Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 1

message: Hi, I am user:Walter. I ask this in the function as steward. When user comes on Meta to ask for bot-status for EN Wikipedia it is not always clear for me of he has approval or not. 
2 cases/examples;
Case 1
*meta:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:CmdrObot
**w:en:User:CmdrObot
There is a listing about this bot on the correct page. But there was no responds from the community.
*Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#User:CmdrObot
User  Fetofs responded that the bot is not approved. That it only can be rejected. And also point to the text on the top of that page. That seems strange to me because a request that has received no responds is not rejected. And not rejected is approved by default. But I possibly do not understand it. That is why I ask clarification about the process here.
Case 2
*meta:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:Rschen7754bot
**User:Rschen7754bot
There is discussion about its bot-status on Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive_13#Rschen7754bot
According user Rschen7754 this is a community approval for bot-status. For me that is not so clear. 
I like to get some advice so I do not need to ask users to take steps that are not needed but also that I only give bot-status with community approval. Walter 15:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I didn't made myself clear. This second case is pretty clear - that was the place to request bot-status, and by the old rule, as that bot was not rejected, it was approved by default. My hunch is that this rule is also valid for the first bot, due to the lack of votes in that bot and previous bots, but I'd wait a while for confirmation.
For future concerns, I suggest you take every bot in that area as approved by default. Fetofs Hello! 21:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for you responds. I find it very disappointing that the EN Wikipedia is so unclear about it bot policy. Other Wikis do that much better. I will consider nominations without responds as granted by default.  --Walter 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always stated in the "rules" that the bot must wait a week to gather "rough consensus" before running, but in general they have assumed as unless opposed, then granted. Also, this page is rather new, before the discussion where directly on the bot talk page, so often the requests where lost in the page and forgotten, there was almost no procedure for approving and/or dissaproving a bot, I hope this can be better now. →AzaToth 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The approvals procedure is about to be overhauled, hopefully it will be clearer then. Anyway, do you think this talk page should redirect to WT:BOTS, to keep all discussions central?--Commander Keane 01:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to leave this page here for organization, etc. However, if there are only a few people watching it and WT:BOTS is not cluttered, a redirect would not be harmful. BTW, we should redirect it to Wikipedia talk:Bots, not WT:BOTS. Fetofs Hello! 13:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification : when is a bot approved here? 

message: Shouldn't it be "Requests for approval"? – Gurch 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree :) Fetofs Hello! 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Freakofnurture changed it. Thanks! – Gurch 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: I've put a note at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging about a proposal for notifying bureaucrats of the need to assign/remove bot flags as accounts are approved. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagging and bureaucrats 

message: Would just like to repeat, for those who may have missed it the first time around, that pointing users to individual bureaucrats for flags is a very bad idea. 20 different bureaucrat's talk pages are not a centralized location, and having users ask for their own bot flags leaves all the work to the bureaucrats, when it could easily be done by the approvals group. There are two pages, Wikipedia:Requested bot flags and Wikipedia:Bots/Approval log, available for notifying bureaucrats of the need, and permission, to flag a bot. It would be greatly appreciated if "Okay, go ask a bureaucrat" were replaced with a 2 second edit to one of those pages. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or replacing "Go ask a bureaucrat" with "Go write your name so-and-so page." That would work too. Titoxd(?!?) 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On flagging requests to Bureaucrats 

message: I have recently gotten the approval to run and have received a bot flag for my bot user:BetacommandBot. during this process I noticed that the procedure for getting the preamble for running a bot can a extreamly difficult and time consuming process. I would like to make a suggestion. Split the page Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals into five pages.
*Bots that are being discussed
*Bots that have a aproved trial run
*Bots that are approved and waitng a flag
*Bot  that are approved and wish to get approval for another task
*Bot disscusion archives
*and disscusions that have stalled and are over60 days old without any edits
which is something simialar that is uses for WP:CFD/ WP:RFA and the use of subpages for each bot Betacommand 07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. Looks like Essjay did it. Alphachimp talk 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition  

message: WHoever re-organised the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals page. Rich Farmbrough 20:49 18  July 2006 (GMT).
:That would be me. Essjay (Talk) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay Essjay! :) -- Where 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: Can someone approve Task 4 of my bot? It's been sitting on the page for a week. I still don't have any complaints. Thanks. alphaChimp laudare 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto (Liberatore, 2006). 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied on yours Liberatore, and worked several bots.  I've removed the backlog marker, and made fake section subheaders indicating on the TOC what bots are stalled due to non-response of their operators. — xaosflux Talk 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Xaosflux. alphaChimp laudare 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks from me as well. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Approval Requested 

message: User:MetsBot has been in a trial period for over 11 days, can it be approved? —Mets501 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to approve your bot, but I'm not on the approval group.  I've requested to join, but I suppose we'll just have to wait until one of them is available.  — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that some bot requests got no response from the approvals group for weeks, it certainly makes sense to extend the group (Liberatore,  2006). 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'll just Be Bold and appoint myself, since the criterion for being on the approvals group seems to be "experienced editors" — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the version prior to this edit, the right place to ask was WT:BOT. But I suppose the members of the approvals group are also watching this page. (Liberatore, 2006). 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial Period 

message: ;Comments
I think I speak for others when I say that new members of this group should allow us to balance the approval process with more voices.  Ideally, no bot would be approved with at *least* two members voiceing their opinion. Persons have different specialties and may be uniquely aware of problems with a bot request. More is better. I think it goes without saying that since there has been no established election process that the standard for removal of a member elected in this fashion should be relatively low, if need arises.  If anyone elected here, including myself, violates this trust, they should be removed and discussions initiated immediately.  Until we have hundreds of members, we can afford to be a bit more informal than, say, RfA. -- RM 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I personally don't see the problem in 'electing' everyone here unless any serious issues are brought up, but that's just my opinion. — FireFox (talk) 18:50, 02 September 2006
General Comment On the entire election procedure, I don't suppose most of the community would be able to participate in this.  In order to be a member of the Approvals Group, a user needs to be trustworthy, of course, but a key aspect is having the technical skill necessary to judge the...well..technical aspects of a proposed bot.  I'm able to support Voice of All because I'm fully aware of his technical knowledge, thanks to interaction and observation, over time.  But as for other users, although I can judge whether or not they are trustworthy, it is difficult for me to determine if their level of knowledge would be sufficient for them to join the approvals group.  It's simple, Approvals Group member = trustworthyness + technical knowledge.  If I'm able to judge only half of this equation, then I can't, in full conscience, support or oppose anyone.  I imagine that anyone who doesn't possess some deeper technical knowledge in the programming of bots would have difficulty judging the second half of this equation.  That being the case, it would maybe be more efficient if we just had the current active members of the Approvals Group appoint a few new members, without the need for an election in which only a limited number of people can participate appropriately.  That's my impression, at least.  Redux 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a rather informal poll, and the lack of *most* of the approval group being active here is sufficient reason to "Be Bold" and add more members, at least in the interim. If approval group members want to comment here (either now or later when they return), they should clearly be given significant weight in the matter. As for who can vote? Bots affect the whole community, so the whole community should have a say in the matter. I appreciate your self restraint, but we could use all the comments we can get, so just vote with "Comment" or "Neutral" instead. It is more about building consensus than voting anyway. I'm not sure there is any rule that says you have to be a bot writer or run a bot to be a member of the approvals group either. -- RM 19:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be fine by me too, although I'd hope that nobody would list themselves here if they don't have the requisite technical knowledge. For my part, I'll add a brief technical resume. --kingboyk 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my mind on this.  Technical knowledge is important, but it is FAR more important to understand general wikipedia policy.  When a bot idea is proposed, it is usually fairly trivial to know if it will cause any technical problems.  Plenty of us that can determine that.  However, it is far less trivial to know whether a bot task violates some written or unwritten wikipedia policy.  For example, one of the current bot requests deals with placing WikiProject boilerplates on talk pages.  At one point in history this was a very contentious issue.  The rambot was once turned down because of trying to do that.  However, consensus on that issue appears to have changed.  As a result, it's important to have a wide range of skills in the approvals group so that these types of issues can be detected early, rather than later in the process.  -- RM 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think consensus has changed on that issue largely because of WP1 assessments. I've tagged over 100,000 talk pages for WPBio and other large Projects and I've only had one serious objection. That speaks volumes to me as I can remember debate over the very existence of these banners some months ago. --kingboyk 19:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with RM, the key to aproving bots is knowledge of wikipedia policies, the rules for bots is not very clear and it not followed very strictly and really is very unconsistant in many cases, and they are really as I see it a legacy that RM started when everyone was 'afraid' of bots and wanted to make it hard for him and other to run bots, now we have bots that revert vandalism, we have AWB, but still the same arcane rules for bots. Stefan 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Election" comments

message: In order for this election to run and conclude to contention, maybe it would be interesting to set a "deadline" for it, at the end of which a Bureaucrat could assess the result and "officially" add the new names to the Approvals Group page.  This would make the definition more transparent and neutral, so no one has to say "ok, I'm approved, adding my own name now".  As a Bureaucrat who is active in setting flags, I do volunteer to do that if wanted  -- however, since I've already pledged my support to one of the candidates, I would understand if the community would prefer to have someone else do it.  We could ask Taxman or Nichalp to do it.   Just to be clear: this is by no measure a proposal for a new official task for Bureaucrats, just an ad hoc role to help this run as smoothly as possible.  Redux 19:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as a bureaucrat, feel free to close this "election" when it appears to be finished.  We'd like to add the new members "as soon as possible", but allow enough time to get enough comments.  Setting a date seems inflexible, and it should be pretty obvious when the votes stop trickling in.  If you need an impartial third-party, feel free, but I won't complain if you do it yourself.  We are all riddled with conflicts of interest here, afterall, a bot owner will always have a conflict of interest when making and applying bot policy and in bot approvals.  It's to be expected.  Once we have appointed interim members, we can work on forming a more official process. -- RM 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, its the job of bureaucrats to determine consensus on local issues, and since there is no clearly defined way now, I'd support the idea of a bureaucrat who did not comment here closing the poll. I'd say a good 7 days from now should be enough.Voice-of-All 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a general deadline. -- RM 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Just one thing: two candidates have commented on this directly, and each has said something different, so I'd like to know if the participating community would prefer that I, Redux, recuse myself from "closing" this.  I have no problem with it, since I have supported one of the candidates.  I believe that I am the only Bureaucrat monitoring actively the bot-related forums (they are all on my watchlist) now that Essjay is away temporarily, but I suppose we can pester ask Taxman or Nichalp to do it.  In RfA, participating directly in the discussions, to any extent, would mean a recusation, but since this is not exactly an established procedure for this forum, and the outcome is not likely to be contentious, I would like to get a clear position from the community on this.  If my being on top of this will help, great; but if recusing myself is what would be best for all, then that's ok too.   Whatever is best for the community.  Redux 03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion: if it's 20 supports to 2 opposes then you can "close" the discussion, if it's close, we should ask another bureaucrat. —Mets501 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an assessment on a candidate-by-candidate basis.  I don't see this being closed like that.  IMHO, the same Bureaucrat would close the entire thing, determining the results for all candidates and which ones will join the Approvals Group.  Redux 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if *any* results are overly close, just ask another bureaucrat to handle closing the whole election.  Whatever the choice, I probably don't care one way or another, so I'll let people who actually has a strong opinion on this discuss this one further, if desired. -- RM 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an easier way - recruit RM and VOA now. Seriuously, is anybody going to oppose either of them? I'm sure the approval of current members would be quite sufficient.; Leave me and the chimp up for consideration as extra or standby members. That way you get two new, capable members instantly, and they can get to work clearing the backlog. --kingboyk 12:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we don't need to make this overly complicated. I can't see if being a question of the current group recruiting since I don't see that as the correct way of approaching it. --pgk 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. Well, it's only a week so it will have to wait. Thanks for the reply and for considering my suggestion. --kingboyk 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Election" deadline and closing

message: As discussed above, I, Redux, acting as closing Bureaucrat ad hoc, have assessed the following final outcome for the candidates:
(in alphabetical order)
*Alphachimp:
*:Participants: 7
*::Support: 5
*::Oppose: 2
*:Consensus in favor: 71.5%
*Betacommand
*:Participants: 5
*::Support: 5
*::Oppose: 0
*:Consensus in favor: 100%
*Kingboyk
*:Participants: 4
*::Support: 4
*::Oppose: 0
*:Consensus in favor: 100%
*Ram-Man
*:Participants: 8
*::Support: 8
*::Oppose: 0
*:Consensus in favor: 100%
*Voice of All
*:Participants: 9
*::Support: 9
*::Oppose: 0
*:Consensus in favor: 100%
;Final result
I have determined that the following users have achieved sufficient support to join the Approvals Group:
*Betacommand
*Kingboyk
*Ram-Man
*Voice of All
All of these users have received 100% support and are hereby "promoted" (if we can use this term).  I will add their names to the Approvals Group page momentarily.  Authority to approve bots (and their flagging) is effective as of this post.
Note 1: Concerning my closing of this election, as discussed above, I closed it because the results for the only candidate about whom I commented were uncontroverted (100% support).  The majority of the opinions given above were in the sense that I should recuse myself only if there were a controversy in need of settling at closing time.  Since that wasn't the case, I've closed the election.
Note 2: Regarding Alphachimp: I realize that participation in this election was particularly restricted, as well as that the two oppositions raised were weak.  However, in light of the fact that all of the other candidates approved had 100% support going in, I viewed it as inconsistent to "promote" (for lack of a better term that I can think of at this time) a user with a support consensus that was well beneath that.  But please remember that this is not RfA.  Alphachimp, or someone on his behalf, could resubmit his name for reconsideration at any time, even immediately, if they feel that this result might not have been satisfactory -- but this means a new consideration of his name by the community, not a review of this result, which is final.
I hope this has been satisfactory.  Regards,  Redux 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is as it should be, IMO.  As for Alphachimp, I suspect that we will be forming a more official election scheme in the near future, and as such it shouldn't be hard to reevaluate membership at this point.  I can't speculate on exactly how long that might take, but it could be sooner rather than later if required. -- RM 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Redux. Fellow group members, as I said before I'm a bit busy at the moment with programming and testing. I have the page on my watchlist and would like to make sure I'm fully up to speed with what happens here before diving in. So, you'll be seeing me some time fairly soon but not just yet. Cheers. --kingboyk 08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RESULT: New members of Approvals Group 

message: I've just worked to clear some of the backlog, but did not clean up after myself much (did close the pages and sign, noted WP:BN, but have not dealt with any of the archives, or the approvals log.  — xaosflux Talk 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance you could get to dealing with mine?  Its been up there for well over a month I believe, and all the objections were solved ages ago (simply by having the bot not do the things that people thought were objectionable...) and the coding/debugging is also complete. Thanks! — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  backlog 

message: As one of the most active WP:BAGers, though not active enough, I gotta say, I don't like the approvals log page at all, it's clunky.  I do like the per page disucssions for bots, a la MFD.  Perhaps The MFD archive style would be OK here, but with the per month page seperated into APPROVED, NOT APPROVED? Any thaughts?  I am sitll going to make a bot request form, just need to get some uninterupted time to do it! — xaosflux Talk 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the wording a bit. I think its fine for approved bots to remain listed hear for a few days, except with the "closed debate" tags. Then it can later be removed from the main page. Bots in a trial period can be removed from the main page and listed under the trial section.Voice-of-All 03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Streamlining

message: Pardon my extreme ignorance on this one, but not being on the approvals group until today I had never considered the process of archiving discussions.  Where do we archive the discussions to?  -- RM 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current archive is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4.  —Mets501 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: im sorry that is not the proper method list them under Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved & Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/rejected Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, perhaps someone should update the article to list the correct procedure then since both archival methods seem to be listed. Oh nevermind.  It says "New Format", which is clear enough for me.  I just never read that section on archiving.  I looked at the TOC for something about archiving, and couldn't find it.  Guess I'm just lazy or something.  That or really busy. -- RM 04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I just changed it. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: As subpages discussions seem to be in vouge here now I've made the listing process help enforce them through the use of an input box.  This is now shown in the top of the page under operator instructinos.  My initial testing looked good, but any feedback and/or tweaking would be appreciated! — xaosflux Talk 06:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Header Top