Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Archive 1

message: See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#SmackBot_and_AWB_operated_by_Rich_Farmbrough
I've no clue whether a request for de-botflag-ing should have been posted there, so I leave a note here. Please let me know if I should've addressed this differently --Francis Schonken 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue appears to be semi-resolved, with the bot blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#SmackBot_and_AWB_operated_by_Rich_Farmbrough seems to be a good place to allow discussion.--Commander Keane 15:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An issue I want to present to the approval group

message: At Wikipedia_talk:Bots#PorthosBot some questions were raised re. Porthosbot; prior and later tentative questions were also filed at:
* User talk:PorthosBot
* User talk:Porthos (seeing the respective lists of contributions it appears however unlikely to me that this is the bot operator)
* :m:User talk:Danny (Danny flagged the bot - is Danny also the bot operator?)
* User talk:Danny
No reaction recorded thus far, more than a week after the first question.
Might I ask the Bot Approvals group to suggest a next step?
Personally I think that if a bot does not conform to bot requirements, and if further it appears impossible to come in contact with its operator, the bot should be immediately blocked (whatever the identity of the presumed bot operator); and de-flagged; and neither of these two steps should be suspended until a bot operator makes clear what his intentions are w.r.t. bot conformity and/or flag request. --Francis Schonken 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PorthosBot 

message: How does one become a member of the approval group?
Geo.plrd 23:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not actively looking for additional people at this time, mostly we need people with lots of experience with Wikipedia bots, and forgive me for saying it but I don't see a lot of bot experience from you (yet...) -- Tawker 06:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I'm considering MfD'ing this page sometime in the near future, as I don't agree with its premise.  We don't have a group of experienced editors who can approve/deny RfA's, and for good reason: we're a wiki.  Just trying to get some feedback from those around here first. ~ PseudoSudo 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD

message: I've restored Rob to the list, and created an inactive/away section, for a couple of reasons:
#Rob's still around, active with commits and on the mailing lists, and may well be back with us soon. No reason to remove him when three others have gone inactive and stayed on the list.
#We have 4 inactive/away people; they're still trusted, still capable, and if they showed up tomorrow, we'd still want them doing this. So, do like most other groups (the Arbitration Committee and Mediation Committee come to mind quickly) and have an inactive/away section for those who still can but aren't right now.
#These user's names still show up in the approval log and in discussions. It could be confusing for others if we remove them, as they may then think a bot wasn't actually approved by the group. I don't want a dozen bots being blocked because "they were approved by Rob Church, who isn't on the approvals group, so it doesn't count."
Hopefully, this will work all around. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Away/Inactive 

message: What does it take to join the approvals group?  I've never joined anything on Wikipedia (other than being an adminitrator), but I figure this is an area I could help out with.  Let's see if anyone monitors this page, because I have no idea where the proper request for this should go... — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approvals Group 

message: As an active member of Wikipedia, experienced bot operator ( BetacommandBot with 19920 edits) I have noticed that there tends to be a lag on this process because most of the approval group is not that active here. As I have noticed some simple task just stall out and there is no decision by the group or even questions. The tasks seem to be ignored. This is probably because the Approval group members are active in other places. As I am an active member and proposed the original reorganization to the current format see this. I would like to propose a solution I would like to be on the approval group. If there is any concern about a conflict of interest because I may have some request for my bot on this page I will not Approve/disapprove or otherwise use my approval group status with my bot I will let other members handle those as to avoid a conflict of interest. Betacommand 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approvals group