Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval

Is approval scheme working?

It was recently agreed on Wikipedia:Village pump that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task should require BRFA. One concern was that it would be impossible to follow up, has this been the case? Take for instance Sasata's recent large creation of fungi articles. Or Fergananim's very short articles on medieval Irish aboots, like Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain. According to the new regulations these should both require approval, but I can't see that this has been done? Lampman (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the content creation bot BRfA which is open atm, there haven't been many (if any) recent BRfAs for page creation. But then, this proposal hasn't been widely "advertised", and I'm willing to bet that the users mentioned above aren't even aware of it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this was an issue brought up at the discussion: that it would be just another layer of guidelines and regulations that nobody would care about or even know about. I should perhaps bring it up at the Village Pump to figure out how it can be better advertised and implemented, otherwise it's rather pointless to have such a rule at all. Lampman (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the community has decided that mass content creation must be done by an authorized bot, it can be enforced as part of the existing "no unauthorized bots" rule. Although it would probably be better to just warn the user first for the moment. Anomie⚔ 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Most likely approve

Why is it bot policy that a bot will most likely be approved after a community discussion? Isn't it that a decision to approve a trial will be made after discussion?

After a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input, an approvals group member will most likely approve a trial for your bot and move the request to this section.

What? --69.225.5.4 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement is accurate from a historical standpoint, mostly becuase people rarely ask for approval of a controversial task. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a statement about the history of the policy; and the policy isn't just the type of tasks, it's the code, the feasibility, what the community desires. There are plenty of bots that are not approved, so it's inaccurate.

To say the task "will most likely be approved" smacks of a lack of regard for community input.

BAG members should approve trials only if there is support for the bot and the bot is in accordance with policy.

I'm going to reword it, barring input from BAG saying that, indeed, they "most likely" approve trials for bots. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since August 1, there have been 4 bots denied, 3 requests expired, and 6 withdrawn by the operator. A good deal of the expired/withdrawn ones were approved for trial at the time of closing. In that time, there have been 33 approved bots. So "most likely" does seem accurate. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It should outline policy, not predict the results of a request. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypotheticals.

So, suppose someone wanted to run a bot that did admin activities, but was not themselves an admin. (I can't program, so no, this isn't asking about me.) Is this allowed? If it's not been considered, should it be allowed? Also, what about someone who is an admin, runs a useful bot, and is desysoped? (Or, what in the case where a regular user who runs a bot is banned.) I'm just curious how such issues are approached, so I can better know policy. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not allowed, as it would allow someone access to the admin tools who didn't go through RFA. If an admin is desysopped, their bots would be desysopped to; if a user is banned, their bots would be banned (and deflagged) too. If a user is just blocked for a short time (e.g. a 31-hour block), I don't know whether their bots would be blocked too or if they would be left alone as long as they weren't used for block evasion. A bot's activities (or the operator's activities relating to being a bot operator, e.g. communication) can also be brought to this page for review, which could result in the bot being deapproved. Anomie⚔ 11:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick approvals without community consensus or discussion

There was a remark that this bot was approved without community consensus.[1] ("Bots seem to get approved based on a technical evaluation rather than on whether they conform to bot policy by only making edits that have consensus, as happened here.")

The bot was approved in two days with no input from anyone else in the RFBA process, other than bot operator and single BAG member who approved the bot for editing thousands of mainspace articles after examing some trial edits made by the bot before it was approved for trial edits, also, thereby, eliminating the opportunity for community input on the trial run.[2]

This bot only edits pages which have the parameter blank already, but the parameter does not show up in the article if not filled in (| oclc = | dewey = congress = ), and whether it should be filled in by a bot should be discussed with the wider community to gain consensus for the bot task.

I would like to see some time pass before bots that impact article space widely are approved.

Bot policy requires that a bot "performs only tasks for which there is consensus," means that bots should not be approved for main space tasks without community input. One BAG member does not constitute community input, imo.

Link to discussion calling OCLC linkspam-controversy.

[3]

[4] This link is not about CobraBot. I include it because a quick search shows that OCLCs are something that generates a lot of discussion on en.wiki. This discussion mentions, for instance, that consensus shows "OCLCs are considered superfluous when ISBNs are present." This discussion shows that, contrary to being approved, the CobraBot task maybe should have been denied as there might not be community consensus for the task at all. Consensus is required by bot policy. None was asked for in this approval. No time for community input was allowed before community approval. A prior bot was stopped from doing this task by the community. Maybe this bot task should not have been approved against community consensus.

--69.225.5.183 (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume that Kingpin was working under the assumption that this was an uncontroversial task, relatively easily undone that wouldn't be irritating to the community. The question on gaining community consensus for a bot task is tricky - do we need to actively seek it out for every single task? If it affects a specific set of articles, it's a good idea to go to the relevant Wikiprojects to ask for input first if it's going to cause a major change. But if we went and asked for every single little cleanup bot then we'd get no input at all - the community is strangely disinterested in bot operations and would quickly tire of our requests. So, not to dwell on the specific case as you request, the general case is that many tasks will in practice, be approved, when there is no consensus against the task rather than a positive consensus in its favour. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this specific case the task is a controversial task. If the time on the RFBA board had been longer than 2 days, I might have been able to point this out because I've seen discussions on wikipedia about OCLC.

So, if the task is going to impact article space, and it's going to impact a lot of articles, and it is adding something new, this was not the time, imo, to make a quick solo decision the task was not controversial.

Just because a parameter is available in an article information box doesn't mean adding it via a bot is non-controversial. The organism article boxes have dozens of parameters that could be filled with a bot, if you started filling all of them, or even some of the hierarchies in all organisms, the bot would be blocked immediately by one of the biology editors with admin privileges.

Yes, there is a lot of community disinterest in bots. But I don't think this was a good situation for assuming that the bot would be uncontroversial and could be quickly approved, because a search by the BAG member in non-main space would have revealed discussions about the issue, the BOT is adding information to an infobox, the BOT is working in article space, and the BOT is impacting thousands of articles.

In addition, the bot owner was notified that his task was not controversial and should have stopped the bot at that point and revisited its operating parameters at the time, since the flag was given without any community input other than rapid approval by a single BAG member.

I think a default position, when dealing with editing thousands of mainspace articles, that no word against something in less than two days is tacit approval is a poor operating practice in a community that works on consensus. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to follow your initial suggestion that this was not specifically about CobraBot and not comment on it, since I have no insider knowledge about what Kingpin's reasoning was. As a BAG member myself, I'm also not going to revisit it and try to second-guess what I would have done. The question of community consensus is a witty one in all walks of Wikipedia - what constitutes a consensus, etc. That clause exists not to force us to race out and gather consensus, but to avoid approving things where there is doubt. Sometimes that goes wrong, as may have happened here: perhaps we need to be more thorough and that's certainly a comment I'll take on board. I'm looking at the dates in this particular case, however, and not seeing how we'd have found the main discussion, which occurred after approval. Will re-examine your links to check what I've probably missed. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say there was little to indicate that this task would be controversial: The only discussion linked above that dates to before the BRFA was Template talk:Citation/Archive 3#Why OCLC?, which didn't actually generate a lot of discussion and was located on an unrelated template's talk page. The documentation for the template in question does mention "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", but I missed it at first when checking just now because I paged straight to the documentation for the oclc parameter itself rather than reading through the introductory text. And Cybercobra did stop the bot once it became clear that the task was in fact controversial (although it does seem most of the controversy is due to just one very vocal editor on a crusade).

Sure, this might have been avoided by insisting on arbitrary waiting periods before bot approval and other bureaucracy. But is more bureaucracy really either necessary or desired by the community as a whole? Anomie⚔ 17:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - a system like this will always allow some number of mistakes to occur - and all that tightening the rules too strongly will do is to make the 99.99% of never-controversial bots that BAG handle much slower to process. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If anything is to come of this, I think it should be that unless the task has positive consensus, the bot operator should be willing to stop it at the first sign of opposition and take part in the discussion. Too often it seems that operators refuse to stop their bot until someone really starts screaming. Franamax (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever lack of indicators beforehand there were about the controversial nature of this task, I think it should be considered that the task in general added a lot of edits to article space, added a visible parameter to articles, and this was done without community input. What's important to me, is that a bot not be approved so quickly when it is editing main space, when it is editing it in a way that human editors haven't (it's not changing a template that has been deprecated, for example, but adding something that meat editors didn't put in the articles).

In this instance, and in future instances, where the bot is adding something to articles that will appear in mainspace, and adding it to a lot of articles, and, most particularly when the addition is a link to an external site, the task should not be considered non-controversial as a default value. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That (like 1RR) is probably a good rule to follow in general, although it needs to be balanced against the ignorance and pointiness factors. Anomie⚔ 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR with bots is a good rule to follow with bots.

Adding thousands of links without community input is a major concern. However, in the case of mainspace edits that contribute to thousands of article additions or changes, I would like to see community input at least given a chance in the future, and anything that makes this explicit to BAG members would be a way of addressing the situation.

At this point, however, I would also like community input about rolling back the bot edits, since they were made without community input, and they link externally. This should not have been done without major community input. And, in the case of future editing mainspace with a bot adding external links, I think the default value should be to not do so if the community has not positively spoken for adding the link. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant 1RR is generally a good rule for human editors to follow. Most bots should be following something akin to 0RR, although there are a number of exceptions (e.g. bots implementing CFD decisions). As for CobraBot supposedly adding external links, you're making the same mistaken assumption User:Gavin.collins insisted on repeatedly making. Anomie⚔ 03:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh on the 1RR. I checked, and there was no link before the bot added the OCLC, and there is one afterwards. So, the bot added a link, it's through a template, I suppose, but it is still links. If the links aren't there, maybe you could link to a CobraBot addition that shows the before there is and after there is or before there isn't and after there isn't edit. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot added the oclc parameter to the template, what the template decides to do with it is beside the point. As mentioned elsewhere, if the community decides that external links to WorldCat are inappropriate the template would be changed with no alteration to what the bot did. Anomie⚔ 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to put functionality in a template that may or may not be used at the time the template is created. Again, this is the case with taxoboxes, for example. There are multiple parameters that are not necessarily used. It's the community that decides, or the individual editors, to use that parameter in the template. In this case, because the community was not consulted the decision to activate all these links was made without a single mention of it in the BRFA or anywhere. Neither the bot creator, nor Kingpin mention that this bot will be creating active links where none existed before by editing this parameter. ::::So, it's another point I guess, for bot instructions, when the edit that is being made will be making links, this should be explicitly stated in the BRFA. And it's another good reason for requiring proactive community support rather than just a lack of disapproval for that particular bot. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every bot contributes to thousands of articles. What is or is not trivial/non-controversial is always a judgment call, and therefore impossible to insure 100% accuracy. In this case there was no reason to believe filling in an existing template parameter would be controversial. (And in all reality most controversial requests are unlikely to draw objections until they go live, as 99.9% of Wikipedia pays zero attention to BRFAs.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we've kinda moved on to how to handle it in the future though. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if the application is filed and quickly approved, bots still have more oversight than most users. They have a bot owner who (almost always) takes responsibility for errors, and while many edits may be made, they can be very easily stopped with no repercussions (through blocking or shutoff buttons). More analysis on "pre-editing" in the human wiki world would lead to claims of WP:CREEP. tedder (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that "say no to linkspam" says it all, no matter what the age. There was no consensus to actively link to this site, the bot move forward without gaining any community consensus, making en.wiki the "feeder site" to thousands of links to worldcat. The community should decide whether or not the infoboxes provide links to this particular website, not BAG, particularly since BAG's fallback is to generally approve a trial, then approve the bot for flagging based only on technical issues.

BAG itself seems to indicate there is no design for community input: a trial is "most likely" approved, without rgard to community input, then the bot is approved solely on technical issues. Linking thousands of wikipedia pages to worldcat required community consensus, not rapid approval. If this is done here it could be an easy avenue for vandalism. --69.226.111.130 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm in the camp that says that the bot is not adding the link to WorldCat - the template is. If there's no consensus to link to WorldCat, then the template needs to be changed - if Cobra went through and did it all manually, it would still be overlinked. The bot may have highlighted a controversial template setting, but it didn't create it Fritzpoll (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot used a functionality of the template without community input. As I said above, there are dozens of fields in wikipedia taxoboxes. If you assign a bot to fill in every one of them, the bot will simply be blocked by a responsible admin. Even if you approved a bot to fill in only a specific field on every single taxobox the bot would be blocked unless it went forward with community consensus.

The spirit of the policy for community consensus at wikipedia is that the community gets some say in the matter. Find all the technicalities, "the field exists, therefore it should be filled in," it doesn't amount to community consensus. BAG approved a bot to do a task without gaining community consensus.

It's for the community to decide whether or not that field should be filled in on every article, not for an individual BAG member. I've already linked to a discussion showing there appears to be no consensus for that field to be filled in. Bots policy doesn't say "if there's no consensus against something a bot can do it."

What it says is, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: performs only tasks for which there is consensus." So, let's run with bots policy. There is no link to community consensus for this task, because there was no attempt to establish community consensus for the task.

Other templates have blank fields. If there is consensus by the community to have a bot fill it in, fine. But there isn't. So, rollback of an unapproved bot task is a simple and straight-forward means to take care of the issue. --69.226.111.130 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree. There seems to be no oversight or governance policy in operation here. Bots and automated tools seem to be performing many tasks with out consideration to the wider issues involved or the consequences of bot actions. Blaming the template and washing of hands is frankly a cheap way to sidestep the issue of linkspamming. Obviously the principal of duty of care has not permeate down to BAG yet. In theory the bots should be accountable to the wider community. In practise, the legitimate issues brought to the attention of the bot operators are ignored. Its "one rule for you, one rule for me" as far as I can see. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Relevant ANI thread Gavin is referring to. tedder (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"I note that User:Cybercobra commented that the bot was being suspended "pending an WP:ANI thread"[184]. If that was changed to "pending a much wider consensus that this is an appropriate task for a bot than the one person who approved it" I would be willing to close the discussion here, because it would not need administrator action such as blocking. I think that there's a much wider issue at stake here about the fact that one editor can put up a bot for approval, and it can get passed by one other editor because it works, without any consideration as to whether there is any consensus about whether the bot's actions are acceptable. At least if we are going to allow that to happen we should have an understanding that a bot operator should suspend a bot, pending discussion, in response to a good faith request by an established editor. WP:BRD is a well-known adage, but, when a bot is doing lots of bold edits it's impossible for a human to maintain the same pace to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)"

So there was an ANI CobraBot's operator knew about, dealing with this issue, that no on bothered to post, and there was a user who was very interested in the topic, and a couple of editors who felt the bot should be stopped? I'd like the bot blocked and its flag removed until community consensus is established and all of the information is considered. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Task 2 is significantly different in that there is no linking involved whatsoever and also I posted notice of the BRFA for Task 2 to Template talk:Infobox book, where Gavin and Phil were actively discussing the OCLC issue, so the argument they weren't made aware is bunk (not that I think there's any obligation to personally inform specific editors of discussions); Phil even explicitly approved of task #2. As for Task 1, anyone who disagrees with it is perfectly free to file an appeal to BAG about it (no one apparently found it necessary to do so, even though I repeatedly and explicitly informed the aggrieved parties of the option; why they didn't appeal, I have no idea). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, if you actually read the entire thread, you'll see pretty much no admins found the bot to be at fault. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I should say this is not the place to be pointing fingers at anyone in particular, so lets not get sidetracked by the Cobrabot actions, and assume good faith in the first instance. To be honest, I disagree with Cybercobra, but there is a broader issue here.
My concern is about one thing: the action of bots can overwhelm Wikipedia's entire inventory of policies because the scale of bot actions in a short space of time is far greater than individual editors could achieve in a lifetime. Bots are to spammers as crack is to adicts. I think BAG has a duty to tune in to the issue of duty of care or just admit its a Wikiproject that is "out of control" and is adicted to automated editing as an end it itself, without regard to its wider effect. A question was asked at the start of this thread, and to be honest, there is no more an important question being asked in all of Wikipedia: Is one opinion of one editor good enough to determine whether hundreds or thousands of bot edits are beneficial to Wikipedia or not, and if so should the benefits/disadvantages of these automated edits be dissuessd,and discussed in detail?
I must admit I am really upset about this issue. In the real world, the use of bots (computer databases, automated tools etc) is of major public concern. Spam is so common, we have forgotten what is was like before bots filled our email inboxes with crap. In this Wikiproject, the same attention to duty of care is being ignored: are the bots "doing the right thing?" --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Another speedy approval, and speedy approvals and community input in general

Can we give more than 3 minutes for interested users to examine trial runs? [5] There seem to be many excuses for why community consensus is not needed, not given, no time for it. In this particular bot case, the task is straight-forward, responsible and responsive bot owner, dealing with deprecated code, etc., etc. But, sometimes I want to examine the trial runs after they have been run, but before the final approval, to see if they are problems that show up during the trial. A good reason for doing trials in the first place is to examine the results.

3 minutes is not enough time, and I don't see the urgency in approving this bot in 3 minutes. A couple of days for interested users to examine the trial run is not unreasonable, imo, no matter what the task.

One reason for instruction creep, by the way, is that editors seem to other editors to be overlooking common courtesies and common sense. I don't see why the instructions should say wait 2 days or wait more than 3 minutes, except that it is apparently not obvious that waiting more than 3 minutes gives time for community input.

There was no urgency in approving this bot, so allowing more than 3 minutes for the trial run to be examined by interested parties would have been a simple courtesy. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The trial is a technical check. Mr Z-Man allowed time prior to the trial for community input on the task itself. Once the trial was proven to be technically functional - which is the reason BAG members are chosen, because of technical proficiency - there was no reason for further delay. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that in this case, there was also a bot request open for several days. (Oddly enough, WP:BOTREQ tends to get significantly higher traffic than BRFA). Mr.Z-man 23:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people want things done for them, but few probably care about unrelated tasks that aren't theirs; there's also probably a discouragement factor for non-programmers, who might be uncertain if their non-technical input is wanted/needed/helpful/relevant (Answer: Yes, it is!). --Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, it boils down to: after community input, a BAG member "will most likely approve a trial for your bot," (without any reference to the community input), then based entirely on technical functionality, the bot will be quickly approved after the trial. The bot owner is solely responsible for the actions of the bot.

So, BAG does nothing, but allow for a community input board then fast forward bots to be flagged by bureaucrats, or whoever flags bots... Interesting.

I will then move forward with this understanding of BAG's role on en.wiki. --69.226.111.130 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do so, you will be moving forward with an incorrect understanding. BAG checks if a task seems to have sufficient consensus for how controversial it seems to be (and yes, sometimes something turns out to be controversial that didn't seem like it would be); at times, and increasingly often lately, BAG will insist that wider community consensus must be sought before the request may proceed. BAG also considers the technical aspects of the proposed task; among other things, this includes reviewing the code (when available) for errors, making suggestions on how to do things more efficiently, and pointing out situations to watch out for. If both of those seem good, a BAG member will approve a trial. It turns out that this has historically happened more often than not, hence the wording "will most likely approve a trial for your bot" that you continue to insist on misinterpreting. If the trial is completed without issues and it seems unlikely that there will be further community reaction as a result of the trial edits, BAG approves the bot. Then a bureaucrat comes along, checks the BRFA again for consensus and such, and actually grants the bot flag. Anomie⚔ 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Insist on misinterpreting" because the history isn't included in the policy? How should someone interpret "most likely" to be approved without knowing the history? It's the bots policy, not a predictor of the outcome of a request, and it should be written clearly and cleanly as a policy that invites both the casual and familiar editor of wikipedia to learn about how bots work on wikipedia. But if you're going to insist upon describing the history of occurrences here instead of giving a clean and clear statement of policy you're going to wind up with people misinterpreting what you mean.

It also doesn't seem that BAG's ability to predict community response is particularly good, since recent incidents of community consensus were wrong, and, again, there's no point in a group wherein individuals are expected to predict the community response. The community can simply give their response. That makes it easy on everyone. BAG members aren't expected to be mind readers. When they're unwilling to do a search and find out the community consensus, they can just wait a reasonable amount of time. Again, community inclusiveness would rule decision making rather than mind-reading skills or some other BAG ability to know what the community wants without asking. There's no other place on wikipedia where editors are expected to individually gauge the community consensus without input from the community.

Asking for sufficient time greater than 3 minutes to be able to look over a trial and input a response is not unreasonable.

I'm not insisting on misinterpreting, I'm simply not making the effort to read the entire history of bag to learn what a single paragraph actually means, when it's meaning is not obvious. Policies in a dynamic community should be written in a way that allows someone to gather the correct policy, not the history of the policy, from reading the page.

Why not be courteous to the spirit of the community of wikipedia as it actually is: people come and go, and the policy could be written out for interested editors who drop by and don't know and don't want to read the history. Then it's clear, also, to others how it is intended. That I'm misinterpreting is also not so obvious without reading the history, by the way. That's what your policy says. --69.226.111.130 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Insist on misinterpreting" because it has been explained to you before, but instead of doing anything to try to "fix" it you just continue to bring up the misinterpretation. Do you have a better suggested wording to describe the typical bot approvals process?

The wording is not that tricky. How about "After a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input, a member of the Bot Approvals Group may approve a short trial during which the bot is monitored to ensure that it operates correctly" like it says on the policy page?

Sure, the community can give their response. But besides you, no one bothers. What are we supposed to do, wait around forever because the community generally doesn't care about bots until after the fact? Also, I suspect you're mistaken in your comment that "There's no other place on wikipedia where editors are expected to individually gauge the community consensus without input from the community". WP:RFR doesn't seem to have much community input, mostly someone requests and then an admin either grants or denies. People doing WP:New pages patrol don't seem to seek much community input before slapping on a CSD tag, and in many cases it doesn't seem like the admins doing the deletion do either. And we have WP:BRD to describe a good way to go about it in relation to general edits.

Have I anywhere asked you to "wait around forever?" Is that comment a necessary part of this discussion?

Permissions don't generally impact 1000s of articles at a time, do they? If they do, they should not be granted without community input. I think that in this case, most of the various permissions become part of other wikipedia editors monitoring/stalking each other.

I think the new pages patrollers are also out of control, but one battle at a time.

WP:BRD deals with individual edits.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually have any comments on that particular trial, or is it just the principle of the thing? Anomie⚔ 01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I made my position on this particular trial clear in the third sentence above. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"some other BAG ability to know what the community wants without asking" - We are asking the community, that's what the BRFA is; the community just doesn't respond. You point to a couple of requests that were processed quickly as "evidence" that we don't give the community time to respond, but I could point to plenty that are/were open for weeks with little to no input from outside the bot community. Except for major policy changes, discussions on Wikipedia typically don't last for more than a week. The LawBot BRFA, while it was approved only a few minutes after the trial, was open for 15 days. That's twice as long as we give for deletion and adminship discussions. Mr.Z-man 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Community consensus is the policy, and that requires time for community input, and that requires more than 3 minutes. There's no policy on moving forward without community consensus, so, until there is, the lack of community input doesn't matter. What matters is the failure to provide time within which the community can comment. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks is more than enough time. There's no minimum requirement for what constitutes consensus. Its based on whoever cares enough to show up for the discussion. At WP:FFD for instance, files are routinely deleted with no comments from anyone other than the nominator simply because no one cares enough to comment. BRFAs should not have to take a month just so that we can prove that no one really cares. See also Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. If you want to try to get more community input into bot approvals, that would be great, but requiring some arbitrary waiting period after each step for a process that already takes way too long is not the solution. Mr.Z-man 04:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "each step." Is it necessary to exaggerate what I'm saying to disagree with me?

Trial runs are an important part of creating and debugging programs. I should not have to point this out, or counter that I'm not asking for a month after each step.

Three minutes is not enough time for the community to view and comment upon a trial run. It wasn't two weeks, it was 3 minutes. Trial runs are not just one of many steps in the process of writing programs, even little scripts on wikipedia.

This is not WP:FFD, which deals with single files, but WP:BOTS, which deals with programs that can impact hundreds and thousands of articles. WP:FFD has specific policies listed to deal with this issue, and they are not the same as WP:BOTS policy. The former has a policy, one assumes made by community consensus, like one assumes the wikipedia bots policy is made. The FFD policy says, "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised," whereas the bots policy says, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it performs only tasks for which there is consensus."

BOTS should use BOTS policy. And, meanwhile, FFD can go on using FFD policy. Both, until community consensus changes.

Who asked you to take a month? Where? Quote me on asking you to wait a month, or forever, or two weeks after a trial run. Can you stick with the topic without exaggeration, please?

I'm not "requiring some arbitrary waiting period after each step." So, back to the topic, please.

BOTS policy requires community consensus. Trial runs are a major and important part of programming, not simply one of many steps in the process. The completion of a trial run is a major step in checking the viability of a bot and may reveal problems or additional requirements for the bot. This is a part of the process where it would be appropriate for the community to be allowed enough time to comment. 3 minutes is not long enough. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)There's really only 2 steps on a normal bot approval - before the trial and after the trial - so yes, requiring a wait for consensus before trial approval and before final approval would be a required wait before each step. Or, to put it another way, is there any step to bot approval that you don't think needs time for community input?

So, adding a waiting period after the only other step is onerous? If there are only two steps, then waiting after each step is not that big of a deal. So, I stand corrected. You expressed add adding a waiting period after "each step," and it seemed like this was much more than just adding a waiting period after the single other step. Yes, no good argument has been offered for why there should be time for community consensus after one step and not the other, and bot policy is simple in this respect: it requires community consensus, consensus requires time for community input. If there are only two steps, consensus can be gained after each by simply allowing some time for community input. 3 minutes is not sufficient for either step.

2 weeks was referring to how long the community had to comment on the request between the time it opened and the time it was approved. 2.5 if you include the WP:BOTREQ thread as well.

If it shouldn't take a month, how long should it take? 2 weeks is obviously not sufficient to get community input. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot 4 has been open for more than 6 weeks, its been 3 weeks since the trial ended, and quelle surprise, no community input yet. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many times the community fails to comment it isn't an argument for disallowing community input, so I'm not sure why BAG members keep bringing this up in this discussion.

Bot policy requires community input, time for it should be allowed. 3 minutes is not sufficient time. What is that time usually allowed for community input? Some fraction of that time for community input on the trial run would be reasonable. The RFBA has been up for the pre-trial time, interested parties can watch list it, they've already had some time to comment, they're aware of the trial run. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should disallow community input, I'm saying that we shouldn't wait unreasonable amounts of time for input. Do you have any actual suggestions on how to either increase participation, or how long to wait before we can assume no one has any complaints? Mr.Z-man 06:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I've suggested an unreasonable amount of time for waiting. In fact, I've only suggested longer than 3 minutes, or some fraction of the time waiting for the before. You don't have to assume no-one has any complaints. That's not part of policy. I asked how long you usually wait for comments in the before period, as I think less time than that is necessary. How about a week? A couple of weeks on an inactive RFBA seems like a good amount of time, more than generous for community input. There are some RFBAs that require less time, edits only non-space, other reasons. But a couple of weeks seems reasonable for an RFBA before trial, and a week seems reasonable for a post trial RFBA. --69.226.111.130 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy, we can just take action without putting everything up for discussion first. If the community objects then we can act on it, otherwise we can just get the work done. If something goes wrong with a bot then that is what the revert button is for. Chillum 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BAGBot replacement?

BAGbot seems to be mostly dead lately and ST47 doesn't seem to be around anymore, so Wikipedia:BAG/Status isn't being updated and users aren't being notified when {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} is used (it did a couple other things, but these 2 were probably the most important). I was going to make a replacement, but can't seem to find the time to finish it (i.e. de-crappify my hastily thrown together code). If someone wants to write a replacement for it, that would be much appreciated. If someone wants my code to start with (written in Python, using my framework), I don't recall if the current version actually works or not. Mr.Z-man 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I feel I could probably write something to do this, and I'd be keen to give it a go. DotNetWikiBot is currently refusing to load page history, so it would have to wait until that is fixed. Also, the main problem would be that I don't currently have a computer which I'm comfortable with running 24hrs, so either I could send the exe to someone who does (it wouldn't use much bandwidth, as it's only running once every 30 or so minutes), or I could just run it in the British daytime. As you can see, there are a few complications, so if someone else wants to program it, that's fine with me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at having AnomieBOT do it. Anomie⚔ 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Following up BRFAs

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

I've added a new section to the debate and have been reverted. Twice. Without any reverted politely including the insight as to where, besides "a new section" subsequent comments should be made.

So, if not in a new section according to the directions, where should the subsequent comments be made?[6]

Please, could BAG be more accurate in the directions? So many comments about users don't want to participate, but when editors do participate according to directions they are rudely reverted without any help.

So, where? And put that location on the BRFA closure template. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How about you actually read the instructions. Did you follow those directions? no. you where reverted because you cannot follow directions and since then there have been adjustments to the wording of the closure templates. β^_command 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks such as "you cannot follow directions" are being discussed at Betacommand's talk page. Feel free to gang up on me on that issue there.

By the way, I created a new section. I simply didn't title it.

This is about where to locate the subsequent discussions and how BAG should alert editors in a polite fashion about the procedure, rather than simply reverting them. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

adding a comment is not creating a new section. β^_command 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, adding a comment below the archive is creating a new section. If it were in the old section, it would be before the bottom line that says don't modify this. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with you, which is why I adjusted the appropriate templates to point to WT:BRFA as soon as I saw your edits and the reversions on the CobraBot 2 BRFA. I did not adjust the templates to "justify" the reversions as you claimed elsewhere (but don't worry, I won't take your misinterpretation of my motives as a personal attack), just to give instructions in line with WP:BOTPOL. Anomie⚔ 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wikilawyering back with that comment. I'm tired of being attacked and told I'm aggressive when my concerns are ignored and I'm told repeatedly I'm the only one raising these concerns. If BAG considered user concerns the first time no one would have to resort to other measures to be listened to.

I'm reading the history of Betacommand and users, and Betacommand and BAG and bots, especially administrators who come to support his personal attacks on other editors, particularly editors who appear to be new editors at wikipedia. I'm also reading the history of complaints about BAG and fast approvals. I'm not pleased that I've been treated by BAG members as if I'm a lone wolf on these issues when it's clear it's not only been a long-standing issues but that problems resulted in Betacommand's community sanctions.

I'm not the only person who has raised this issue. It arose in the arbcom against Betacommand which resulted in sanctions against him.

It's time to start discussing the issue, and time for BAG to stop playing me. It's not about me, it's about the bots and community consensus and BAG. The same things it was about, in part, that led to sanctions against Betacommand. But I'll deal with him in an official request for Arbcom to enforce its decision. Let's get to the issue. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk)

Yes, your issues with Betacommand are wholly inappropriate for this page; good luck with your WP:AE posting. As for the history of people complaining about BAG, do keep in mind that things have changed a good deal in the past year or so and that trying to inject additional bureaucracy into BAG is a favorite tactic of anyone who disagrees with anything BAG does. Quite frankly, your approach is aggressive: you make absolutist statements, you bring up the same issue in multiple places, you seem unwilling to consider other points of view or to compromise, and you are extremely quick to derail the discussion by interpreting statements as personal attacks. It all makes talking with you wearying. (Don't worry, I won't take your statement that I and other BAG members are "playing you" as a personal attack either.) Anomie⚔ 19:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've been trying to be more civil and to discuss the issue. What I get is attacked by Betacommand who personally attacked me before in the discussion about the content creation bot. Then I get an administrator supporting his attack. Then I find out he has a long-standing history of years of personally attacking editors who disagree with him about bots in exactly the same way he's going at me, in addition to finding out that it's an en.wiki tradition for administrators like Xeno to come to the support of Betacommand personally attacking editors about bot issues.

So, I tried, and what I get is a resurgance of attacks. You're weary? I back down, and you keep throwing my history at me, and you all support Betacommand attacking me. And, yes, no matter how many times you say it, "you cannot follow directions" is nothing but a personal attack.

As Betacommand himself seems to says in his latest to arbcom, "you can't let history go."

Since you can't let my history go, why should I? I have to learn from more experienced editors. What I'm learning is attack, obfuscate, and wikilawyer. I backed off it for a while, but now Xeno and Betacommand remind me I should not have.

The topic remains the lack of community consensus, BAG approving bots without it. The policy clearly requires it. Cobrabot was approved without it. Cobrabot should be stopped and its flag removed. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are conflating a lack of community participation at BRFA with a lack of community consensus. See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. –xeno^talk 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Others are. A lack of community participation at BRFA does not mean a lack of community consesus. Nor does it mean community consensus. A point I keep trying to make. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do not support Betacommands brash style of expressing himself. But nor do I support your playing the victim or your excuses for your own behavior. As for the rest, take it to WP:AE. Anomie⚔ 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If I've made any excuses for my behavior it was completely in error. It's not my problem. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Waiting time - set one, and Community consensus: get it

While reviewing Betacommands Arbcom decisions and etc., I see that the time of approval and BAG's lack of monitoring community consensus have been raised as issues before. I would like the waiting time for post-trial approval to be at least a week. I would also like bots not to be approved when there is no community consensus. As Cobrabot task 1 had no community consensus I would like it blocked and its flag removed. This changes the RFBA for Cobrabot task 2. I would like that revisited, also, in light of the speedy approval. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose all A week is too long if the task seems uncontroversial and no one bothers to comment. In some cases any delay is really unnecessary if the trial goes off without a hitch, as the trial was preceeded by months of community consensus-building. We do endevor to ensure community consensus for bots, but when a task is uncontroversial no one bothers to comment; trying to require that we wait for Godot is pointless.
  I think it's about time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on the CobraBot issue. "CobraBot 1" is not a separate bot, CobraBot does have other approved tasks, and CyberCobra has agreed not to run the CobraBot 1 task, so blocking or deflagging would not be appropriate. You yourself have stated elsewhere that the only problem you have with CobraBot 2 is that you personally were not aware of an ANI thread from 2 weeks before CobraBot 2 was even requested, which is most certainly not a good reason for taking the action you request. Anomie⚔ 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I think you dismissed my using "no one bothered to comment" with my suggestion above, so don't turn around and use it as an argument in support of your proposal. It's either valid or not. If it's valid, then I'll take it that a week is already established. If it's not valid, it does not support your opposition.

• • I think that the approval of Cobrabot's first task shows that BAG is not able to gauge community consensus. In this case, the default value should be to do least harm. Least harm is no bot. Bot's aren't mandatory. If there's no community consensus in a bot, it simply should not be requested much less approved.

• • Community consensus requires community input. If you don't have it, the bot is not approvable according to bot policy.

• • The issue is community consensus, not your beating of a dead horse. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we talked through this already? Here's my comment from eight days ago. In other words, I oppose WP:CREEP, arbitrary time limits, and really think this should go to WP:VPP rather than simmering here forever. tedder (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your creep comment doesn't make sense to me. It simply links to an essay, and we're discussing policy here. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense in the context of my prior reply. An essay is helpful as a shortcut, rather than explaining something over and over again. Your objections are well-known and have been well-stated. Restating them isn't helping gain consensus, and that's why I suggest taking it to a bigger audience (WP:VPP) rather than continually stating it here. tedder (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, when I tried to discuss it elsewhere Betacommand followed me and accused me of forum shopping. So, that's not going to work now that Betacommand has been let loose on me. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider this a blessing to take it to VPP, especially if there is consensus to do so. I really don't understand how taking it personal and beating it into the ground is more satisfactory. tedder (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand your first bullet point, unless you're trying to say that "no one bothered to comment" implies "no one cares enough one way or the other" (my view) is the same as "no one bothered to comment" implies "everyone doesn't want this to happen" (your view?).
  Don't worry, I won't take your statement that I am incapable of gauging community consensus as a personal attack. As has been pointed out before, hindsight is 20/20. If you are able to perfectly gauge community consensus beforehand, you should run for ArbCom instead of wasting your time here.
  See WP:SILENCE for a reply to your third bullet.
  Err, I think you misunderstood my statement. I was referring to you beating a dead horse in continuing to demand CobraBot 2 be de-approved despite not one whit of agreement from anyone else. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Some bot tasks are so mundane as to not attract any attention.

See comment about about essays. But, I do agree some tasks are so mundane as to not attract attention, but BAG didn't judge that appropriately in the case of CobraBot. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is an essay doesn't mean it's utterly useless. Many essays are written because some common (but mistaken) argument is tiresome to respond to from scratch each time. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia essays tend to be poorly written commentaries that get thrown around when someone cannot address the issue directly. There's no point in my reading them. If the instructions are too long, it can be shown they are redundant. If they were already being followed this issue would not have arisen. Obviously the instructions are not long enough because the issue has arisen, in fact, the speedy approval arose in the most recent arbcom about Betacommand. I'm not a lone wolf. The instructions are not too long, because they don't address this community concern. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see anyone else complaining. –xeno^talk 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are making an unwarranted assumption. Some are poorly written, but some are good. Anomie⚔ 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the first half dozen that were thrown at me to sidestep issues I raised. Xeno just threw one at me that supports my stance, not his. I don't see that most editors throwing them around are reading them themselves. It's a non-issue. They're not policy. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw from this discussion. You are not arguing sincerely. –xeno^talk 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe that if you want. Anomie⚔ 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not arguing sincerely. Every time I post a sincere comment for discussion I get derailed, by Betacommand and you his ardent supporter, with ridiculous comments about "waiting for Godot," when it's well know what community consensus is, by hyperbole about waiting forever, and closing down BAG. I can't argue any of that with sincerity, as its purpose was not to raise sincere issues but to attack me personally and avoid discussing the issues at all. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the CobraBot thing, can you point me to this lack of community consensus? –xeno^talk 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't point you to something that doesn't exist. But here's the link so you can point me to the community consensus.[7] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any objections. Have you reviewed the essay I linked above? Just because it is an essay does not mean that it does not have relevant material within. Linking to essays are a useful method of not repeating the same thing over and over. The task seems mundane to me, no objections were raised during the BRFA, and there were no objections to the OCLC paramater in the talk page & archives of Infobox book. Objections were raised only after the task commenced. I don't know why you feel BAG is at fault for this. –xeno^talk 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

According to your essay, "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident." So, you provided an essay that supports me. What do I do with that? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time there were no objections. –xeno^talk 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering that we live in linear time, objections that occur after the bot's approval cannot have been considered during the bots approval. Now that disagreement has been voiced, CobraBot 1 is no longer running. Please leave the poor dead horse alone already. Anomie⚔ 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't stopped, since it was still a flagged bot when Cobrabot2's request went up. Please leave the dead horses alone, Anomie, and stick stick stick with the topic. It's not dead horses, it's not closing down BAG, it's not waiting for an unknown (community consensus is a known). --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And with that, you have crossed my personal line of "someone who is so illogical that further discussion is pointless". Have a nice day, maybe we can have constructive interaction elsewhere in the future. Anomie⚔ 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For Cobrabot 2, Cybercobra notified multiple projects (at least 2), they had 10 days to come and comment on the BRFA, and only one user did. If we reject bot requests simply because almost no one from the community comments, the only result is that we won't have any more new bots. The community has shown numerous times that they do not care about bots (with a couple exceptions like adminbots and welcoming bots) until one of them screws up. Unless this proposal is combined with some way of increasing community input, or there's evidence that longer waiting times actually lead to significantly more input, this idea is doomed to failure. Mr.Z-man 20:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Where's the evidence a week is too long? Where's the evidence 3 minutes is long enough? There is none. The time was not long enough. The consensus does not exist. There was none for Cobrabot 1 to begin with. In fact, it's owner failed to link to discussions that showed a lack of consensus. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that a week is not too long? Where's the evidence that 3 minutes is not too long in some circumstances? We could play that game all day, but I have better things to do. Anomie⚔ 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So, now you want to argue that 3 minutes is sufficient? We could play all sorts of games, or BAG can, instead of addressing the issues. And it's clear you're willing to. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I said a week is too long. I merely said that they had 10 days to comment (the actual BRFA lasted 14 days). If you want us to address the issues, perhaps you should start by a more usable proposal. Your current proposal is both unfair to bot operators and to the community. You're telling the operators that they can't run any new tasks unless they force the community to come to a consensus for it and you're telling the community that if they still want the benefits of bots, they have to come and get involved. Mr.Z-man 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally welcome any constructive measure to get the community commenting on bots, and if IP has any thoughts, great. But shutting BAG down in pursuit of consensus on the basis of "if we build it, they will come" is unlikely to gain traction as there will be next to no new bots. The odd slip by BAG is worth the efficiency of getting 99.9% of the bots that are approved ruuning quickly. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Who suggested shutting down BAG? You say I'm wearying to discuss things, how much hyperbole is necessary? You can't address the issues I raise. You ignore my posts. You have a community-sanctioned ex-member representing himself as a BAG member, you support him personally attacking me. (You as the plural.) Do you realize how easy it would be to just discuss the issues, not get personal, not raise the ridiculous? Much easier and less wearying. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not arguing sincerely. Every time I post a sincere comment for discussion I get derailed, by Betacommand and you his ardent supporter, with ridiculous comments about "waiting for Godot," when it's well know what community consensus is, by hyperbole about waiting forever, and closing down BAG. I can't argue any of that with sincerity, as its purpose was not to raise sincere issues but to attack me personally and avoid discussing the issues at all. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really care about Betacommand, and barely know him, so don't know where that's coming from. My "shutting down BAG" comment should be read in the context of the general response to your suggestions: what if the community can't be bothered (as now) to show up? Do we do as we do now and try getting them involved (except in a couple of cases), but ultimately approve on technical merits if it appears uncontroversial? You seem to be suggesting that this is unacceptable: if so, the reality is that BAG's processes will grind to a halt because noone in the wider community seems to care - that, in essence, is "shutting down" BAG. As I keep saying, tell us if you have some idea of getting the community involved, because we really, really want them to be. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should know who Betacommand is since he recently, in a comment to me, represented himself as a member of BAG.

You made these huge assumptions, that if no one comments then the whole process grinds to a halt. It doesn't, in any way, follow.

Not all bot tasks are equal. If they were, simply looking over the code might be an allowable way of operating BAG. If no one comments on the RFBA for the replacement for the RFBA board bot, that won't harm the community. If no on comments on a bot that adds thousands of links, even if the link is added via a template, that could harm the encyclopedia if the bot were allowed to go forward. So, there's plenty to actually discuss, that the hyperbole casts aside. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to re-read what people say. I never said that I was BAG my exact quote was if there is a specific BRFA that you want reviewed let us know and we can take a closer look the we that you see there is referring to is the community. So please stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say. β^_command 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not omnipresent on Wikipedia - I know Beta vaguely and indirectly through various appearances at Arbcom and ANI, but not personally, and certainly not his interactions with you. I am not making huge assumptions - I am demonstrating the logic of your proposal: you appear (that's an invitation to correct me if I'm wrong) to be saying that all bot approvals should require community input. My comment is that the status quo is that noone comments. Given these two points, a need for input to approve coupled with a lack of input will mean that the approvals process will grind to a halt. You said in another venue that we haven't tried everything to get the community engaged, but won't tell us what to try - if you tell us something must be done that we aren't doing, but won't help us by tlling us what that something is, then this conversation will never have a conclusion. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to IP69, the CobraBot 1 BRFA was not appealed by anyone (I think that's what they're trying to pursue here, along with several other things) and is still valid; I only paused running it until the discussions about it were resolved (with no consensus against the task); the reason task 1 isn't running currently is because CobraBot successfully completed its pass over all the articles in Wikipedia using {{Infobox book}}. If IP69 wants to appeal task 1, they are free to do so. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like it rolled back, also, if there is no clear idea that the community wants these links activated. Probably a rollback discussion will gain more community input. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be superior to just simply modifying the template? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that. I personally think modifying the template to make it an inactive link would be preferable, kinda the best of both worlds, since that was one of the big complaints about the OCLC< but others may have ideas about the best course of action, if any. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I would encourage you to rekindle the discussion at Template talk:Infobox book regarding changing the linking of the OCLC parameter. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In our defence, that's kind of what we've been saying about this issue for the past few days. If you get consensus, I'll edit the template myself! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you're so hostile to outsiders it's not a surprise that editors are uncomfortable coming here to discuss issues. Why not just answer my initial posts as if they were discussions instead of going overboard.

And, no, it still doesn't add up to no bots on en.wikipedia. Some bots don't need much or any community consensus. The bagbot for example, bag operators will monitor it, the operator is experienced. It doesn't even really matter if the community has any input on it, it's not working in mainspace.

A bot that adds links to mainspace by the thousands? It doesn't matter that it was through a template. If BAG doesn't have the sense to know this needs community input, then this should be put in the rules. Bots that edit mainspace require community support. Lack of disagreement is not sufficient. Some times it won't matter much. The Zh bot is editing an already deprecated template. The operator knows he can't step into the mess around simplified/traditional and made it clear he won't.

But, the BAG conclusion that just because en.wiki editors don't come here willingly to get fried by BAG means any bot can be approved if it's technically accurate is not a sensible decision.

I'll ask at infobot book if the template needs to be changed or the bot needs to be rolled back. But, cobrabot 1 should be blocked. It's not been approved by community consensus. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where have I been hostile? I am trying to engage in discussion with you, but you won't answer my questions, which would help me out. Instead you seem to be tarring me with some brush based on negative interactions with other users. On that basis, I will disengage from this discussion until answers to my questions on clarifying your position and how we can engage the community are answered. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted a discussion as suggested. [8] I notified everyone who had commented on that page. I have not notified anyone who commented in the AN/I, although there may be other interested users from that list. I will also post a link to this discussion at the Village Pump. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very disappointed by the response here. Issues about consensus, duty of care and general governance are being sidestepped. It seems that no complaint or concern about the wider issue of bot operation can be discussed here without memebers of BAG seeing it as an attack upon them as a project or as individual editors. This should be forum where all the issues about bot actions should be put forward, discussed and resolved to everyone's satisfaction, rather than taking place at individual template or article talk pages. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin - I am trying to engage with it - I keep asking what ideas people have to get the community more involved. That gets sidestepped - we have a problem, because we want to get the community more involved but they do not come. IP says there are ideas we have not tried: I simply want to know what they are. That is not seeing it as an attack, nor is it sidestepping - but considering we've been through this issue a lot, we need fresh ideas, not just to be told we need to do better. It is the difference between "you are failing!" and "Why haven't you tried method X of getting people involved?" - one is constructive and can progress dialogue, and the other is simply highlighting a problem we are already aware of. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Gavin. BAG members see complaints, even questions, as attacks. BAG boards should be where where issues are discussed, but it's not allowed. If an editor comes here with concerns they should expect to be personally attacked, goaded, insulted, flamed and blocked, like I have been. Now it appears I am to be stalked by Betacommand, a sanctioned and once banned wikipedia editor and BAG member, who sees BAG as a safe place for admin-supported name-calling. And for good reason. It is. IMO, you are right, Gavin, that this is a problem for the entire wikipedia community.

However, there is an underlying issue about this CobraBot, linking to the worldcat. Outside links should have widespread community support before implementation. Right now community members are discussing (at the template talk page) what BAG should have gained consensus for before approving the bot: should the template link to worldcat. If community consensus is that it should be linked, adding the OCLC becomes simply a technical issue with a bot: is there a bot that can do it.

BAG failed to gain community consensus for other bots. At this point, the BAG seems to be saying they have no duty to gain consensus and that lack of comment equals community consensus. IMO this is wrong. But the issue of community consensus for bots requires a wider audience that cannot be gained at BAG due to the hostility here toward outsiders. I think that the wider audience at BAG for the Cobra Bot issue in general (fast decisions by BAG members without community consensus) may be gained in part from editors discussing the OCLC linking, and from those who participate in other discussions about community consensus for bots. IMO it's a way to start trying to get community members to come here and discuss bots.

Since all of my suggestions here get me attacked by BAG members and former BAG members, there's no point in my suggesting ideas. So I'll try it this way and see how it works. I have other ideas. IMO BAG has no community blessing to move forward with bots just because no one said "no." In particular this is the case for a BAG that is so hostile to outside opinions that any member of the community would be a fool to step forward, speak up, and chance becoming a target like I have become. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)