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 request for Bot Approvals Group membership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Closed as no consensus. Please consider applying in the future after you have gained more experience. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

BAG Nomination: Wugapodes

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

Hi everyone, I'm Wugapodes and I would like to help. When I worked with engineers, our lab banned the phrase "someone do" because it means "no one do", everyone will just think someone else will do it. Instead, we emphasized initiative: if you can fix a problem, fix it. I've heard through the grapevine that BAG is looking for more users to help, and since I'm not completely incompetent, I'd like to offer to help. Good intentions aside, I think being a member of BAG will be a benefit for the project and BAG as a whole.

I'm rather familiar with the process. A few months ago I co-wrote a bot after a Bot Request that stalled out before a BRFA. Since then I've been watching this page and just reading discussions. More recently I had a successful BRFA to replace a bot the GA project uses to keep track of its backlog. Both are written in python. I'm also familiar with Lua (it's what I wrote Module:Cite LSA in) and perl (nothing published though). I have also worked with engineers and computer scientists in the past, so I am acquainted with reading and commenting on code.

I recognize I'm a little bit of an unconventional candidate, but I think that is a benefit. I would be the only active non-admin BAG member, and one of the more recently registered ones. I think this gives me an outsider perspective on bag. Indeed, when getting my bot approved, I realized there was a lot I didn't understand about the process and the whole thing felt rather intimidating (it wound up being one of the most pleasant processes I've experienced on Wikipedia). For me, the bot policy and BRFA are fresh in my mind and so I understand the experience of newer bot ops who don't know how to navigate the process as well.

Please feel welcome to ask me any questions about my abilities or knowledge. I think I'll do a good job, but I've got to prove that. Hopefully there will the consensus will agree with that. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions

• Do you have any experience with the bot approvals process prior to December 2016? Your only bot request appears to be from this month, as far as I can see, and that has me rather hesitant. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That I can prove? Not really. I linked to User:ProjectRequestedPagesBot above which I co wrote with another editor in February, but the project stalled before we put up a BRFA. (Long story version:) Because of that I read extensively on the process though, and I have been reading the talk page here for about that long. It's more indirect but my GA stats page and the statistics used in my Signpost article used scripts to collect and output the data, which required me knowing what constituted a bot (this wasn't, it was a script) and, even if it is a bot, where it could edit without approval (my user space). If your hesitancy is related to my comprehension of policy, I believe that's something I can reassure you on (and have been trying to). If it is related to how long I've been active in the process, it hasn't been long and I can't do much to fix that. I think it can be an asset, I definitely understand how you may not. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    • My hesitation based on experience only goes as far as I believe it relates to your familiarity with nuances of the process. If you can convince me that you understand those nuances, I wouldn't have an objection based only on numbers. What sorts of tasks would/would not fall under WP:COSMETICBOT to? Reading through Wikipedia:MTC!, do you think that tool could ever be considered a bot, and if so, under what set of options? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Well then we have something to discuss at least. With regards to WP:COSMETICBOT, I think the quasi-question The Earwig posed below is a good example of a bot that would fall under that policy. The general understanding seems to be that "cosmetic" means any change to the markup that doesn't change the appearance of the page (in the stated example, the template doesn't display the deprecated parameter, so it would be cosmetic), but even if the parameters were displayed, I'd still say it was cosmetic since it has little to do with the content and rather what content is displayed. If it were something like fixing the coordinates that would be substantive as it's about correcting information not changing what information is displayed. With MTC! only the file transfer mode is safely outside the bot zone in that it's similar to twinkle in how it requires user oversight of each change. The others do not, and could well be considered bots in their own right, but it's probably better understood as a script since it's automating a process. Large-scale changes would need a BRFA and account even if done by a human. If it were run as a cron job or incorporated into a script that automated its running then that would definitely be a bot. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Good intentions, but premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I agree with Dennis. You seem capable and I think you could do a good job, and not being an admin doesn't bother me (very little of our work requires the tools). Still, not having any direct experience with BRFAs other than your own makes it difficult to assess how you would handle them. Maybe you could pick a few random BRFAs like this one and explain what you would do? — Earwig ^talk 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, too soon. Thank you for wanting to help in this area. You are welcome to comment on, ask questions, review trials, etc on all open BRFA's - we really will appreciate the input! If you stay active in that capacity for a while and reapply later you should be able to gather more support. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Would definitely support in the future with more experience -FASTILY 22:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons already stated. Thank you for volunteering. You'll be a strong candidate with more experience. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is premature, but I would invite a reapplication in the future. The lack of experience is an issue. Your answers to my questions weren't all that bad, but they also weren't so polished that I'm going to overlook the experience issues. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:03, 26 December 2016 (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

Proposed activity requirements for maintaining bot flags

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Activity_requirements for a proposed amendment to the bot policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

General fixes and cosmetic edits

I recently blocked Yobot for making cosmetic-only edits. The discussion is at User talk:Yobot#Expanding templates. It then transpired that many of these edits do not actually have consensus in the first place, in some cases actually being vigorously opposed. The problem seems to be that there is no quality control on the contents of AWB general fixes. I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes. SpinningSpark 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: can you point to an approved BRFA that was for genfixes only as an example? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I can't. That wasn't my point. My point is that some general fixes do not have consensus to do at all, either by themselves or as part of a more substantive edit, and nobody is controlling this. SpinningSpark 16:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Yobot made cosmetic-only edits as a result of a bug. If you check you'll see that these changes are not the rule but the exception. At the same day Dexbot was blocked for similar reasons. The main reason was that the fixing bad ref names was readjusted and extended in an area not fixed by AWB and even worse in an area where adding quotes is optional and not mandatory. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: your concern is not the cosmetic changes but the fact that bypassing redirects should not be done at all, right? I think at some point you made it your concerns more explicit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: you know that Yobot has been making cosmetic-only edits for years. There are regular complaints about it on your and Yobot's talk pages. What is needed is a commitment from you that it will stop. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we please take the issue of Yobot's block back to Yobot's talk page. The issue I'm raising here is not Yobot's cosmetic edits, but rather that there is no control over the contents of general fixes. If you really want to get BAG involved in Yobot's block then please start a new thread under this one. SpinningSpark 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking with a BAG hat: we don't approve genfix only bots, if the community doesn't want bots ever doing genfixes (even when also doing another more specific task) we will need to inform bot operators to adjust their scripts. This would need a broader discussion for consensus on that topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as malfunctioning bots: if a bot is off task and won't stop: block it - once the operator has identified the cause and agreed to repair it the block should not be needed. Most bot tasks (exp the kinds that involve genfixes) aren't of high importance to the project and if they need to be suspended for a discussion, the encyclopedia should be fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My bot, BG19bot does use genfixes in order to correct Checkwiki errors. It does have approval to fix Checkwiki errors. Spinningspark and SlimVirgin's comments would make me believe they want to shut down my bot and other user's AWB bots. Others that have commented at Yobot's talk page that would imply shutting down my bot. One bad fix is one too many for CBM for example. Genfixes are used to fix broken brackets in templates, wikilinks and external links. Another thing would be fixing ill-formed tags (ie </br>) in which the WMF asked me to fix. These tags will no longer work when the new parser for Mediawiki is changed from Tidy. Fixing URLs would be another category, such as adding http: to urls (ie www.google.com) or removing multiple http (ie httpshttps://www.google.com). It fixes bad ISBN syntax (ISBN: 1234567890) and DEFAULTSORT problems. It fixes some accessibility issues. AWB does not fix all Checkwiki errors. You will see that my block log is clean except for one bad block that was quickly overturned. Looking at my talk page, you won't see all the huge drama that is at Yobots. BG19bot 9 approval, fix for accessibility, does mention that genfixes will be used and 10 people did comment in the discussion. Other discussions are: BU RoBOT, OmniBot 5, BattyBot, Yobot, BattyBot, Fluxbot and there are more. There are also requests by BAG operators to turn off genfixes as it wasn't needed to fix the issue. Genfixes isn't a free for all as SpinningSpark alledges. Bgwhite (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I certainly think that we should distinguish between fixes that are fixing something broken like missing brackets, and fixes that are style issues (by that, I don't mean just the MOS things, but also format things that are only seen in the edit window). Fixing broken syntax is entirely uncontroversial. Style issues are not always so. In fact those are the things people often fight most bitterly over. Bots should not be making style changes that are controversial. As an example, the initial issue with Yobot concerned bypassing the redirect {{main}} → {{main article}}. Now I don't want to start an argument over whether or not that is a good idea to do and there are other examples. The point is that it is controversial, does not have consensus, and is being executed by bots. There are complaints about template redirects going back at least to 2010. This RFC in 2011 (conducted on the AWB talk page) failed to get consensus for bypassing redirects. So why in 2016 are they still being implemented by bots? The very first complaint should have instantly got it taken out of AWB. To my mind it should work something like the WP:PROD process. If a style change is being implemented without a guideline or community consensus to support that change, then the first objection should kill it, immediately, and without argument. Get a consensus before putting it back. Even if there is a guideline supporting it, it is still not necessarily something bots should be doing. Every guideline has a header saying "occasional exceptions may apply". If an editor offers a credible reason for exceptions, and the task is not mandatory for policy or other reasons, then a way to accommodate those exceptions should be found. Or else, again, get a consensus to force it. SpinningSpark 01:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Template redirects are not in the scope of this talk page. That is AWB related. So you still want to block my and all the other bots I mentioned. All the above use genfixes for some of their approved runs. By the time a list of articles with a certain problem is generated from a dump file, database request or a Checkwiki run, some of those articles will already be fixed or vandalism reverted. When those bots arrive at those fixed articles, genfixes will still be applied, thus creating a cosmetic edit, possibly doing a template redirect. It will do something you do not approve of and have stated the bot should be blocked. I do feel you will block my bot as soon as you notice something you do not aprove of.

Your second statement My point is that some general fixes do not have consensus to do at all, either by themselves or as part of a more substantive edit, and nobody is controlling this. Is this still your point? I've been taken to ANI, threatened to be blocked and asked to be blocked for something AWB's genfixes did that was not "consensus". This includes removing blank lines between items in a list for accessibility. This includes moving TOC so screen readers can access the article. This includes making a cosmetic edit minutes after the issue was fixed, and they thought one cosmetic edit is one too many and bot should be blocked. This also includes fixing brackets, headlines and defaultsort. What you call uncontroversial is controversal to others and visa versa. The very first complaint should have instantly got it taken out of AWB.... Then AWB would have no fixes. The TOC fixes were given approval on BAG and the accessibility page. It is in MOS. I was still taken to ANI multiple times because there was no general consensus or editors of that page should decide TOC placement. Removing the blank lines was given approval on BAG and accessibility pages, plus posted to proposal pump. It is also in MOS. Again, people wanted it to stop and there were requests for me to be blocked because there was no general consensus or it was "trivial edit". No AWB genfixes has "consensus". You are holding Yobot hostage and demanding all AWBs stop until your AWB's pet peeve is fixed. My bot's bad block came from an admin who thought the bot shouldn't be "fixing" their articles, even though the "fix" is in MOS and the issue can cause problems. They blocked me out of the blue and wanted it to stay blocked until their pet peeve was removed. It was quickly overturned and there was a "fun" discussion on should the bot be doing that at all.

Back to your original question. I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes. Bender the Bot, Josvebot and JJMC89 bot are examples where genfixes was asked to be turned off or bot was denied. Add the bot approvals from above that stated genfixes would be used. The answer is yes, BAGs do exercise control. Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That is control over which bots do genfixes. It is not control over the content of genfixes. There needs to be some formal structure controlling what gets into genfixes in the first place. SpinningSpark 10:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Just to be clear, Fluxbot task 6 does not use genfixes at all. It only uses a specific find/replace table to target the malformed tags it is approved for. I don't really like genfixes for my bot in general, and never run them. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The real issue here is a small number of AWB bots for which the maintainers do not put in effort to prevent cosmetic-only edits. There are other AWB bots whose maintainers manage to avoid that problem, so the issue is not AWB itself. The solution of simply having AWB bots (in fact, all bots) only perform the specific changes which they are approved to make, and not apply other "general fixes", would certainly solve this issue. And it would be in line with the idea of bot approval. In general, if there is clear consensus for a certain style to be implemented everywhere, a bot could be approved to make that change, so there is no need for bots to make extra unapproved "fixes" while carrying out approved tasks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be a solution as far as bots are concerned. It would still leave an issue with AWB of potentially stuff sneaking in without consensus, but it would then no longer be an issue for BAG and would have to be dealt with elsewhere. The current position though, is that BAG has approved a number of bots to make genfixes provided they are not cosmetic only. Are you proposing that those approvals should be withdrawn? SpinningSpark 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a problem with this: Two saves when there could have been just one. If a bot makes its main change and doesn't do general fixes, then another AWB user (or even manual editor) makes prescribed general fixes, that's two saves. Saves are expensive. So, if the bot makes its main change and makes general fixes at the same time, that's better for database performance. With the issue of how general fixes become general fixes kept as a separate argument, I don't see a problem with "killing two birds with one stone". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But "the issue of how general fixes become general fixes" is exactly the issue that I have brought to this board. I don't have a problem with bots doing genfixes in principle, but it does need to be controlled like all bot activity. SpinningSpark 19:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still outside of the point I was making in response to CBM. AWB users (not just bots) apply general fixes today, and given they are following the rule to not make cosmetic-only changes, they are acting in good faith and generally doing useful work. So, if a bot can't do what the many AWB users are doing, then you likely end up with more save's. I prefer the better performance of fewer save's. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There are many things editors can do with AWB that shouldn't be done by bots. SpinningSpark 20:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to keep missing my point, I can't stop you, but given a bot is making a particular edit on purpose, there should be no particular harm with adding general fixes to that, and there's the plus of better database performance overall. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Another example would be the changes that Dexbot is currently making, such as this edit. This is adding a template that changes the appearance of an external link from Official website to Official website. There's no problem with the former version, and in fact it is explicitly permitted by our guidelines (WP:ELOFFICIAL): the use of templates in this area is strictly optional. The change isn't a "fix" at all: it is cosmetic and appears to be the personal preference of an editor. As far as I can tell from the records, the decision to try and change every such link on the wiki to use a template appears to have been taken here, back in August, by a single member of the BAG. No RfC that I can find, no wider discussion, including on the relevant guidelines page. I don't think this sort of wiki-wide change should be carried out without establishing consensus first. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux, sorry to ping you about something else, but I don't know who else to ask. Looking at Dexbot's edits, which are converting links to official sites to templates (example), WP:ELOFFICIAL says: "Use of the template {{official website}} is optional." So (1) the edits violate COSMETICBOT and (2) they have no consensus. Why would BAG approve the task? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Please keep in mind, BAG members do not make most decisions "by committee", Dexbot task 6 was approved by @Magioladitis: - so I'd start by asking him. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Which neatly brings us back to my proposal about a million bytes further up the page that bots running a task that does not have policy to back it up or a consensus they can point to should immediately stop on the first objection. Editors shouldn't have to jump through these hoops to get a task they don't like stopped. Now anticipating your reply that BAG usually demands that before approving a bot, if that's the case then you should seriously consider throwing out Magioladitis from BAG. He clearly cannot be trusted to make the distinction. He cannot even keep his own bot under control. SpinningSpark 00:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark BAG membership does not have a thorough policy, but ejection should not be unilaterally decided by any other member, nor by only sitting members. BAG membership is gained via a community discussion and absent any other policy I would suggest the same would be needed for forced removal (not excluding any ArbCom decrees). A "recall" or "no confidence" discussion below would be where I suggest this is held. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram has now cleared out nearly all the template redirects from AWB, I think mostly in frustration at this problem. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation. As AWB genfixes are being carried out by a large number of editors as well as bots, I propose that BAG treat AWB itself as a bot and require approval for additions to genfixes, and retrospectively require approval to be sought for existing genfixes. If this isn't done we will only end up with genfixes filled up with controversial stuff again in the future. SpinningSpark 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of AWB's general fixes are based on Guidelines and Documentation. I try to keep a record of all of them in WP:GENFIXES and WP:AWB/H. Today one of the last longstanding problem, the newlines between the headers has been removed from "general fixes". After redirects discussion, I think there is still one issue to be resolved with one way or another and we are done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Renaming BAG -> Bot Approvers

Glad to be part of BAG! :D As one of my first orders of business, I wanted to propose renaming the "Bot Approvals Group" to simply "Bot Approvers"... As flattering as it may be to be part of it, I personally think "Bot Approvals Group" sounds like some elitist cult, and the "BAG" acronym sounds quite silly when used as a descriptor. E.g. Magioladitis is a wonderful bag [member], Slakr is one of the best bags, or Xaosflux is one of the oldest and baggiest bags (pings intentional, plz don't mind the humour). One might confuse "bot approver" as being a real user group, but I think that's OK. The current name just sounds weird when the obvious and more straightforward "bot approver" can be used, as most people have no idea what BAG stands for. I know The Earwig mentioned he wasn't too fond of the name, are we alone on this? Perhaps it's too big of a deal to carry out a rename (all the pages, templates, etc.), for something so simple? I noticed the nifty WP:BA redirect is linked all of 17 times, so we could hijack it — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am rather fond of the current name and acronym. Perhaps it's just me but I interpret "group" as a collaborative effort, the members of the group collectively approve bots, rather than in an elitist way where it's some secret cabal of approvers. Plus I think BAG is a rather fun name. A utilitarian name for a utilitarian group, one that undermines the idea that it is a lofty group. It's humbling. Compare "I need a bot approver" with "I need a BAG person". That being said, you offer a lot of good reasons for why a name change might be beneficial. Much better reasons than that I like it. So I'd prefer the name stay as is, but am not against the change proposed. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  In some old discussions there was concern that BAG was getting cabal-y at one point, but that seems to have died down. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not too strongly attached to the name - but there are a lot of things to rename, not sure if it is worth the hassle. No objections to usurping BA and starting to integrate it in. I really think our biggest need is just to get more of us to be active in reviewing the requests/trials/approvals. We've got a newsletter I started earlier this year, prob will send out again in January if there is anything you want to add start editing Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/News. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was my biggest concern – that it's a lot of work to formally carry out the rename. Just so we know, if there there is consensus for the change, I'm willing to do most of the leg work. I'm doing my best to help at BRFA, and intend on being regularly active there. There are a few up right now with lengthy discussion, so I'm not going to try to get involved with those at this point. Beyond that, if you want to take a much needed break from any new BRFAs that come in, feel free to do so :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  For the most part, I don't "claim" any that I touch - if I approve a trial (which I do fairly liberally - and we may want to think about allowing small self-trials, perhaps with a hold period...) feel free to take over at any point. Unless I go absent, I would like to see AnomieBOT III 3 though to the end in a few days though. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I personally like BAG. It's easier and less awkward to say bag and not ba. :p—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• I guess we should have seen this coming... To me "group" seems synonymous to "committee", and it just means that BAG works more as a team rather than individually. And I like that. Legoktm (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  Well when you paint the picture like that then the name sounds quite fitting! I like that attitude too :) but I don't think BAG members work together anymore than admins or checkusers do, for example. Either way clearly we are all happier sticking with BAG, and doing all the renaming work certainly wouldn't have been fun. None of this has any importance, I was merely under the false impression "Bot Approvals Group" wasn't all that popular, and opposition to a rename would have been minimal — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I too don't see the point of a rename, and I quite like the current name and acronym as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• I think BAG is well established in our community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yobot

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279 § Magioladitis

Xaosflux, I've been half watching the Yobot situation for the last couple of years, but I became aware of the extent of it only in the last few days. There are dozens of threads going back to 2009 about violations of the bot policy, 22 blocks of Yobot and Magioladitis, and hundreds of hours of volunteer time spent trying to resolve it. I would like to know what BAG can do to help sort this out. What are the responsibilites of BAG in this situation, and (in case it's the only way to resolve it) what is the procedure for removing bot approval and AWB? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Ultimately the bot's operator is responsible for all edits they make under the bot account. This is a bit complicated, I can think of a few scenarios:

1. Are edits being made that claim to be under an approved BRFA task - that are not following that task? In that case AN/I should be able to deal with it via blocks. It appears there currently is a block in place for this reason. As it is contentious, an WP:AN discussion may be in order for next steps with a wider audience.
2. Has 'community support' for a task that had prior approval changed? Please specify the task and where the change in community support has been documented. This is something BAG can review and revoke prior task approval if there is no longer support for it.

What would you like us to do? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I can't answer your second question yet, because I'm unsure of the relationship between BAG and the AWB operators. There are several things that AWB does that have no consensus. Are you able to stop a bot from doing those things?

More broadly, the issue is that the bot has edited in violation of the bot policy consistently throughout its existence, routinely violating COSMETICBOT and CONTEXTBOT. What is the procedure for removing bot approval and AWB? During several of the threads about this, people have said they can't remove AWB from Magioladitis because he is an admin. What, then, is the procedure for removing it? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

BAG has nothing to do with editors using AWB in any way. As far as bots powered by AWB, it goes back to question #2 above. Broadly speaking, my impression is that the community has general support for bots that perform cosmetic fixes, if they are also performing otherwise approved tasks. If this is not true, an RfC may be needed to clarify. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Yobot regularly violates COSMETICBOT. That is, he makes cosmetic fixes in the absence of any other change. It is a long-term problem, going back to 2010. What can BAG do to help with this? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: You don't really need BAG to block a bot for violating the bot policy - just block it and your problem goes away...— xaosflux ^Talk 23:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd add that I've some similar concerns about Dexbot as well - please see above. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't really need to worry much about if an old task has approval or AWB access is enabled if an account is blocked. If someone is actually being disruptive and won't stop being disruptive there are processes to deal with that. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as removing tool access from an editor, BAG has nothing to do with that - anymore than we would remove Twinkle or Huggle. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

By large, BAG has no authority over bots or operators after the initial BRFA. It's up to AN/I or such. BAG is pretty much for approvals only per BOTPOL and we've had at least a few editors express disapproval when BAG went further than that. BAG can revoke approval if the task no longer has consensus, but that line isn't very clear. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The bot policy says that bots can be removed from the bot user group. It quotes Headbomb (comparing a BFRA to a driving licence: "If they are abused, they can be (and are) revoked, and bots are blocked accordingly." I think BAG really needs to step up here and help; otherwise it's inevitably going to end up at ArbCom. There has to be an easier way to fix this, including a way that allows Magioladitis to enjoy his editing, but without the problems. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not what BAG does though, that's what administrators do as part of policy enforcing and incident resolution. Besides revoking approvals, the policy does not provide BAG themselves any such authority (not in any unambiguous way). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the long term problems we have had with this bot going back through the years, I would like to propose that BAG revoke approval for all Yobot's jobs. Let Magioladitis reapply for approval and we can give each request the scrutiny it needs.

Furthermore I note that Magioladitis seems to be doing with his main account the edits that the bot was doing before it was blocked. This includes the problematic cosmetic-only edits like this one. What should we do? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's just out and out block evasion, so I've blocked him also. Just appalling behaviour for an admin, especially as he has been blocked for the exact same thing in the past. I can see this is going to end up at ANI. SpinningSpark 10:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

MSGJ, From the bot policy: Requests for reexamination should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. This may include either appeal of denied bot requests, or reexamination of approved bots. In some cases, Wikipedia:Requests for comment may be warranted. Open a thread there and advertise as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ, Spinningspark, and Xaosflux: revoking approval and asking Magioladitis to reapply is a good idea. It means that each request can be scrutinized, and once it's approved he can proceed without fear of trouble. Is BAG or AN the best place to ask for this? If AN, should it be accompanied by proposals related to Magioladitis's account, or should that be handled separately? SarahSV ^(talk) 14:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Open a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. Be specific as the the scope of what you want the discussion to cover (e.g. all ongoing/uncompleted tasks that were previously approved, the use of genfixes in combination with existing tasks, a specific task, etc). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the basic problem is with any approvals Magioladitis has been given, but I have not looked through them all thoroughly so I might be wrong. It is more to do with his method of work. He uses genfixes (the content of which is poorly controlled) as a blunt tool, and cannot be made to understand why bots are sometimes unsuitable for tasks that human operators also do. He continues to plough on when challenged on particular edits, without regard to whether those edits actually had consensus. He has shown that he cannot distinguish between consensus and someone requesting something, or his own view that something should be done. I am more concerned that he has authority to approve the bots of others than any of the specific approvals he has been given (with the possible exception of the approval to do genfixes at the same time, but that is a wider issue being discussed above). SpinningSpark 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

With Magioladitis currently being blocked, he won't be approving anything. I've asked if he will volunteer for a new membership confirmation. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thank you for doing that.

Spinningspark, If we were to open an AN, what would you suggest as a proposal?

I've been collecting diffs of threads about this for the last couple of days. My intention was to post them on a user subpage to use during an AN. So far I've found 126 threads going back to 2010, and I've stopped looking because it's too time-consuming. They are so many, I'm actually reluctant to post them because I don't want to create a badge of shame for M, but it's clear that we need to sort it out. What puzzles me is why the community hasn't been more decisive. Discussions have just petered out—even the last, long AN/I ended with no resolution. This time, we should propose something that has a strong chance of gaining consensus. Better still would be if M would agree to abide by certain restrictions. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I really have no idea. Magioladitis seems to be one of those people who just refuse to get it no matter how many times they are told. Certainly, removal of BAG membership privileges, or more diplomatically, request that BAG do it. An undertaking that cosmetic-only edits and genfixes that have no consensus will no longer be made might be something to ask for, although such an undertaking is probably wothless because I don't believe M has the ability to distinguish these most of the time. Probably the most effective thing would be to forbid M from running AWB with genfixes turned on. Other bot operaters here have said they never do that, only ever executing specific approved tasks. The trouble is I think M would argue that his scripts rely on that way of working so such a restriction would effectively hamstring him. But it is for him to say that, not for me to put words in his mouth. SpinningSpark 16:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and perhaps an undertaking to immediately stop if challenged might work. Make him come back here to discuss before continuing with the task. SpinningSpark 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, I simply don't have any trust in the editor concerned either to run bots or approve their use by others. I think we'd see large scale changes being made, followed by prevarication and evasion when challenged. I don't think we'd see any effort made by them to revert their mass changes. And then a repeat of the same activity all over again. As you've said above, Spinningspark, there has been some "appalling behaviour for an admin, especially as he has been blocked for the exact same thing in the past". Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I lack the knowledge of bots to know how to phrase any proposal. Magioladitis needs to stop making edits like this and this, whether with the Magioladitis or Yobot account. We are into the 7th year of him blaming a bug, so asking him to stop will not work. What is the best way to express that?

I'm thinking that we should, via AN (a) ask BAG to revoke approval for all Yobot's jobs and ask him to reapply for approval; and (b) ask that Magioladitis not make any automated or semi-automated edits with his account, or alternatively that he be allowed to use AWB but only without genfixes. Does that sound reasonable? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: BAG has absolutely no purview over editors using or mis-using AWB, only bots. Please use WP:AN/I for editor related incidents. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Please post your request information here: Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_to_revoke_User:Yobot.7C.27s_authorization for requesting a de-authorization for Yobot. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:, thanks for setting that up, but I wouldn't want to start a discussion before I know how to proceed for the best. The issue of Yobot and Magioladitis should probably be sorted out together, and it might be best to do it on AN. I'm still unclear about the relationship of BAG to AWB. You say there isn't one, but Yobot has been causing disruption for years with AWB. So I'm confused. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

AWB is a tool rather than a bot. The relationship is that BAG has given approval for this bot (amongst others) to carry out the general fixes part of AWB (which includes all the cosmetic edits) at the same time as they make some other edit they are approved for. However, BAG does not approve the individual items in general fixes and there is no formal control over them of any kind. So basically BAG is approving stuff completely blind when it does this so this mess is not entirely the fault of M. SpinningSpark 20:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@SlimVirgin: OK deleting it for now. For the most part, BAG approves specific tasks to be done - ideally after ensuring the task is technically sound, does not cause harm, and has community support. To a much lesser degree BAG reviews software code. As far as AWB goes, it is just a framework for getting the task done - the same task could be done with any software package (e.g. C++, .NET, RubyOnRails, most anything). Where we would be involved is if a task was approved to say "Do X and also any AWB genfixes". That would be a blanket that any "genfixes" enjoy community support (including future genfixes). We certainly can re-review any bot task that you think should not inlude the "and also AWB genfixes" component. If you think that NO bot should ever do the "and AWB genfixes" - a larger RFC should be opened on that topic. Please also keep in mind: editors that are using AWB (these ~2300 people: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and the ~1200 administrators) could be using genfixes for their one-off, low speed AWB use. BAG has no oversight to that type of editing, however those editors are expected to follow all applicable policies. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark and Xaosflux: thanks for explaining. The general fixes are a mess. Things are done that have no consensus—several are either pointless or harmful—and when people complain they're told they must gain consensus to have them stopped.

But no other bot causes as much trouble with genfixes as Yobot. Since 2009 (example) it has regularly made trivial edits in the absence of other changes. Can BAG remove all "and also any AWB genfixes" from Yobot's approved tasks? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: following a discussion period that shows a general consensus for this we can, please write down your concerns here: Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_to_modify_Yobot_authorization and we will open it for discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot

Spinningspark, would you mind looking at the discussion at User talk:Ladsgroup#Cosmetic edits, and decide whether Dexbot should be blocked? I asked him to stop, but he has resumed.

Ladsgroup is a Wikidata developer and works for Wikimedia Deutschland. Magioladitis asked him to convert all official websites links to templates for Wikidata purposes, like this. Wikidata-enabling edits are a contentious issue on the English Wikipedia. In addition, the guideline says that using templates is optional. So (a) this task has no consensus, (b) it ignores the relevant guideline; and (c) the bot operator arguably has a conflict of interest—not an issue if he has consensus; without it, it's an additional problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: respectfully, this page is about the operations of BAG, not about specific incidents. Reviews for blocks are better handled at AN/I where a much larger audience is available, or alternately at WP:BOWN. (stats: This page only has 209 watchers, BOWN has 532, ANI has ~1300.) — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, the last comment from Ladsgroup says the bot has been stopped. This seems to be true as far as I can tell so no adminstrative action is currently required in any case. SpinningSpark 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Xaosflux, will do, and thanks to both. Ladsgroup has indeed agreed to stop. The reason I posted it here is that it's an example of Magioladitis approving a task that didn't comply with the relevant guideline, so it seemed pertinent. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)