Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Archive 3

message: 2 days, no more input, all supports - I'll declare the result now -- Tawker 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Member 

message: ====Mets501====
Throughout his bot-related history, I (Mets501) can see the following issues with Betacommand and his bot.
In no particular order:
Betacommand has a history of blocks related to bot operations on his main account
BetacommandBot also has an extensive block history, including one case where Betacommand unblocked his bot with no explanation other than (because).
I do not find that Betacommand has a true knowledge of bot policy.  He has...
Edited at speeds up to 51 edits per minute .  A little slack is OK, but this is way over the top.
Run an unauthorized admin deletion script on his own account 
Run a script on his own account to do a very controversial task editing at speeds averaging at about 35 edits per minute. 
As far as bot approval goes, he has
Approved a clone of his own bot before his own was approved (clone approved by Betacommand and later original bot approved)
Run a number of controversial tasks on his bot without ever requesting approval
Requested approval for an open-ended task, which was hardly intelligible 
METS501 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand and the  links on that page for a recent controversy regarding Betacommand and his use of scripts. —METS501 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "In the WikiProject vs. Infoboxneeded template issue, I find no merit in the complaint. The two tasks are similar enough to be justified." I would likely agree with you, but I can't find any other mention of "infobox" on this page. Could you point me in the right direction please? --kingboyk 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out link number 4 in my examples of edits to Betacommand below and the following discussion. —METS501 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. So many diffs and points it's getting confusing :) That's not the most elegant edit I've seen (I'd prefer to see the  be a WikiProject parameter; and  should be at the top if we can't delete the wretched thing) but the real issue, whether it's problematic, not really no. --kingboyk 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As it happens, and as I hinted in my response to Mets' proposal, I would also support removing the bot flag and approvals, and having him reapply. If you wish to propose that as alternative remedies 1 and 2 I would support. Also, I think I've made it clear that by asking for resignation I'm politely saying "jump before you are pushed". Certainly you are right that Betacommand doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. --kingboyk 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see if we can get more BAG member input, but I will consider another proposal.  The proposed solution works if he agrees to step down.  If he does not agree to step down, forcing the issue may be appropriate. -- RM 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One question - where was the CSD work approved? Yesterday I had to undelete about 300 categories used by WP:1.0/I, which were incorrectly listed in User:Betacommand/Datadump/Categories that were empty, and I cannot find anywhere where the bot is authorized to generate those links. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generate those list via unused categories. there is no need for approval for that. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His first approval can be found here.  Basically, Betacommand asked for a broad approval of general tasks and then ran a manual trial to show everyone what he was doing.  The person approving the bot must have looked at the work (which was Subst and CFD work) and thought it was fine and approved it without any additional discussion.  During that approvals process, however, a number of people said that they opposed because the request was too vague.  There is some question as to whether that task should have even been approved at all, but in good faith Betacommand did receive approval for the work and any fault is not with him but with the approval process.  Now, if there are problems with the task he does, then that should be taken into account as well.  As for CSD work, simply generating a list and posting it to a userspace page is not something that generally requires permission, since it does not affect anyone else.  If it was a bot that was not already approved for something else, then we might have a problem.  But an established bot can edit within their own userspace without issue, assuming that they follow bot policy, such as throttling, etc.  If I am misunderstanding this issue, let me know. -- RM 12:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that I just generated a list of unused categories that were empty for more than four days. this was created for manual review and deletion of needed cats. if someone wasn't careful that has nothing to do with me. the few that I got around to deleting i manually reviewed each. and the list was generated using Special:unsedcategories so please don't blame that on me. and there was not bots involved. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with that. --kingboyk 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings 

message: Throughout his bot-related history, I (Mets501) can see the following issues with Betacommand and his bot.
In no particular order:
Betacommand has a history of blocks related to bot operations on his main account
BetacommandBot also has an extensive block history, including one case where Betacommand unblocked his bot with no explanation other than (because).
I do not find that Betacommand has a true knowledge of bot policy.  He has...
Edited at speeds up to 51 edits per minute .  A little slack is OK, but this is way over the top.
Run an unauthorized admin deletion script on his own account 
Run a script on his own account to do a very controversial task editing at speeds averaging at about 35 edits per minute. 
As far as bot approval goes, he has
Approved a clone of his own bot before his own was approved (clone approved by Betacommand and later original bot approved)
Run a number of controversial tasks on his bot without ever requesting approval
Requested approval for an open-ended task, which was hardly intelligible 
METS501 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand and the  links on that page for a recent controversy regarding Betacommand and his use of scripts. —METS501 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mets501

message: My findings are as follows (I'll post my full opinion below):
*In the WikiProject vs. Infoboxneeded template issue, I find no merit in the complaint.  The two tasks are similar enough to be justified.
*While CSDCFD and Subst were approved tasks without discussion of the specifics (despite some people requiring this), it is not Betacommand's fault that procedure was not so neatly followed, so there is no fault here.  However, many of Betacommand's bot applications have been vague on details and hard to follow. The approvals pages do not help explain what is being suggested.  This is not ideal for a role model.
*An interwiki bot did run unapproved but not for long.
*One the issue of the bot updating User:Betacommand/Log, I find no merit in this complaint.  This usage is fine.
*I agree with everything under #3 in Mets501's list.  Betacommand was in the wrong in all of these cases.
*Looking at the block logs, nothing jumps out immediately as a problem, other than the problems listed in these findings.
*He speedily approved a bot clone before his own was approved, and then claimed above that it did not happen.  Even if the bot would have been approved anyway, it was clearly a conflict of interest because it was not yet approved.
*I'm not convinced one way or another whether other unapproved tasks were performed.  A scary number of edits have at least the appearance of being unauthorized.
-- RM 22:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In the WikiProject vs. Infoboxneeded template issue, I find no merit in the complaint. The two tasks are similar enough to be justified." I would likely agree with you, but I can't find any other mention of "infobox" on this page. Could you point me in the right direction please? --kingboyk 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out link number 4 in my examples of edits to Betacommand below and the following discussion. —METS501 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. So many diffs and points it's getting confusing :) That's not the most elegant edit I've seen (I'd prefer to see the  be a WikiProject parameter; and  should be at the top if we can't delete the wretched thing) but the real issue, whether it's problematic, not really no. --kingboyk 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As it happens, and as I hinted in my response to Mets' proposal, I would also support removing the bot flag and approvals, and having him reapply. If you wish to propose that as alternative remedies 1 and 2 I would support. Also, I think I've made it clear that by asking for resignation I'm politely saying "jump before you are pushed". Certainly you are right that Betacommand doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. --kingboyk 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see if we can get more BAG member input, but I will consider another proposal.  The proposed solution works if he agrees to step down.  If he does not agree to step down, forcing the issue may be appropriate. -- RM 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One question - where was the CSD work approved? Yesterday I had to undelete about 300 categories used by WP:1.0/I, which were incorrectly listed in User:Betacommand/Datadump/Categories that were empty, and I cannot find anywhere where the bot is authorized to generate those links. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generate those list via unused categories. there is no need for approval for that. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His first approval can be found here.  Basically, Betacommand asked for a broad approval of general tasks and then ran a manual trial to show everyone what he was doing.  The person approving the bot must have looked at the work (which was Subst and CFD work) and thought it was fine and approved it without any additional discussion.  During that approvals process, however, a number of people said that they opposed because the request was too vague.  There is some question as to whether that task should have even been approved at all, but in good faith Betacommand did receive approval for the work and any fault is not with him but with the approval process.  Now, if there are problems with the task he does, then that should be taken into account as well.  As for CSD work, simply generating a list and posting it to a userspace page is not something that generally requires permission, since it does not affect anyone else.  If it was a bot that was not already approved for something else, then we might have a problem.  But an established bot can edit within their own userspace without issue, assuming that they follow bot policy, such as throttling, etc.  If I am misunderstanding this issue, let me know. -- RM 12:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ram-Man

message: Just so that everything can be considered and the slate wiped clean at the same time, I ought to point out another controversy which stems from Betacommand's bots (although he didn't do the deleting it would be remiss of me not to mention it; it had slipped my mind earlier). Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Check_your_wikiproject.27s_categories_for_deletions.21. --kingboyk 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I just generated a list of unused categories that were empty for more than four days. this was created for manual review and deletion of needed cats. if someone wasn't careful that has nothing to do with me. the few that I got around to deleting i manually reviewed each. and the list was generated using Special:unsedcategories so please don't blame that on me. and there was not bots involved. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with that. --kingboyk 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kingboyk

message: *Agree as proposer. —METS501 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a poll, it's a discussion.  But if a significant majority of BAG members and users agree, then we'll go with the proposal.  Also note that the proposal says that you be asked to resign.  If you do not resign, I think we should discuss that issue separately. —METS501 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The issues have to be discussed. The alternative is to discuss it off wiki and present a decision, but that would be rather irregular. --kingboyk 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The self unblocking issue can be explained with this. In any case this is not a poll and discussion should continue.  I will review this more when I have time to dedicate to it 100%. -- RM 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Did the bot have approval for edits like 1?  Or 2?  Or 3?  Or 4?  Or 5?  Or 6?  Just to name a few... None of those are a cardinal sin by themselves, but it starts to add up. —METS501 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How is #5 explained by "there was a error with logging in"?. And where is the edit in #6? —METS501 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  #5 I forgot to modify user-config.py to my account and thus logged me in as BCbot. #6 was an attempt to fix the smiley template substution error. see  for my manual fix. that was a rather difficult bug to catch I thought I fixed all the incorrect subst's Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you say that again about the #5 logging in?  Why was pywikipedia set to edit under your main account anyway?  You said "thus logged me in as BCbot" but actually you were logged in under your main account.  Regardless of the account, however, where is the approval for that task? —METS501 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am developing a tool to find and help remove links in EL section, and its a manual tool similar   to how AWB works by showing a diff to the user, It doesnt need BAG approval as it is a manual tool. but it is also coded in python. having it logged in as a bot was a mistake. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but 35 edits per minute is still way too high, manually approving edits or not.  Frankly, I'm not sure how one could even approve an edit and have it saved and showing the next edit in under 2 seconds.  You weren't logged in as your bot for those edits, but instead as yourself, which is another problem. —METS501 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Substing, CSD, Wikiproject tagging. are the ones that have been fully approved and are loged. I have asked for approval to run a spam statical bot, (task 3) Im not sure  where that stands. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BAG members

message: ::::I'm pleased to see Betacommand accepting, clearly, some responsibility for his actions.  I think it might be a nice gesture were he to make a similar statement (on AN/I) that he understands the gravity of his actions and personally apologizes for the difficulty it has caused, but that's clearly his own decision - it's not for me to request or demand (this was just a general observation and suggestion).  Personally, I think that BC's sixty day suggested "lapse" period is sufficient, if minimal, but I also think that's not a debate I choose to enter.  However, I want to be sure that neither he nor anyone else thinks that's a punitive action - I think that it could be an incredible opportunity for him to take that time to learn how to handle similar situations in the future. I encourage Betacommand to discuss any large batch edits that he makes with someone he trusts who can evaluate the situation both technically and politically. 
::::I would also like to say that I hope that this is settled very quickly (I would personally like to see this all closed up in the next 24 hours).  One of the things that I love about wiki is the incredible warmth and caring for other people that is often demonstrated, and I can't imagine how difficult all of this must be, emotionally, for Betacommand.  I think, then, that the proper action is to begin to wrap this up so that he can stop worrying about it and we can all put this energy into other things.  For the record, I think the idea of a community sanction/block/ban, which some have nervously brought up is well outside the scope of reasonable response to these actions.  Blocking/banning is our most radical steps and although I don't want to minimize the actions, I do not believe they rise to the necessary level for invoking that "nuclear option."
::::I also think that if Betacommand takes this time to work on rebuilding the community's trust, I think it behooves all involved to consider that when he reapplies (obviously, "applies" isn't the correct word, but I can't think of the right one at the moment) for BAG.  And one final thought: I want to reinforce, as have so many before me, that Betacommand's work on wiki has been 95% brilliant and 5% challenging.  It would be a terrible shame if people did not continue to recognize the good work he does, as well as comment on areas that need development.  This community "forgives and forgets" more than any other I have ever seen (I am not including "trolls" in my definition of community, only those reliable and stable editors) and I know that if Betacommand works as hard at rebuilding the community's trust as he does building tools, he will be forgiven and all will be forgotten.  I wish him nothing but the very best, and I trust that's true for all of you as well.  Philippe Beaudette 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, a very thought out and great response from Philippe.  I agree with the proposal and response above except for one point.  I think that BetacommandBot's approvals should all be withdrawn and Betacommand should be encouraged to reapply immediately.  This is solely so that all the approved tasks are clearly documented in the case of any future controversy. —METS501 (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mets that all should be withdrawn so we can have a permanent record of exactly what the approvals are used for.  I also second the motion to close this.  Before the above section was closed, I did make another comment regarding the "personal insult" feeling that BC had for me, and I encourage him to read it.  That said, since BC feels personally insulted by me (for unjustified reasons I think), I ask that another BAG member execute the proposal so that it doesn't look like I harbor any resentment or bad feelings. -- RM 14:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  As of now, Betacommand is officially unapproved for all tasks. —METS501 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure 

message: at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rschen7754bot. Is this too broad and vague an application or am I being narrow minded? --kingboyk 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a bag member, but the tasks ought to be a bit clearer. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They are a little ambiguous, it really depends on how much traffic it is going to be using for the other tasks in my opinion.  Small single-runs that would be capable at human-AWB speed don't really need heave approvals here.  (Note, I've approved ONE task for trial on this request). — xaosflux Talk 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAG second opinion needed 

message: I've been in quite a long discussion that with Calton at User_talk:Calton#High_speed_editing, regarding high-speedy editing (>6-8/min) sustained.  This is mostly in regard to mass tagging talk-pages that they think should be speedy deleted as .  These are mostly in the Image_talk: namespace, and are causing log flooding of the Image_talk recent changes log. (consuming >75% of the filtered log).  I've suggested to them that they register another accont for this, so that we can bot flag it.  They seem pretty adamant about not doing this.  Most of their edits are valid nominations, and are being deleted, so history and recent chagnes log will be hard to review.  You can see an example at User:Xaosflux/Sandbox13.  I was going to block this user for running an authorized bot, but not quite sure, any opinions? — xaosflux Talk 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like other users are suggesting they run this under a bot as well now. — xaosflux Talk 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Warn to slowdown to 2-4emp and if they dont stop block Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is awkward.  I've never been faced with the situation where a bot flag was recommended to someone who was not a bot.  I'm not comfortable extending bot policy to real humans, although there is always a grey area separating a "bot" vs. a "browser".  Alas I'm too tired right now to think about this.  -- RM 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thaught of that at first, but we do flag bots that are manually assisted, and basically all this editor is doing is mass-tagging based on a list that they are generating in preview mode.  I'd be happy to flag an alternant account of their's if they showed that they would meat the other criteria. — xaosflux Talk 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man. He seems pretty hostile. I can't see why he decided to take offense at your suggestions. Mike Dillon 04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be concerned at flooding the CSD backlog too much..... perhaps 50 pages at a time tops / per day.  Those backlogs can be brutal.... -- Tawker 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd have thought it better to avoid CAT:CSD altogether, they are usually a lower priority than the article pages. Why not batch up a set of links onto a page and include a reference on the CAT:CSD page. Deleting those is usually a no-brainer, look at the article tab, see it's red, delete. A list page would enable however many need to be added in a single edit, and a small amount of maintenance to remove the red-links once deleted.  --pgk 08:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with pgk, and with the suggestions offered by xaosflux on Calton's talk page - a single list shuld be created with a custion speedy deletion tag on it, explaining that admins should check and delete items on the list.  If he won't do this, then we have the unattractive option of a bot flag and a flooded CAT:CSD, or, failing that, we may need to consider a block.  This all depends on Calton becoming more open to suggestions, which could take a while to start happenning.  He should, in any case, stop tagging images at such a rate until these concerns are resolved. Martinp23 10:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another second opinion needed 

message: Hi! I just removed 5 requests that had been closed but not removed from WP:BRFA, so please try to remove requests when they are approved, denied, withdrawn, or expired. Thanks! ST47Talk 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this did you archive these or just untransclude them? — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old requests 

message: Just stumbled upon this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Betacommand.
As is often the way on Wikipedia, nobody bothered to inform BAG and there's hardly any mention of the fact that the bot issues have to an extent been dealt with. Betacommand has already been sanctioned by being removed from the approvals group. (However, the issues being raised at the RFAR go beyond what we dealt with, and the arbitrators have voted to accept the case).
Anyway, I think one of us should post a link to the discussion which was held here and perhaps a synopsis. A draft could perhaps be written on this page first.
I have no intention of getting involved in the case personally unless called as a witness, but the BAG events need to be reported as they're important. --kingboyk 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message for User talk:AnonEMouse regarding this, and will probably find time later today to post directly to the arbitration page, but until then that will have to do as far as I am concerned. -- RM 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've posted to the arbitration page with a statement.  I think most or all of what I've said matches our opinion on this. -- RM 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice piece of writing. Meets with my approval. --kingboyk 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betacommand RFAr 

message: Just so you know, User:BAGBot will be down from Noon UTC tomorrow to midnight UTC monday morning. If anyone has a linux computer, let me know and I can send you a binary. ST47Talk 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is possible, but have you considered running the bot on the toolserver? —METS501 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im going to try and get it up there. (I have the code and there are no objections?) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beta can run it on toolserv - I'm in the process of requesting a toolserv account for this bot and others. ST47Talk 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. —METS501 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAGBot downtime 

message: there is some users that are not happy with BAG see  Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, just replied there. — xaosflux Talk 02:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's what one calls a forum shopper. If he doesn't get his way he moans on user talk, IRC, village pump, and just about anywhere. Check his contribs and tell me you want him to have a bot flag... --kingboyk 11:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Trying to recall what they were :)... I know one was higher publicity for BAG nominations. Possiblt at the top of WP:BRFA? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Village pump, perhaps. --kingboyk 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads Up 

message: Anybody fancy knocking up a monobook scriptlet to help with closing and archiving approval requests? --kingboyk 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VoA has one. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Beta. --kingboyk 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Voice_of_All/UsefulJS. Installing now. --kingboyk 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't work for me, alas. --kingboyk 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Javascript 

message: I've closed and archived Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot. I think we'll all be glad to put the case behind us, and look forward to seeing many good and useful edits from . --kingboyk 00:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BetacommandBot case closed 

message: A discussion regarding bots operating without respondant operators is in progress regarding Hangermanbot on WP:BOWN. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstentee Operators 

message: Well, the "Backlog" code I put in is finally in effect - if 3 or more BRFAs have the  tag, it adds that note. Perhaps additional BAG people should be searched for? if we look at the history, we can see that the amount has been rising from 21 up to a peak of 29, of these 25, one hasn't even been edited this year, and 10 haven't been edited this week. ST47Talk 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of them are waiting in trials, I believe - I'll take a look at the BAGAssisstance... ones now. Martinp23 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we could do with more people, yes. We're all volunteers, and being techie types we have plenty else to do (in my case, AWB, plugin, writing articles, adminship). --kingboyk 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - at the moment, a lot of the BAG are inactive (wikibreak, working on other things...).  More people may help.  On the issue of the old requests - things aren't as bad as they look!  Most requests are awaiting responses form the operators, and the one year old request is probably caused by me putting it in the trial section wrongly, and confusing the bot :) Martinp23 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! You all didn't let that backlog notice stay for too long! Well, all the active BAG members are admins, but there is no technical reason for it to be so, admins can't flag bots anyway. I know that as of maybe a month ago there wasn't an official process for additions to the group, but if there is now, can I be pointed towards it? ST47Talk 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "official" process other than someone nominates themselves or someone else and then there is a "vote".  Typically anyone who receives unanimous or near unamimous approval after a week is appointed to the approals group.  See the new member discussion at the top of this page.  It is obvious to me that we could use more members, as I have been mostly inactive for some time now.  I only do an approval here and there because I've recently been very busy.  Generally the main requirement is that a person has been active contributing to bot approvals (just not approving) for some period of time, to demonstrate their understanding of bot policy and other applicable policies. -- RM 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: :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 page. 
Ended at:03:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'd like to echo ST47's concern about !vote/vote/venue/etc., I would like to support it as well.  ST47 has a history of reliable service -- comments on my most recent proposal not withstanding.  Incidentally, it's been 24 hours with no response from any BAG member.  --Selket Talk 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what "concerns", if any, you are alluding to. If there are concerns, let's discuss them in a seperate section. --kingboyk 12:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concerns (as I understood it) was whether this counts as a "nomination", a "request", a "vote", or what.  ST47 seemed somewhat unclear on what the proper procedure for adding a member to BAG was.  I was also unclear on the procedure but wanted to support ST47 nonetheless.  --Selket Talk 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'm sure someone will get around to it, as was noted above, they are volunteers. To Kingboyk, I'll drop something on the top of BRFA, as that is the place where we will get people who are involved with bots. ST47Talk 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Bot_Approvals_Group_.22election.22. --kingboyk 12:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - reliable user, a lot of good input on the BRFA discussions, has the technical knowledge, and would therefore be an excellent BAG member. Jayden54 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. We could use more members, and ST47 seems well qualified. --kingboyk 12:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Full Support Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. I fully trust this user's judgment on bot stuff. Snowolf (talk) CON COI -  20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - knows his stuff. Martinp23 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Support - deserves to be on the team. Through my personal experience, a great person. Good luck mate! Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. Voice-of-All 22:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong support —METS501 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. The volunteers are overly busy and we need more members because of it. -- RM 14:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Recuse as a BAG member not involved in the election, to be able to close the election at the end of the discussion time. — xaosflux Talk 03:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: isnt it normal practice to have a B'crat close? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, unlike with RfA there is no NEED to have this done by a 'crat.  This looks like a snowball though, should that change (on the spot threshold) to less then 90% support or if any good faith objections are raised I'll defer it up though. — xaosflux Talk 03:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but you may as well !vote and let one of our friendly crats close. They need the work! <sarcasm>According to the RFB process, we have plenty of them to go around.</sarcasm> --kingboyk 10:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.  Will reread and !vote soon! — xaosflux Talk 15:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Result: User:ST47 is appointed to the Bot Approvals Group.
The support was unanimous so I feel that closing this and announcing ST47 as a member of the Bot Approvals Group is uncontentious and within my remit as an admin. If anybody wants to ask a crat to drop by and confirm the result, feel free. --kingboyk 11:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination/Request/Vote/!Vote/Discussion/!Discussion/(\w+) for ST47 

message: Again I'm sorry to nag, but it's been three days now with no response whatsoever from BAG people.  --Selket Talk 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martinp23 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: I've blocked Cydebot for editing in excess of 50e/min, please see User_talk:Xaosflux#Cydebot_Block for several things going on with this bot. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 03:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard#Cydebot_Block. — xaosflux Talk 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion on WP:BOWN has gotten kinda heated, and I'm stepping away from it for at least a few hours, please comment there as you see fit.  Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additonal opinions requested

message: Besides discussing whether or not BAG needs reform, and how to achieve it, I'd like to get some feedback on what happened, now that the dust is beginning to settle. Not least, I'd like to hear from the BAG members who weren't around when this incident occurred.
Was the original block correct or not, and why? What about endorsing the block? My unblocking? Was the behaviour of the advocates of Cydebot (not Cyde himself, who has been respectfully quiet on the issue) acceptable? Are BAG members competent? What role should IRC play? All and any comments on these and related issues are welcome. Thank you. --kingboyk 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just to give you guys some background as to what happened. This bot was running from 15:40, April 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Image:1943 arcade.png (Replacing template name per Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates.). So its been going for about 4 days now, Xaosflux only noticed it on day 3 of the tasking. Of course nobody could have known the start time without digging it out like I did :), but this may or may not be useful. (See: for the starting contribs ) In otherwords From start of tasking to the actual block there was ~3 days, but the blocker really had no way of knowing this, as it took me a good 10-15 minutes to find where it actually started. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I'm looking more for opinions rather than data; things we can learn from. --kingboyk 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the helpful post.  Had I been involved in the process and had Cyde posted such a request, I would have probably approved a faster than 15 edits/minute request.  Of all people I understand the need for such things.  It would have been nice if the dev would have posted here at the time.  Now that we know, we can update policy to match that information.  IRC is a terrible place to discuss anything that isn't informal.  The formal bot approvals process serves the community by relieving them from having to determine whether or not bots are ok.  This simplification saves a lot of effort.  Bypassing it isn't helpful. -- RM 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right ST47. Now should we try to contact Cyde and get his version of why he did not want to do a BRFA, rather then attempting to second guess this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to contact me, I found the question myself.  There are a variety of reasons why I didn't bother with BFRA, all of them playing some part.  1) I didn't feel that it was necessary; Cydebot is already bot-approved, and this task was about as foolproof as any task could ever be.  2)  I know what I'm doing, both as pyWikipediaBot developer and operator of one of the bots on Wikipedia with the most edits.  3)  Frankly, I should be in BAG, assuming such a thing as BAG should exist.  4)  I dislike unnecessary bureaucracy and appreciate the attitude of "If it's not broken, don't make a big deal about it".  5)  I'm lazy, and the BFRA process has become a rather large chore.  I remember when you just had to add a section to a project page describing the bot's task.  Now there's templates and template parameters and subpages and transclusion ... it's messy.  I literally spent more time writing, figuring out, and filing the BRFA for the listification of categories task than I spent writing the actual bot itself.  --Cyde Weys 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the aspects that a developer was providing input and that was not stated here, I agree with everything that you said, for the most part.  I've often worked that way in the past, so I understand it.  When operating the rambot, my bot page just had a list of outstanding tasks to do, and everyone just trusted me to be useful because I was so useful in the past.  Also in the past when I made mistakes, I fixed them all myself.  There was no need for an approvals group.  But Wikipedia has grown and at this point it's important for there to at least be a minor post even to a talk page indicating what happened.  Look, there are many user such as myself or you that have bots that perform large numbers of useful edits and are trusted users.  There are other users with approved tasks that are not well established and less trusted.  It's complicated trying to manage them without playing favorites.  Bureaucracy is useful but it hurts those that don't need it.  Anyway, thanks for your comments. -- RM 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's all fairly reasonable except the bit that you should be in BAG. If you had wanted to be, you could have put your name forward. If you want to be in the future, if BAG is retained, you have to get some sort of community approval like everybody else! And I mean on wiki community approval. --kingboyk 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Cydebot blocking 

message: Debate seems to have dried up. We should probably try and reach a conclusion now. --kingboyk 12:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: I'm personally shocked that some people in this community think that the BAG is simply a power struggle to gain control over bots, which, as has been said before, is not true.  Kelly Martin, aside from abolishing the group, which the community has basically voted against, is there anything we can do to affirm that we are completely not trying to gain or hold power?  How about new elections, possibly on a wide-reaching forum such as RfA to confirm each member's entry and promote new entrants?  How about two sections on bot approvals, clearly separated.  One section would be ONLY for talking about technical aspects, such as edit rate, server load, etc, and in that section final say would be given to members of the BAG (although as always anyone is welcome to comment there), as it has already been decided that each of those members has the necessary technical knowledge for such a thing.  Then there would be another section for talking about everything other than the technical aspects, mainly consensus for the task the bot plants to do.  If EITHER section failed, then the entire approval would fail.  The second section would be without prejudice to BAG members, and an uninvolved BAG member or any other administrator would be required to gauge consensus and close the debate, as technical knowledge is not necessary for that section.  I would gladly agree to either or both, or pretty much anything else that would help us end this quarreling and get back to the encyclopedia. —METS501 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>You could redirect the page to User talk:Kelly Martin perhaps?</sarcasm> --kingboyk 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside the useless and uncivil suggestion from kingboyk, I continue to advise that this group be renamed to the Bot Advisory Group and that it operate as a resource group for those who run or wish to run bots, with members free to join and leave at will; there is no need for elections to such a group.  The decision whether or not to grant a flag to any given bot should be an open community process similar to the request for adminship process; input from members of the Advisory Group would likely carry significant weight (depending, of course, on the bureaucrat's evaluation of the competency of that particular member) but the final decision rests with the closing bureaucrat (as it always has), not with the Advisory Group.  I absolute oppose the process-heavy, status-driven approach recommended above.  Kelly Martin (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'm afraid that we're going to be unable to compromise for the time being.  We've agreed (I think basically everyone except you) that open membership doesn't work. —METS501 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power struggle 

message: I have started a (hopefully insightful) discussion on the possible rewrite of our bot policy here. Comments are welcome. Миша13 09:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy rewrite proposal 

message: Bot operators, BAG members, and the community: I am most pleased to inform you that the WP:BRFA page has the fewest amount of requests it has had in at least 2 months, which means that not only do BAG members have more time to work on specific requests, but, assuming a steady amount of new requests, our turnaround time is also going down. To BAG: keep up the good work! To everyone else: to help to determine consensus, find problems, ask the questions that need to be asked, and speed up and simplify this process even further, you can watch a status report at User:ST47/BAG. ST47Talk 17:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations and keep up the good work! 

message: I can't flag this account. See the error: :Image:Cocoabot.png. Would like someone to take this up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, the account doesn't appear to exist. I'll speak to the op. --ST47Talk 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocoabot 

message: I've implemented a new template, , that will show up as  A BAG member has requested the attention of the operator. Once the user has seen this message and replied, please remove this tag.. If you use this, the bot will send a message to the op and change the tag to . Enjoy! BAGBot 13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, meant to post as myself. --ST47Talk 14:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template - Operator assistance needed