Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Archive 2

message: Just wondering if people in the bot approvals group need get their bot approved by someone else. Sounds sensible encase of any flaws/problems are not noticed by the owner of the bot.--Andeh 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds reasonable, and in practice is exactly what happens.  My own bot was recently approved, and while I may have archived it (it already had the bot flag), I didn't do it under my own "authority".  I think this goes without saying.  On the other hand, if no one was active on this page, then I wouldn't have a problem if someone approved themselves.  But with new members, that seems unlikely to be a problem. -- RM 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, we should never approve our own bots.  If it comes down to one of us being the last bot approver we've got a much bigger issue at hand! — xaosflux Talk 01:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK fair enough, may want to add this somewhere, saves people (like me) from asking.--Andeh 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot approvers need approving? 

message: Maybe add signatures to the page so users can recognise the users more easily when they respond?--Andeh 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Now persons in the approval group just need to add their signature. -- RM 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if you could change the page to semi-protection users such as myself could edit it. :) --Andeh 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I myself had to wait until I could use my admin account to semi-protect the page, as I couldn't edit the page when you posted this.  Ironic :) -- RM 21:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection has been updated to edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop.  We should all have this on our watchlists by now, and not be adding users adhoc. — xaosflux Talk 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Commons gets a lot of images that ultimately, need deleting. Red links on wikis referencing them are ugly. There are 701 different wikis that can get images from Commons. A bot has been created and tested to perform the delinking. But consider if all 701 wikis were asked for bot approval! gaak! So concerned commons admins and 'crats are asking on Meta for an exemption to normal bot rules...  See Requests_for_permissions/CommonsDelinker on meta for more details. Your support would be greatly appreciated, I expect. You can also discuss it at the Commons noticeboard at the delinker bot topic ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BAG members, please visit this commons: discussion to put forth input please! — xaosflux Talk 03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons delinker bot 

message: BAG Member                       	Approvals
                                 	11
                                 	15
                                 	4
                                 	19
                                 	3
5 Active Members                 	52
Bureaucrat                       	Flags
                                 	13
                                 	3
                                 	14
                                 	1
4 Active Bot Flagging Bureaucrats	31
Since we've added new members to BAG and changed the archival process, I took a few minutes to get some statistics on the Wikipedia approved bot requests.  I don't know how many people are aware of them, but there are now a number of categories setup to monitor the bot requests (See here: Wikipedia bot requests for approval).  The statistics above are for an approximately 1 month period since the election.  The table suggests to me that we still could use more members to spread out the work.  Perhaps more bureaucrats would be helpful.  Most bot flagging tends to occur within a few hours, but it would never hurt to be better.  The obvious caveat with this table is that it does not show those BAG members who comment extensively but don't approve bots.  It also doesn't include who approved bots for trial or how many people "voted" to approve.  Naturally it also doesn't include any failed or withdrawn bot requests. -- RM 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting table!  I dont think there's a RUSH requirement to get crats to flag these bots, if they get it within a day of being notified it usually sufficient.  As for the counts, I know that I personally do more trials approvals then bot approvals, often on purpose to make sure others in the team are on board. — xaosflux Talk 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to imply that the bureaucrats were doing a bad job or that the process was horribly deficient. I was implying that while we're doing fine now, more wouldn't be a bad thing.  I think overall everything is going quite well. And I know that if someone wasn't paying attention they might assume that some people are carrying all the load, but that's obviously not true in your case: You do a lot of commenting and the work you described above.  That's why I added the caveats in the first place.  It's just a table of statistics afterall. -- RM 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval Statistics 

message: I've updated the inactive members who have not made any bot approvals action recently.  Those members not in the table above have not approved any bots but have at least contributed to the discussions on the bots.  At issue is Joshbuddy who has never made a contribution to any page of Wikipedia:Bots or its subpages.  Please see here and here.  I don't know how historically this user was placed on the approvals group, but I seek to remove this user immediately, as someone who has never contributed to the bot approval process should not be on the approvals group.  No activity is unacceptable for this position. I am seeking the approval of other BAG members to remove this user.  It is important to note that I am not criticising Joshbuddy, but only that he should not be granted BAG membership if he isn't going to contribute to it.  -- RM 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone asked him about it yet?  — xaosflux Talk 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just noticed this before I left for the weekend.  I'll do it now and we'll see what happens. -- RM 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive Members 

message: I've added some template tools to be used by BAG to facilitate the approvals process.  See  for a table containing all of the available templates.  I've also added my own template for use on my user page for bot related pages.  In case anyone wants to use something similar, it can be found at . -- RM 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools 

message: No one else has taken a stab at the creation of an election proposal and we are due a clearer policy.  To start I'm going to use Xaosflux's questions to start the discussion.  Others can add as they see fit. -- RM 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Proposal

message: I've stated my thoughts on the issues regarding an election.  I'd like to lay out an election process based on some of those thoughts.  We'll see how much sense it makes. :)  I'd like to suggest that all existing members be reconfirmed though the process.
Before anything else, any election should be closed by a bureaucrat or an admin who is also an existing member of BAG.  It should be obviously why a bureaucrat should be allowed, but maybe not the BAG admin.  It seems to me that an admin already has garnered the trust of the community and with the addition of being a BAG member has the ability to determine consensus based on the requirements of the service of bot approvals, perhaps even better than an outside bureaucrat would.  A closing user should not close an election when consensus is not clear and they have directly participated in the process.    Some issues should be given more weight than others.  For example, a user's understanding of wikipedia policies is more important than whether or not the user has run a bot.  The person closing the election should consider the relative weight of such discussion.  When in doubt, a BAG member should not be elected since BAG membership is not adminship.
 
The requirements for BAG membership can be broad like in the case of administrators, but should focus on the user's understanding of Wikipedia policies and workings.  A BAG member must have a fairly broad understanding of policy in order to judge the appropriateness of a bot, since bots can cause considerable damage if approved incorrectly.  Ideally, a new BAG member should have existing experience in commenting on previous bot requests for approvals, although this could be waived if the user's background and skill set make them qualified (as was the case in the recent election).  While I don't think we need to have any edit count requirements, it should be clear that a user who has not participated in policy discussions or editing a wide range of articles will probably not have sufficient experience.  Membership should have term limits as I've described above (with automatic renewals and removals).  A user who has already been a BAG member but let their term expire should not require as high a standard as someone who has never been a member.  Also, adminship should be a plus but not a requirement.
Anyone should be able to vote and voice their opinion.  Vandals and sockpuppets should obviously not be allowed.  The user closing the election should take into account the content of comments by supporters and opposers and weight them relative to their importance on being a BAG member.
The procedure for adding new members should (probably) use transcluded pages on a voting page similar to how pages are done on the requests for approvals now.  Anyone can nominate at any time, but it must be accepted by the user.  The format should be similar to that of RfA, although perhaps not so formal.  The previous election (See the archive) worked well.  Users names were listed and people commented on them by listing whether or not they supported.  I don't see the need for as formal a system as RfA unless the number of voters get really large. Reconfirmations for users who are expired (or withdrawn) without controversy should be given considerable latitude in becoming active again, but should otherwise go through the same process as new members.
Removals should be a separate function of the member voting page.  Anyone can suggest that a BAG member is inappropriate for any reason, but must be seconded by another independent user. The member should be given the opportunity to address any charges before any removal action is taken.  The member should, however, voluntarily recuse themselves from approving/denying requests until the issue is resolved.  This will essentially be a probation period with no guilt implied.  They can still comment on bots as any normal user can.  In order to remove a user, a voting process similar to the process for adding new members must occur with the following caveats: A user cannot be removed without a plurality of other BAG members voting and a plurality of non-BAG members voting.  In any case, consensus to remove must still be established. This prevents hijacking the process.
That's my first draft.  Let's see what other people come up with. -- RM 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ram-Man's Election Procedure

message: Since Bluemoose has apparently left the project, his name was placed on the inactive list.  I'd propose that we accept Bluemoose's stated departure as a resignation from BAG and remove his name from the list.  At the very least it will prevent imposters from using his name in bot procedure, but I can see no other reason to keep it around just for memories.  We have history for that.  Since discussion on this page appears almost non-existent, I'm going to go ahead and remove it and unless there is significant discussion to the contrary we can leave it at that. -- RM 12:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that BAG members are more than capable to decide whether or not a fellow member should be removed, but if I may suggest: maybe wait a little while, to make sure that Martin's decision is indeed final and that he in fact left.  I mean, recently we saw an admin declare that he was leaving the project, but then he thought it over and went back on his decision to leave, within a few days.  So maybe wait and see if Martin is really gone, maybe for a month, or two or three weeks...  Just a thought, but again, BAG members are certainly capable of making this decision.  Redux 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a well reasoned thought, but the way I see it is that there is a minor practical reason for not cluttering the list with users that have stated that they are done for good.  Let's say for sake of argument that he did return.  In that case, we'd treat him the same way that we'd treat an admin who's powers were voluntarily withdrawn: we'd reactivate him as a BAG member without much fuss.  But if he says he's gone, I'm going to assume good faith on this one that he really meant what he said, and as such act accordingly.  Also, if he ever came back under a different name, we'd have no easy way to verify that he was the same person, so we wouldn't want someone to try that tactic either. -- RM 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's now safe to assume he's gone. (alas). --kingboyk 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluemoose/Martin 

message: As a member of the BAG I think we need to give cyde our full support in a statement or something. Cyde is getting flak for his WP:CFD/W work we have given him the nod for this task but haven't full officially approved it though and he is taking heat over it. I thought we could draft a statement as the BAG showing our support. See: User talk:Cyde#Deletion_summaries for the full issue Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an official statement is necessary, since at least four group members have commented already.  If there is an issue with a bot, it should likely be discussed here anyway. -- RM 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I chimed it with an 'its ok' on that page just now as well.  If this was a RFBOT, the feature I'd like to see added would be to include a wikilink to the CFD page when the deletion is happening.  — xaosflux Talk 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Need some Support  

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User regarding a call to editors to be mass welcomebots.  I put a 15 min block on the first one, but it seems they don't want to go through a bot approval at this time; please sanity check me and let me know if that was too much.  Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems perfectly sensible. This is ridiculous. I don't even let my bot run that fast. alphachimp. 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked a pseduo-bot 

message: According to Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group, all active members are sysops. I move that Wikipedia:Bots/Approved bot requests be protected as it's not for general editing; it can always be un or semi protected if we get a non-sysop member. Any objections? --kingboyk 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this discussion in the past.  The consensus was not to protect the page, because some of us (like myself) do edit from accounts without sysop access and there is no reason that someone else couldn't edit the page for other reasons other than to add or remove names.  I would, however, not have a problem with semi-protecting the page. -- RM 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had the debate in the past when we had non sysop members. Why would you edit the page from a non sysop account? How are the bureacrats supposed to know if it's a genuine approval or not if you don't edit as Ram-Man? :) Not meaning to be confrontational, just don't follow the logic :) --kingboyk 17:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The approvals page says that I edit from that account, plus it's easy enough to verify that I am who I say I am here.  But that said, I could be doing something like updating the table format to be more attractive or have a better layout.  Perhaps the names are not in alphabetical order.  Maybe the opening paragraph needs expansion.  Whatever the reason, I don't think it needs to be (fully) protected. -- RM 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking through this history, I don't see any recent or ongoing vandalism or misuse. Perhaps we can wait until there is a problem before we fix it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the page needs protection, the current 'crats that deal with bots are pretty familiar with our group.  I do urge any of us that do not alreay have it, to put it on your watchlist though. — xaosflux Talk 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting the approved page