Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
==Richard0612== |
==Richard0612== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is preserved as an [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top--> |
|||
---- |
|||
Good show, ol' chaps. '''Promoted'''. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 06:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
I would like to request BAG membership. I run a [[User:Bot0612|bot]] which has done WikiProject tagging and userbox migration (transclusion updating and maintaining my [[User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive|archive]]) using [[WP:AWB|AWB]]. I can program in VB.NET, C# (i.e. AWB modules), and some PHP (sxwiki), and have a basic understanding of python and Perl. Along with this goes a knowledge of regular expressions (regex). I comment on BRFAs where I feel that I would have something useful to say, and think that I have a good understanding of bot policy and the BRFA process. Feel free to ask any questions that you may have. I will add a note about this nomination to relevant community noticeboards as [[WP:BOT]] suggests. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;">[[User:Richard0612|<font color="#630">RichardΩ612</font>]] [[User talk:Richard0612| ''Ɣ'']] [[Special:Contributions/Richard0612|''ɸ'']]</small> 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
I would like to request BAG membership. I run a [[User:Bot0612|bot]] which has done WikiProject tagging and userbox migration (transclusion updating and maintaining my [[User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive|archive]]) using [[WP:AWB|AWB]]. I can program in VB.NET, C# (i.e. AWB modules), and some PHP (sxwiki), and have a basic understanding of python and Perl. Along with this goes a knowledge of regular expressions (regex). I comment on BRFAs where I feel that I would have something useful to say, and think that I have a good understanding of bot policy and the BRFA process. Feel free to ask any questions that you may have. I will add a note about this nomination to relevant community noticeboards as [[WP:BOT]] suggests. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;">[[User:Richard0612|<font color="#630">RichardΩ612</font>]] [[User talk:Richard0612| ''Ɣ'']] [[Special:Contributions/Richard0612|''ɸ'']]</small> 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 87: | Line 94: | ||
*:: Changed to '''Support''', per answers to questions. (Re timeliness: In my defense, it's only been about a day.) – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Special:Random|random]])</sup> 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
*:: Changed to '''Support''', per answers to questions. (Re timeliness: In my defense, it's only been about a day.) – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Special:Random|random]])</sup> 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - Yay for bot IRC spammage <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''[[User:Reedy|<font color="darkred">Ree</font>]][[User talk:Reedy|<font color="darkred">dy</font>]]'''</font></small> 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' - Yay for bot IRC spammage <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''[[User:Reedy|<font color="darkred">Ree</font>]][[User talk:Reedy|<font color="darkred">dy</font>]]'''</font></small> 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> |
|||
=Discussion= |
=Discussion= |
Revision as of 06:30, 15 July 2008
Archives | |
---|---|
Archive 1 August, 2006 and earlier | |
Archive 2 September, 2006—March, 2007 | |
Archive 3 March, 2007—May, 2007 | |
Archive 4 May, 2007—October, 2007 | |
Archive 5 October, 2007—June, 2008 | |
Archive 6 June, 2008—May, 2024 |
Information
This is the talk page for the Bot Approvals Group. Specific bot requests should be placed on the Requests for approval page. See the Bot policy page for more information on bot policy. This page is specifically for issues related to the approvals group. At the moment there is no formal policy for adding and removing members of the approvals group, but one will likely be formulated in the future. This is, however, the correct page to discuss member changes.
Requests for BAG membership
Requests to join the Bot Approvals Group are currently made here, although other methods have been proposed. Users wishing to join BAG, or to nominate another user to become a member, should start a section here (directly below this heading), where informal discussion and comments on the candidate's suitability may be made. After a suitable length of time (usually one week unless the nomination has not received a reasonable level of support), the discussion will be closed by a bureaucrat.
Richard0612
Discussion
to add a new topic of discussion.
Heads up
Hi there! Since it looks like Betacommand will be prohibited from running automated tasks, I've taken it upon myself to clone all of BetacommandBot's tasks that I find useful. The first one, WP:DABS, is already complete and is so utterly uncontroversial (one edit per day in userspace, runs with a flag, thoroughly tested like all my other bots) that I'm not going to bother wasting everybody's time by seeking approval for it. Also, this latter part was posted on the administrators' noticeboard but I thought you group of technically minded people should know that I'm also launching an adminbot to move-protect today's featured article for 1442 minutes, starting at 23:59 UTC. Like all my other adminbots, this one's designed with great care and I'll email the code to anybody on request; true open-sourcing will come when I get my grubby hands on a Fisheye account. :) east.718 at 00:01, May 21, 2008
- heads up its a little more work than it first appears if you want the code for the task e-mail me. βcommand 00:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- This message is made by me as Dihydrogen Monoxide. I'm cool with east running an adminbot (I mean, it's not like it's a first...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
To Rspeer - I prefer to open-source most of my stuff so I probably wouldn't use BC's code for that reason, but that's an issue solely between me and him; you shouldn't care as long as I open-source it by hook or by crook. To SQL - I've added details about these tasks to the bot's userpage and will bounce you the source when you get on IRC tonight. east.718 at 06:05, May 23, 2008
New icon
To differentiate between the traditional Bot icon and actions taken by the BAG as an entire group (such as BAGcoms, etc), I've created . And I created a tiered notice system to avoid confusion when communicating messages whose weight and authority could be confused User:MBisanz/MESSAGES. MBisanz talk 08:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The 'bot wheel' in that image seems blurry to me.. is there any way you can fine this up? — E ↗TCB 09:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest you use something other than ambox for those notices, since you're not going to be putting them on articles :D. A screen reader will have a whale of a time working out the real significance of the top notice, given that its ambox class is screaming "delete me!". I like the BAG icon very much, though. Happy‑melon 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure how often we'd have to use these, but do like the image, have updated my userpage topicon User:Xaosflux/BAG with it. — xaosflux Talk 12:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I think it is a bit grandiose. Hesperian 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure how often we'd have to use these, but do like the image, have updated my userpage topicon User:Xaosflux/BAG with it. — xaosflux Talk 12:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest you use something other than ambox for those notices, since you're not going to be putting them on articles :D. A screen reader will have a whale of a time working out the real significance of the top notice, given that its ambox class is screaming "delete me!". I like the BAG icon very much, though. Happy‑melon 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
IMO a reef ought to be reserved for DR committees, but that's just me. Martinp23 12:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The base images were Image:Crystal Clear action run.png and Image:Wikipedia laurier W.png and I used GIMP to scale and merge them. Basically I cut out the W and scaled the gears from 128*128 to 275*275. Since they're PNGs, I'll take them over to the graphics lab later and have them made into SVGs, that might make them clearer. And I'll look into other message box styles (or ask David to make scales userspace messages), I just like Ambox since it has levels included. Pretty much the only times I can image the laurel'd message being used are in extreme situations, such as notifying someone of BAGcom related matters, notifying a bot op of a community bot (MediationBot1 for instance) or revocation of the right to operate that bot, etc. Maybe once or twice a year tops, since everything else is done in our roles as individuals not as a group. MBisanz talk 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What's a "BAGCom"? Martinp23 11:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- BAGcoms would be the instances where BAG acts as a Group making a decision instead of an individual acting in their capacity as a member of BAG. Prior examples would be actual matters at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group/Archive_3#Betacommand, Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group/Archive_5#BAG_as_.27arbcom_for_bots.27 and proposed matters at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group/Archive_5#Opinions_Wanted, Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_4#Review_of_a_Betacommand_task. So it seems a lot of people feel that if there is a controversial issue, bring it to this page for all the members of BAG to discuss it and make a binding decision. This is different than BRFAs where each member of BAG is expected to follow WP:BOT, review the task, review the discussion, and make an individual decision on if the bot should be approved or not. MBisanz talk 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: indicating a group decision is a good idea but I have to echo Hesperian that the icon seems a little grandiose. Are those laurel leaves? Like the emperors used? How 'bout a plain circle to indicate unity? Franamax (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I adopted it based on this and this category where its used pretty regularly among WP icons, but I'm always open to suggestions. If you give me another image, I can combined the two and post it here. MBisanz talk 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think Image:Applications-development.svg is the most appropriate image. It carries the connotations which accurately reflect the role of this group. Daniel (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I adopted it based on this and this category where its used pretty regularly among WP icons, but I'm always open to suggestions. If you give me another image, I can combined the two and post it here. MBisanz talk 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: indicating a group decision is a good idea but I have to echo Hesperian that the icon seems a little grandiose. Are those laurel leaves? Like the emperors used? How 'bout a plain circle to indicate unity? Franamax (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've tweaked it to as an alternative. MBisanz talk 05:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Without a hint of facetiousness, I humbly submit for your consideration. east.718 at 06:05, May 23, 2008
- After my 25 years of IT work, I would really like a logo of a grinning guy in a white mario-type uniform and cap, holding a fistful of cables, that lead down to a monitor smashed on the floor. The caption would be "IT Dept. Helping you get through the day." or some such. Just my dream. Losing the laurels is best, the hardhat is OK, I'll still pull for a circle around the bot gears though. Franamax (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Find me a free image of a circle (I suck at drawing) and that will happen. MBisanz talk 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oww, I suck at graphics worse, I did try for a half-hour, but I don't know what format to use, if you can scale it in png or, well, anything. What ever happened to whining long enough that someone else does it? :) I'll try again tomorrow, if someone else can help, please do, meantime I'll just shut-me-big-mouth :) Franamax (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Find me a free image of a circle (I suck at drawing) and that will happen. MBisanz talk 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody find the idea of a Bot Approvals Group logo just a little bit pretentious? — Werdna talk 08:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well MEDCAb's getting one, the Arbcom Clerks have their own logo independent from the Arbcom logo, so I thought it was a good idea to discuss. MBisanz talk 09:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- It should be no surprise that I approve of MBisanz's logo :) (even though MBsianz spelt my name wrong :) I also think it's a good idea to use these logos as a means of distinguishing between BAG members acting as members, as admins, and as the official representative of a BAG group decision. It brings clarity to the actions, and clarity can only be good. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll expand this a little further: the logos don't necessarily have to be used in MB's templates, they could also be tagged inline with comments, and the image description would have the same text as the templates, i.e. you can click the image to see what it means/popups tells you what it means; thinking about another logo that botops could use to indicate that they are commenting on behalf of their bot - "this message is on behalf of the bot I operate on en:wiki"; and Werdna, yeah I thought the laurel leaves were a little pretentious, but given the enormous impact bots have on the wiki community (diffs on request lol) and their somewhat privileged position here, again, the more clarity, the better. Franamax (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- No clear consensus, therefore shall not go ahead. If someone wishes to bring this up again in a few months, feel free to do so. — E ↗TCB 05:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BAG Mailing List
I am currently discussing with the techs about having a mailing list for the Bot Approvals Group. It would be located at <http://lists.wikimedia.org> and would be called wikipedia-en-BAG. If we were to apply for one at bugzilla, we would need a positive consensus from the BAG itself. If you are in such support of this, please sign below and I will then lodge a bug for it. Thank you. — E ↗TCB 09:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, as nominator. — E ↗TCB 09:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cobi(t|c|b) 09:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I support on the condition it is archived publicly. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support because I like having more new toys. Also, the BAG needs a place to secretly plot its takeover of the wiki, and a mailing like is the perfect location for this. (Propose that we do the same sort of thing as unblock-en-l, allowing emails from others only when they have passed moderation, and have the only members of the list be BAG members. If you go and allow anyone to post, well that defeats the purpose of a quiet ban discussion area.) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is an utterly dreadful idea. Why can't you just discuss stuff on wiki? There's no need for any off wiki discussion, especially private. This just further enforces the false idea this group are somehow above everyone else, and can go making decisions about things where us common folk can't even read them. Just keep discussions on the wiki, if anywhere. Al Tally talk 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't see much need for a list, and, I can see absolutely no reason for a closed list. SQLQuery me! 12:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)- Neutral If it's an open list, I don't care as much. There would be a little utility, in maybe getting everything more centralized, and, actually getting attention from current members, at least. SQLQuery me! 12:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. If I saw a reason for one, I might consider it. — Werdna talk 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - While I do think it may increase the "cabalness" of the BAG, that could be said the same for the other private mailing lists. I've always thought there should be a place where someone doesn't have to be at their computer when they get a notice. Plus, we could get BAGBot to do a daily report to the list, just like SQL does for the ACC mailing list. Soxred 93 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Trending oppose, I just don't like list-servs. MBisanz talk 14:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose adds to the already existing unneeded bureaucracy. Monobi (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning toward oppose. There's plenty of talk pages here and the IRC channel. I really don't see a need. Definitely oppose if it uses private archives. I can't think of anything BAG would discuss that would require such privacy. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per Werdna. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm not sure I see much of a point either. I'm not really a fan of mailing lists in general, and there's really not much else to discuss that we don't already discuss on-wiki or on IRC. krimpet✽ 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless the devs have some reason for this which hasn't been expressed. What's next, clerks? Gimmetrow 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Purpose?
What sort of discussions would this list be for? Will it be an open or closed list? WjBscribe 09:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that this list would be a closed list to just BAG members and also bureaucrats who wish to join and discuss bot approval related matters. It would cut down the IRC usage, but I believe using email is a more formal way of discussing the current bot approvals and whether to approve, trial or deny a bot which may be trivial to another member of the BAG, which I have noticed over the past month or so. — E ↗TCB 09:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- As H2O has noted above in his vote, it should probably show the archives publicly. We could make it a public list after all and allow comments from other administrators and contributors. — E ↗TCB 09:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if making it public will be a great idea—if the list is specifically for discussing BAG issues (should we approve this bot, etc.?) it might be better to limit to BAG members. But non-members can still discuss with the BAG here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why does it have to be private? I fail to see why BAG would need to hold a private discussion on weather to approve a bot or not. You're going to have to post details on wiki anyway (I'd hate to be told that my bot was denied per a private mailing list discussion that I can't read) --Chris 09:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, that's why it should be publicly archived at least. If others want to give everyone the ability to post to it, I'm cool with that (though I think it'd be better if that didn't happen). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- It might be better as an open list, after all, we do these discussions currently either on the BRFA or on IRC, both are quite public. — E ↗TCB 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of a mailing list, why don't we have a page at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Discussion and start a discussion for BRFAs there? This talk page is meant for BAG related matters and WT:BRFA is for questions on BRFAs. — E ↗TCB 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- It might be better as an open list, after all, we do these discussions currently either on the BRFA or on IRC, both are quite public. — E ↗TCB 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, that's why it should be publicly archived at least. If others want to give everyone the ability to post to it, I'm cool with that (though I think it'd be better if that didn't happen). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why does it have to be private? I fail to see why BAG would need to hold a private discussion on weather to approve a bot or not. You're going to have to post details on wiki anyway (I'd hate to be told that my bot was denied per a private mailing list discussion that I can't read) --Chris 09:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if making it public will be a great idea—if the list is specifically for discussing BAG issues (should we approve this bot, etc.?) it might be better to limit to BAG members. But non-members can still discuss with the BAG here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- As H2O has noted above in his vote, it should probably show the archives publicly. We could make it a public list after all and allow comments from other administrators and contributors. — E ↗TCB 09:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing at all that the BAG should be discussing that needs to be private. If there is, then this group needs to gain a lot more consensus for its activities than it currently has. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of non-BAG members voting above, and E stated that what the devs wanted to see was a consensus of BAG members that we needed one. Among bag members, the tally is 5/1/2, which seems pretty clear to me. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's hardly fair. Why can't everyone vote? It's pretty obvious most BAG members will want a mailing list. It should not be up to just them to decide if they have a list. You can't just ignore good faith votes because they aren't part of the club. Al Tally talk 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it not up to BAG on whether BAG needs a list? Who else would know? And why does anyone else have the power to oppose such a request that is no way affects them? Why are users attempting to hinder the productivity of this group? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, the final decision truly is up to BAG members alone (and in fact a vote of any sort is kinda silly IMO). However, given that several BAGgers have expressed a degree of indifference to the idea of another list, I'm not sure how effective the list would end up being. krimpet✽ 00:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it not up to BAG on whether BAG needs a list? Who else would know? And why does anyone else have the power to oppose such a request that is no way affects them? Why are users attempting to hinder the productivity of this group? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"We are the BAG, what the BAG does and does not do is down to the BAG to decide" - I half think this is the attitude that sparked this Mfd nomination of the BAG. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I simply don't see what say the community at large should have in what the bag needs and doesn't need. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are not above the community. Your group is not like ArbCom, or similar. Your attitude here is completely wrong. Al Tally talk 01:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you imagine a group like Arbcom having a member like ST47, given his most recent bout of instability [4]? Maybe being a diva is an essential requirement of the BAG, maybe us mere mortal wikipedians don't have a clue. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, we have all forgotten the secret BAG cabal rules, what you do outside of wikipedia affects what you can and cannot do inside wikipedia [5]. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why you're trying to blame whatever's going on at RFA on us now. SQLQuery me! 15:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course of course. An unrelated trifle. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why you're trying to blame whatever's going on at RFA on us now. SQLQuery me! 15:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are not above the community. Your group is not like ArbCom, or similar. Your attitude here is completely wrong. Al Tally talk 01:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a purpose for this list. Without a purpose, I expect it'll be active for about a month discussing nothing in particular, and then fall into disuse. --Carnildo (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
FritzpollBot
While this sounds good, just wondered if we should run this past the devs. This bot could double the number of articles on en.wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10 30 May 2008 (GMT).
- Just asked Tim on IRC, so long as its maxlag compliant, there are no WP:PERF issues. This of course should not be taken to mean that the devs approve of the bot or its purpose, just that adding the articles will not break anything. MBisanz talk 14:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Considering the articles are all notable and meet our inclusion guidelines (which they do) and this isn't going to kill the servers (it won't), everything seems cool. That's why I approved it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Possible unauthorized Bot
Came across this user while dealing with some WP:ACC stuff. I don't think I could get my bots to get that many EPM even if I wanted to. Q T C 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- User was already warned. Gimmetrow 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
BAG membership discussion (redux)
This is the section to discuss issues surrounding BAG membership - the history, the selection process, and other concerns. Could someone do a brief history, summarise the concerns, and link to the discussions further up this page (or in the archives)? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- From what I gather, the concern with the closed Group membership process pertains to its insular nature, which leads to organizational inertia, favoritism (i.e. tolerance for misconduct by members), and a lack of an established mechanism for community input or oversight. El_C 11:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's useful to have a filter. But it's important to make sure this filter doesn't appoint and polices itself —without outside oversight— in perpetuity. El_C 11:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- The last several appointments? Where do I look? Who was made the decision? El_C 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- User:Giggy [6] - PASS Closed by b'crat User:Taxman, 28 users participating
- User:Maxim [7] - PASS Closed by b'crat User:Kingturtle, 12 users participating
- User:MBisanz [8] - PASS Closed by b'crat User:Kingturtle, 19 users participating
- User:Krimpet [9] - PASS Closed by b'crat User:Kingturtle, 10 users participating
- User:Mr.Z-man [10] - PASS Closed by b'crat User:Kingturtle, 14 users participating
- User:MZMcBride [11] - FAIL Closed by b'crat User:Kingturtle 17 users participating
- User:Chris G [12] - No consensus Closed by b'crat User:Taxman 12 users participating
Also, the one ongoing, has 12 users participating.
Hope this helps. It's been a long night, but, my reading / counts should be more or less accurate. (and, apparently it was 6, mea cula...) SQLQuery me! 12:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. That's news to me. That solves the self-appointment problem. El_C 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Though it rather turns it into an "appointment with highly limited community participation" problem. Alai (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- So we should force the community to participate? We've tried spamming noticeboards. It doesn't work. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 16:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought my preferred model was well-known and oft-stated, but I suppose we have lots of venue-drift in this discussion. Transclude RfBAGs from the RFA page, just as is currently done for RFB. Look at making BAG a flag-setting role. Make explicit that "judging consensus for the task" is part of the role. (Or if strictly necessary, split out the latter two from the "technical" role, but that seems over-complicated to me.) If at that point there continues to be highly limited participation, then assume that the community really doesn't care. However, purported counterarguments like "RFA is too political/about popularity/inherently broken" suggests to me a desire in some quarters for "limited" reform, and that slightly more input might be accepted to "too much" more input. Alai (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to that stance, in fact I underwent an RfBAG at RFA. It seems that a few users have said that they do not want that method and have reverted everything. I am also in support of creating a BAG usergroup and assigning rights to grant/revoke the bot flag to that usergroup. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You don't explicitly cover the "consensus" issue, but otherwise we seem to be of one mind. You should probably expect to be flamed from various quarters forthwith. :| Alai (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, The fact is, they get more participation than ever now, by people outside of BAG, and, when there is an issue it comes up, and I think in the one case it did, it caused the nomination to fail. Silly politics, are minimized (although, not eliminated, see the string of 'protest comments' in a couple of those, still far less than say, Coren's one on RFA for instance). Appropriate people seem to be being picked, and, most of the 'closed group' arguments don't hold up to scrutiny anymore. I'm not convinced that there's still a problem. SQLQuery me! 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You don't explicitly cover the "consensus" issue, but otherwise we seem to be of one mind. You should probably expect to be flamed from various quarters forthwith. :| Alai (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to that stance, in fact I underwent an RfBAG at RFA. It seems that a few users have said that they do not want that method and have reverted everything. I am also in support of creating a BAG usergroup and assigning rights to grant/revoke the bot flag to that usergroup. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought my preferred model was well-known and oft-stated, but I suppose we have lots of venue-drift in this discussion. Transclude RfBAGs from the RFA page, just as is currently done for RFB. Look at making BAG a flag-setting role. Make explicit that "judging consensus for the task" is part of the role. (Or if strictly necessary, split out the latter two from the "technical" role, but that seems over-complicated to me.) If at that point there continues to be highly limited participation, then assume that the community really doesn't care. However, purported counterarguments like "RFA is too political/about popularity/inherently broken" suggests to me a desire in some quarters for "limited" reform, and that slightly more input might be accepted to "too much" more input. Alai (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- So we should force the community to participate? We've tried spamming noticeboards. It doesn't work. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 16:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Though it rather turns it into an "appointment with highly limited community participation" problem. Alai (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- If BAG was given flag setting rights (something incredibly easy to do now), I would support the RBAG on RFA proposal. I just felt it was premature before to start RBAG, and then later add the flag setting feature. MBisanz talk 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not utterly wedded to either option on flagging, but if agreement on flagging is possible, and it facilitates agreement on other matters, then I'm all for that. Alai (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- So... It's an evil self-selecting cabal, and you want to give it more privileges? Or, that's about the only way to truly justify throwing the community input process on RFA? Either way, I'd strongly advise against a usergroup, I don't see a problem with the crats doing it now (they're often there faster than the pizza guy!) I'd also support having the 'crats actually look over the BRFA in question, as a last check and/or balance. SQLQuery me! 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- ... and equally, if people are going to throw up straw man arguments against flag-setting, then I'm happy to move forward with a RfBAG process without it. The two are entirely separable in my mind, and I'm happy to argue for them together, or each under separate cover. Your "strong" advice seems to lack any actual argument against the idea, however. Alai (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- So... It's an evil self-selecting cabal, and you want to give it more privileges? Or, that's about the only way to truly justify throwing the community input process on RFA? Either way, I'd strongly advise against a usergroup, I don't see a problem with the crats doing it now (they're often there faster than the pizza guy!) I'd also support having the 'crats actually look over the BRFA in question, as a last check and/or balance. SQLQuery me! 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not utterly wedded to either option on flagging, but if agreement on flagging is possible, and it facilitates agreement on other matters, then I'm all for that. Alai (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a proposal. What if those who could approve bots included any admin, and select non-admins. Admins presumably have some degree of community approval and could pretty much add themselves to BAG if they wanted, and be removed if they don't do anything for a month or there are other objections. "Select non-admins" would include anyone else trusted to deal with bots, which would be shown by a vote here. OK now, rip it apart. Gimmetrow 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The skills required for evaluating bot requests are different from those required for adminship. For example, I expect that many of our thousand-plus admins don't understand why a fully-automated spellcheck bot is a bad idea. --Carnildo (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- And 99% of them also won't care to get involved with bots. Gimmetrow 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I think the 'easy come easy go' method that we did for a while works. I'd be fine with limiting it to admins, and, if one is approving inappropriate bots, etc, we should have a simple removal method. SQLQuery me! 04:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but then what about editors who are interested in doing the job but not currently admins? Should be some way for that to happen Gimmetrow 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, something to work out. I still think, the appropriate way to address the concerns brought, is to have an easier to join and remove system, than a more "elite" system, where it is more difficult to join, and be removed. I'm not pretending this to be the perfect system, but, it sounds to me at least, to be an improvement. SQLQuery me! 06:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think there's a lot to be said for this sort of approach, in fact. Indeed, I'd have been pushing for it more strongly, except that I thought it'd provoke even more trenchant resistance from the existing BAG members, whom it'll be extremely difficult to implement "reform" over the objections of. But if it's politically doable, it's probably more practical than trying to treat the initial selection process as perfectable. I think RFA "works" -- in the sense that the whole edifice hasn't come crashing down around our ears, however unpleasant a place it might be on occasion -- because it achieves wide enough input to have a certain conservatism, because admins can essentially "cancel each other out" as regards to doing significant harm, and because ArbCom can more or less keep up with the "rogue admin" phenomenon (not in the least promptly or efficiently, but after the levels of wikidrama and toxicity get sufficiently high). The BAG gets less community input, seems to have been less than successful in self-regulation, and the ArbCom seems to be pretty clueless about what to do with it. If there were a "finite term" clause, or some sort of "recall" mechanism, the system would be more robust to the inevitable occasional lapse in initial "promotion". Alai (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, something to work out. I still think, the appropriate way to address the concerns brought, is to have an easier to join and remove system, than a more "elite" system, where it is more difficult to join, and be removed. I'm not pretending this to be the perfect system, but, it sounds to me at least, to be an improvement. SQLQuery me! 06:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, in attempt to keep the system easy, how about this: anyone can join, but to start with they can only approve trials; if no (two?) BAG members object to the user for a month, then they can approve bots. Gimmetrow 07:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that just goes back to BAG selecting itself, which many seem to have a problem with. BJTalk 07:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- A great idea, but, bjweeks makes a good point. I can't say I recall a problem with the 'anyone can join' system for the (year?) time it was in place, except for one user, abusing the privilege, whom probably should have been removed, instead of the system reverted. SQLQuery me! 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone can join, and any existing BAG remember can remove someone in trial. If someone still wants to join, then they must get community consensus through RfA. That allows the community to "override" any allegations of self-selection. Gimmetrow 07:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's similar to a WikiProject. Having the list split by active and inactive members might be an idea. The other alternative I would suggest is that a notice is posted at RfA, the one place missing from the notification list of the current request. Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, one of the less relevant places,
I think I recall there being some minor drama about someone notifying there, not sure tho. May have been something else.SQLQuery me! 07:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - Lets try it! Just added mine to WT:RFA. BJTalk 07:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, seems like a harmless experiment :) SQLQuery me! 07:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Brave move, BJ! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- SQL, Why do you say it is less relevant? Bots can affect far more pages than admins can. Actually, what I am arguing for here is more community input at BRFA (as others have said). Once that is managed (and we need to recognise that boring-but-necessary bots will not get comments) then who is and isn't on BAG becomes irrelevant. Basically, most BRFAs will get so little community input that BAG will be able to approve the technical grounds easily, though a caveat should always be added that if objections arise then the bot may need to be re-approved (and a way to request that should be made clear to anyone reviewing the bot's edits). What BAG members need to be able to judge is which bots may be controversial, or need community input. A good example is the Fritzpoll one, which I believe has technical approval, but was passed off to a community discussion. Other examples are adminbots that were sort-of approved, but told they needed to pass an RfA. And so on. Betacommand's original bot request is a good example of one that didn't get a proper discussion at the time, was discussed later at a noticeboard, and was never properly re-evaluated during the time it ran after that. It did good work, but the processes of discussion and improvement and more discussion and improvement never really took place on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, seems like a harmless experiment :) SQLQuery me! 07:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, one of the less relevant places,
- OK, but then what about editors who are interested in doing the job but not currently admins? Should be some way for that to happen Gimmetrow 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I think the 'easy come easy go' method that we did for a while works. I'd be fine with limiting it to admins, and, if one is approving inappropriate bots, etc, we should have a simple removal method. SQLQuery me! 04:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- And 99% of them also won't care to get involved with bots. Gimmetrow 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The skills required for evaluating bot requests are different from those required for adminship. For example, I expect that many of our thousand-plus admins don't understand why a fully-automated spellcheck bot is a bad idea. --Carnildo (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the only way that RFA becomes relevant from all the arguments I've read, is that it's a high-traffic page. Why stop there? Why not the sitenotice? What about WT:MP? There are tons of high-traffic pages we could slap it on, with little to no added benefit, just like WP:RFA. Moving on, I don't think I would have approved Fritzpoll myself, and, I think, in that case, the approving user should have deferred to a more experienced user (It seems, that the overall task of approval was unclear to them). That leads me to another thing that needs to change around here, there should be some easier method of 'revoking' a BRFA. (Don't even get me started on adminbots :P ) As to the betacommand thing, I assume you're talking about one of the earlier tasks, before BRFA came into use. It was very early on, and, quite probably fumbled badly (no one gets it right on the first try, eh?). However, as you say, it's doing / did good work. IMO, the project came out on top, on that one, and really... Isn't that why we're here? SQLQuery me! 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can we agree that the BRFAs need higher levels of community input than the BAG nominations? If the community oppose a bot, they can do so at the BRFA, and BAG should (in theory) acquiesce and say "technically OK, but no consensus for the task"). I absolutely agree that some method of revoking a BRFA is needed. I'll take the Betacommand history discussion to your talk page. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the only way that RFA becomes relevant from all the arguments I've read, is that it's a high-traffic page. Why stop there? Why not the sitenotice? What about WT:MP? There are tons of high-traffic pages we could slap it on, with little to no added benefit, just like WP:RFA. Moving on, I don't think I would have approved Fritzpoll myself, and, I think, in that case, the approving user should have deferred to a more experienced user (It seems, that the overall task of approval was unclear to them). That leads me to another thing that needs to change around here, there should be some easier method of 'revoking' a BRFA. (Don't even get me started on adminbots :P ) As to the betacommand thing, I assume you're talking about one of the earlier tasks, before BRFA came into use. It was very early on, and, quite probably fumbled badly (no one gets it right on the first try, eh?). However, as you say, it's doing / did good work. IMO, the project came out on top, on that one, and really... Isn't that why we're here? SQLQuery me! 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Note parallel discussion at WT:BOT. Gimmetrow 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
De-Flag
- LemmeyBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- Owner: Lemmey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It's probably time we de-flag this bot, as both it, and it's owner have been indef. blocked for two weeks, and, are unlikely to get unblocked (I believe this is the user's second chance already, regarding sockpuppetry). I thought I'd get some opinions here, before looking for a 'crat to do it. (It's not like the bot can *use* the flag right now, as it's blocked) SQLQuery me! 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- given the reasonable amount of time and the very low chance of unblocking, de-flag. βcommand 2 17:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, and even if he was unblocked, I'd probably suggest he not be allowed to run bots, I'll flag a steward to look at this convo. MBisanz talk 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- A crat should do :) SQLQuery me! 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Doh! You can see I've been spending too much time at meta, BN post made. MBisanz talk 20:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know I'm not a BAG member, but just thought that I'd make a suggestion: that bots operated by indefinitely blocked users (especially for things that they are unlikely to be unblocked for, like abusive sockpuppetry) are deflagged without any discussion as a matter of process, as the flag is redundant (I know that deflagging doesn't do anything, but it keeps things tidy and in order). Just my 2p. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:54, June 16, 2008 (UTC)
- Doh! You can see I've been spending too much time at meta, BN post made. MBisanz talk 20:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- A crat should do :) SQLQuery me! 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
An account is using the same code. Is there any objection to approving another account to use this script without bot flag? (The edit rate is low enough that a bot flag isn't really necessary.) Gimmetrow 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
More De-flagging requests
I've got a few more de-flagging requests that I'd like to bring forward for everyone's consideration, please.
EdBot
- EdBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: 1
- Operator: EdBoy002 (talk · contribs) (now DoubleAW (talk · contribs))
- Operator notified: Yes [14]
- Last edit: May 19, 2007
- Blocked on: May 20, 2007, indefinitely by Martinp23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a WP:BAG member.
The approval for this bot was withdrawn on May 20, 2007, according to the block log. The BRFA notes that it has been blocked, and, suggests that it is no longer approved. No further task requests have been filed pertaining to this bot in over a year, I would suggest it's flag be removed. SQLQuery me! 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note EdBoy002 has been renamed to DoubleAW (talk · contribs) and is still active. We should ask him his intentions. MBisanz talk 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
VFD Bot
- VFD Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: N/A
- Operator: AllyUnion (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: Yes [15]
- Last edit: September 13, 2005
- Blocked on: September 14, 2005, indefinitely by AllyUnion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the bot operator.
This bot was replaced by AFD Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) when VFD was renamed. Bot was blocked by the operator over two years ago. BJTalk 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- AFD Bot is also now inactive (and deflagged). BJTalk 04:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Bot flag removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
JabbaTheBot
- JabbaTheBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: 1
- Operator: I already forgot (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: No (Blocked indefinitely [16])
- Last edit: June 13, 2007
- Blocked on: November 6, 2007, indefinitely by Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
The bot was blocked after the operator was blocked for rather colorful comments. BJTalk 05:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
John Bot and John Bot III
- John Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- John Bot III (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: 1 2
- Operator: CWii (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: No
- Last edit: N/A
- Blocked on: N/A
Bot operator retired. BJTalk 01:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree that these shouldn't be running without an op. Anyone want to take up their tasks? giggy (:O) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Im guessing they will stop soon enough, otherwise block in say a week or so. -- maelgwn - talk 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand's status
I do not understand Betacommand's entry in the BAG table. Is he an "active member" or a "prior member"? Can someone please clarify his entry in the table? Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am both, I was a member, left and am now an active member. βcommand 2 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per this thread Betacommand, are you still happy to run through a reconfirmation on 20 June? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- No response, and quite candidly I don't believe BC's happiness ought to be the key determinant in this matter. Until we get the community and bot approvals more or less in line with each other somehow, BRFA is going to continue to be a highly problematic process (even if we're currently in a period of a relatively large amount of skating in between consecutive fights). Alai (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually there is almost zero problems with the bot approval process. Ryan as for asking about reconfirming, I would prefer to wait until July 1, as I have real life commitments that have been engaging me, and I dont have time for a proper discussion at this time. βcommand 01:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- So until then, can we show Betacommand status as "suspended"? Franamax (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suggested that that would be appropriate at the time, but the page was protected and no one wanted to wheel war over it. Betacommand has not, to my knowledge, performed any actions in the capacity of a BAG member since his suspension, but in the interests of transparency WP:BAG should be reliable as a list of "paid up" BAG members for when quick exercise of authority is required. Happy‑melon 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- So far as I know, he is not suspended from the BAG: he's under community-imposed sanctions in (highly) related areas, that neither he nor the rest of the BAG have chosen to take heed of (at least in any formal way regarding said membership). If he's willing to undergo "reconfirmation", and there's some sort of agreement as to what sort of process as to use for that (at least pro temps), I don't imagine it will make much difference in hanging around until July. If no such process proves to be possible, the BAG ought to be considering what special measures might be required to resolve the situation. (The appropriate action seems fairly straightforward and clear to me, but given that it's somehow managed to take this long...) Alai (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suggested that that would be appropriate at the time, but the page was protected and no one wanted to wheel war over it. Betacommand has not, to my knowledge, performed any actions in the capacity of a BAG member since his suspension, but in the interests of transparency WP:BAG should be reliable as a list of "paid up" BAG members for when quick exercise of authority is required. Happy‑melon 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- So until then, can we show Betacommand status as "suspended"? Franamax (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually there is almost zero problems with the bot approval process. Ryan as for asking about reconfirming, I would prefer to wait until July 1, as I have real life commitments that have been engaging me, and I dont have time for a proper discussion at this time. βcommand 01:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- No response, and quite candidly I don't believe BC's happiness ought to be the key determinant in this matter. Until we get the community and bot approvals more or less in line with each other somehow, BRFA is going to continue to be a highly problematic process (even if we're currently in a period of a relatively large amount of skating in between consecutive fights). Alai (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per this thread Betacommand, are you still happy to run through a reconfirmation on 20 June? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's past July 1. Can we finally get this resolved? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Betacommand, would you like to initiate a reconfirmation, or would you like me to? Otherwise, pending consensus here, I will mark you as 'former'. SQLQuery me! 04:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c and SQL can initiate it too) Per Beta's statement above, I'd think it's safe to remove his name from the BAG list, pending his application for reconfirmation. Obviously, this does not prevent Beta from participating in bot approval discussions and subtracts nothing from his obvious expertise in bot operations, but does remove his authority to assign bot approval or rejection on his own stamp (which I don't think he's done in the last month or so anyway). Whether or not Beta is a formal BAG member, I think his input will be very much valued and considered. Franamax (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Concur fully. There's no need to force a reconfirmation on him - BC can stand for BAG again if and when he wants to resume involvement in its activities. Forcing him to stand for reconfirmation when there's no evidence he even wants to continue as a BAG member is pointless. Happy‑melon 11:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Disputed
Per the poll (now long old, but valid nonetheless) at WT:BOT, there is no method for selecting BAG members which has community approval. Members nominated (and added to this page post-poll) are not endorsed by the community by virtue of the fact that the community has no reason to participate in a system which it doesn't approve of. I see the last discussion, like the half dozen preceding it, all ended with little if any change (in fact, as far as I can tell, nothing was changed, and the status quo was silently maintained). Maybe the seventh time is the charm? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm new to this, but perhaps the previous unsuccessful attempts for change can be taken as an indication that the community is well enough satisfied with the current system? Kelly hi! 05:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not really "satisfied," more like "Nobody cares." Mr.Z-man 06:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have to admit that the old system seems to be doing well enough now, at least when people go to sufficient effort to publicize their nomination. If we can get a BAG that will listen to the community even when they don't agree with the BAG -- and I'd say we're getting there, by electing new people and changing the minds of old ones -- then the nomination process isn't as important. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just fear that ultimately things will return to how it was before (one or two people supporting a BAG nom with no other input and that being considered "good enough"; no change at all has taken place other than there being a lot of noise made about this entire process). Besides, by continuing to do things this way, we basically ignore that this process has no consensus, and that's never a good thing (especially when so many people seem so vested in keeping things the way they are). Anyways.. I'll join the shared delusion BAG seems to have and just pretend things are "just fine". Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a while longer. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Community involvement cannot be forced. there needs to be a balance between informed discussion and voting without knowing anything. just getting people to vote does not help a discussion. A better solution is an informed discussion with as many informed people as possible. βcommand 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with the pretext that there are so many uninformed people that a wider audience would actually introduce error into the process. RFA may have issues, but it's a high traffic destination that gets enough eyeballs to make the whole thing reasonably credible. And no, I'm not saying we should advertise in the site notice... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Community involvement cannot be forced. there needs to be a balance between informed discussion and voting without knowing anything. just getting people to vote does not help a discussion. A better solution is an informed discussion with as many informed people as possible. βcommand 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just fear that ultimately things will return to how it was before (one or two people supporting a BAG nom with no other input and that being considered "good enough"; no change at all has taken place other than there being a lot of noise made about this entire process). Besides, by continuing to do things this way, we basically ignore that this process has no consensus, and that's never a good thing (especially when so many people seem so vested in keeping things the way they are). Anyways.. I'll join the shared delusion BAG seems to have and just pretend things are "just fine". Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a while longer. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about nobody cares so much as worn down in the face of a concerted effort by the incumbents to say as little as possible, do as little as possible, and wait for it all to blow over once again. I can't ascribe any motivations or group action to that effect, I can't say I wouldn't take the same course in a similar position, and I do think there has been some movement in the direction I've been personally pushing, i.e. toward the community. With some backward steps which are now in the past, also with the forward impetus of the RFA/RFBAG process. Like LC though, I'm thinking the sails are slack right now pending the next big blow. I'm still not grasping what was wrong with the RFA-presence process that brought so much community participation - what exactly was the negative there? Franamax (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- The oft repeated issue with the RFA-style process is that it brought in "the wrong kind" of opinion. Personally I think that's a bit high and mighty of a position to hold for BAG given the accusations of cabalism in this group. I can't imagine a situation, on a wiki, where there's such a thing as "too much opinion" (unless your attitude is that opinions that may disagree with yours are "the wrong kind"). AFAIK no BAG nomination in the currently active process has achieved the kind of input the RFA BAG noms received. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both systems work fine in my opinion, of course with the RFA style system getting more input. The only problem with the RFA style system is that some people don't think it is the proper venue. I, for one, welcome my new RFA overlords and would be happy to be reconfirmed under the system. BJTalk 07:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would be happy to undergo a reconfirmation under the WT:BAG or WP:RFBAG (ie. RfA) systems. giggy (:O) 07:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Bj and giggy. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would be happy to undergo a reconfirmation under the WT:BAG or WP:RFBAG (ie. RfA) systems. giggy (:O) 07:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both systems work fine in my opinion, of course with the RFA style system getting more input. The only problem with the RFA style system is that some people don't think it is the proper venue. I, for one, welcome my new RFA overlords and would be happy to be reconfirmed under the system. BJTalk 07:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Basically the only difference I can see between the current system and the RfA system is the amount of publicity the RfA systems gets, so many more people comment on it. I think with time this would 1. probably reduce and 2. regular visitors the RfA page would get used to what is needed in a BAG candidate, so would have a better understanding and be able to vote in a more informed manner. Can someone involved in the reversion explain the reason why the system was rejected? -- maelgwn - talk 08:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure the assertion that RfBAG at RfA would get more attention is true: my own RfBAG, at least, didn't really get that many more comments than the ones that have since been handled on WT:BAG — and that's even though it ran for twice the designated time (10 days instead of 5) before I withdrew it. It may be, as you suggest, that RfA regulars would get more used to RfBAGs over time and that this would let them participate better in the process — but then again, it might not. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your RfBAG was right at the tail end of the test, and after objections were already being raised to the entire process. That, I suspect, lead to the low turnout in your case. The turnout in the other nominations were all (as far as I know) higher. As to nominations handled here on WT:BAG, again, the turnout increase is a recent event, prior to the drama over BAG nominations the turnout was typically far far lower (and I expect will return to that same level unless something changes, as nothing has changed AFAIK that would keep this level of interest up). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure the assertion that RfBAG at RfA would get more attention is true: my own RfBAG, at least, didn't really get that many more comments than the ones that have since been handled on WT:BAG — and that's even though it ran for twice the designated time (10 days instead of 5) before I withdrew it. It may be, as you suggest, that RfA regulars would get more used to RfBAGs over time and that this would let them participate better in the process — but then again, it might not. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- The oft repeated issue with the RFA-style process is that it brought in "the wrong kind" of opinion. Personally I think that's a bit high and mighty of a position to hold for BAG given the accusations of cabalism in this group. I can't imagine a situation, on a wiki, where there's such a thing as "too much opinion" (unless your attitude is that opinions that may disagree with yours are "the wrong kind"). AFAIK no BAG nomination in the currently active process has achieved the kind of input the RFA BAG noms received. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have to admit that the old system seems to be doing well enough now, at least when people go to sufficient effort to publicize their nomination. If we can get a BAG that will listen to the community even when they don't agree with the BAG -- and I'd say we're getting there, by electing new people and changing the minds of old ones -- then the nomination process isn't as important. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not really "satisfied," more like "Nobody cares." Mr.Z-man 06:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Lightbot
One of Lightbot's tasks has been delinking of date fragments which it has been doing everywhere despite the policy stating that some links are allowed if supported by context.
Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT.
Since date-linking is quite an old practice on WP, the enforcement of this policy by a bot, which cannot determine context, can only be controversial. Allowing the operator to make that determination across the entire project would hardly be any better.
With that in mind it's not surprising that several users have complained to Lightmouse about the bot's behaviour. In all cases he has either deflected complainants to the surly world of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), replied with a boilerplate reference to policy or simply removed the comment from his talk page.
In my opinion, none of this is showing much respect to users or to the principles of consensus and collaboration. Many users when confronted with this kind of behaviour will just sigh and walk away. Indeed I'm rather sick of this issue myself, having thought it would be a simple matter of bringing something dubious to the operator's attention. This whole experience seems to be symptomatic of a disturbing trend in WP where only the most obsessed and aggressive win out.
Since Lightmouse is not really responding to complaints, could someone here have a look at this? I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done. I'm sure Lightbot does do valuable work, so I'm not asking for anything as dramatic as revoking bot status, but the current situation is not good.
Thanks for reading. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to get involved here, as I don't think the bot policy nor the approval mandate are being violated. There is a discussion at WT:MOSNUM (as you know) and I think that is the proper venue for this. If you feel consensus is against bots removing the links and Lightmouse refuses to remove that function I would request a block at WP:ANI. BJTalk 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just commenting on BJs remarks above, but BAG is not a step in the DR process although, speaking for myself, we'd be more then likely to honor any such decisions that come out of it. Q T C 05:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why does there need to be a consensus against the bot removing the links? I can't see that any real consensus has been sought for removal. Surely that should come first. The first anyone knew of it was when the links were already being removed.
- The 'discussion' at WT:MOSNUM seems to have entered the 'ignore it and it will go away' phase. I don't expect to get any substantive response there. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- It says on the approval for his bot, that it is manually assisted and that means the operator should be checking context on every edit. A quick glance at WT:MOSNUM shows support for removing the links. -- maelgwn - talk 10:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just to set the record straight...
- Supporting: User:Tony1, User:Greg L, User:Jimp, User:Lightmouse (all MOSNUM regulars)
- Opposing/Questioning: User:Justa Punk, User:LeadSongDog, User:Hroðulf, User:Moilleadóir, User:Jheald, User:Cardsplayer4life, User:Francis Schonken (mostly users drawn there by the actions of the bot)
- It may be a little hard to see the people complaining due to the large volume of text that some of the regulars produce.
- Re: manual checking, doesn't this effectively give the interpretation of the policy across the entire Wikipedia to one person? How is that collaborative? If an editor reverts an edit by the bot on the grounds that it's contextually appropriate (as allowed by the policy) won't it just be changed again by the bot?
- From a cursory check of recent edits, it appears Lightbot has stopped delinking years, which I suspect is the main source of annoyance. No one that complained has been informed.
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)- The bot should not be going back over the same page more than once because that can remove edits where more attention has been paid to the context. Manual checking is no different from an editor changing the page the 'normal' way, when it still relies on their interpretation of the context. -- maelgwn - talk 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- From a cursory check of recent edits, it appears Lightbot has stopped delinking years, which I suspect is the main source of annoyance. No one that complained has been informed.
The bot seems to be running again, and I have seen complaints about it on the Village Pump. I'm trying to figure out if this bot has been given the go-ahead to make this change, especially since it's doing its work before a change to the MOSNUM guide has been put in place. Most bots have an explanation of what the bot does, and a link to where it got its approval on the user page, and WP:BOT#Bot requirements states the former, at least, should be done. But Lightbot's user page gives no indication of what it does, or of any approval processes it went through. The bot's talk page requests discussion be put on the owner's user talk page (the owner is in the list of "supporting" above, which certainly isn't appropriate), and the owner's user page is a redirect to his talk page, so there are no specs about the bot to be found there, either. I can understand the frustration some users have over this. BTW, I am not against utlimately delinking dates and I think MOSNUM should have made a stand on this by now. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure this is an unsupervised task? If it's manually checked on each edit, I don't see the problem. After all, the policy quoted above does say "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked". Are there any examples of links Lightbot had removed that should not have been? A quick perusal shows lots of cases where lone years were delinked, but in every case I see the link to the year was not informative or useful. If he's delinking 1995 from the 1995 in music article, then that's a problem, but so far this seems to be a complaint in search of a problem. – Quadell (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deflagging part two
HBC AIV helperbot
- HBC AIV helperbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot
- Operator: H (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: No
- Last edit: 17:35, June 20, 2007
- Blocked on: 22:48, August 17, 2007
Bot operator retired. BJTalk 19:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with deflagging, user has retired and the task has been taken over by other bots, so there is no real need for this account to be flagged. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done Kingturtle (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Gnome (Bot)
- Gnome (Bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Gnome (Bot)
- Operator: Nixeagle (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: No
- Last edit: 17:00, November 8, 2007
- Blocked on: 18:39, November 8, 2007
Bot has been blocked for almost a year. BJTalk 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bot was blocked for a malfunction / blanking, and, apparently hasn't been addressed since then. A de-flag sounds appropriate. SQLQuery me! 20:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done Kingturtle (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Shadowbot3
- Shadowbot3 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot3
- Operator: Shadow1 (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: No
- Last edit: 17:17, January 13, 2008
- Blocked on: 19:51, January 13, 2008
Has been blocked since January. BJTalk 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Owner is no longer active, and, last checked, bot was still malfunctioning. Sounds sensible that it should no longer be flagged. SQLQuery me! 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done Kingturtle (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
NotifyBot
- NotifyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NotifyBot
- Operator: Bjweeks (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: No
- Last edit: 08:38, April 17, 2008
- Blocked on: 08:38, April 17, 2008
Operator is clearly incompetent. BJTalk 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, Kingturtle already revoked the bit. I was looking forward to getting a dig in on this one. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
STBot
- STBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- BRFA's: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBot
- Operator: ST47 (talk · contribs)
- Operator notified: No
- Last edit: 05:08, October 20, 2007
- Blocked on: 14:45, May 18, 2008
Blocked by operator because the password was released. BJTalk 20:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Bot that haven't edited since before 2007
- Snobot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200401
- Nobot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200503
- Grammarbot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200503
- MBot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200504
- Sethbot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200506
- NTBot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200601
- NohatBot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200601
- DisambigBot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200601
- ABot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200602
- RoboDick (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200602
- IW-Bot-as (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200602
- VandalCountBot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200602
- Kurando-san (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200603
- NekoDaemon (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200603
- Janna (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200604
- Mairibot (talk · contribs) Last edited: 200606
MBisanz notified the bot operators back in March. BJTalk 17:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done - all of 'em. Kingturtle (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think everyone here would like to say a big thanks :> ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)