Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 20

message: I find that several hundred or maybe a few thousand stub articles were built by Ganeshbot without a reference section and the only source being  is listed wrong (see WP:ASR} it should have been a proper footnote to the Indian Census (but some like Ghorawal did get a reference section).  Many of them like Ghorabandha have not matured past stubs.  Some like Kangeyam have matured into large unreferenced articles.  Some like Mandi Gobindgarh have grown and captured a few references that could use .  I got in a fairly long discussion with the bot builder at  User_talk:Jeepday#Re:_Kangeyam after posting a  to his talk page, suggesting he figure out how to add a reference section and list the reference instead of the wikilink on all those unreferenced articles.  He responded that it was beyond his ability and that I make a request at WP:BOTREQ .  Before posting here I did a reality check at User_talk:DGG#Bot_articles and did a review of Wikipedia:Bot policy. Thoughts? Jeepday (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to clarify a few things. I am the the builder of the bot mentioned above. There are thousands of articles that link to the Geo-references page(see links), not just the Indian towns. Rambot created similar links when it created US city articles. It was suggested to me at the bot approval stage to add a link to the Geo references page (similar to what Rambot did) instead of adding the same reference to thousands of articles. At the time when the reference was added, the page was called "Geographic references" and it was in the article space (it was not a ASR). This was how it looked. Then this move happened and the reference page was moved to Wikipedia namespace. In cases where GRIndia was the only reference in the article, there was no need for a reference section so the bot did not create one. In cases where additional references were added (link to Fallingrain), the bot created a reference section. The articles being referred to above were created a year back, around June 2006. Like I told Jeepday, the some articles have changed so much that it would be difficult for me to insert a empty reference section into the article automatically and had suggested to go to WP:BOTREQ for help. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Smackbot is now adding a Reference section and  to articles that have a .  Example Diff  Editors can simpley change the their template links to <ref> style entries and everything should be fine.  This is simple search and replace which I beleive Ganeshk has already done for his article. Thanks for taking the time Ganeshk :) Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ganeshbot|Ganeshbot]] articles 

message: Despite being approved for only 12 epm, I've noticed periods where the bot has exceeded 45. Q T C 07:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see it again, notify an administrator, who may block the bot.  The task request did not reference use of the maxlag parameter.  If the bot is using the maxlag parameter, however, it may, in general, edit as quickly as it is allowed.  But it should be mentioned somewhere.  — madman bum and angel 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it was posting at 24-30 epm yesterday so I reported it to ANI, and it got an hour block, but it's back again and still editing at around 24 epm. Q T C 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:BOTijo]] 

message: Do you have any bots which can replace my former usernames User:Canderous and User:Canderous0 with my current User:Raffaello9? The same should go for the respective talk pages — Raffaello9 | Talk 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use redirects. βcommand 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In explanation, Raffaello, changing former usernames, especially in archives, has caused controversy in the past, so having a bot do it would be unacceptable. — madman bum and angel 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots to change occurrences of former usernames 

message: In response to the significant edits to this policy by a recent anon, I've restore the section on edit rates (though left in the added info on using maxlag).  We've seen that the edits rates were not only implemented to "SAVE TEH SERVERS!" but to allow for edit review. — xaosflux Talk 16:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon has restored his section, I've done a bit of clarification work, but it's looking rather messy right now.  It might need a complete reworking.  — madman bum and angel 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I never deleted the edit rates in the first place; I just moved and rephrased the section. Perhaps you were thrown by the fact that I said "15 edits per minute" rather than "once every four seconds" and so on. Never mind, I've restored the old wording – 81.153.158.137 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  NB no bad faith should be inferred by my use of the word "recent", I don't normally strive for eloquent prose on project talks, by recent I refer both the time period before now that the edits were made, and speak to the activity recorded by that IP (which although empty before this, does help anyone else to AGF as there is no recorded issues with edits by that ip either).  It is obvious that you are not a new anonymous reader that has decided to start working on policies, but someone more seasoned and familiar with the "back office" side of the project, but choosing to not edit under a registered account. — xaosflux Talk 03:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit rates 

message: I'm tired of having my uploads and edits destroyed by mindless, faceless, unaccountable and plain aggravating bots run by uncaring editors who don't even bother to respond to queries or challenges to their bots actions.
It's time we implemented a system whereby a users edits can be opted out of bot-driven assaults, reversions and deletions. Only other human users should have the right to modify my contributions.
I don't mind working with and compromising with real living people, but why should these autocratic automatons have the right to overule my judgement? 
Wikipedia is written by people, for people - not as a playground for trigger happy programs on a power trip. Exxolon 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a bad idea. It would be far better to deal with individual bots. Do you have a specific complaint about a specific bot? We don't really allow bots to "assault" anyone. 1 != 2 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)ABSOLUTELY NOT! Have you lost your mind! Anti-vandal bots are necessary, there's no way we can have end-user controlled opt outs of them! or BetacommandBot! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry you've had some challenges.  Bot's are primarily an extension of their operator.  The operator is responsible for their bot's edits, and bots are not immune to the editing guidelines, including WP:CIVIL.  If a bot is making errors that you can not resolve with the operator, please start up a thread at WP:AN/I.  If you just don't like the bot/operator's editing, but it is not malfunctioning you can open up a WP:RFC on it if direct communications is not working.  To talk about a class of bots, you can see the Bot Noticeboard.  Thank you,  — xaosflux Talk 04:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a change. 

message: OrphanBot's currently running two unrelated tasks under the same account, and I'd like to split them into separate accounts.  OrphanBot would continue its work with unsourced images under the OrphanBot username, but the upload-tagging work would be done under the username ImageTaggingBot.  How would I go about getting a bot flag for the second account? --Carnildo (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a BAG member I see no problems here, just ask a 'crat to flag it, no extra bureaucracy is needed. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I second that, no need for needless process.  Please update the bot's pages to indicate their tasks, and you may want a link to the new bot from the old one in case anyone tries to research what it was doing in the future.  — xaosflux Talk 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting a bot account 

message: I'd like to create a userpage creator bot. The description can be found here. The problem is, I'm not a programmer. Could someone tell me where to propose this? Thanks, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  userpagecreatorbot 

message: Drawing attention to Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#AWB_edits. One issue is whether using AWB to perform one edit, while also performing "general fixes" which include something disputed, is an abuse of bot editing. Gimmetrow 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: its not, as the "disputed" issue is not really disputed. just a difference in opinion. In general the fixes should be done. your one issue will be fixed in the next version of AWB. just poke the AWB devs to get that version out soon. βcommand 05:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already have. And it's not a difference of opinion, beta. I would be quite happy to have people make actual editorial decisions, rather than tourist bots making the decision. Gimmetrow 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bot is short for robot, not assisted editing. BJTalk 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BOT#Assisted editing - "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits should first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired". Gimmetrow 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now I look like an ass, it wasn't worded like that before (Gurch just rerote it). Why it is there I have no idea, if a person presses the save button it is outside the purview of the bot policy and the BAG. That section should be reworded as a guideline. BJTalk 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, it's like editing in a hurricane here sometimes. But I think the basic issue has existed for ages: we don't allow scripts to change minor style issues en masse. There is an issue of scale here; the editor in question has done some 5000 edits already. We really can't let a "user assisted" script continue doing this unless we intend the result to be policy, because once it's implemented on enough pages, it's de facto policy. I've always understood that large jobs should be run by BAG. Almost everything I do is with manual approval, and yet it went through BAG. Gimmetrow 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I just used AWB for the first time in a while a few days ago and was kind of shocked to see that it was changing ref style. In this case the only thing that will fix the problem (without mass drama) is making a plea to the AWB team to release an update and disable the old version. As for BAG approval it may be a good idea to make a BRFA but I don't know of any precedent for the BAG having any authority users make many changes with a automated tool. BJTalk 07:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: done– Gurch 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB edits 

message: Hi, Have any of you thought of a framework/policy where non-trivial bots could be written for Wikipedia? At first glance, most of the bots I have seen around are still quite simple and pretty effort intensive in terms of precious human hours that is required to babysit them. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies and point me to a non-trivial bot. Else, could you please post your ideas here? My first thought is to use the lexicon of Wordnet to automate a few things that still need much human effort. For instance, I saw that User:RussBot still requires its owner to make disambiguation decisions. But I think about 90% of the decisions on linking French to France vs French people could be automated with a simple expert system that would decide if the page is about a person (easy to decide if there is a category anyway, but there can be other rules) and then look up word frequecy co-occurances via
Wordnet and make a decision. In general, this type fo expert system framework can then be offered to users at a much later stage, say 2 years, after testing. In a nutsell (pun intended) it would be a simple expert system shell that could be used to write useful bots. My driving thought is that "Wikepdia seems ever so effort intensive" and could use some more automation. Afterall, this is/was the computer age until a few years ago. The key item that would help, of course, would also be an API to a suitable high level language way above Perl or Python. But to begin with one may have to just use those. I had a few Perl-based routines that did reasoning a few years ago, and could try and find them. But before that it would be useful to hear what the group here thinks. And from a practical standpoint, it would be of tremendous algorithmic help if one had access to a page visit affinity table of some type. Of course at the page granularity level, this would be expensive, but one could use multi-categories for this, just as most supermarkets do for thier semi-item-level affinity tables. Do any of you know if such a table exists within Wikipedia, and if so, if it can be accessed? Anyway, your suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this sort of thing is that such a bot would always make mistakes. Humans that make mistakes are tolerated, but bots aren't; they're expected to be perfect and a lot of fuss is made when they aren't. So only tasks that can actually be properly automated are – and these very rarely involve manipulation of actual content – Gurch 01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It would probably help if I knew what on earth an "affinity table" was; the article doesn't seem related. If it's something to do with page views, though, we struggle to collect statistics on those at all, there's so many of them (two billion, yes, billion, per day) so you're out of luck – Gurch 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You could start with Special:Statistics. Gimmetrow 07:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You realize we have  articles? Maintaining a -cell table, and updating it 20,000 times a second, is very much non-trivial, and I'm not sure the benefit would be worth the enormous investment in resources required – Gurch 08:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Anonymized page view data is available in raw form here. If you want to do something with them, you are welcome to try. Note the file sizes; a single hour of page view date, compressed, comes to 20 Mb. Note that these files contain data for all Wikimedia projects – Gurch 10:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, that's an interesting idea. Although that Amazon feature is notorious for making rather odd suggestions. I can see it now: "People who read History of Portugal were also interested in Star Trek and List of Pokémon" :) – Gurch 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably the best way to do that would be to recursively generate a list of the contents of :Category:Portugal and its subcategories, and then jump to a random article in that list. Of course not every article has its own category; a similar thing could be done with the links on a page, but that would tend to lead to only tangentially-related things – Gurch 05:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Trivial Bots? 

message: I'm requesting clarification on the Bot policy
Does the Bot policy apply to read-only bots?
:Bots that only read an article, talkpage, noticeboard
Does the Bot policy only apply to editing bots?
Does the Bot policy only apply to automatic editing bots?
:Bots that do not require a specific 'Do you want to make this change? [y][n]' keystroke from the editor.--Lemmey (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read-only bots do not need approval, but if they're going to be doing a LOT of reads, then they should generally work offline from a database dump. Scripts that do not have a specific y/n approval for each edit need approval on the English wikipedia. Scripts that do include a specific y/n approval for each edit do not, at present, *require* approval, but if they're going to do a lot of edits it's probably a good idea to have BAG vet them. Otherwise, they are liable to get blocked. See also Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard#-BOT_Process.  Gimmetrow 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots - requiring approval 

message: I have a question about whether I need an RFA, so I can't really ask it on the RFA page.  I am one of the maintainers of Metacity.  It is released using a release script.  Wikipedia contains Template:Latest stable release/Metacity and Template:Latest preview release/Metacity.  I could add a section to the script which updated these templates.  It would make, on average, one edit per week.  Would that need to operate using a bot account?  If I gave copies of the script to other projects, would they need their own bot accounts? Marnanel (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need a bot account to make two edits per week - just have the script use your ordinary username and password. By the way, RFA is a different process, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. *changes title*. Thanks. Marnanel (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do I need a request for approval? 

message: It doesn't have to be the nobots system, but I think the community is asking for something that makes less work for everyone. Bot ops, as great and intelligent as you are, and as well discussed as bot tasks are before hand, there will be unanticipated situations, or things in the project or user namespace that shouldn't be touched at all (unless related to policy, etc).
My own proposal in the above thread (which has gone off topic to a more general rant by local bot ops) was more of a state of mind, rather than the exact technical approach or some bureaucracy. When someone proposes a bot task then it should follow such request, unless the task itself would need to edit any and all pages regardless of a user's personal preferences. We don't even need to force this from a technical standpoint, but from a community standpoint. Encourage this as a default setting for bots, but allow bot ops to use desecration. Wouldn't that be simple and fix a lot of problems in itself? Unless your bot has to edit every page, give it a way to ignore a page, because we can't be expected to watch/clean up after something as powerful (for a lack of better words) as a bot. 
So don't get hung up on the technical details. The community is making a request, and one that makes all of our lives easier. This is not black and white, this is not "this specific standard doesn't work, so I'll oppose the idea altogether", this is a community discussion. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is more than just what Locke Cole has brought up. Even if Locke never brought up the topic, this opt-out concept is something that the community has desired for a long time. Heck, I'm not even worried about half the stuff Locke brought up, but there are other reasons to consider these things. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed,  simply seemed like the most community friendly method available (and I wasn't interested in reinventing the wheel with this proposal). But to be clear, I don't care what system is used so long as it is uniformly supported by all applicable bots and is simple for an editor to opt-in/opt-out as appropriate. I'm not married to , so if there's some better way (that is automatic and requires no intervention by the bot operator to "turn on"), I'm game. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: zomg

message: So now we have three different debates. 1) What system to use. 2) When to follow said system. 3) Who gets to choose when to use said system. So first you have to create a system that all the bot ops have no objections with ( can't be followed by bots using the future API). Then you have to get every bots that touches the effected pages (see #2) to use the new system, including hostile bot ops (have fun with Betacommand).  On top of it all, then you have a power struggle between the bot ops and those who want to control when the bots follow the new system. All this is to a response to a problem that doesn't exist  ("BAWWWWWW Betacommand" doesn't count). So you just keep on ahead pushing for proposals that the people who do the actual coding oppose, I'm going to do something more useful with my time. BJTalk 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a constructive attitude to display, for one. #1 is something we can discuss later, all we need to agree on is that it must be consistent amongst all bots which must comply with it (I don't think anyone would disagree with that). #2 is also simple if we want to limit it to notifications on user talk pages. #3 I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If it's this "power struggle" you refer to later, I don't see why operators would be opposed to complying as non-compliance obviously causes more aggravation than compliance. If Jimbo is to be believed, editors are our best resource, irritating them with notifications they're not interested in receiving (tantamount to spam e-mail) is obviously unwise. So what's your problem with this? If we agree on the principles (editors should be able to opt out of notifications on their user talk pages on a bot-by-bot basis) where is there a dispute against this? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The disagreement is with when messages should be ignored and who decides this. From what I can tell you have three different types of message. 1) Opt in messages. 2) Vandalism or image notices. 3) Unsolicited messages (rare). The debate is over #2, if your edit tripped a vandalism bot, your newly uploaded image has issues (the image backlogs are almost empty) or one of your older image need attention, you should get a message. In the rare occurrence where editors have uploaded hundreds of images then left most bots have a opt out list (people have voiced issues with Betacommand's handling of his). Image tagging bots should not respect a general "no bots here" system, if you have so many image uploaded where it becomes a problem ask the bot op. BJTalk 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should uploading an image be any different than making an edit to an article? Why are we assuming the uploader is responsible for the image months or years after they uploaded it? So if there were ever a bot created to (hypothetically speaking) automatically tag unreferenced/unsourced statements in articles, it would track down who made the contribution and post a notification demanding they source the statement? Is that really where we're headed here? Image tagging bots should respect whatever system we come up with out of this, unless (and this is my only exception so far as image tagging bots are concerned) the user just uploaded the image. In other words: the bot is notifying the user of a mistake they just made, not a mistake they made months or years ago. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the image backlogs are almost empty. Once this happens BCB and others will only leave messages for new uploads. My bot will still leave messages for older images that get orphaned but no action is requested. BJTalk 07:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, until something new is discovered to be wrong with all current fair-use images and the cycle begins anew. I'd rather solve the problem permanently than leave it to chance that I'll never be bothered about it again... BTW, do you have any comments on User:Locke Cole/Bot Page Exclusion? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Despite the fact that some folks are disturbed when bot operators ignore , I don't think there is enough of a problem or a significant enough justification for making adherence to the nobots template policy. My suggestion is that BAG members request nobots or similar compliance when it makes sense, and also that they see to it that bot operators are involved in the creation of anything nobots-like if/when nobots is deprecated. Avruch  T   17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. It appears that nobots is already being considered for the appropriate bot requests. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see #zomg. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "My suggestion is that BAG members request nobots or similar compliance when it makes sense" - what if the community disagree with WP:BAG? BAG deal with technical issues (whether a bot works or not), not social and cultural issues to do with the interaction of the community and bots and their operators. In particular WP:BAG is not there to defend bots and their operators, but to deny bots on technical grounds. BAG tries to do too much, in my opinion, and ends up clashing with the wider community. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: then bring it up at the BRFA. dont try and force a shitty method down others throats. βcommand 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So when the community has problems with a bot, they have to have seen the original BRFA and commented there? What do they do if they have problems later? Ask for the request to be reopened and put back on the BRFA page? Or is it BAG's role to force bots down the throat of the community? Carcharoth (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - Maintain status quo 

message: Instead of focusing on nobots or any other centralized system, why not simply ask that all bot ops have some form of opt-out or ignore process? Again, this obviously wouldn't be an option offered when the edits have to be done, such as when related to policy and images, etc. This is mostly what we do now, but the problem comes up when some bot ops don't offer this, and refuse to do so even when the edit is not a have to edit. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more precise about which operators a refusing to turn off which sorts of edits? Refusing to keep a blacklist could be either inappropriate or benign, depending on the details. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user isn't sufficiently polite when requesting opt-out from BetacommandBot's notifications, Betacommand will refuse to put them on the opt-out list. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering whether Ned was talking about multiple bots or just that one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BCB is the only one I can think of off hand, but I figure our policy should say something to this effect for future situations. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I offer an opt out list, you can even add yourself! BJTalk 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that, unless the notices are seen as a "have to" edit, that opting someone out whatever the method should absolutely not be up to the bot owner's discretion. Does anyone have an objection to (for instance) requiring Betacommand, specifically, to add Locke Cole to the list of users that BCBot doesn't leave talk page notices for, and enforcing this with blocks if the bot continues to leave messages on Locke's talk page? This is obviously causing him some distress —Random832 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious it's caused a few people distress, at least. Look at User talk:BetacommandBot, specifically the many past messages. I'm not the only one requesting a way to opt out of receiving notifications. I'm just the only one willing to push this as far as it needs to go to make it a standard feature of all bots. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another idea

message: This page has been protected for 5 days, community policy pages are not the place for reversion cycles, this discussion of the WP:BAG section should continue either here or at one of the other active venues (with a link to it from here). — xaosflux Talk 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I think this is already at the wrong version.  — xaosflux Talk 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously. The only right version is the one immediately after my rewrite back in January :) Gurch (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: I have accepted a nomination to be considered for membership in the Bot Approvals Group.  Please express comments and views here. MBisanz talk 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG Candidacy 

message: Regardless of which way we go, the bot policy should include a section indicating that individuals standing for BAG membership may include a notice on their userpage indicating such.  I have created  and  to that end. MBisanz talk 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice templates 

message: Ugh. It is not "My way or the highway". Please stop trying to confuse the issues, by now claiming that the previous version does not have consensus. I would suggest that it be reverted back, to the way it was before the "new (experiment) (trial version) (policy) proposal". Please address the old version seperately. SQLQuery me! 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't followed the debate, however. If the new method (which I dislike) hasn't got consensus (which I think is the case), then the old method is automatically in place. The fact that we have kindly asked some users not to submit their applications at the moment has nothing to do with the consensus. It was a polite request, not a policy statement. Snowolf How can I help? 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You're right, it's not my way or the highway, but the old method is broken and there's a reasonable amount of support for something besides that (though we can't seem to agree on what). Maintaining the status quo, which IMO is simply enhancing this self selecting cabal, is totally unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree. Anybody can candidate and vote in BAG candidatures :) I'm afraid I've never saw you doing so. I did it as old as over a year ago, I wasn't on the BAG then. I never saw community input either in BAG elections or in BRFAs. I mean apart from those three-four person to whom I'm absolutely grateful. Snowolf How can I help? 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There is presently no method for joining the Bot Approvals Group which has consensus" 

message: ====1. The prior method of selecting the Bot Approvals Group (e.g., ) in the past...====
=====Had consensus=====
# I'll bite. SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed points of consensus/non-consensus

message: =====Had consensus=====
# I'll bite. SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. The prior method of selecting the Bot Approvals Group (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_policy&oldid=206743454]) in the past...

message: # I'll bite. SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Had consensus

message: # Unless a handful of people on an obscure page reflects community consensus... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Did not have consensus

message: =====Continues to have consensus=====
#Obvious. SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. The prior method of selecting the Bot Approvals Group (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_policy&oldid=206743454]) currently...

message: #Obvious. SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Continues to have consensus

message: #Obvious. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appears to have lost consensus

message: =====Currently have consensus=====
=====Currently do not have consensus=====
#My interpertation. I am an involved party and reserve the right to be wrong. SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. The changes, themselves, to the policy page regarding the Bot Approvals Group selection process (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABot_policy&diff=210318907&oldid=210309286])...

message: #My interpertation. I am an involved party and reserve the right to be wrong. SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Currently do not have consensus

message: =====Currently has consensus=====
# Given the large amount of participation, for something "not having consensus", a lot of people sure seem to get involved (as opposed to the older method, which usually manages a handful of folks, mostly existing members of BAG (furthering the self selection/cabal aspect of it all). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. The newly-proposed process for Bot Approvals Group selection (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABot_policy&diff=210318907&oldid=210309286])...

message: # Given the large amount of participation, for something "not having consensus", a lot of people sure seem to get involved (as opposed to the older method, which usually manages a handful of folks, mostly existing members of BAG (furthering the self selection/cabal aspect of it all). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Currently has consensus

message: # As per #3 SQLQuery me! 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Currently does not have consensus

message: # Gurch (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus schmonsensus 

message: # Миша13 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  T00 many opshunz 2 ch00z from 

message: I have to say I wasn't very impressed with the process-protest votes on Coren's RfA-style RfBAG, but it didn't affect the result, so no harm done. I do think the RfA-based process has some legitimate concerns, which of course mirror the criticims of RfA itself.  But in terms of increasing community involvement in the BAG and BRFA processes, I would personally consider it a success: an average of only 29% contributions from bot operators, and less than 10% from BAG (the four corresponding WT:BAG nominations, by contrast, didn't have a single non-bot-operator contribution between them).  We've all heard the arguments and opinions for and against the RfA-based process, so no need to rehash them here; but what conclusions can be drawn from this experiment that are relevant to the question of how to appoint BAG members? Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/Ilmari Karonen is a perfect example of how screwed up RfA style elections are. the user in question has support but no experiance with the bot approval process. right now its about 66% approval, which is in the bcrat discression range. if Ilmari gets elected it will be a discrace. βcommand 2 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the continuing complaints (whether its true or not) about the BAG is that the members tend to be coding gurus, but distinctly subpar when it comes to communication, understanding community norms and consensus building. I think that there are quite a lot of people who would like to see some new members of the BAG who are stronger in the communication stakes, even if it means being weaker on the coding side. Understandably, this view has not met with great support within the current BAG. In the particular case you mention, it is a user who is a mediawiki developer, en-administrator and sometime bot operator. It is far from clear to me that the user is fundamentally unqualified, although I also initially opposed. I would not directly support Ilmari's application, but I think that the wider community has other minimum standards, particularly regarding communication, than does the traditional BAG member. AKAF (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think programming skills are required, but being previously active in BRFAs are. you obviously have zero clue about bots or how they should be run. being active in BRFA is required to be a member of BAG. The community should have standards of experiance with bot related matters, if they dont that is a problem. βcommand 2 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage you to re-read your comment and think about whether it reaches the community minimum standard for communication skills.AKAF (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Some think BAG should only review the technical side of bots. I think BAG should not merely make a technical review, but should also determine if a task has consensus and complies with other non-bot policies. BAG doesn't deny spellchecker bots simply due to technical weaknesses of some script. As far as I'm concerned, someone with a wide knowledge of policy is welcome on BAG without any coding skills. However, there are precedents at bot approvals that BAG members ought to know about, and the way to learn those is to participate for a while before trying to join BAG. Anyone is welcome to comment on a BRFA. Someone who does that for a few months is likely to get support from the existing BAG should they desire to join it. Gimmetrow 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This presupposes that the support of the existing BAG is a desirable precondition in the case where there has been considerable community dissatisfaction with the current operating procedure. I think that the optimum would be more community input on bot approvals, but in the absence of that, community representatives on the BAG. AKAF (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: RfA is a very reactionary crowd, unfortunately. I severely doubt that by opposing that process they were endorsing the "current" one. If Ilmari gets elected, by the way, it will be a good sign that we've found at least one process that's capable of electing people with community support that don't necessarily please the current BAG. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What went wrong with the RfA-style RfBAG?

message: It's been suggested before: should BAG members be made into a usergroup which can use Special:Userrights to grant and revoke the bot flag? Personally, I would support such a move: it is already the case that BAG have complete authority over who gets the flag and when; having to have a 'crat rubber stamp it is a thoroughly ineffective check-and-balance when most of our bureaucrats don't know beans about bots - how are they supposed to know when a BAG member is making a mistake? I think that a compelling argument is that it will give BAG another tool with which to control wayward bots: currently having the bot flag withdrawn is an unnecessarily laborious process which is rarely used: bots are simply blocked instead, which is at best a blunt instrument.  Of the over 100 bot-related rights changes this year, only one was a deflagging without the consent of the operator.  What does everyone else think? A useful tool in the armoury of the people who are supposed to protect us against wayward bots? A natural extension of BAG's role? Or more trouble than it's worth? Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My own opinion, is that BAG should be more of an 'advisory' role than it presently is. We should still close and evaluate the BRFA's as we do now, but, I do not believe that the Crats should blindly flag on our word. I firmly believe that the crats should be the last check/balance on the process. Just my $0.02 however. SQLQuery me! 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bot approvals existed before bureaucrats had the ability to flag bots. Bot approvals is not something delegated by 'crats, and 'crats did not really oversee BAG, except that for a long time a 'crat was on BAG. Gimmetrow 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should BAG be able to flag bots?

message: I think this has certainly been an interesting experiment.  If there's one thing that has been shown very clearly, it's the level of inertia and apathy that surrounds bot policies and processes on wikipedia.  I don't think I've yet met anyone who is entirely happy with the way BRFA and BAG work on en.wiki (if you are, do speak up!), and I hope we can avoid getting into the same rut that has caught so many of our processes: where everyone agrees that it doesn't really work, but goes along with it anyway. There's no reason (other than apathy) why we can't change one little thing at a time and make gradual improvements; conversely, there's no reason not to try big changes as long as we're sensible with them.  I'm very interested to hear other users' thoughts on the whole issue. Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion