Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group

Requests for BAG membership

See also: Previous nominations

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Magioladitis

• Magioladitis (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

It has been mentioned multiple times that BAG members have been on the decline, with fewer and fewer active members. I think it's about time for somebody new to join the group.

I believe Magioladitis' experience as a AutoWikiBrowser developer and operator of Yobot make him an ideal candidate for the job. His excellent technical competence, high levels of activity and all-around helpfulness would be an asset to the BAG. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Candidate acceptance: I accept the nomination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions

• Question 1: If you were designing the bot approval process from the ground-up, what would you change, what would you keep, and are there any parts of the process that you don't know enough about to say one way or the other? VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 1:Van It's true that currently the bot approval process is complicated, it's very difficult to be followed, it's not clear which step has been done, etc. I think the general idea of the process is OK but we should improve the step it is done. For instance we should work on creating an (optional) wizard for completing the BRFA form, which will give instructions to willing bot owners of how to complete the form. For example in this BRFA the bot owner is not sure whether their bot is exclusion compliant or not. Instructions are also needed after test run is completed. Bot owners should give diffs of their bot's work and I know that is is a painful procedure right now. We should find a way to simplify this. In general: Wikipedia can become a no-asshole-zone and in BRFA process by extending the ideas for new sign ups to new bot approvals. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Question 2: @Magioladitis:, Besides your obvious work with AWB, do you have any personal experience with any of the other bot frameworks? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 2: xaosflux I know Python and I have programmed small scripts in Python to run on WP:Wikidata. Since recently I work with WP:WPCleaner and I cooperate with NicoV and Bgwhite so that we uniformise the regexes of both AWB and WPCleaner to match with CHECKWIKI scripts. I try to find contradictions between various automated tools and resolve them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Question 3: @Magioladitis:, With bot requests going unanswered and BRFAs taking multiple months to get trials and approvals issued, what ways do you see your BAG membership improving the current operating procedure regarding bots? Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 3: Hasteur since I have a general idea of which bot does what I hope I can assign some tasks from WP:BOTREQ directly. I 'll also certainly go through all open requests of what of these tasks should be rejected and which should be approved. I also hope that creating a more effective BRFA form could help on this direction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Question 4: @Magioladitis:, Ok since reading the previous question and realizing it didn't communicate the right question I ask: What level of process should be followed for non-contraversial/trivial requests from BOTREQ and which ones require a full on BRFA for? Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 4: Hasteur I think that if the method of approving BRFAs works as indented they should be no problems. The BAG member should decide whether to approval a bot/bot task after trial period or initiate a wider discussion. Moreover, we already have some bots that have approval to run on specific types of bot requests. No further approval will be needed for each separate task. We only have to ensure that the bot assigned for these tasks are active and check which types of tasks are unassigned. I think this covers your question? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Should the candidate accept, they should post a notice WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON as required by policy. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Snowolf I left notices in all 4 places. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Appears to be overqualified, if anything. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support An active (the main?) AutoWikiBrowser developer isn't already a BAG member? This is long overdue. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Well, this is obviously pretty much a no-brainer here. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support strongly. --LT910001 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - eminently suitable candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per all of the above. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Knowledgeable, well dedicated member. Whenever I would make any error he's the first and sometimes only one to identify. OccultZone (Talk) 11:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Very dedicated and technically adept candidate. APerson (talk!) 13:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - An easy decision. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As seen in my recent RFBA, Magioladitis is using his experience to ask great questions, which will help other bot owners. GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral: I'm torn. On the one hand, Marios is clearly very well qualified (and a nice guy to boot, are you at Wikimania Marios?). However, we must also accept that he has generated a fair amount of controversy in the past, most around the making of inconsequential edits. Thus (since it is clear that this BAGNom will pass either way), I would simply ask him to redouble his (extensive) efforts to avoid such controversy in future, and to use his experience to help others avoid making the same mistakes. Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 21:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  I share this concern as well but hope and trust that Mag will, in his role as a BAG member, adopt the community's view (rather than his own interpretation) regarding inconsequential edits. BAG is sorely understaffed and needs experienced and enthusiastic individuals like Mag to continue working effectively. –xeno^talk 12:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Closure request placed on WP:BN. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Closed as successful -- MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

Other discussion

No more interwiki bots

(discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Bot policy)

We have three active BAG members (and only 11 semi-active)

I've rejiggled the BAG-member activity list

• More than two BRfA edits in the last couple of months => active
• More than two BRfA edits in the last year => semi-active

SQL Query and Results

-- Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user, 
    -> (
    ->   select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where 
    ->   rev_page in (
    ->     select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
    ->     and rev_timestamp>'20131001000000'
    ->     and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   and
    ->     rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) as sub
    -> where user_id=rev_user
    -> group by user_name
    -> having brfas>1
    -> order by user_name
    -> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name   | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie      |    11 |
| Hellknowz   |    24 |
| Josh Parris |    35 |
+-------------+-------+
3 rows in set (0.11 sec)

-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user, 
    -> (
    ->   select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where 
    ->   rev_page in (
    ->     select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
    ->     and rev_timestamp>'20130101000000'
    ->     and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   and
    ->     rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) as sub
    -> where user_id=rev_user
    -> group by user_name
    -> having brfas>1
    -> order by user_name
    -> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name   | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Addshore    |    86 |
| Anomie      |    31 |
| Chris G     |    30 |
| Hellknowz   |    77 |
| Jarry1250   |     8 |
| Josh Parris |    36 |
| Kingpin13   |    11 |
| MBisanz     |    88 |
| Madman      |     6 |
| MaxSem      |     2 |
| Maxim       |    14 |
| Quadell     |     2 |
| Snowolf     |     2 |
| The Earwig  |    12 |
+-------------+-------+
14 rows in set (0.10 sec)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Parris (talk • contribs)

I'll consider you curating the list as involved and thus ineligible for prizes. :) By the way, those stats don't represent just the BAG activity, but also their own BRFA activity. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Even more explanation as to why there's been no activity on my BRfA for a week. I ought to fix the query so the users aren't hard-coded either. Josh Parris 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Time to add more active BAG members?

We have 3 "active" BAG members and a collection of semi-active BAG members. Based on the fact that we have bot tasks falling off of WP:BOTREQ and WP:BRFA requests withering on the vine, I have to ask if we need to add annother BAG member or two to ensure that requests are being actioned in a reasonable timeframe. This may include putting forth my own candidacy for BAG. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering that I'm still willing to help, but I haven't done much BRFA work because of RL and my continued work on my bots and my new tool, so I won't likely receive sufficient support.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ran Josh Parris' sql from above again for more up to date information.

SQL Query and Results

-- Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user, 
    -> (
    ->   SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE 
    ->   rev_page IN (
    ->     SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
    ->     AND rev_timestamp>'20140401000000'
    ->     AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   AND
    ->     rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) AS sub
    -> WHERE user_id=rev_user
    -> GROUP BY user_name
    -> HAVING brfas>1
    -> ORDER BY user_name
    -> ;
+-----------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-----------+-------+
| Hellknowz |     2 |
| MBisanz   |    13 |
| MaxSem    |     2 |
| Slakr     |     9 |
| Tawker    |     2 |
+-----------+-------+
5 rows in set (0.07 sec)

-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user, 
    -> (
    ->   SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE 
    ->   rev_page IN (
    ->     SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
    ->     AND rev_timestamp>'20140101000000'
    ->     AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   AND
    ->     rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) AS sub
    -> WHERE user_id=rev_user
    -> GROUP BY user_name
    -> HAVING brfas>1
    -> ORDER BY user_name
    -> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name   | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie      |     6 |
| Hellknowz   |    22 |
| Josh Parris |     7 |
| MBisanz     |    15 |
| MaxSem      |     2 |
| Mr.Z-man    |     2 |
| Slakr       |     9 |
| Tawker      |     2 |
+-------------+-------+
8 rows in set (0.06 sec)

Can I suggest we trial a peer review system, whereby any bot operator in good standing can trial and approve another's bot request (i.e. a seconder), provided:

1. The request is at least seven days old
2. The request is uncontested and unlikely to be controversial

• Any BAG member may overrule these decisions

930913 {{ping}} 15:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No please :( Legoktm (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to pick up some slack soon, this is hardly a new phenomenon and I'd rather have bot requests waiting than bad bots approved. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

While the situation is problematic, we've already tried a trial system in the past and it did not work out well. Bots have a lot of potential to cause damage and upset editors. I suggest that we instead once again point out that a) everybody is welcome to comment on pages, and that is very helpful b) people should candidate themselves for the BAG :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

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

AWB bots

Just wanted to check where the BAG stand on this issue. If a user has an approved AWB bot, do they have to run a new BRFA for every task, or if it is a small run (eg. <200 pages), can they just run that without approval? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 08:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 they need approval for each task. It does not matter whether it is an AWB bot or any other type of bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That being said, some approvals can be broader then others (no blanket "AWB for misc uses") so if they are related categories it may be requested that way. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

IP apparently running a bot

See User:Williamrochira: Revision history and User talk:2.96.110.80. Confirmation of my interpretation of policy and – if the IP requests it – further expert advice would be welcomed. Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot policy allows editing in the operator's userspace without requiring approval. Would be nice if they used an account though. Legoktm (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for that – I didn't read down far enough, did I? However that statement must be subject to the overriding requirement that everything done here must be to help build the encyclopedia, which isn't obvious from the edits (though we can AGF for now); and continuing to produce edits at the rate they have done today (93 edits in a bit over 2 hours) might run the risk of being considered disruptive. Isn't there a test wiki that they can use for extensive initial testing like this?  —SMALLJIM  14:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP is responsive, I replied on its talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)