of these bots because they don't know they can safely correct plurals and grammar and punctuation in articles with fewer vandals, but will be reverted and accused of vandalism on other articles. I think this is a bad idea. Wikipedia does not really see the bad will it creates with its blind zealotry towards vandals, that includes capturing experts and grammar patrollers.

Also, I don't see that this is specifically approved for this bot. Is it? --Blechnic (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was the main thing it was approved for. Other tasks were added and approved. This is only for cases where semiprotection is failing and full-protection is needed. The idea is to try to avoid that. As long as it sticks to only watching semi-protected pages from banned users, then it should be fine. This was not the case for some articles when all "Evolution" pages were watched, which is why it's not watching them anymore. Anyway, semiprotection and bots watching those pages is just a blunt tool, I'd rather replace it with Flagged Revisions in the future, if doable. Aaron Schulz 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something. This is what the bot's approval says:

"The purpose of this approved bot is to patrol articles and revert edits from obnoxious banned users/trolls with revolving IPs. General AOL/shared IP vandalism and spam patrol and page move patrol are also included. This is useful against both for long-term steady vandalism of certain pages or vandalbot attacks on many random pages. Semi-protection cannot be used for random page vandalism and it can be needlessly limiting if long-term use is applied to pages just to stop shared IP vandals. Similarly, move-protection is useless against random page move attacks. Additionally, "throwaway" accounts can make semi-protection end up as full protection."

The edit I complained about was not an "obnoxious banned user/troll with revolving IP, AOL/shared IP vandal/spammer/page mover." If semi-protection and bot patrol had done one of those things, I could understand it. But this is not what happened. And editor, newly registered, added an appropriate "s" to the end of two words, and this was listed by the bot as suspicious. I don't see that it did any of the things it is claimed it does, but rather something entirely different, namely what Hesperian is complaining about: it reverted the user solely because it was a new user account editing a semi-protected page. No other reason in the edit that was made is a vandalism flag. --Blechnic (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what it does. It patrols semiprotected from banned users for certain edits by very new users that haven't meet the exclusion heuristics and reverts those edits until some other can look them over. That is what it always did. It *is* over-inclusive, like semiprotection is. But it is better than full protection. The real problem here is that all Evolution pages shouldn't have been being watched, that would have avoided that edit. That was the mistake. Only things in the "semiprotected from banned users" category should be watched. Aaron Schulz 03:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is permissable to revert editors just because they are new, is an question that cuts into deep philosophical issues such as what exactly our mission is, and whether we are still "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". You don't get to claim a mandate to do this kind of thing on the basis of such a vague approval statement. You should be getting explicit permission, and not just from the BAG, but from the community at large, and perhaps even the board; I suspect if Jimbo knew about this he would be pretty peeved, as he has always vigorously defended the principle that Wikipedia be easily editable by anyone.

I think it is not better than full protection, because full protection doesn't discriminate against anyone, and it prevents edits rather than rejecting them after the fact. To allow editing, but then subsequently reject edits from newbs, is needlessly insulting.

Hesperian 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jimbo's user page says it best:

"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other."

Hesperian 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't what I wanted to wake up to. I'll comment after I finish reading. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Let's get this strait.

1. Bots make mistakes. So do you.
2. It's not made to scare off good editors by accusing them of vandalism for something like making a sentence agree in number. It's a mistake with good intention. Show some good faith.
3. Soxred93 is right. Blechnic should of shown some good faith when contacting VoA. This is absolutely not how to approach anyone.

Also a recommendation to Bot owners. If the bot is to create a new User Talk page it wouldn't hurt to welcome the fellow. :) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I see why the above discussion degenerated into a shouting match. I've raised a legitimate issue here, and your response is to dismiss it with "bots make mistakes", and then falsely accuse me of assuming bad faith. Hesperian 00:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been made to feel unwelcome here, and since the deeper issues this raises are not and never should never have been the purview of the BAG, which is the group "which supervises and approves all bot-related activity from a technical and quality-control perspective",[10] I have started a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VoABot II. Hesperian 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Community involvement of bot tasks is welcomed, and an RFC may help to determine what the community consensus for this task is at this time. I've placed some comments on that page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Hesperian here. Semiprotection is better than blanket reversion of new users. — Werdna talk 07:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is to prevent full protection, not semiprotection. Aaron Schulz 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Catch_22

As it involves bots,policy ,permissions , approvals, and advice given by the BAG I post a RFC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Catch_22 --Lemmey talk 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WT:BOTS

Note, a section regarding WP:BAG in the bot policy is currently under dispute, with the page being temporarily protected--please see that thread if you are interested in the topic. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Throw my hat in

• Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• I've been getting more involved in the technical side of Wikipedia operations lately and think I have a pretty good grasp of what is needed on BAG. I currently run a bot with 2 approved tasks, one using AWB the other Python and I've commented on multiple bot requests. I've also done a fair bit of Javascript coding and a handful of patches to MediaWiki core code. Feel free to ask any questions you might need to clarify things. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And, another one.

I know, this is a bit unusual, but, bear with me here. I would like to nominate Krimpet for BAG. She does run a bot, KrimpBot. Krimpet has a great handle on wiki coding, and I think would be a very fair BAG member, considering both technical and non-technical issues in closing BRFAs. Krimpet has a m:Toolserver account, and, has used that to develop the tool we presently use to detect TOR nodes. We need a more diverse group, of active BAG members at this time, in my opinion. It is my firm belief, that Krimpet would be a hard-working, valuable addition to the BAG team. SQL^{Query me!} 06:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Krimpet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Krimpet, if you would, please indicate your acceptance (or not) of this nomination here: