Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Archive 5

message: I would like to request a bot to scrutinize Anon deletions of sections. I lurk with VandalFighter; and I can easily discern (based on characters removed) where an Anon has come in and removed significant (or even all) text from a section from a stable article. They may even do this multiple times to the same article, in effect deleting the article piecemeal. Perhaps the bot could also be more aggressive in reverting deletions from articles over a certain age (like a 1 or 2 years old), which are more likely to be decent articles; which are likely not to need sections removed. - RoyBoy 800 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: →Wikipedia:Bot requests.  :) — madman bum and angel 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section bot 

message: I've added myself to the BAG so I can give a hand when I have the chance.  I understand bot policy well enough, and have (I think) a demonstrated grasp of the technical aspects of writing and operating a bot.  I'll recuse myself if there are objections.  — Coren (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self add 

message: Hi, I guess many people here know me, I have enough knowledge of bots and policy, so I think I could be useful. If someone disagrees, they're welcome to revert me. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome aboard. — xaosflux Talk 03:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've added myself to member list 

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/BOTarate.  We should end up all on the same page (or close to it) so we are consistent with these.  As this is an unapproved bot, I've blocked it, but should it be barred from requesting access, if so for how long?  — xaosflux Talk 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the method of how this was handled, the Bot account should have been blocked, and a fiendly note should have been left on his talkpage pointing to WP:BRFA. Only if (s)he  ignores that should he have been held against him/her. Please remember that not all languages of wikipedia have a formal bot approval systems like we do. I think that the denial was un-called for. βcommand 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Note, the operator is requesting information on how to proceed.  I'm inclined to undeny this, but don't want to start a WHEEL issue here at BAG. — xaosflux Talk 17:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, the denial was too hasty. We don't deny in such cases. I support reopening that request. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this should be reopened. The problem with this is that there is no one page that has step by step instructions, and what to do in certain cases. If there was a page like this, it would solve confusion. Stuff like what happens if the person runs the bot first, what happens if there are more than one requests in a request, etc. Soxred93 has a boring sig 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soxred, WP:BITE, WP:COMMONSENSE are what are normally applied. There was really no interaction with the operator besides the block notice. with so little commucation we should not hold that against the operator. βcommand 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Per everyone above, I've reopened this request, and notified the operator.  Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it's expected BAG members know how to handle all situations from their experience with the process. Daniel 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions Wanted 

message: Would anybody mind if I join the group? Snowolf How can I help? 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently most anyone is welcome to join, just add your name to the list, it may be best to avoid any controversial bots at first :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question :) 

message: As a bcrat, I'd like to say that the new process is a little too free-willy for my liking. I tend to trust the BAG approvals a lot and I'd rather not have to do lots of background checking for every time I press the makebot button. While it shouldn't be an inquisition to join BAG, I think there should be some dicsussion and demonstration that a user is trusted. I haven't done many makebots lately, but I have done a large number and I'll do them again whenever needed. - Taxman Talk 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly suggestion.  Might I suggest that only bot operators (current? recent? ever?) should be members of the BAG?  It insures (a) minimal trust, (b) understanding of bot working and (c) interaction with the community as a bot operator; all three of which seem what we'd like in a BAG member. — Coren (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ... although I can't help but notice that, despite the almost-nil entry requirements, the BAG has not been overrun with hopefuls.  I admit that I'm a little disappointed in the benefits myself— the Porsche I was sent is only a 2005, and the twelve million dollar fund is being invested too conservatively and only gets 10-15%.  Perhaps that's why not many people volunteer?  :-)  — Coren (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got a Porsche?! All they sent me was a clapped out Lada! "Seriously", the irony of the "free for all" not attracting many more members and a crat saying "you know what, I liked the system before" is not lost on me :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As a non bcrat, I echo Taxman's sentiments .  Suggestions I made last time this was brought up received general agreement (look at the archive if you care), yet inertia/agendas resulted in this move.  The BAG is effectively defunct, given that someone can add themselves to the group and immediately trial/full approve a bot, possibly with no oversight at all from existing members.  It's a joke, really.  Call me an elitist twat, call me over cautious, call me whatever you like, but the fact remains, as I and others with whom I've discussed see it, that this isn't the right model to use. look in the archives if you want to see my arguments - I'm not going to rehash them here Martinp23 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as someone who observes BAG but is not a member, I have to agree. The fact that I could pretty much just add myself to BAG now and immediately approve a bot on behalf of the group, is a real issue. It means that there is very little joined up thinking, with members able to ignore concerns raised by others without further discussion and approve a bot anyway. Worse, there is a false sense of security being created with people thinking a bot is approved by BAG, therefore it must be alright, when in reality almost anyone could have added themselves to the group and given that stamp of approval, with little or no experience. I think this is leading to the approval of a number of bots that technically may do what they intend to do correctly, but may not result in any net benefit (for example bots which are effectively "clones" of existing bots with different code and are actually less well coded than what we have already). What is required is some kind of reform, not to make the group elitist, but to ensure it can remain quite static in membership, that members are competent at what they are doing, and to ensure that there is consistency between members in what they approve. Will (aka Wimt) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention please for this section break 

message: I just added my name to the list. I've taken part in bot discussions before I recently became confident with visual basic. I look forward to helping out--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, glad to have you helping! Redrocketboy 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I joined 

message: I think its time that I rejoin, Ive proven myself. are there any objections? βcommand 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any type of bot requests that you think you would be best to avoid making approvals/denials in?  — xaosflux Talk 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: there are no type but there may come an individual request here or there. βcommand 05:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Snowolf How can I help? 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey!  I resemble that remark!  I'm not old, I'm mature.  :-)  — Coren (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: he was referring to long term BAG members, IE the length they have been on bag not their age. βcommand 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was refering to Mets and co., the members who were already on the BAG when Beta resigned and were approved with the old system. Snowolf How can I help? 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no objections.  Everyone deserves a second chance. —METS501 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. A close eye should be kept, but he deserves a second chance and kudos for sticking around and continuing to help the project. --kingboyk (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There appears to be a consensus to reinstate, so consider it done. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me :) Voice-of-All 22:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, now get to work! :) — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG 

message: The summary about these requests says that they can be reopened at any time. Does this mean that  and  (ie the thread is archived) should not be added because new comments can be placed in that section and the discussion is not technically closed? -- maelgwn - talk 09:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering that myself, it seems better to create a new request than reopen an old one. BJTalk 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has to be archived for categorization purposes, so to reopen the person can just remove the archive header and footer?? -- maelgwn - talk 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving procedure for Expired/Withdrawn requests 

message: I was wondering...how does a bot work? Does the runner have access to the scripts?, and if so, can they manipulate it? Best Rt. 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The person always has access to the code, in many cases they wrote it themselves. BJTalk 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots? 

message: I'll throw myself into the mix. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong oppose user has had numerious issues and countless name changes/RtV's. βcommand 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation <small>(add, whatever)</small> (Monobi) 

message: Hi thar! :)
Just letting know that I've created (per request) and set up .
It imports news from Wikinews to Wikipedia portals as explained on it's userpage. Quite a low volume (for now at least), obeys maxlag and has a standard 1 edit/10 seconds throttle, so no need for a flag. Thus, just letting know. Cheers, Миша13 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only briefly read over the policy.  However, don't you need to have the bot approved even though the volume is low?  What's more, six edits a minute isn't that low, right?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is approved. 6EPM is not that fast. Ive run BCBot at 83EPM without problems. βcommand 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In march?  :)  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It ran at 6EPM during final testing phase, when there were many pages wating for an initial update - now it's more like 6 edits per day (at most). Миша13 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at your own link above:  Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Wikinews Importer Bot.  I saw that it was a red-link and incorrectly assumed that meant there was no request for approval.  Sorry for my mistake.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was just not a BRFA. Misza is a very trusted admin/bot operator, we just gave a nod of approval. we not a paper pushers. βcommand 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews Importer Bot 

message: User:SkiersBot has been warned by me to improve his use of templates or be blocked. I'm not particularly happy that his bot approval failed to notice the problems with his edits, nor that my previous suggestion to him about not placing boilerplate text on talk pages has been ignored.
Talk:Douglas Ferreira (footballer) is an example of this bot's tagging. The edit summary contains a typo. The talk page contains this text:


This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of [[Category:People stub]] on the article page.
*If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
*If you disagree with this assessment, please:
# Change the above "class=stub" to "class=start" or another applicable class per Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale;
#Remove the stub template from the article.

*The template's correct name is . Using alternate names might confuse badly programmed bots, and will cause kingbotk-powered bots to rename the template (one extra unnecessary edit). Always use the proper name of templates when bot tagging, not a redirect name.
*The importance= parameter was deprecated and replaced by priority= in 2006 (!) Again, when kingbotk-powered bots find live uses of importance= they will replace them with priority. Importance= is so long ago deprecated that there is currently talk of removing it.
*The boilerplate text is the most objectionable thing. WPBio has an auto=yes parameter which will add the same text, nicely formatted, to the talk page and place the page in a maintenance category. Several other templates have the same parameter. Those that don't can use the template . This unncessary text causes database bloat and is harder for editors to clear up than a single parameter or template call. Furthermore, if we want to remove all bot created assessments we need to know which articles are using them. Parameters do that, boilerplate text doesn't.
I think as an AWB developer, author of the  template and much , developer of a talk page templating plugin, former BAG member, and operator of a bot which has performed several hundred thousand talk page template edits I know what I'm talking about in this area of Wikipedia; if these edits don't improve I will block the bot and/or remove AWB access. This isn't rocket science, and I'm concerned that the operator of a bot carrying out so many edits clearly hasn't understood the templates he's working with.
I've also recommended that he use my plugin, although it's totally optional it would solve some of these problems. I'm planning to release a new version in the next couple of days which will be slightly more compatible with talk page banner containers and which will build it's regular expressions dynamically based on current redirects to the template, so that in effect it's harder for the plugin to be out of date and double tagging becomes rather less likely. --kingboyk (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would endorse a removal of AWB privileges until this issue is worked out.  A bot operator must respond to good-faith requests within a timely fashion, and should make every effort to adhere to established standards, especially when using templates.  — madman bum and angel 02:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:SkiersBot]] 

message: Not strictly a BAG issue, but I thought bot-type issues might be related and so of relevance. An issue at ANI involves whether an editor can view and/or edit Wikipedia while running a script. Could people here advise on how easy it is for this sort of inability to arise, and how easy it is to get around? The idea is that editors should be able to respond to concerns and queries while running such scripts. This was an image deletion script running for 2 hours after a manual check. The thread is here. Any opinion on whether such "script-blindness" situations are common, and what the guidelines/workarounds should or could be, would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a BAG issue: when does a script become a bot? is the question. Where's the consensus for running these? is another. --kingboyk (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A script becomes a bot if/when you can no longer receive messages asking you to stop. (not to mention that many bots are stopped when their talk page is edited, so in effect this is even worse). I don't think we should allow such things. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem in this case was a combination of a long runtime (2 hours) and an old and slow computer/software. PS. Don't do what the kid in Melbourne did at his party... Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) I would say if there is manual checking and then using a script to carry out the results of the check, that is not a bot. A true bot (and some bots are just unsupervised scripts) generally uses some programming language to look for things on a page. That's the way I understand it, anyway. I personally have no problem with scripts and bots being used to clear non-free images, up until this Foundation deadline. After that, though, I will oppose any script or bot-based clearing of backlogs - it will be better to get a solid base of human volunteers to check existing image and the new ones being added daily. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewing and editing Wikipedia while running scripts 

message: }}
I am opening this "policy RFC" (does anyone else think  is a bit "light" compared to the format of other RFCs? is there precedent for opening a real RFC with its own subpage for policy issues?) due to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7.
If the bot approval group is making decisions on their own opinions of the merits of a task, rather than on purely technical concerns; and is contradicting a consensus that exists in the wider community, it has exceeded the scope for which its existence as a self-selected group answerable to no-one is justified.
An additional concern is WP:ANI#Bot edit?; it's unclear what the status of bots that have been running since before BAG's existence is.
The MFD was closed with a call to reform, such reform does not appear to have happened without further prompting.
I would like one of two outcomes from this discussion:
# The membership of the BAG is subject to community consensus (either by allowing the community to select new members (perhaps an RFA-like process), allowing the community to recall existing members, or some combination). [NOTE: at the top of the page, it is indicated that there is no formal process yet for adding members and there may be one in the future. In that light, this requested outcome is for A) such a process to be determined and B) such a process must involve the community, rather than being limited to the existing membership of the BAG -- at the top of the BAG page itself, the process for removal is a consensus of other members, with, again, no input from the community as a whole.]
# Decisions by the BAG to approve or reject a bot/task are limited to purely technical issues, not otherwise deciding on the merits of a proposed task, and the community invited to comment directly on those matters and come to its own consensus on whether a task should be done.
—Random832 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Random, there is no need for this RFC, as for the issue on ANI, I did not notice that this bot has been operating for as long as it has been. Bots are normally grandfathered in. As for the Polbot issue I am waiting for response from the operator before I give it final approval. Previous discussion about bot written rationales have been that bots should not write them. But given the current discussion I was treading carefully along with the fact that the bot had made a massive un-approved run of doing the same type of edit with a large error rate. the BAG is here to make sure that bots are technically able to do what they are supposed to, that the said task does not violate policy and that there is consensus from the community for said task. If it was up to the community I doubt that BCBot would be doing NFC image tagging. there have been a lot of changes since the MfD. As for the Polbot BRFA the only thing that I am waiting for is input from the operator about a method that Carcharoth proposed. As for the need to approve each bot/task, there have been request that obviously should not be done. Interwiki bots tend to be the exception to most rules, but we still need to have a method of verifing that we can trust the operator and that the operator knows what they are doing. Just because someone can start the Pywikiedia interwiki.py does not meant that by default they should be using it. Does the operator know that they have to regularly update their versions of pywiki? Prior to me re-joining BAG I have noticed some tendances that should not be done. The BRFA process should be very simple and informal. βcommand 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern was Polbot 7;  and the fact that the BAG seems to be in opposition to the community on the merits of the task (and you and ST in particular keep moving the goalposts)  - the interwiki thing was just a sidenote, something that seemed worth mentioning while we're on the topic of reform. —Random832 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Polbot issue has a lot of previous discussions and policy that has conflicts with the current proposal. (also Please respond to me in IRC). βcommand 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Charcarth??? Who the hell is CHARCARTH? I need a name people can spell right... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I fixed it :P βcommand 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (sorry, I'm not at the computer that I IRC from right now; e-mail me) —Random832 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to be at the center of the controversy surrounding the ANI thread cited above, so I might as well respond.  I never meant for this entire process to be an indictment of the BAG or the work they do.  It was an honest mistake, it happens. and I apologized at ANI and on the talk page of the specific bot in question; the operator of the bot User talk:Jumbuck feels there is no problem.  There needs to be some reasonable overight of bot operations; bots can get out of control very fast and do lots of damage; I have no problem with there being a pre-approval process for them.  This whole thing seems to have been blown WAY out of proportion from my point of view.  If the Polbot 7 issue needs separate, specific discussion that's fine, but please don't conflate the Jumbuck issue with that one.  The whole Jumbuck block was my fault and it has nothing to do with the BAG or BRFA.  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought that into this mainly in response to your question "but for my own future reference, what exactly IS the policy on bots, and when should an unauthorized bot be blocked?", because I don't think the answer is clear and I thought this discussion could help clarify it. —Random832 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots should always be blocked if they are not approved, Bots from about July 2006 and before are normally grandfathered in. βcommand 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah.  Thanks for clarifying that.  I just didn't want it to appear that I was being accusatory of others or shifting blame for what was fully my bad... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't have a problem with the bot approvals process, but it would be nice to see the BAG-membership reflect some sort of community-approval.  If I understand it correctly, Crats are the ones who "do" the bot-switch flick and have delegated technical approval to the BAG.  So why not have a WP:RFR-like page, where people who want to join the BAG can go, list their name, and have a crat then add them to a protected page (There is an automated tool that works that way, AWB I think).  MBisanz talk 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: standard procedure has been very simple and informal, hang around the BRFA process a while show that you know what your talking about and are not a complete fool, then post a note on this talkpage requesting to join. then leave a note on several other high profile pages, AN,ANI,VPP,VPT ect. we have a discussion about joining if there are no serious objections and there is a consensus for that user to be added to BAG it happens. As a long term member of BAG I dont like extra paperwork of a RFA like system. RFA is broken. Personally Ive been working on making the bot process streamlined, quick, and informal. to that degree since I started BAG the response time has been improved from around 30 days from the time that you complete your trial to your flag, to about a day. I have repeatedly asked for wider community input, but that seems to fall on deaf ears. BAG and the BRFA process is normally a fairly simple process. there are certain cases that due to the nature of the task will take longer to work out, but that is nothing new. βcommand 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree RFA is broken, but I like to think RFR has been a quicker process so far.  What I think it comes down to is that Bots are a very mysterious thing to many users.  Its like a rocket science to a 6th grader sort of thing or smoke & mirrors of a magician.  I can't imagine a name sitting on WP:BN for a day while an crats taps "Approved" is that much extra work.  I suspect they have more work certain weeks with RFA variability than this would ever create.  MBisanz talk 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the current method for approval that I stated above it involves a discussion prior to joining which should not be removed. As it stands the current method of joining BAG is very simple, clearly handles its self without much issues. If you are interested in joining BAG you just need to diminstrate that you know policy and have been active in prior BRFA related issues. leave a note on this talkpage requesting to join BAG, and spread the word a little, and we will gladly see where that discussion goes, if there are no problems you would be able to join BAG. βcommand 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the Polbot7 issue was always going to turn on NFC concerns, though ideally (and Quadell did ask for this in the nomination) it would have been limited to technical concerns. Maybe BAG might like to consider options that involve asking the bot operator to gain consensus on policy aspects of a bot before coming to BAG? I'd like to hang around BAG more, but there is only so much time available. If there is a lack on input, maybe some requests could be advertised for more input? Also, BAG should maybe be more aware of potential conflicts of interest? I had assumed that Betacommand, as someone heavily involved in NFC issues, was commenting as an ordinary editor, rather than as a BAG member considering whether to approve the bot or not (I only become aware yesterday that Betacommand had returned to BAG). Obviously with a small group like BAG, recusal might mess things up a bit, but it would have been better if the policy issues had been discussed at one venue (where Betacommand could have raised his concerns there), and the technical issues discussed at BAG (though the discussions would inevitably overlap). From what Quadell said, it is hard to avoid the appearance that the request was being held up by policy concerns made by BAG members, even if that may not have been the case. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a stupid question, so I'll ask it.  What has changed in BAG since April 26, 2007 when the MFD was put up.  I think a list of changes x, y, and z might help frame this discussion better. MBisanz talk 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking through the archives around the time following the MfD it appears there was a great deal of discussion of many ideas related to change/reform, including splitting BAG functions/creating a wikiproject, changing the composition/election of BAG members, changing the process of OKing a bot, etc and then it petered out due to lack of consensus/further discussion.  Without actually comparing policy line by line to see whats changed since then, some of my comments are: This is probably the wrong place to hold an RFC on changing the way BAG operates, as participation would be limited by interest to those who are being asked to change; MfD again is probably a bad idea since the XFD process is more skewed towards eliminating things rather than changing/discussing them; AN/ANI isn't a great place to discuss it due to length, etc.  So my suggestion might be to break this RFC off into a subpage of this page and then point at it from WP:BN{they "do bots" in theory), WP:VPR/WP:VPP/WP:VPT.  Since I'd like to avoid the appearance of canvassing, does anyone object to this/have a better idea/want it pointed at from diff places? MBisanz talk 10:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as no one's replied and I don't want to tarnish the issue with future canvassing issues, I'll just leave this RFC alone.  I'm sure if its really an issue, it will be brought up in the future here or in another forum. MBisanz talk 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Could a member of the BAG properly archive this bot request? The nominator of the bot sent it to MFD instead of withdrawing it, and I closed the MFD and withdrew it for him/her. --Coredesat 11:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: just leave as is, in the archive. βcommand 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PartyBOT]] 

message: :Added to BAG by Tawker here. Mønobi 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Full support an experienced bot operator, no problem with his work at BRFA so far. Snowolf How can I help? 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support experienced and knowledgable. Martinp23 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support Good bot operator MBisanz talk 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support - May aswell chip in.. —Reedy Boy 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support get a clue :P βcommand 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support tac, done -- Tawker (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support BJTalk 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support get a bot :P Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding?  Cobi has tons of bots!  :p  — madman bum and angel 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support - strongly. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Strong Support – absolutely.  — madman bum and angel 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support - knows what he's doing.   jj137 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support —METS501 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation (Cobi) 

message: From what I can tell the trial started on July 27, 2007.   and  have dates of joining after that but before the end of the trial.  Shouldn't they be included with those who are being confirmed? MBisanz talk 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: also joined on the day the trial began, and I don't really feel like parsing diffs to figure out which procedure he joined under, so I'll leave that to someone who was here then. MBisanz talk 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MBisanz, I did not join under the trial system see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group/Archive 5#BAG I did the old style appproval. βcommand 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I don't particularly care about how a person joined, it just seemed weird with the dates.  It looks kosher to me, so I've refactored my comments. MBisanz talk 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)E specifically requested to be approved under the old system. Beta had to as it was already member before and resigned in controversial circumstances. Madman was approved under the old system too. The new trial system didn't excluded approval under the old system. Snowolf How can I help? 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group/Archive 4#My hat's in the ring, now? o0; βcommand 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: :Confirmed, added to WP:BAG. Mønobi 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this request was filed before Martin's decision to end the trial, that's why its content may sound unrelated
As in my very personal view the trial membership is a temporary status, I'd like to ask to vote on my confirmation under the "old" system. Snowolf How can I help? 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ive seen no issues with you, Please post a note on a few notice boards. βcommand 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Snowolf How can I help? 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation under the old system (Snowolf) 

message: :User withdrawn. Soxred93 | talk count bot 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - As stated above, one of the better Baggers. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - I'm sorry, but looking at recent events, I am not willing to support at this time. Soxred93 | talk count bot 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Neutral - I don't know. I know I've always been wary of this contributor, especially in the beginning, when he/she was asking many bot operators whether he/she could clone their bots, with no evidence of the knowledge required for their operation. The RfA record also worries me slightly, and I've gotten the impression, as have some others, that this contributor is looking for status for the sake of status. All of these impressions have built slowly over time; I wish I could point to a particular diff and say, "I don't like that." But I really can't (not even the Kmweber diff; I thought that was kind of cute. ;)). Sorry, nothing personal, but for some reason, I just feel like I can't in good faith support at this time. — madman bum and angel 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've caught up, oppose per BaldBot speedy approval, the only discussion of which was on Dreamafter's talk page; there was no evidence of consensus, none of the discussion of the task which had to happen to clarify the bot task, no obvious approval of the operator... BAGgers can't do that.  — madman bum and angel 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose per recent issues. Mønobi 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose per WJBscribe well above. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, in response to that, I withdraw my being a part of this, also see here in the first response. ~  Dreamy § 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation (Dreamafter) 

message: Would the Bot Approvals Group consider including non-technical "observers" in their group? Or some other way to have people in the group who aren't bot programmers? If there are such people already in the group, then no problems, but an approach like this might ensure that non-technical viewpoints are represented. Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We welcome their comments and point of view, but they should not be approving bots. βcommand 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that people who don't program bots (mostly) won't understand technical reasons for a bot to be accepted or rejected, but they may well understand the non-technical reasons for a bot to be accepted or rejected, sometimes better than the bot programmers. I think BAG would be better as a mix of bot programmers and non-bot programmers that can work together. You are entitled to your point of view, Betacommand, but I'd like to hear what the rest of BAG think. Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting suggestion.  I think that in the past, it has generally been understood that the BAG's main job is to assess the safety of a bot.  It was made clear some time last year that we have a very pressing need to consider community opinion when approving bots, and I believe this approach is, in general, followed (by means of asking for input at various noticeboards - something I request quite often).  However, it remains the fact that the preoccupation of all (?) BAG members is the technicalities.  Your suggested approach above is a potential solution - perhaps it could be stated that each BRFA needs to be commented on by both a BAG member and an "observer", where observers are appointed in the same was a BAG members, andw here they should be "trusted community members".  On the other hand, we can just keep trying to get community input, quite firmly require that each BRFA needs commenting on by 2 BAG members before approval, and try again to get more community input . Martinp23 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe "Members of the group are experienced in writing and running bots, have programming experience, understand the role of the BAG in the BRFA process, and understand Wikipedia's bot policy." should be changed then from an "and" to an "or" statement? As in "Members of the group are experienced in writing and running bots, have programming experience, understand the role of the BAG in the BRFA process, or understands Wikipedia's policies related to bot operations." MBisanz talk 05:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there are some more basic policy issues to clarify on what is a bot and what is approval. A lot of problems seem to come about by someone running a script which may be technically fine (regex in AWB), but the task isn't very well thought out. Non-BAG members are always welcome to comment on bot approvals, but that doesn't address tasks taken up after approval. Gimmetrow 06:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Could BAG members please remember to list approved Bots on this page? Both AWeenieBot and HBC AIV helperbot5 were not flagged last mpnth because they weren't listed on that page. Its generally helpful to have a record of all approved Bots and particularly so for bureaucrats if those listings make it clear what Bots do or do not require flags... WjBscribe 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved]] 

message: I have been peeking at the trial run for this and it appears to have run as expected. Could someone approve it? Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And lockalbot? Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kbdankbot 

message: Per my comment on ANI with regards to the NFCC Bot BRFA, I am now undertaking my promise to send a short message to all BAGers to serve as a reminder of the sentiments expressed at the not-so-recent MfD.  
The most recent situation is this.  A BRFA was closed early, reopened and then clsoed again a relatively short time later.  Speedy approval is only rarely appropriate as far as I can see - in very uncontroversial cases where a trial is not needed, eg an uncontroversial clone.  The NFCC bot is, for all intents and purposes, a clone.  However given the drama which the original BCBot has spawned over time, it should have been clear that this was something that needed input.  So be it if that input might end up being "trolling" - action should be taken when that happens and not pre-emptively.
BAG members are chosen for being experts on the technical issues of bot operation.  Thus I suppose it is a consequence that we might not take enough account of community consensus for many tasks.  This is the key point - where there is any possible controversy, we need to give people the chance to comment.  To start with, this is probably best done by posting "spam" messages (or having the requester do it) to various noticeboards.  With time I'd hope that BRFA would become watched in its own right by the community at large and thus the need to spamming would be reduced to only the most (potentially?) controversial cases - I'm thinking of NFCC Bot here.
I'd also suggest the following guidelines:
# Speedy approvals should only be used as a method of bypassing a trial - not to bypass discussion.  There should be a clear consensus (whether via a previous BRFA or through a (short?) discussion in its own right) before a bot is speedily approved.
# At least 2 BAG members and at least 1 non-BAG user should comment on any request before it is passed.  
# Trials should be used to bring a bot's presence to community attention, by means of a message in the edit summary (in appropriate circumstances).  They should not be solely a way of gauging the technical safety of the bot.
# Use common sense, but err on the side of caution at all times!
This lays out my feelings (based on my interpretations of the MfD) on the issues facing BAG at the moment and how we can overcome them.  Let's move forward and discuss (here) :)  Thanks, Martinp23 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm yes I was intentionally ambiguous on the 2 BAG one non-bag point because I'm not too sure.  I think for anything but the least controversial speedies there should be an opportuntiy for input (I class interwikis, where the correct options are set, as "least controversial" here). Martinp23 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how controversial and speedies go together :D. For me, everything controversial should be left to normal runs to the normal process. Snowolf How can I help? 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Bah!  I hate it when MediaWiki decides to log me off between edit and save.  — Coren (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG guidelines?  Thoughts 

message: Uhm. Sorry that I missed the recent discussion. Well, I don't think I've ever speedily approved a request, so I do agree that they're exceptionally cases, yes. As for the two BAGgers and one non-member needed to approve, uhm, ok but: what about speedies? Or interwiki bots (I do think that interwiki bots are more non-controversial than the others, usually)? And of course I do agree that trials are not technical tests only. Just my two cents. Snowolf How can I help? 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm yes I was intentionally ambiguous on the 2 BAG one non-bag point because I'm not too sure.  I think for anything but the least controversial speedies there should be an opportuntiy for input (I class interwikis, where the correct options are set, as "least controversial" here). Martinp23 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how controversial and speedies go together :D. For me, everything controversial should be left to normal runs to the normal process. Snowolf How can I help? 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Bah!  I hate it when MediaWiki decides to log me off between edit and save.  — Coren (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Could someone from BAG comment on this ANI thread. I don't think the issue can be resolved without some competent supervision from BAG members. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - Discussion got auto-archived to here while waiting for resolution or constructive discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
---- 
Passed, Martinp23 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help requested at ANI 

message: I notice you guys have a backlog. Is there any way I can help out? Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to help out is to look at new bot requests and start to get experience in the system, and start commenting on them, so we can see that you're prepared to join the group. Once you're ready, you can submit yourself on this page for a 1-week approval vote, after which you become a member. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I strongly oppose this user joining this group, for reasons set out at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Geo.plrd 3/Daniel's notes. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for telling me such. I actually encourage you to read the information that Daniel has been thoughtful enough to post, if I decide to attempt to join, I will respond then. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If BAG were to create a helper (clerking) system, or if this user were to apply for BAG membership, I would have to oppose (do I even get an !vote as a non-BAGer?).  First there is this incident with the Motto of the Day project.  Normally, I wouldn't bother to mention something so old, but it doesn't appear at the time, he understood there was something wrong with a strict hierarchy system.  And based on a recent conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Can_I_help.3F, which led to this old issue, which indicates somehow an action/inaction led to an Arbcom, I'd say BAGers should think carefully about users who have sought perceived-status positions without fully understanding them. MBisanz talk 02:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mbisanz, I never said i was applying for membership. I simply asked about helping out Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Everyone is welcome to vote in BAG elections, those that are uncontested may be closed after a week by any BAG member, those that are close should be referred to a crat or uninvolved BAG member. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally anyone at all is welcome to comment on any BRFAs in their capacity as a community member. Martinp23 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping out 

message: I am sorry I did't know!!!!!.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.109 (talk • contribs) 
:Moving message from subpage.--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message to BAG 

message: Please offer input there if you have any :). Martinp23 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on [[WT:BRFA]] 

message: Might as well try again.  Was in under the old system for like 2 days or so until I removed myself because I had a differing opinion on the Bot process, but , might as well help again. Q T C 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - Knows his stuff.  -- Cobi(t|c|b) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Further comment anyone? SQLQuery me! 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, most of it can be found here.  I was accused of 'fast-tracking' through a bot approval, since in my eyes, the bot policy at that time were that trials were only given once a general consensus was met that the task was needed/helpful/etc and fit the criterion, and as such with my assumption of the above, seeing nothing wrong with the trial run, went ahead and approved the bot. Q T C 06:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems pretty clear to support. Majorly (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. Are you supporting this nomination, or, indicating that your opinion of the outcome is in favor of the supports, or, pass? SQLQuery me! 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm saying that the consensus to flag is obvious. Majorly (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dittohead 

message: :The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
Some people on the RFAr for BCBot suggest that BAG is not sufficiently active in responding to the community's requests regarding bots. Specifically, they say that BAG should be able to revoke approval or modify terms of approval after the fact, if prompted to do so. Personally, I do not feel comfortable handing down decisions from on high, so I'd like to try a vote-style process for getting BAG to do stuff. It has been asked why BetacommandBot is not using some 'friendlier' tags and it seems that this is a good case to try this on. I'm pretty much going to post my wording and a support and oppose section, please don't do the protest oppose thing, I'll add a separate section for comments on the process and for outsider opinions. The idea is that these be binding, however I suppose strong recommendations can be made as well. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral Same as Snowolf -- Also leaning towards oppose, based on the weak templates (no offense, but, they're more vague than the ones left now...) SQLQuery me! 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to Support. SQLQuery me! 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you link me to the tags that we are proposing asking BCBot to use? Also, It's my understanding that BCBot uses ordinary templates. Could we not just modify those? SQLQuery me! 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personalized versions of User:OrphanBot/nosource, User:OrphanBot/norat, and User:OrphanBot/nocopyright. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, the one Beta would mostly be using, is the norat one. While it is very friendly, it is extremely vague. It should at least link to instructions on writing a fair use rationale. SQLQuery me! 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If User:OrphanBot/norat is too vague, how about User:OrphanBot/nfcc10c? --Carnildo (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: the message BCBot leaves is  and  . βcommand 2 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually on the talk page of the proposed decision. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Well, it's too late for that now SQLQuery me! 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Gee, you're fast! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support this method. I'm totally for it :).  CWii(Talk|Contribs)  23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
===Comments on this process===
Few comments from me. Is it within the remit of BAG to formally give instructions to bot owners? I know it is within BAG's remit to place conditions upon a bot's approval, that is, "This bot is approved if you do this". If you don't believe that BAG has the ability to order someone to operate in a certain way, think about it this way. We are very hesitant about un-approving bots, whether we can do so or now, under what circumstances. The idea here is that this is a very strong recommendation, and that if it is not followed, BAG may choose to revoke approval for a bot until it is followed. I suppose another way of looking at it is that BAG is modifying the bot's approval, and that if the operator refuses to comply, they are now running an unapproved bot. Either way, BAG's ability to force changes in this way is contingent on the bureaucrats supporting it having this power, and, of course, BAG being willing to do anything in this way. It has been stated here that perhaps BAG should have this ability, I consulted a few people, and it seemed like people were willing to try it. If it is well-received, my goal would be to allow the community at large to put forth a proposal and have it reviewed by BAG, either choosing to action or deny that proposal. This would, I hope, eliminate a large part of the drama associated with high profile bots, users wanting to block them or users trying to get consensus from the community to change something (like the opt out issue - but I didn't want to try anything too dramatic just yet), then having the bot operator ignore it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to note that ex post facto changes to general bot policy shouldn't be handled in this method. 'BJBot needs to follow policy X' is fine, 'All bots must now follow opt out scheme X', not so much. BJTalk 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is intended for specific changes to bots, which I believe to be within the remit of BAG. I do not believe that a blanket change to policy can be made by BAG, so that would have to be done by the community as any other policy proposal. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, this process is a very good idea, especially for de-approvals, problems, or, other such tricky situations. Great work, ST47! SQLQuery me! 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG as 'arbcom for bots' 

message: Background: It's no secret that there's much controversy over the various image bots' messages being 'unwelcoming' to new users. OrphanBot (run by carnildo) has used for quite a while its own tags, and I was asked to change to a similar set on my most resent request for STBotI. Do we support the idea that BetacommandBot also use these tags for notification, rather than using the stock tags, which have been criticized as unfriendly? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you link me to the tags that we are proposing asking BCBot to use? Also, It's my understanding that BCBot uses ordinary templates. Could we not just modify those? SQLQuery me! 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personalized versions of User:OrphanBot/nosource, User:OrphanBot/norat, and User:OrphanBot/nocopyright. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, the one Beta would mostly be using, is the norat one. While it is very friendly, it is extremely vague. It should at least link to instructions on writing a fair use rationale. SQLQuery me! 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If User:OrphanBot/norat is too vague, how about User:OrphanBot/nfcc10c? --Carnildo (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: the message BCBot leaves is  and  . βcommand 2 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually on the talk page of the proposed decision. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Well, it's too late for that now SQLQuery me! 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Few comments from me. Is it within the remit of BAG to formally give instructions to bot owners? I know it is within BAG's remit to place conditions upon a bot's approval, that is, "This bot is approved if you do this". If you don't believe that BAG has the ability to order someone to operate in a certain way, think about it this way. We are very hesitant about un-approving bots, whether we can do so or now, under what circumstances. The idea here is that this is a very strong recommendation, and that if it is not followed, BAG may choose to revoke approval for a bot until it is followed. I suppose another way of looking at it is that BAG is modifying the bot's approval, and that if the operator refuses to comply, they are now running an unapproved bot. Either way, BAG's ability to force changes in this way is contingent on the bureaucrats supporting it having this power, and, of course, BAG being willing to do anything in this way. It has been stated here that perhaps BAG should have this ability, I consulted a few people, and it seemed like people were willing to try it. If it is well-received, my goal would be to allow the community at large to put forth a proposal and have it reviewed by BAG, either choosing to action or deny that proposal. This would, I hope, eliminate a large part of the drama associated with high profile bots, users wanting to block them or users trying to get consensus from the community to change something (like the opt out issue - but I didn't want to try anything too dramatic just yet), then having the bot operator ignore it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to note that ex post facto changes to general bot policy shouldn't be handled in this method. 'BJBot needs to follow policy X' is fine, 'All bots must now follow opt out scheme X', not so much. BJTalk 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is intended for specific changes to bots, which I believe to be within the remit of BAG. I do not believe that a blanket change to policy can be made by BAG, so that would have to be done by the community as any other policy proposal. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, this process is a very good idea, especially for de-approvals, problems, or, other such tricky situations. Great work, ST47! SQLQuery me! 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on this process

message: In light of the concerns expressed by the community regarding the current handling of bots and the membership of the Bots Approval Group, members of the BAG are proposing a revised bot policy (with the help of a number of other concerned editors).  This proposed wording addresses (a) community selection of BAG members, (b) a process by which the community can arrange for revisiting previous approvals in case of problems and (c) some of the weaker points of current bot policy that have been expressed in the past weeks.
Please read the proposed policy over and feel free to comment on the talk page.  — Coren (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot policy change proposals 

message: Seems a good time to join BAG. I've been running a bot for over a year, and comment here fairly often.  05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment anyone? SQLQuery me! 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Restore and bump. Gimmetrow 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me too 

message: * 
* I respectfully request BAG membership. While I do not run any official bots on the English Wikipedia, I'm proficient with both JavaScript, Python, and AWB. I'm one of the more knowledgeable users regarding MediaWiki (from the front-end) and I regularly request database queries from the Toolserver to create lists of pages to process that are in long-forgotten parts of the project. I've commented on previous bot requests and I've cleaned up two erratic bots in the past. I'm familiar with the role of BAG, the role of bureaucrats, and bot policy. SQL has been a bit less active than usual lately, and I would be more than happy to help where I can when I can. I would kindly ask that you ask me a couple of questions (this is a discussion after all ; - ) ) before supporting or opposing me, as there are undoubtedly things I have left out of this statement. Thanks for your consideration. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here are some questions that have gotten some informative responses at the RFA style RBAGs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think, MZMcBride really knows his stuff, as pointed out above. He would be a great asset here. SQLQuery me! 05:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Monobi, I seem to remember you looking to be on BAG a while back.  Is this I'm-not-a-part-of-it-so-it-can't-have-any-authority syndrome (again)? Martinp23 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG request: MZMcBride 

message: * 
*I've been getting more involved in the technical side of Wikipedia operations lately and think I have a pretty good grasp of what is needed on BAG. I currently run a bot with 2 approved tasks, one using AWB the other Python and I've commented on multiple bot requests. I've also done a fair bit of Javascript coding and a handful of patches to MediaWiki core code. Feel free to ask any questions you might need to clarify things. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see this oppose as prima facie evidence of cluelessness using the wrong venue to raise concerns of this nature. Martinp23 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG request: Mr.Z-man 

message: I know, this is a bit unusual, but, bear with me here. I would like to nominate Krimpet for BAG. She does run a bot, KrimpBot. Krimpet has a great handle on wiki coding, and I think would be a very fair BAG member, considering both technical and non-technical issues in closing BRFAs. Krimpet has a m:Toolserver account, and, has used that to develop the tool we presently use to detect TOR nodes. We need a more diverse group, of active BAG members at this time, in my opinion. It is my firm belief, that Krimpet would be a hard-working, valuable addition to the BAG team. SQLQuery me! 06:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG request: Krimpet 

message: Well, A second one. I've seen MBisanz commenting a lot on WP:BRFAs. Honestly, and I mean no offense to you, MBisanz, this user is not the most technically minded person I have ever interacted with. But, they seem to have a great grasp on the community, and it's feelings, as well as great communication skills. His comments have just about always been right on target, and, he does have a good knowledge of the bot policy. It is my pleasure to nominate MBisanz for BAG membership today. SQLQuery me! 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG request: MBisanz 

message: I don't know much what to say here... While I've never run an actual bot, I do run high-speed javascript and I have a general good knowledge of bots and I think I can be a useful voice here. Maxim(talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG request: Maxim 

message: Hi all. I currently run Giggabot, and have been commenting regularly on BRFAs of late. I admit my technical knowledge isn't the greatest, so I would certainly defer to other BAG members in cases that were over my head—conversely, I probably have more mainspace experience than many BAG members (9 FAs and all), so in cases more pertinent to article content, I believe my experience could be an important factor in bot decisions.
Thanks for taking me into consideration. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG request: Dihydrogen Monoxide 

message: I was part of the bag under the other system but I didn't reapply when the system was reverted because, I though it would distract me from status bot a task that I had been neglecting for some time. Now that I've got status bot fixed up I would like to rejoin the bag. Also is it still the practice to spam   all the notice boards? I know it has been in the past but I'm not to sure at the moment with all the bag changes going on --Chris 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a current change to pot policy which would require an RfA-like application for all BAG applicants, retroactively. If you want to join now, then Support, however you might want to wait until the policy has stabilized and you can do the new vote. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I'm putting this On Hold until everything is sorted out --Chris 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: IMO, this is presently a legitimate way to do it. Support, if you chose to unhold it, you seem to know your stuff (IIRC we spoke the other day about PHP bots, and you seemed to keep up :) ), and, we could really use more people whom are interesting in participating / closing BRFA's... SQLQuery me! 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unholded this and moved it to Wikipedia:AN#BAG_Membership --Chris 08:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that was a dismal failure. Since everyone else seems to be here I think I'll unhold  and restart it on this page --Chris 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Support MBisanz talk 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Has made no real effort to publicize this discussion, and is the kind of person who reflexively defends Betacommand without looking into the issues -- showing a lack of judgement about the acceptable use of bots. I fear that Chris would continue the pattern of the BAG ignoring the community and approving bots that the community doesn't want running. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we're allowed to publicise BAG requests, but RfAs are explicitly banned? Hmm. Al Tally (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one important difference is that RfA has a pretty good consensus as being the right place to run for adminship. Not everyone knows that this section exists, nor agrees that it's the right place, so a candidate should be sure people are aware of their candidacy. I see that Chris tried this once unsuccessfully, but I'd like more effort than that. Still, this isn't my primary reason to oppose. My primary reason to oppose is that I doubt that anyone who unquestioningly supports Betacommand's recent actions could make good decisions about bots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior consensus for several years has been that BAG requests should be publicized to various noticeboards.  Some candidates have failed to do that and passed. MBisanz talk 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on AN for 5 days, I think that's publicised enough. As for the Betacommand issue I noticed the thread as I was about to logout, had a quick skim through it, didn't like what I saw so I opposed it. I never "unquestioningly" supported Betacommand's recent actions I just don't want to see a good user indef banned. He may have his problems but has has the project's best interests at heart --Chris 09:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I really want BAG members to be able to judge the project's best interests better than that. I stand by my oppose. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG request: Chris G