Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requests for BAG membership[edit]

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.



Other discussion[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment (June 2016)[edit]

Hi fellow BAG's, active members have likely been called to this discussion. Please review Special:PermaLink/726543278#Statement_by_Xaosflux - am seeking consensus for formally removing prior approval for these old tasks (not currently running due to arbcom sanctions). Should the general sanction be lifted I suggest they be represented if desired to give opportunity for community discussion. — xaosflux Talk 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems likely to be a good idea. I note some of those have since been taken over by other bots, and it probably wouldn't hurt to give the ones that haven't a fresh look to see whether they're still wanted and if they need any adjustment to the details of the task.
Besides Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot that you already noted, there's also Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot and Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot Anomie 01:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree, this all seems sane. — Earwig talk 06:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what I had already in mind. No old task should be resumed. Most of them are outdated, completed or now done by other bots in a more optimal way. Any bot run should go through the normal bot approval process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


It would have been courteous to ping me about this discussion. I came across it reviewing Xaosflux's contributions for their RfB.

More - it would have been sensible to sound me out about the proposal, to obviate the need for discussion, as I quite willing to re-apply for the tasks.

I take it that FemtoBot 7 would not need re-application, as suggested by Xaosflux in the amendment request.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

Hello Rich Farmbrough - I did link to this in my statement response at the arbitration request-apologies if it wasn't clear to you; I also support continuing approval for FemtoBot Task#7. — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
No problem. And thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC).
  • Note: The arbcom motion has concluded is closing Special:Permalink/728924349#Rich_Farmbrough:_Motion_.28sanctions_rescinded.29; excepting Femptobot #7 - it appears we are in agreement to revoke prior authorizations - any dissenters? — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    I can't imagine anyone would care but for safety's sake motions don't actually take effect until a clerk actions a motion (which is done 24 hours after the deciding vote. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    To be fair, the discussion basically says that this is not an arbcom issue and we should deal with it. — xaosflux Talk 21:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot[edit]

I've indeffed InternetArchiveBot as it is apparently malfunctioning. Not entirely sure of the protocol as it's the first block I've ever done on a bot. Owner notified, any admin may unblock withour further reference to myself. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I suggest you start a thread on this at WP:BOWN and invite the operators to it. — xaosflux Talk 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I've already notified the bot operator as a courtesy. Do I still need to start the thread? Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No you don't. As long as the problems are being dealt with, there's no need to escalate.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's dealt with that's fine - I was suggesting WP:BOWN would be a better venue then WT:BAG or WP:ANI. — xaosflux Talk 21:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)