Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group: Difference between revisions
→Call for Participation: Looking to Interview BAG Members: OK, but use the original timestamp |
Hammersoft (talk | contribs) →ArbCom proposal affecting this group: new section |
||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
[[User:UOJComm|UOJComm]] ([[User talk:UOJComm|talk]]) 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
[[User:UOJComm|UOJComm]] ([[User talk:UOJComm|talk]]) 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
== ArbCom proposal affecting this group == |
|||
This group may wish to be aware of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Proposed_decision#Betacommand_limited_to_BAG_approved_tasks|this proposed remedy]] in an active ArbCom case. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:01, 12 January 2012
![]() | This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | 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. |
Nominations 2010 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Requests for BAG membership
Requests to join the Bot Approvals Group are currently made here, although other methods have been proposed. Users wishing to join BAG, or to nominate another user to become a member, should start a new nomination page via the form below (replacing "UserName" with the nominee's) and transclude the discussion in a section below. After a suitable length of time (usually one week unless the nomination has not received a reasonable level of support), the discussion will be closed by a bureaucrat.
BAG Nomination: Crashdoom
Other discussion
Mass tagging
JPG-GR has requested that I tag all templates involved in a mass TfD nomination with the {{tfd}} tag. Tagging even 10 templates manually is pretty annoying, and doing over 50 is unreasonable. So I have prepared a script to perform this task for me.
However, its first job will be to tag more than 700 templates in one go. Do I need to seek some sort of approval for such a large-scale mass edit? The bot policy seems not to mention cases such as this, so I am puzzled. Also, can I run this job from an alternative account? — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you want the task to be unattended, you should fill a BRFA. You can also do it manually by script, if you prefer, but this implies human decision for each edit. In any case, to be on the safe side, better to fill it anyway. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- My plan is for it to be monitored, but run automatically. So I will file a BRFA. Thanks for your advice. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Request revokation of instantly granted bot trial
I requested at the BRfA that the bot trial for TTObot be revoked. There are no links to community discussions, and the bot owner did not post at the most obvious community board because it "is very quiet."
4 minutes is barely enough time to read the proposal, much less to approve it without community input.
The second place for community input about bots is during the BRfA. No matter how poorly involved the community is in discussions that take place there, the community still has the right to some time to become involved in the discussion.
There is no note in the approval explaining the reason for granting approval for a trial 4 minutes after the request was made, without any community discussion or allowance for discussion.
Please remove this bot approval, request community input at templates, and then allow time for community input in the BRfA. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This is a BAG courtesy notice. Please discuss the issue at the BRfA. here --72.201.210.130 (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
RFC on identifiers
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Shutting up the discussion once more
Is it really necessary for BAG members to be so hostile to community input? If someone is discussing an issue with a bot operator in an RFBA and a BAG member disagrees with the community member, how about something else besides hostility and a rapid closing of the RFBA by the involved and disagreeing BAG member?
Again, really no wonder why so few community members want to discuss issues at BRFA when BAG members treat their input like scum to shut up as soon as possible.
Why? Why is there so much hostility at BRFA? And on wikipedia in general?
I am still in the process of discussing an issue with the bot operator here.
I suggested two hours, Headbomb disagreed with me, so he/she suggested otherwise and approved the BRFA to shut me and the discussion up.
Can BAG include manners as a requirement for members? Can BAG include listening to community input when it is given? No, in fact the community does not want bots or anyone tagging articles closely on the heals of contributors. Maybe BAG members could learn about the community. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think Headbomb probably should have waited for an operator response there at the very least. The close was a bad call. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- We appreciate community input, however at times the criticism being raised is not critical to whether the bot should be approved or not; in this case, the issue is in regards to the frequency of the bot's runs. Whether the bot is run every hour or every two hours is not a severe issue for the BAG to handle - either rate will be acceptable in terms of server load and time to review the bot's edits. If the community feels that it would be better to run on a two hour interval, then that can be determined later; it's not difficult to adjust how frequently a bot runs. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've been informed I somewhat misinterpreted the discussion, that the delay is between article creation and bot's review - the point, however, still stands; it's not swooping in on new editors immediately, and that's really all BAG is concerned with here. A difference of an hour is not going to be a major concern, and not something that should prevent BAG from approving the request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- We appreciate community input, however at times the criticism being raised is not critical to whether the bot should be approved or not; in this case, the issue is in regards to the frequency of the bot's runs. Whether the bot is run every hour or every two hours is not a severe issue for the BAG to handle - either rate will be acceptable in terms of server load and time to review the bot's edits. If the community feels that it would be better to run on a two hour interval, then that can be determined later; it's not difficult to adjust how frequently a bot runs. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
BAGers - Report In
Please drop a line here to say you are still active. Anyone who hasn't responded within a week (or maybe two weeks), will be moved to inactive. --Chris 02:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kinda sorta around - I'll probably get back to doing actual BAG stuff soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. MBisanz talk 04:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the bag? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Still active. FYI, most recent edits to bot-related pages by BAGger:
- Hersfold: 2011-10-26T02:44:19Z to Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group
- Chris G: 2011-10-26T02:43:30Z to Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group
- Anomie: 2011-10-26T02:16:55Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 58
- Jarry1250: 2011-10-24T16:03:08Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9
- H3llkn0wz: 2011-10-21T07:37:06Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DPL bot
- Headbomb: 2011-10-15T05:20:15Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 55
- Xeno: 2011-10-12T13:04:29Z to Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Unsuccessful membership candidacies
- Tim1357: 2011-10-09T16:37:06Z to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard
- Slakr: 2011-10-05T04:58:14Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4
- The Earwig: 2011-09-09T01:41:35Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Puggansbot
- Kingpin13: 2011-09-01T15:14:20Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header
- MBisanz: 2011-08-27T22:20:51Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BogBot 2
- SQL: 2011-08-14T08:13:47Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 4
- EdoDodo: 2011-08-12T19:56:12Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PhuzBot 2
- Mr.Z-man: 2011-05-24T02:28:04Z to Wikipedia:Bot requests
- Anomie⚔ 03:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just about. Will try and contribute more - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Call for Participation: Looking to Interview BAG Members
Greetings-
I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. I am looking for members of the Bots Approval Group to interview regarding their experiences on Wikipedia and opinions of technical and governance issues on the site. The interview can be conducted in a manner convenient for you (via an IM client, email, Skype, telephone, or even in-person) and should take approximately 30-45 minutes.
Your participation will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors and programmers like you.
My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.
If you would like to participate or have any questions, please contact me directly via email or by leaving a message on my talk page. Thank you in advance for your interest.
Randall Livingstone
UOJComm (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom proposal affecting this group
This group may wish to be aware of this proposed remedy in an active ArbCom case. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)