Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Archive

< Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group‎ | nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

Cobi edit

Final (43/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobi (talk · contribs) - I am Cobi and am a member of the BAG prior to the policy rewrite. Per the new policy, I have been "grandfathered" in for 6 months, but I would like to go through this process now so I don't have to do it again in 6 months. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
A. I currently operate the well-known ClueBot, as well as ClueBot II, ClueBot III, and ClueBot IV.

Optional questions from Franamax

2. Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict operations of previously-approved bots in light of misuse or mistakes? Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict or direct changes to the operation of previously-approved bots as a response to disquiet expressed by the community over the bot's operation?
A. Yes, the BAG should have the ability to restrict or revoke a bot's approval. The BAG should also be able to change the conditions of the approval.
3. Do you think the onus is on bot operators to clean up erroneous edits made by their bot? Would you revoke bot approval if the bot operator shows unwillingness to address mistaken edits made by their bot?
A. Yes, the operator is responsible for the edits made by their bot(s), and responsible for cleaning up the mess that their bot(s) may make. If the bot is being disruptive and the operator is not willing to fix the bot, the bot's approval should be revoked, and possibly blocked if the bot isn't stopped.
4. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?
A. I would much rather prefer that the community at large get involved with BRFAs, but I wouldn't mind having a group of non-technical members. I do not think that this group should consist of users who mention SkyNet or I, Robot at BRFA as a reason to not approve the bot though.


Optional questions from Gnangarra

5 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort.
A I am assuming you meant "sought" and not "sort". There are no tools being sought. While it would be nice to have the ability to give and revoke the bot flag, that is currently not the way the servers are set up. As for the authority being sought, the authority which comes with BAG membership — The authority to trial, approve, revoke, and alter bot requests. The BAG, subject to consensus, controls all bot operations on the English Wikipedia.
6 What do you expected from and of the community when discussing this request
A I expect the community to be rational, civil, and to provide constructive criticism if there is something I need to improve on.
7 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess your knowledge and whether you are an appropriate person to participate in WP:BAG.
A The community can use my past record at WP:BRFA, User talk:ClueBot Commons, User talk:Cobi, and wherever else I have demonstrated my technical aptitude and civility to assess my knowledge and whether or not I should be a member of the BAG. As for my actual coding skills, someone can always take a look at my bots' source code posted here.

General comments edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion edit

Support edit
  1. Support Good editor. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Absolutely. Darkspots (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Certainly. Captain panda 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Duh! MBisanz talk 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per DHMO. Rudget 11:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I don't know why anyone would say no!. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Of course. You run the ClueBots, and have a great knowledge, from what I can see, of bots. I see no reason to not support here. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Obviously qualified, no concerns here. the wub "?!" 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Fully qualified for membership. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Per duh". -- Naerii 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Handy enough with CVN work. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. If I feel you to be trustworthy enough to possibly be an administrator someday, why would I not trust you with something you've already proven yourself to be trustworthy in? Valtoras (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Perfect for the job. User has a great understanding of what is being done here, not to mention he has previous experience. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support; operating an anti-vandalism bot is the most complicated and on-the-frontline task imaginable, and Cobi performs it with grace and skill. His understanding of policy has been demonstrated clearly. — Coren (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. — Werdna talk 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - The operational experience is patently obvious. Yup. I see no reason not to support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You see no reason to support? --Chris 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Double edit conflict support! --Chris 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I have vehemently opposed Cobi's RFAs, but there's no way I could oppose this. Even though I hate ClueBot for stealing my edits. Useight (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Cluebot... :) Razorflame 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, extremely competent bot operator with a sound track record at BAG already. Happy‑melon 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support without a doubt. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - ClueBots are extremely useful - especially now with the major vandalism! The Helpful One (Review) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Res ipsa loquitur, and loudly :) Xymmax (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I know little about bots, but I have participated in Cobi's past RfAs and I believe him to be experienced and trustworthy. WaltonOne 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support the king of ClueBot! TheProf - T / C 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. If only your RfAs were like this :) Majorly (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, for great justice. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. No problems in my opinion. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Excellent choice. SpencerT♦C 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Zginder 2008-04-26T03:12Z (UTC)
  39. Support Common sense Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - great job so far. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --SMS Talk 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support excellent bot writer. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Except for the fact of your bots being written in php, I support 110%. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 10:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
Neutral edit
Very qualified user to me, but because I know little of the bot world I feel I am unqualified to add a support or oppose in. Wizardman 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Prolly shouldn't be voting at all in tht case[reply]
You've never heard of the all-powerful ClueBot? Soxred93 | talk bot 04:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

Coren edit

Final (23/9/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren (talk · contribs) - As the original proponent of this new method of selecting BAG members, I propose this review of my membership to the wider community.

I've been a significant contributor to Wikipedia for over a year (with irregular edits going back to 2003), mostly on the technical and administrative side of things where I can be of most help. I believe I have gained and maintained the community's trust by operating CorenSearchBot for many months, and with my work on Copyright violations. I am familiar with bot operation and policy (indeed, I am one of the contributors to the recent rewrite), and while I no longer have as much time to dedicate to the BAG as I would like, I can still give a hand whenever it's needed. — Coren (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
A. I have been operating CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without problems on Wikipedia since August 2007.

Optional Question from Mr.Z-man

2. You support bringing in more of the community to the bot approval process, yet you led a major change to the bot policy after that was discussed for only 24 hours and now seem to be trying to steamroller over all the opposition building on WT:BOT after more people heard of it by implementing it now. How do you rectify these positions? Mr.Z-man 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. I presume you mean reconcile those positions. Even attempting to get more than a dozen editors involved in the process fails; being bold, and seeing if the result work is the objective, here. In other words, I don't see a conflict in those positions; I support community input and act to gather it.

Question from SQL

3. What/When was the last bot you approved, or trial approved? Would you characterize yourself as active in the approvals process?
A. Not nearly as much as I'd have hoped; real life has limited my opportunity for wiki work lately, and most of that time has been devoted to arbcom clerking. I've nonetheless kept abreast of what was going on, in particular the growing concerns of the community towards the process as a whole, and felt that some work there would pay a lot in the long run.

Optional questions from Franamax

4. Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict operations of previously-approved bots in light of misuse or mistakes? Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict or direct changes to the operation of previously-approved bots as a response to disquiet expressed by the community over the bot's operation?
A. Yes; this is in fact part of the reason I feel the mandate of the BAG needs to be clarified. A great deal of the policy changes we've put forward are designed exactly for that purpose: giving a method by which the community-at-large can express grievances and a means for the BAG to act when warranted.
5. Do you think the onus is on bot operators to clean up erroneous edits made by their bot? Would you revoke bot approval if the bot operator shows unwillingness to address mistaken edits made by their bot?
A. Part of the bot policy is that, ultimately, the operator is responsible for all edits made by their bots. It's certainly expected that operators will fix damage caused by errors, and approval of bots is contingent of taking that responsibility.
6. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?
A. I don't think there should be a requirement for such a contingent, but having such members would be quite welcome. Understanding of policy is the only really needed qualification.

Optional questions from Gnangarra

7 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort for the editor.
A The authority to approve or decline requests to run automated processes, to hear grievances about them, and by proxy that of granting or removing the "bot" flag from accounts (bureaucrats flag accounts according to BAG request, that decision having been delegated long ago). There is ongoing discussion that members of the BAG might get the right to directly set the bot flag, but that's for the longer term.
8 What is expected from and of the community when discussing this request
A It's primarily a "yeah, we trust" stamp of approval. See the next question.
9 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess the knowledge of the editor and whether they are appropriate people to participate in WP:BAG.
A There has, actually, been discussion that 2:1 support should be sufficient in the case of BAG membership since the BAG acts as a group so that individuals do not have as much direct authority than in the case of an admin, say, or a 'crat. Indeed, the tentative policy states so explicitly, though that may not stay. I would expect the community to evaluate technical ability when they can (although the current BAG members are the most likely to chime in there), trust that the candidates have good judgment and that they understand policy. It's basically a light RfA with a focus on a particular aspect of policy.

General comments edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion edit

  • I would like to point out that, as I comment here, most of the opposers are BAG members or users otherwise involved in bot related activities, while there are numerous supports from users who have minimal involvement otherwise. I think that's a sign of something. We (the non-bot community (and I say this as a bot-op, but not a bot-guy)) would very much like to have a say in BAG related issues. Sure, some kinks need ironing out, but please let us have our say. Thanks for reading, thanks for considering, thanks for the bots you've written so far. We all want to make this a better encyclopedia. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to ask a question of all those who have voted 'oppose' on this RfBAG: if the candidacy fails, will you want Coren to resign from BAG? Happy‑melon 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I have already agreed to abide by the results of this process. I was quite aware that my boldness in pushing this proposal through all the way through experiment might cause a backlash, and am quite willing to accept censure for having swam upstream. — Coren (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit
  1. Don't see why not. Rudget 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. yup. Trust the candidate. No qualms from me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I see no reason to oppose currently. FunPika 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Full Support Very trustful. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support the process and the candidate. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. This is a discussion on Coren's abilities, not on this process. If you want to comment on the process, then go over there, don't unreasonably oppose a user's legitimate request. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The request may indeed be legitimate, but the process is not. It's the equivalent of asking a 'crat to sysop you without going through a RfA. Monobi (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I get your point; wouldn't it be the exact opposite? I've been a BAG member through the usual process already; this is not a shortcut, it's the high road scenic route.  :-) — Coren (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - Coren is a competent programmer with a firm grasp on the bot policy and the working of bots and the BAG. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Understands the bot policies and will do fine. Malinaccier (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Knows plenty about bots. Captain panda 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Yep. MBisanz talk 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support candidate and process (seriously, haven't we been asking for accountability in BAG membership? And now we get it and complain about it? Oh noes!) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I am not sure about the process (although I don't have any better ideas), but I fully support Coren's membership of the BAG, given his technical expertise and previous good work. the wub "?!" 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, an exceedingly competent programmer with a sound record at BAG already. Happy‑melon 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Cobi. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — Werdna talk 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. zomg whatever. Majorly (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yep Trustworthy. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ral315 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support No concerns at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. doubleplusgood, Zginder 2008-04-26T14:14Z (UTC) 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --SMS Talk 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1. Based on the comment below, this is apparently also a referendum on the system itself, which I believe is unnecessary process and was implemented with virtually no community involvement. Mr.Z-man 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know very little about how BAG ended up here at RfA, and so please forgive what I am about to say if I missed a key fact, but this oppose and all that follow it seem a little pointy to me. I know you oppose Coren's bringing of the discussion here, but don't you think it is unfair to oppose him for BAG, when, I presume, you do not know his qualifications for it? To say he made this a referendum on the entire system seems a misconstruction of his words, he merely wanted to see if participation would come here. I don't think he meant participation for the sake of opposing the system, that would seem to make this trial fruitless as it does not allow it to answer the original question for why it was here. SorryGuy  Talk  23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this apparent attempt to push a disputed policy against growing opposition, it also calls Coren's judgment and willingness to listen to the community into question for me. Later comments on another talk page and on IRC clarified the comments here to mean something like "If people participate at all, it is a success and we should use the system" yet there is no disclaimer here telling people not to participate if they don't support the process and it ignores the opposition growing on WT:BOTS and now also the adminship poll. Mr.Z-man 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a qualification to this; I'm not pushing against growing opposition, I'm pushing against the growing inerttia now endemic to Wikipedia. — Coren (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. there is no pre thought out policy/ procedures and they do not have consensus. βcommand 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose unneeded bureaucratic process. (Coren himself is a competent programmer). Monobi (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Monobi. Nakon 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Per Mr.Z-man, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Mr. Z-man. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Z-man. Process itself is not yet ratified, therefore all nominations are out-of-order. Xoloz (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nomination solely to push forward a favored version of a now-disputed policy (Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen is an interesting history lesson on avoiding such things). This is not commenting on Coren's skills, as from what little I've seen he's very well-spoken and a competent programmer. east.718 at 03:13, April 21, 2008
    Oppose since you want the process to be changed into rfa I can do a stupid rfa oppose. I oppose any one who doesn't open the source to their bot (it would be nice if you could open the source to your editing framework, as far as I can tell yours is the only perl framework that uses the api). Also per the above --Chris 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, you mean like this? Caveat: the code isn't very pretty and the new API didn't support edits at the time this was written— updating it is on my to-do list. — Coren (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to update the userpage. I've retracted my oppose but I'm not supporting ether. I dislike this processes, however it does seem to be working better than my idea :( --Chris 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Edits a policy page protected due to a dispute? A very dangerous sign. --Irpen 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the timestamps of the protection and his subsequent edit: it's very likely it was protected while he was already editing it, so he received no warning that it had been protected. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And, that is indeed exactly what happened. — Coren (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup: I've been asked at my talk about this vote and gave an answer there as well. I don't have a problem with being asked for an explanation and I was not annoyed by it in any way. --Irpen 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit
This process is currently disputed and does not have consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is part of the reason of running it; to see if this will manage to accomplish the objective of increasing community participation in BAG selection— something which does have consensus. — Coren (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Simply put, I don't want to be a contributing member of what will likely devolve into a dramafest. Valtoras (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Based on how I know him he seems qualified, but because I know little of the bot world I feel I am unqualified to add a support or oppose in. Wizardman 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bot approvals group membership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

I am withdrawing this request for BAG membership for the following reasons:

  • It's now been open for 10 days, twice the supposed length. It does not seem any bureaucrat is willing to close it (and I'm not blaming them for that).
  • Whether or not this method of applying for BAG membership actually enjoys consensus or not is unclear. As such, it's not surprising that 'crats don't want to touch it. I was aware of this when I nominated myself, and stated my willingness to confirm my membership by other means even if this request was approved.
  • Given that the idea of discussing BAG membership at RfA was to increase visibility and community participation, I'm not all that convinced by the turnout. Had this nomination been closed when it was due, the tally would've been (14/5/4), including some !votes on both sides that I would've discounted if I were a 'crat. I'm not sure that makes for much of a consensus. An extra five days has brought 10 more comments, but it's still far short of e.g. Cobi's (43/0/0).

I thank everyone who commented, both in favor and in opposition to my application. Many of your comments have been very well thought out and informative, and have provided me (as well as, hopefully, anyone else who has followed the discussion) with a deeper insight into what the community expects of the BAG. Though a prolonged nomination ending in a withdrawal may seem somewhat disappointing, I do not feel this was by any means a waste of time, and I would like to hope neither do those of you who took your time to comment here.

One of the purposes I gave for nominating myself was to see what the !voter turnout in the "new system" would be, and what kind of discussion would be generated, for a non-obvious candidate, i.e. someone who wasn't already an established and well-respected member of the BAG and who had some controversial opinions and gaps in their experience. In that respect, I consider this nomination to have definitely succeeded. If the conclusion in other respects remains uncertain, then that only confirms what I rather suspected might be the case when I set out.

As I stated, I did intend this nomination as more than just an experiment, and I do intend to reapply for the BAG by more conventional means shortly. Rest assured that I will notify everyone who has commented on this nomination (yes, even the SPAs) when I do that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ilmari Karonen edit

(19/9/5); Withdrawn at 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilmari Karonen (talk · contribs) - As all the RfBAG nominations so far have been shoo-in reconfirmations of existing BAG members (even Coren's RfBAG, despite the opposition from people opposing the process itself, passed with 67% support), I though I'd stir up the pot a little and see how the process handles a real, even potentially controversial candidacy. So I'm nominating myself for membership in the Bot Approvals Group, just to see how it goes, and being genuinely curious about whether or not I might pass.

In case someone missed it, I'd better state that again: I am not currently a member of the BAG. Indeed, I have so far not participated in any way in the bot approvals process (with the possible exception of some offhand comments I may have made on one or two nominations). This is not because I'd consider myself lacking in technical expertise; besides being an administrator on the English Wikipedia, I'm a MediaWiki developer (svn username vyznev) with considerable experience with user scripts, and have (briefly) operated a bot myself in the past. I've simply tended to view the whole bot approvals process as essentially a manifestation of Parkinson's law, bureaucracy growing to accommodate the needs of the growing bureaucracy.

That is not to say I consider the whole thing completely useless — on the contrary, I feel that the review and feedback generated through the approval process can be extremely valuable to prospective bot operators. What I find silly is the notion that the procedure should be a mandatory hoop to jump through, or that the people in charge of it should wield any actual power beyond that possessed by anyone who has demonstrated sufficient technical expertise and trust by the community for their opinion to carry any credibility.

I have tried to articulate my views by drafting in my user space what I would consider a simpler and more sensible alternative to the current, IMHO excessively bureaucratic bot policy. For those who'd rather not read the whole thing, the nutshell box captures the essence pretty well: I believe we could dispense with a lot of drama and bureaucracy if we spent less attention on how people are carrying out their edits and more on what they're actually doing.

To clarify, I do not intend this as a protest candidacy in any way. I do genuinely believe I would have something to contribute to the bot approvals process even in its current form, and I believe myself to possess the combination of technical skills and community trust required of a BAG member. I don't expect I'll be able to devote very much time to handling bot approvals at least in the near future, being currently somewhat busy polishing off my M.Sc. thesis. Nonetheless, I do believe I might be able to be of some use, and maybe inject a modicum of common sense into the process.

I'm aware that the RfBAG process is still being debated. Should this application pass, I'm willing to submit myself to additional confirmation by the old BAG membership process or by any other system that achieves community consensus, and/or to have my acceptance into the BAG deferred until the issues with the approval process have been settled. (Of course, seeing as BAG members have no actual power, other than to advise bureaucrats on the granting of bot flags to accounts, I'm not sure what it is that would actually be deferred.) In the mean time, this should be a fun experiment. :-)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Why, yes, thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
A. I have, for a few days last year, operated an anti-vandalbot bot as User:Apostrobot (contribs). Written as an emergency response to an ongoing vandalbot attack, it was never flagged or submitted for formal approval; I basically just posted to WP:AN saying I was running the bot and telling people to block it if it did anything wrong. (As it happens, it did, though I ended up blocking it myself.) The relevant AN thread, for those interested, is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive108#Beware the Vandalbot.
Questions from Chris
2. What other languages can you program in apart from perl and php. How experienced are you in these languages
A Of the languages most relevant to bot writing, I can program in Perl, PHP, C, Java and JavaScript pretty well. The biggest, most obvious gap in my programming skills in this regard is Python; I've been meaning to learn it for years, but I've never just got around to actually doing it yet. My Lisp/Scheme skills are also rather shaky — I know just about enough Lisp to edit my emacs config file, but that's it. Further afield, I have at least some experience with quite a few languages, from BASIC to 680x0 assembly to ColdFusion to Fortran. I also consider myself pretty handy with Redcode. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. What is your opinion on BAGers flagging bots?
A I think it could be good idea, though I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Certainly it would reduce bureaucrat workload and provide the group with a concrete function beyond its current advisory role. On the other hand, as I noted in my alternative bot policy essay, I'd really like to see all administrators able to flag and unflag bots, just like we do with rollback. I think our administrators would, on the whole, possess sufficient community trust and common sense to handle this relatively low-impact job just fine, and are sufficiently numerous to be able to effectively police each other (as we already trust them to do with other admin tools). Of course, as not all BAG members are administrators, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive: we could even, if the community so wanted, allow both administrators and non-admin BAG members to grant or revoke the bot flag. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dragons flight edit

4. What is your opinion on the ongoing use of unapproved adminbots?
A I feel it's extremely unfortunate that our admins need to run bots in secret in order to keep Wikipedia running. Somehow we — both admins and the community in general — seem to have succumbed to some kind of mass paranoia where any open and rational discussion of the subject becomes well nigh impossible. The circle feeds itself: Because adminsbots are run in secret, they're not accountable; because they're not accountable, people don't trust them; because people don't trust them, it's impossible to get one approved, and because it's impossible to get one approved, they can only be run in secret. I don't know where we took the wrong turn. Maybe we should've arranged a formal approval ceremony for Curps's blockbot, back in the days when it was him versus Willy on Wheels, instead of treating its existence as an open secret. But it's easy to say that with 20/20 hindsight.
As for looking forward, I think the only way out of the current spiral may be to inject some light and air into the system. Having an open list of current and past adminbots at Wikipedia:Adminbots would be a good start. What we need are some admins who have the courage to stand up and openly (not just with a wink and a nudge) admin they're running adminbots, open the source code to their bots and submit them to community review. By which I don't mean a vote !vote gauntlet poll to decide whether or not some threshold percentage of the people who care are willing to sign their name and say they trust the bot, but just plain, simple, non-binding review. As in discussion. If there are genuine problems with some particular admin and their bots, the community already has ways to address them (assuming the ArbCom and/or the devs don't render the point moot by stepping in first) — but what the review would accomplish would be to bring the currently obscure adminbots out into the open, hopefully allaying the more unreasonable fears and suspicions and, in time, allowing us to determine the real community consensus, once the current paranoid atmosphere has dissipated, on the automation of different admin tasks.
I'd be happy to set an example myself here. All I'd need first, though, would be an adminbot. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ideally, what should the adminbot approval process consist of?
(This reply, like the one above, is somewhat long. Sorry about that. The difficulty is that, as I already feel the normal bot approval process could use some reforming, it's hard to outline my views on adminbot approval without going over a lot of tangential issues as well.)
A First of all, the operator should be an admin. This should be enough to demonstrate that they have the community's trust. If they do something stupid that makes them lose that trust — like, say, run an adminbot that runs amok — their admin status should be revoked, just as we'd generally do to an admin that acted in a harmful or disruptive manner.
Second, the task they're carrying out should have consensus. This is kind of obvious, though: most of the things one can do with admin tools, at the kind of rates that would require bot assistance, are either obviously useful or obviously bad. Finally, the way they're carrying out the task — that is, the bot itself — should also enjoy community approval. With the current system, that would include passing the current bot approvals process, though there's really more to it than that. Having community approval (for anything, not just adminbots) doesn't mean just passing a one-time technical review by the BAG, it also means the bot and its operator need to enjoy continuing acceptance by the community at large and a general perception that what they're doing is good for the project.
One issue I haven't fully considered is the issuing of secondary sysop accounts for adminbot use. It is clearly something that should be done, if only to let the bots' actions be better distinguished from those made manually by their owners, but I'm not sure what the appropriate process should be. Given that a malicious person can't really accomplish that much more harm with two admin accounts than with one (especially if it's known they belong to the same user), I'd be inclined to think that merely a general review, as done by the BAG these days, of the bot's usefulness might well be enough to let a secondary adminbot account be given to someone who has already passed RfA and has the admin bit on their main account. But I'm certainly willing to change my mind on this if someone comes up with a better approach.
Finally, though it's somewhat tangential to the subject at hand, I think I ought to mention here one issue that should always be considered with any bot, but with adminbots in particular: whether the functionality would be better implemented in MediaWiki itself. That was most clearly illustrated by the ProtectionBot case, but it's an important general principle to keep in mind. A bot can fix a problem for us; a MediaWiki feature can fix it for all the Wikimedia projects, and others besides. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion edit

Support edit
  1. Support; wanting "in" on a group in order to help alter its functioning isn't a flaw, it's the very best definition of self-governance. Technical wherewithal is not in question, nor is this editor's judgment. — Coren (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - he is trusted and well-versed in policy, as he has a long tenure as an admin. He's technically competent, as he has svn commit access to MediaWiki. Any extra sparks in the BAG due to attempted reforms are a bonus. I see no reason to oppose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per the above comments. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Yes, please. ➪HiDrNick! 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Why not? As long as the bot doesn't start vandalism, I'll go with it.-- Barkjon  21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You realize you are not voting for a bot, you are voting for a user to join the bot approvals group, which approves and rejects bots? Ral315 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This addition to the BAG team makes sense. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Naerii 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. - Agathoclea (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Kbdank71 17:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I agree with his outlook on the bot process, and I would trust this user to make sensible decisions that account for technical issues, policy, and community sentiment. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Looks fine to me. - Philippe 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Coren, Titoxd, Rspeer and intelligent, well-considered answers to questions. Franamax (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I appreciate his thoughtful answers to the questions. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above, especially Coren. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes please. —Cryptic 08:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - ah, the fear of change. Neıl ☎ 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, this is my first awareness of there being BAG membership; Ilmari appears to have the technical expertise and good judgment to evaluate bots, already community endorsed as an admin, and rounds out the committee as someone with an alternative perspective. --MPerel 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per all of the above. Nick (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1. Oppose. This user's technical competence is beyond any question, but I find their opinions on the BAG and BRFA processes impossible to comprehend. Ilmari seeks a mandate from the community to join a group that he does not believe should have any authority, or even (as far as I can gather) exist at all. He cites (effectively) disenchantment with the BRFA system as a reason for minimal prior contributions to Bot Approval processes, and demonstrates an almost deliberate ignorance (actually circumvention, which is even worse) of the existing system. However unpalatable he may find the BRFA process, as long as it has consensus, as BRFA did at the time (and arguably still does), ignoring said process constitutes exactly that: ignorance. I accept Ilmari's claim that this nomination is not intended to be a "protest candidacy", but I cannot avoid the conclusion that he is trying to prove a point; namely, if appointed, he will endeavour to use the accompanying authority to change the BRFA process from within. I consider this to be a misuse of power: BAG must have authority over the approval and control of bots on Wikipedia, but outside that mandate (even as close to it as the BRFA process itself) its members are just respected members of the community. BAG's problem all along has been its insularity and lack of community involvement at all levels: its authority must be derived from processes and policies supported by the wider community, not unilaterally declared by BAG. If Ilmari believes that the BRFA and BAG processes are broken (and I think that the majority, myself included, will agree that there is something wrong with at least part of them), then he should work with BAG and the community to change it for the better. Seeking the authority of BAG membership purely (as far as I can tell) for the purpose of gaining a louder voice in reformation discussions, is a flagrant misuse of process, particularly ironic in the fact that, were Ilmari to have his way, the position to which he aspires would have no authority whatsoever. Happy‑melon 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time, he indicated that he thinks he is useful to the BAG "even in its current form". He has expressed that he has ideas for reform, but at the same time, that if those reforms don't take place, he'll abide by current community consensus. I don't see how that is an abuse of process—it's just a clear explanation of his views on the BAG's current status. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. --Eatthefood43 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — Eatthefood43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Blocked indefinitely, vote indented accordingly. Acalamari 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very Strong Oppose user has no prior experience with the bot approval system or comments to bot approvals. βcommand 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Running to make a point and accidentally breaking the Title Blacklist do not give me confidence. MBisanz talk 07:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. INFINETELY STRONG OPPOSE Obviously in it for personal gain. A no-go candidate. I feel I would be more suitable. Mattbroon (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obviously in it for personal gain." And what personal gain is there in being a member of BAG? —Dark talk 03:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This opposing user appears to have 21 mainspace edits and 13 edits in 2008. Franamax (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  5. Oppose, reluctantly - I have to agree with the above, especially with the part about no prior work with the bot approval system or comments to bot approvals. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. No apparent previous bot approval experience, and says won't be able "to devote very much time to handling bot approvals at least in the near future". Gimmetrow 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose He says he has no experience. Zginder 2008-05-06T01:20Z (UTC)
  8. Neutral for now. While Ilmari is obviously skilled with mediawiki, as he/she is a dev, I'm not seeing any experience whatsoever with bot policy and the BRFA process.Oppose per experience. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The lack of any participation over at WP:BRFA poses a real problem for me, as that is, in my opinion, the major job of BAG. This is by no means a comment on technical competency to perform the task or your views on bot policy, simply on your lack of participation as a community member to date. (Note: this comment was left after the scheduled end time for this RFBAG). - AWeenieMan (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit
  1. Neutral Your fine with the technical side of things but I would like to see more interaction at bot related pages before I support --Chris 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I have a few disagreements on your opinions that I believe could turn badly if ever implemented. Also, no work for the BAG process is not helping you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gurch (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Neutral as Happy Melon. A particular problem of the current/old BAG was the absolute inability to conceive that a bot operator of an approved bot might be problematic. While I am happy to believe that your own behavior is acceptable, being a member of the BAG requires being able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Your policy appears to assume that it is self-sorting, and that approved bot operators are inherently good fellows who need some space to roll up their sleeves. I don't share your optimism. AKAF (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. That is certainly not the impression I was trying to give. On the contrary, I fully share your opposition to treating bot approval as a carte blanche, and feel that any such attitude, insofar as it exists, should be strongly discouraged. (I don't feel myself sufficiently familiar with past BAG practice to really tell how common such attitudes might be, though I do have to admit to encountering some sentiments in that direction expressed on occasion.) One change I'd like to see in the bot policy would be a shift of focus away from extensive pre-approval with lots of second-guessing and hoop-jumping and more towards an ongoing review of bot (and operator) reliability based on actual performance in real-life use. This ties in with my wish, as I've tried to express it in my bot policy essay linked above, to put a greater emphasis on the responsibility and accountability of individual bot operators in general. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Moved to Neutral) I must say that seeing your well-reasoned responses, I wouldn't be against any editor who can bring their civil and intelligent outlook to the BAG. Good luck. AKAF (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, per Chris G. — E ↗T C 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG (whatever the hell that is). Please do not modify it.

OverlordQ edit

Voice your opinion (talk page) (13/0/1); Scheduled to end 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OverlordQ (talk · contribs) - While I've had some qualms with this new policy when it was first proposed, after reconsideration I feel that having a wider community input will be better in the long-run as the BAG acts in an 'expert witness' role to the 'crats who give bots their flag. Current a member under the 'old system.' Q T C 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept my own nomination. Q T C 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
A. Yes, currently I run OverlordQBot which is currently tasked with resetting the Sandbox and pages under the Introduction. While he has preformed some other approved bot work in the past, this is currently his only task.

Optional question by John Vandenberg edit

Do you believe that the BAG inherently shares responsibility to the community for the bots and bot operators that approve? Should they rescind their approval if they see significant problems developing in the way a bot operators, or the way that a bot operator manages problem reports? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't really a question that gets a good yes or no answer. As it stands now, the current policy and therefore purview of the BAG is analyzing the requests for approval from a technical and quality control perspective. If a Bot is doing harm, then yes, some of the recent changes to the policy have included the idea that BAG should have the authority to rescind the approval, and I agree with this. Similarly, I believe the same should apply to bots that dont have consensus for their work anymore regardless of the fact if they're misbehaving or not. When it comes to operators, I don't think that the BAG should be the place of first resort. Unless the problem is with the actions of the Bot itself, the BAG is not an avenue of dispute resolution. While the results of a resolution might involve some actions by the BAG as requested by say ArbCom, I don't feel the current Bot Policy gives the BAG the authority to punish operators unless it is related to the actions of their Bot. Q T C 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dragons flight edit

3. What is your opinion on the ongoing use of unapproved adminbots?


4. Ideally, what should the adminbot approval process consist of?


General comments edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion edit

Support edit
  1. Seems fine. Support. Rudget 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for sure on BRFAs e.t.c ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Possesses clue, knows what he's doing. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Yes. MBisanz talk 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Kbdank71 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per "Duh!" Cheers, Razorflame 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Indeed. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I trust you with the Tools --Chris 08:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Sure. I'm also satisfied by the new system. Cenarium (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yup Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - As per WP:WTHN. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 05:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I would have preferred a stronger response to my question, but it meets my concerns - OverlordQ appears to be going to take this responsibility seriously. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 19:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No problem. Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Why oppose? Zginder 2008-05-06T01:25Z (UTC)


Oppose edit
Neutral edit
  1. Neutral I wasn't happy with what I saw as Q's not really reading the responses of others in the case of betacommand's last request for approval of a bot task, but he was having a different opinion to me, so I don't feel able to oppose based on this. Q is not verbose, and I think this can lead to poor communication. He appears to be technically up to the task, but I think he has avoided all complicated situations. Can somebody supply a diff of where he has dealt with a difficult bot situation? AKAF (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read all the comments and the only real complaints I saw for denying the request was:
    Multiple Tasks per Account
    Afraid to Ban due to above
    Ability to differentiate which task due to the above
    As for the first reason, I agree this might be something that should be changed in the future, but as the Bot policy currently stands it implicitly states that multiple tasks per account are A-Ok. Furthermore, Betacommand has stated numerously that while the BRFA is for a 'Task 9', the actual number of tasks that it preforms is minimal. For the second complaint, I really didn't find this to be a valid excuse. Yes these Bots are helpful, but they're not mission critical, all they're doing is work that can be easily automated. They're not doing anything that a human cannot do, nor are they doing anything that a human did not do in the past. The only reason I can think of for not banning them when they malfunction is that people don't want to do the work themselves and have become too dependent on them. The third is neither a technical nor a quality-control issue in my opinion, it is a user-friendlyness issue and thus, again according to the current Bot policy, not something that the BAG can judge on. Should this be something that BAG judges requests on? That's really up to the community. Q T C 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the fact that Betacommand was making obviously misleading statements about the workings of his code so that he didn't have to implement a requested change? Did this raise a red flag at all? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rspeer, please stop making unfounded lies about me. you have no fucking clue about how my code is designed. so what, I use a non-notable, beta level programming design, its not like im writing an article about it. Rspeer, I would prefer that you shut up when you have no fucking clue what your talking about, instead of making unfounded personal insults. βcommand 12:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll wont say I know everything, much less a lot, about 'programming paradigms' but if it was as easy and modular as he says, then yea I'd agree it should be easy and modular enough to handle multiple logins. Q T C 06:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool it down a bit guys... —Dark talk 08:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning toward oppose based on the answer to question 2, which to me indicates an over-reliance on "BAG is strictly a technical pre-approval process" and leaves aside the apparent disquiet in the community towards the seeming lack of oversight of ongoing bots and operators. The answer matches current policy but does not seem to question whether that policy is in fact adequate. Franamax (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gurch (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it. The decision was no change in status, ST47 will remain in the BAG.

ST47 edit

(24/11/3); Ended 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ST47 (talk · contribs) - Hey folks! I've been in BAG via the old system since - a year ago yesterday, it seems. How coincidental. In that time, I've made almost 1000 edits to bot-related pages - 998, according to the toolserver. Another interesting number. I run quite a few bots, User:STBotI, User:BAGBot, User:CSDWarnBot, User:MfDBot, and I'm the current maintainer of the Perlwikipedia package, which is the best program that bots can use to access Wikipedia. It's like Firefox for bots ;). As you may be aware, I've recently been involved in a bot-related RFAr - Betacommand 2, if you want to look it up. Essentially, my involvement regarded a particular BRFA which I wrongly pushed forward and then protected. I've since agreed not to use admin tools regarding BRFA. We've (BAG) also learned a few things since then, and tried to make some changes. One of them is a system where BAG can modify or revoke a bot approval - essentially, if someone has concerns, we'll review them and then consider changing or un-approving a bot. Another is an overhaul of our procedure for adding members, which never had a good amount of community support. Instead of doing the votes in a place where most people never see them, we now perform the votes here, where we hope they'll get more attention. There's another proposal that elected BAG members gain the ability to set +bot flags. I haven't got an opinion on that yet, I'll be willing to do that if the community decides to do that, and I'm fine handing the bots off to the crats, as the system works now. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the crats do not intend to close this request, most likely because they believe that there is not consensus for this process. Withdraw. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there's another discussion going on on WT:BOTS at the moment. If consensus there shows that this procedure is not valid, then I withdraw my meaningless candidacy. If BAG members are required to go through this process, then I'll ask a crat to close this. In the meantime, I've detranscluded this, since it was overdue and at the time I had misinterpreted a discussion, leading me to believe that this process lacked consensus. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
A. You're quite welcome! As I stated above, I have a few active bots (User:STBotI, User:BAGBot, User:CSDWarnBot, User:MfDBot, User:BLPWatchBot), I write a sort of 'web browser' for bots to use, and I used to run a few other bots that are since deprecated, User:STBot, User:STBotD, User:STBotT, User:AccReqBot among those.

Optional questions from Soxred93 edit

2. What is your opinion on BAGers flagging bots?
A. My nomination statement says "I haven't got an opinion on that yet, I'll be willing to do that if the community decides to do that, and I'm fine handing the bots off to the crats, as the system works now." If you really want an answer, than I'd say that it's only a valid change if we say that BAGgers cannot flag bots that they approve. As of now, crats act as an extra level of eyes, so we should not eliminate that completely. I haven't got a problem with the way we do things, and I wouldn't have a problem adapting to take that extra level of review into BAG.
3. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?
A. Every nomination for a bot must be considered by balancing technical concerns, policy concerns, and the community's concerns. If we were to be overly bureaucratic, we'd have three BAGs. Luckily, we don't, and therefore we need to find another way to make it work. The community's weighing in on BRFAs is one potential way to balance the three aspects of a bot approval, and that will allow the closing BAG member, who is most likely familiar with policy and programming, to assess the validity of the bot in the eyes of the community. Adding members to BAG who are only familiar with the community's opinion would neglect the two other areas in those certain cases.

Questions from Dragons flight edit

4. What is your opinion on the ongoing use of unapproved adminbots?


5. Ideally, what should the adminbot approval process consist of?


General comments edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion edit

Support edit
  1. Support good bot skills / thoughts and user e.t.c ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - The only issue here is their bot work. Good show. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rudget 17:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support yep, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, as with rspeer I was troubled by his actions, but he's said he won't be doing that again so I'll AGF and support. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good user/bot op --Chris 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support; unarguably one of the most hard working contributor to bot work on Wikipedia, and in the BAG, he has shown his technical ability repeatedly. He may have had an incident where he acted rashly, but acknowledging the error and moving on is where it's at, not grudges. — Coren (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Per Coren, who both knows it and says it better than I. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Kbdank71 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support SMS Talk 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He runs so many bots for so many tasks, all so well. MBisanz talk 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No doubt that he is familiar with both bots and bot policy. He is also pretty active as a current BAG member over at WP:BRFA. - AWeenieMan (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support - He runs the BAG bot, shouldn't that mean he should be on BAG? Great bot user. Soxred93 (u t) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No convincing reason to oppose. Acalamari 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strongly support. I threw a few proposals around in the recent Betacommand RfAr, including one that involved ST47 being removed from BAG. I offer my support very much to supersede that: ST47 makes some great contributions, both to the Group itself, and to the bot accounts situation in general. Anthøny 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. As I supported his BAG nomination, so do I on this "reconfirmation" business. He has done a great work. Snowolf How can I help? 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. No worries. ➪HiDrNick! 00:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support - Asset to the project as a member of BAG. He's acknowledged the issues raised in Beta's case, in which ArbCom did not rule that he should be removed from BAG for limited poor judgment. To oppose based on that is to assume bad faith. And this is a good example of why this process should not be like RFA. Lara❤Love 08:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. If adminship is no big deal hoe trivial is membership if BAG? Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. · AndonicO Engage. 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Zginder 2008-05-06T01:23Z (UTC)
  24. Sure. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1. Strong oppose. Have had issues with the user going around the BAG processes with User:RFRBot. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know what you're talking about, RFRBot is fully approved. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember now. You blocked the bot after it made 4 test edits, because I was testing my code. That is permitted by current practice (and accepted practice at the time) to test that your code actually functions before entering the BRFA. It also allowed me to point at those edits to the bot's requesters, so I could make sure I was doing what they thought they asked me to. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that while such tests are normally restricted to userspace at first, it is habitual to let a prospective bots do a handful of edits under close supervision from the operator (which, arguably, means that it's not a bot at all) in order to test that it works at all and to have a few diffs to point at to show exacly what the bot is proposed to do during the BRFA. This was, in no way, "going around the process". — Coren (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I have found him difficult to work with at BRFA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose per his handling of the NFCC bot, which was terrible, and then his subsequent dismissal of the arising complaints as spurious. Technical ability does not a good decision maker make. ViridaeTalk 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. also per the handling of the NFCC bot. He may, for all I know, have the technical competence to evaluate bot code, but that incident shows that he lacks the competence to determine whether a task has consensus, which is required for the approval of a bot. GRBerry 04:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good with tech, not so good with communication—concerned with NFCC bot issues and other such things raised at the Betacommand RfAr. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sorry, Betacommand RfAr raised serious issues that showed recalcitrant behaviour here. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Behavior described in the Betacommand case should exclude the candidate from consideration. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kind of agree with the above. This type of behavior shows that the user in question lacks assuming good faith. miranda 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I agree with the above, not to mention the unnecessary rudeness you showed towards me on IRC a few months back when I was interested in joining the BAG when it was open to all. Never. Qst (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose per his handling of the NFCC bot, and for his subsequent efforts to condemn good-faith at that BRFA concerns as disruptive editing. I have no doubt that ST47 understands the technical issues, but ST47 appears to be completely hostile to concerns about how bots interact with the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I've had past interactions with ST that raised concern for me, particularly regarding unresponsiveness to legitimate concerns. The unresponsiveness shown in this RfBAG only serves to augment that. I don't know why ST47 chose to participate in this process, but I don't think this application does much to generate confidence in his ability to deal well with the non-technical aspect of BAG. Dragons flight (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Viridae, BHG, and DF put it as well as I might have (but, even taken altogether, more succinctly). Joe 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit
  1. Neutral On one hand I strongly oppose this user becoming a member of the BAG, because I think that his promotion of the BAG as an insular cabal was, in no small part, responsible for the events which lead to the Betacommandbot RFAr. On the other hand, this is a user who has remained consistently engaged, and who has never shied away from the most difficult areas of the BAG remit. I would encourage other !voters to have a look through the Betacommandbot RFAr to see how many of the current BAG simply went AWOL. ST47 also led the push to modify the approval for Betacommandbot's image tagging tasks to comply with some of the concerns raised in the RFAr. I don't agree that this is a solution to all problems, but at least he's trying. AKAF (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral (which was once a support but is now back to neutral).
    My thoughts in favor: Although I found ST47's actions on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot irresponsible and objectionable, since then he has been taking very significant steps toward making the BAG more accountable so that such an incident shouldn't happen again.
    So, that's what I said before, and then I read his answer to question 3. I believe that ST47 is still unfortunately upholding the view of the BAG where anyone with "technical expertise" is allowed to trump community opinion. "Technical expertise", in BAG discussions, is not so much an objective measure as it is a bludgeon that Betacommand (in particular) uses to get his way. Anyone who disagrees with Betacommand gets accused of being unfamiliar with programming (whether it's true or not!), and the BAG people tend to believe him no matter how flimsy his argument is. This kind of problem is inherent to the "tiered" structure of BAG discussions, where people who are believed to be technically knowledgeable are given more standing, and the fact that ST47 would perpetuate this lessens my opinion of the reforms he has undertaken. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gurch (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

Soxred93 edit

Final (34/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soxred93 (talk · contribs) - I've been a member of the BAG for a few months, so I've been grandfathered in. I want to avoid doing this in 6 months, though. I run 4 bots (a fifth is in a BRFA now), and I've been a bot operator since November 2007. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Questions for the candidate edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
A: Yes, I have. And I still do. I run: an orphan tagging bot, a wikiproject tagger, a template subst: bot, an interwiki bot, a sandbox cleaning bot, and a few assorted small tasks.

Optional questions from Franamax

2. Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict operations of previously-approved bots in light of misuse or mistakes? Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict or direct changes to the operation of previously-approved bots as a response to disquiet expressed by the community over the bot's operation?
A: I believe so. BAG members should be able to change their decision on a bot, if it was a mistake. Let's say there was an error on their part, when looking at a trial, and approved when the bot was erroneous. BAG members give status, they should be able to revoke it too.
3. Do you think the onus is on bot operators to clean up erroneous edits made by their bot? Would you revoke bot approval if the bot operator shows unwillingness to address mistaken edits made by their bot?
A: Yes. Bot owners are expected to run the bots correctly, and if they cannot fulfill that, they do not deserve to have the flag. (unless it is a framework problem, which it is not their problem (eg interwiki.py))
4. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?
A: I'm actually neutral on this. I think that BRFA has never had a great community input, and before non-technical members are appointed to BAG, the BRFA should find some way to get community input.

Optional questions from Gnangarra

5 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort.
A: I don't exactly understanding what you mean here.
6 What do you expected from and of the community when discussing this request
A: I expect the community to refer to this as an example, while being legitimate. I expect the community to act on this as an RfA. Any input at all would be helpful.
7 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess your knowledge and whether you are an appropriate person to participate in WP:BAG.
A: BAG members should be technical, but with activities in other places. They should know about other policies, so that they have the judgement.

General comments edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion edit

Support edit
  1. Support You know what you're doing --Chris 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I see no problems here. Full support. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - You already have tenure and the experience. Yes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support great user. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Wisdom89. Razorflame 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Brilliant user and bot maker / operator. I see no reason why this should not go through. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support an excellent contributor and bot-operator with the necessary skills and character for BAG. Happy‑melon 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Of course OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Of Course! The Helpful One (Review) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Whatever you like. Majorly (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- Naerii 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sure. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Don't see any problems. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support MBisanz talk 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SpencerT♦C 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Have always seen to be good with this. ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --SMS Talk 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support no problems here. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 04:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support While a slip in the user's memory may be concerning, Soxred's participation in bot approvals has been insightful and his continued activity would be an asset. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Of course. Acalamari 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Rudget 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good boting skills and no doubt will be a good BAG member.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Bstone (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Sabri76 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Helpful in the bot area, fine at approving bots Cenarium (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Naturally OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1. Not even familiar enough with policies to know that templates are not allowed in signatures[1]. Mr.Z-man 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know that templates are not allowed. However, it was just a slip in my memory. That issue has already been fixed. Soxred93 (u t) 05:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit
  1. Neutral I've got nothing against this editor, but searching for "sox" on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval, Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval, Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy, Wikipedia_talk:BAG, and all the pages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2 gives me no hits. At this point I'm struggling a bit to see why you want to be a member of the BAG. Could you give a couple of bot-related pages where you've edited so that we can get at least some idea of what you've done as a member of the BAG? AKAF (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm...I've edited WP:BRFA multiple times. You also did not appear to search the subpages of the BRFA. The arbitration case, I intentionally stayed out of, as I want to avoid the drama. I made my statement one place, and that was it. Soxred93 (u t) 23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

Werdna edit

Final (33/1/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 07:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna (talk · contribs) - Seeking reconfirmation in new process (whether that process applies or not remains to be seen, but I see this as a great opportunity to get some feedback on my BAG actions, as well as getting it out of the way if it does pass). Along with SQL, I've been one of the most prolific BAG members (see history of WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved). — Werdna talk 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Obviously — Werdna talk 06:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
A. Yes. I run Werdnabot, and have run it on several wikis. It was the first talk-page archiver for Users, all the way back in 2006, and has recently come back. I've done some assorted stuff with cleaning the sandbox and so on, as well. — Werdna talk

Optional questions from Franamax

2. Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict operations of previously-approved bots in light of misuse or mistakes? Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict or direct changes to the operation of previously-approved bots as a response to disquiet expressed by the community over the bot's operation?
Yes, and yes. The approvals group can make mistakes, and the approvals group can fail to adequately take into account community input (either by not soliciting it enough, or by not allowing it by approving too quickly. In addition, malfunctioning or misused bots are a threat to Wikipedia as a whole. And so, yes, I would support allowing the approvals group to revoke approval (as has recently been done for Pageview bot) — Werdna talk
3. Do you think the onus is on bot operators to clean up erroneous edits made by their bot? Would you revoke bot approval if the bot operator shows unwillingness to address mistaken edits made by their bot?
Yes, and yes. This is part of our bot policy, and is a critical aspect of the notion that bots should do more good than harm. In other words, if a bot makes work for other editors in having mass-reverts needed. However, a little common sense is in order here. If a bot makes an edit here or there which is erroneous, it is not reasonable to just point them to it and say "Fix it", and block their bot. If you see a bad edit, revert it by all means, but then tell the operator about it, and if you don't get a satisfactory response, come to BAG and we'll see what we can do. — Werdna talk
4. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?
No. The approvals group is only for examining a task from a technical perspective, although the approvals group is mandated to check a task for clear community consensus. Granting some users but not others membership to BAG is based on the job they will do at evaluating bots, and the special considerations that need to be made for selecting who may judge consensus on a request for approval (a nontechnical user would not be able to judge a consensus on technical matters, as they couldn't weigh the arguments). Thus, granting membership to nontechnical users would require those users to judge consensus that they are not competent to judge, and would obstensibly place some nontechnical users above others in the discussion. Of course, any user whatsoever is more than welcome to comment on a request for approval, and we really appreciate it when they do, as they bring insights to discussion. However, as the approvals group do nothing more than judge consensus on technical matters, there is no value in adding non-technical users to its ranks. — Werdna talk

General comments edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion edit

Support edit
  1. Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep good user. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Experienced is an understatement. Agathoclea (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sup - You seem to know what you're doing --Chris 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for sure. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support an upstanding member of the bot-operating community, and a key figure in BAG already. Happy‑melon 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - The Helpful One (Review) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I know little about bots, but I disagree with Oppose #1 below; blocking unapproved bots is essential, because bots are powerful things, with potential to damage the wiki, and need to have appropriate approval. WaltonOne 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Thought he was a member!TM Majorly (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Naerii 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support; having someone with a good understanding of the Mediawiki software on board the BAG is invaluable, and as one of the hardest worker and most consistent contributor to bot work, Werdna has my full trust. — Coren (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. No problems here. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Has the experience, so I don't foresee a problem here at all. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Duh. MBisanz talk 07:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Kbdank71 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I've seen him on BRFAs asking reasonable questions and showing a good understanding of the issues surrounding bots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Obviously. --BozMo talk 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support -- Avi (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Competent with bot related matters. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Loads of experience in this area. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Zginder 2008-04-26T03:06Z (UTC)
  24. Support --SMS Talk 20:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Familiar with the MediaWiki codebase, helpful user, good combination. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Quite possibly one of the oldest still-active bot gurus. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Sure. Acalamari 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support -- competent and well known in the area Cenarium (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes please, no questions asked. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Technical + wiki competence. I have no problems here. AKAF (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. miranda 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Absolutely. Snowolf How can I help? 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support obvious admin choice. Doczilla STOMP! 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1. Oppose, too fond of bureaucracy. ("blocking unapproved bots is part of maintaining a credible approval process. If bots that were useful were allowed to continue without approval, nobody would bother with it." User talk:Coren/Bot policy#BAG) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, there's a difference between "useful" and "beneficial": even if a bot is doing a useful task, it may (through programming errors, operator preferences or other factors) be doing it in a manner that is damaging or inappropriate. For instance, a bot to revert inappropriate conversions of British English to US-English, or vice versa, would be a potentially useful task... except for the times when it misses the initial conversion, then treats a manual reversion as an attempted change and fights to keep the article in the wrong style. The approvals process, overseen by technically competent operators, is designed partly to catch easily-made errors like these, and is the reason why all bot tasks, however useful, must be approved by BAG. Happy‑melon 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he specifically stated that he would block in order to maintain a credible process. Fortunately, IAR and NOT#BURO overrule the bot policy. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of WP:BAG, but it's important that any bot that's editing the project is given a bot flag, so as not to flood recent changes - that's an absolute requirement, not for a bureaucratic reason, but for a common sense reason - keeping bot edits out of RC and Watchlists is essential to helping find and deal with vandalism, spamming, test edits, spelling errors, BLP violations and what have you. If I'm watching a biog on my Watchlist, I want to be able to see the edit to it, not 50 or 100 edits made that same minute by a half dozen unauthorised bots. Nick (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not how IAR works. It doesn't mean you can say "I don't like this policy, so I'm ignoring it", nor that you can say "I think this policy damages Wikipedia, so I'm ignoring it". See my comments on this, the essay on interpreting IAR. — Werdna talk 15:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Found nothing wrong with Pageview bot, which could have potentially created 2 million pages every month and was completely redundant to this site. Mr.Z-man 05:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The request as written asked for permission to create pages only for pages tagged with {{pageviews}}. I was of the understanding that this was to be done for a small number of pages. — Werdna talk 08:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful. No concerns raised for over two weeks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Chris G edit

Hi, as you can see I'm nomming myself for BAG membership again. I'll keep this short since you probably know most of this already. Basicly I run three bots:

My old bots were written in perl using perlwikipedia but I have since switched to PHP using a slightly modifed version of Cobi's classes. --Chris 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support experienced admin and bot operator. He understands the BRFA system and would make well needed addition to the BAG. BJTalk 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I think the color of your present signature makes it easy to confuse with a redlink. I don't think that's an ideal situation for someone who is a "public face" of the project to novice users and users who come from other language projects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the red is quite different: Chris (using current red) Chris (using broken link red) how do you turn this on 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming both accurate color representation on monitors and good color memory among the readership. Neither of those is a safe assumption. Anyway, I left my comment for Chris. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I left my comment for you saying I disagree with your opinion that it's "easy" to confuse. how do you turn this on 13:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched it to green --Chris 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Experienced admin, good bot operator. I also don't oppose on signatures for an RfBAG (although, it can be seen as a redlink). Xclamation point 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has shown himself to be a competent operator. MBisanz talk 22:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and thank you for fixing the signature. how do you turn this on 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support same as last time. SQLQuery me! 06:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh wait, its a BAG nom, support. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —Reedy 09:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful. Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Anomie edit

I'm nominating Anomie for BAG because I've seen him around the bot pages a good deal, he knows the layout and function of BAG, and seems like he can be trusted and is up to the task. MBisanz talk 02:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: I accept. I've had 14 BRFAs approved for AnomieBOT, I've written the API used by AnomieBOT myself, and I've been watching the bot-related pages for a while and trying to comment where I've had something to contribute. I know Perl, PHP, Javascript, and C fairly well, and a few other languages less well; I've even contributed a patch or two to MediaWiki. Anomie⚔ Anomie⚔ 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As nom. MBisanz talk 02:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Uses Perl. BJTalk 03:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good, clueful user. Xclamation point 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per past experience with this knowledgeable, trustworthy editor who will make an excellent addition to the BAG. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support past experience indicates user is more than capable of being an effective BAG member. —Nn123645 (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm known for being anti-bot, but I've never been against a bot that tags articles -- I find them extraordinarily useful. And if this user wrote one that does that, it's good enough for me. Useight (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Tawker (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Appears to be a very diligent botop who shows the promise of being a viable member to BAG. Maybe BRFAs will go a bit quicker now! :P §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Going to help out. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page is a clear violation of WP:BLP... only joking, Support. Anomie helps out a lot, and deserves the role. ~-F.S-~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 08:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He does great work and is pretty CLUEful with bots. Will be an asset. :-) SoWhy 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful. Kingturtle (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Fritzpoll edit

Today I have the pleasure of nominating Fritzpoll for membership with BAG. Fritz is an admin who has detailed knowledge of bot coding. He also has a firm respect for the role BAG plays in looking out for the community's well being in approving bots and has been fair and honest in all my dealings with him. For these reasons I believe he would be a good reviewer of bot tasks and that he should be a member of BAG. -MBisanz talk 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: I am delighted to accept the nomination Fritzpoll (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the candidate: How do you propose to act in a situation where a clear majority of editors approve of the task of a bot, but a small and intensely vocal group of opponents keep claiming that "there is no consensus".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest answer is "not unilaterally". Clearly such a situation requires further input from other members of BAG in the first instance to garner other opinions. It would probably also be a good idea to suggest seeking further discussion in a more public forum, such as VP (proposals) to seek a wider consensus. In the event that consensus can be established then it could be marked approved, although if a significant minority are still opposed to it, this should probably be flagged in the close so that the closing bureaucrat can make the call appropriately. Hope that's answered your question - feel free to drop in some follow-ups if necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the swift reply. I would prefer not to follow up with specifics (I do have an ongoing controversy in mind) so as not to put the candidate in an embarrassing position where he might have to recuse himself in the future because he comments here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As nom. MBisanz talk 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - See no reason not to. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Although by supporting I expect Fritz to be willing to run his own bot for certain tasks, particularly those which are in demand for cleanup. By supporting him I would also like to see Fritz helping others code bots for approved tasks, time permitting of course! The Bald One White cat 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Chris 10:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Altough we have disagreements on bot created articles on settlements :) -- Tinu Cherian - 11:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At least they aren't technical issues, Tinu - and I'm pretty sure we can work through them to make our bots work together. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. :) Once the census data site is back online, we will start dividing the task -- Tinu Cherian - 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seems competent. Xclamation point 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the hope that candidate's quick and detailed reply to my question above is typical of his responsiveness to editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Aitias // discussion 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't know a whole lot about bots (but I'm learning); however, Fritz is a name I've come to know and I think he'll be fine. Useight (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye. His handling of the geobot situation was spot on. –xeno (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like a good addition :-) SoWhy 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This editor really does know his/her bots. His/her evidently extensive programming skills (GeoBot anyone?) coupled with a good answer to the question asked, lead me to believe that Fritzpoll would be an excellent addition to the BAG. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I owe him my support after I the fun I caused him by approving Geobot. Sorry about that. Giggy (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a unsuccessful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
I'm withdrawing this nomination as, realistically, this is a snow close. Thankyou MZMcBride, Neurolysis and Bjweeks for your remarks, I will take them to heart and perhaps revisit some other time. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Foxy Loxy edit

Greetings BAG members and all others who have found their way to this page. I am Foxy Loxy, a editor and bot operator on the English Wikipedia. I have been active on Wikipedia for roughly 11 months, 6 months of which I have been running LoxyBot, a bot that updates the pages listed on the {{opentasks}} template.

LoxyBot originally ran off SxWiki, a PHP MediaWiki framework project that User:SQL played a large part in the development of. I made extensive modifications to the framework to help better fit my needs and eventually I forked the framework into PHPediaWiki, which aims to be highly Object-Orientated and extensible (primary development goes on in the subversion repository).

Due to my development on LoxyBot and PHPediaWiki, I have become a proficient PHP programmer (with a beginners regex knowledge) and have utilized my knowledge to create a collection of scripts that have, in the past, helped me improve the quality of Achewood (the scripts processed and output a changed page, which I reviewed and incorporated into the article).

Recently I have tried to bring my knowledge of PHP and bots to bot discussions (both BRFAs and BOTREQs I believe), where I have voiced my objections, opinions and ideas. Particularly, I originally opposed Chris G's AntiAbuseBot (BRFA) due to concerns over its blocking methods, but after reviewing the blocking regexes and discussing the bot with Chris G over IRC, I came to the conclusion that the blocking regexes were not harmful to the project.

I wish to become a BAG member to better apply my knowledge of PHP and WikiBots to the acceptance and rejection of bots, and, once sufficient experience has been gathered, close BRFAs myself. Thankyou for your time in reviewing and discussing my nomination. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I think you need more time and experience with bots. I can expand upon this further if necessary. More broadly, however, I think BAG's current membership needs to be culled. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative oppose - "once sufficient experience has been gathered" sort of put it on a bum note for me, I'd rather the experience was present first. That said, I have doubts in my mind that it really matters so much. — neuro(talk) 09:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that I should explain my wording there to try and clarify things, when I said "once sufficient experience has been gathered, close BRFAs myself" I meant that if I become a BAG member I'm not just going to jump in start approving and denying straight away, I'd rather, for my first times, determine what I think the consensus is, then check with other BAG members to see if I would be making the right decision in closing the BRFA the way I think. This would allow me to gather the experience of what criteria are involved in a BRFA close (which I don't believe are documented anywhere) and prevent me making mistakes. There is nothing like WP:NAC for BRFAs, so you can not gather any experience closing BRFAs unless your part of the BAG (sort of a Catch-22), and I would not like to close any until I have gained that experience. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst that is all very well and good, you don't need to be a BAG member to check you're on the right lines, I'd rather see that done before not after. As for the comment that "you can not gather any experience closing BRFAs unless your part of the BAG", I don't see how that is true - just because you can't do the actual task itself, doesn't mean you can't get experience in it. — neuro(talk) 10:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose along the same line above. Comments and code reviews are always welcomed from everybody. You say in your statement, "once sufficient experience has been gathered, close BRFAs myself". Until you feel you are at that point there is no point to being on the BAG. BJTalk 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Jarry1250 edit

I've seen Jarry1250 around BRFA and other bot-related pages, and he definitely seems to know what he is talking about (both in terms of programming and policy). Seeing as there is something of a backlog at BRFA at the moment, another active BAG member would be very useful. Richard0612 19:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance:
Who would not be delighted to accept such a nomination? When I discovered the whole area of Wikipedia bots, I immediately saw an opportunity to put my reasonable programming skills (in this case PHP; I also do MySQL, JS, HTML/CSS and VB) to good use. I would like to think that my motivation has been steady; so far I've put in seven different BRFAs (4 approved, 1 withdrawn, 1 trial, 1 pending) and I hope I've accumulated a good understanding of the BAG and what is expected of its members (I wouldn't be here if I didn't), and that where I've commented on bot requests it is to add a new idea, rather than to spark the resumption of old debate. Copies of my life story are, as ever, available on request from my talk page*. or you can glance over my request for access to the toolserver. I will grow weary of Wikipedia eventually, but until that time, I would be honoured to be a member of the BAG. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a unsuccessful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
More than two weeks have passed since the last edit, and there does not appear to be a consensus for Nakon's admittance into the BAG at this time. -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Nakon edit

Nakon is one of Wikipedia's most experienced admins and one of its best coders. He has been running various bots for a long time now and has in the past commented at BAG. Now that he is an active editor again, I would like to put him forward to help out in reviewing bots. MBisanz talk 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: Thank you for the nomination. For anyone unfamiliar with me, I have been with Wikimedia since late 2005 and have been editing off and on since then. I resumed editing a while ago after taking a break so I could focus on college. I mainly write in PHP and am somewhat active with patch contributions on bugzilla. I am usually found on IRC in #mediawiki. The bot-like scripts I have developed in the past have been designed to prevent and revert page move vandalism as well as clearing stale TOR blocks once the Torblock extension was enabled. I monitor the bot-related noticeboards often and am well-versed in the Bot policy as I have been in the position to follow it through its years of development. If you have any more questions, I will be happy to answer them. Nakon 01:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Does Nakon operate any BRFA approved bots? (I searched without being able to find any.) I don't really consider a history of running unapproved adminbots / scripts to be much of a foundation for joining BAG. Dragons flight (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At this time, I do not operate any bots aside from user-assisted scripts. The BRFA request in the past was withdrawn because it was made obsolete by the Torblock extension. Nakon 03:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Your technical abilities are probably fine, but I think you have too little experience with the BRFA process itself to be in the position of running it. In particular, it would be nice for you to have an approved BRFA at some point. Dragons flight (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks to the required spamming [sic]. I absolutely trust Nakon to know bots. Keegantalk 08:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly neutral (God, this is turning more into RfA by the minute). I haven't been around very long, and I can honestly say that I can't remember having any interaction with Nakon, so it's difficult for me to support. I have every confidence that Nakon is well versed in bot policy, indeed, a much better coder than me (not hard), but BRFA is a procedure, and quite a complex one at that. I can't really support without having in front of me demonstrable experience with that system, sorry. In my mind, it would be wonderful to have Nakon comment on a few modern BRFAs - after all, that half of the system (open to non-BAG members) is woefully under-utilised. But hey, it's just a matter of time. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on a few new BRFAs. [2] [3] [4]. I know it's not much and I don't intend on trying to change your mind, but I do find myself checking the BRFA page more often. Nakon 21:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Although I respect MBisanz's nom, I seriously concur with Jarry/Dragons flight. Mainly bcoz I havent seen the candidate anywhere at BRFAs ( except the very recent comments above) or at Bot requests to demonstrate the capabilities of the candidate in terms of bot policies and BRFA. However, This is not an under estimation of the coding capabilities of the candidate. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I don't doubt Nakon is well-known to people who have been admins for a while and has written MediaWiki patches and various user scripts, all I have seen is a few questions on a few BRFAs. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral While I can't claim to have been active around BRFA myself very much in the past month or so, the fact that this user is completely unknown to me is a little worrying. I don't think I'm seeing the necessary experience with the process. Happy‑melon 11:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This nom has been running since a few weeks now. Does somebody want to close it? -- Tinu Cherian - 04:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful. Avi (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Tinucherian edit

I've noticed Tinucherian around BRFA and other bot-related pages. He seems to know what he is doing and has the community's best interests at heart. I think he would be good at reviewing and approving bots. MBisanz talk 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: I am extremely delighted to accept the nomination. I thank MBisanz for the kind nomination and good words about me. Being a software engineer myself, I am ( believe so :D ) knowledgable on programming on C,TCL / Expect ,Perl and a few other languages less well and reasonably good in regular expressions too. I use AWB extensively on Wikipedia. I also operate 2 bots: TinucherianBot (talk · contribs · count) ( 5 tasks and over 1,17,000+ edits in en.wiki) and TinucherianBot II (talk · contribs · count) (21,000 + edits in 133+ wikis). I've been watching the bot-related pages for quite some time and tried to comment on things that I've had anything to add value. I help others in their Bot requests and have catered to many tasks like these. I have commented on a few BRFAs like this, this and this. I usually help people to create Bots like this. By being active on Bot requests page and closely watching the BRFA process, I believe I've accumulated a good understanding of the BAG , Bot policy and BRFA process. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As nom. MBisanz talk 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - clearly competent in the issues. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've looked over this user's contributions and previous interactions, and I think he'd be great. Knowledgeable and friendly. – Quadell (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I feel that TC will be a great addition. Xclamation point 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was going to start looking at your edits, but then I realised this wasn't RfA; and thought hell yes. - Jarry1250 (t, c)
  • Support Good user, would do a good job. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I seen TC quite a bit around WP:BOTREQ and he clearly knows what he's doing when it comes to bots. ~ Ameliorate! 07:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As nom's and others. --125.7.67.115 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

Didn't even need any grilling questions it seems. Now a BAG member. - Taxman Talk 14:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Kingpin13 edit

I've recently seen Kingpin13 around BAG making some well informed comments on a wide variety of requests. Looking at his record he seems to have a good deal of experience on enwiki and the proper temperament to be a BAG member. Also, he seems to know how to work in a group/team setting and ask appropriate questions at appropriate times. Therefore I am putting him forward for membership.

Candidate acceptance: Thank you very much for the nomination. After some more reviewing of our bot policies, I believe I would be able to do the job of a BAG member, and so gladly accept this nomination - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As nom. MBisanz talk 22:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has shown skill with bot coding and has proved to be clueful in this area. I see no reason for concerns. Regards SoWhy 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good Bots. Good Knowledge. Good Editor. Good BAG. AHRtbA== Talk 14:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The BAG could always use new members, and Kingpin seems like the perfect user for the job. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 14:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support improved mop clearance licence billinghurst (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Aitias // discussion 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great bot operator, good temperment, fully agree with MBisanz that he is a capable user. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I must admit that I haven't really had time to check all of the secret files. Hopefully no skeletons :) - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 11:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Demonstrates adequate skeleton-hiding experience. :D Happy‑melon 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support can't see any issues. --Chris 12:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great bot operator and owner. Can't see any issues... Until It Sleeps Wake me 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

Clear consensus to become a BAG member. -- Avi (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Harej edit

Harej has been operating bots since before I joined Wikipedia. More recently he has undertaken the difficult task of running a date delinking bot. In undertaking this task he has shown a detailed understanding of policy and a willingness to comply with both the letter and spirit of complex rules. I believe he would make a good addition to the BAG.

Candidate acceptance:
@harej 05:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

What BAG work do you intend to do? I ask because we've had a large number of people become BAG members for the hat value alone. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will read and give feedback on ongoing bot requests for approval. I will approve bots for trial where necessary. I will approve bots for flagging and then use my persistent IRC access to pester a bureaucrat to give the bot flag. I will also use my weight to make the process more efficient where I see fit. Having gone through the BRFA process myself recently, I know how much everyone wants a fast process that works well. @harej 23:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting edit

  • Support As nom. MBisanz talk 05:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 05:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm sure harej knows what he's doing, and I'm more than happy to support him. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no visible problems; the BAG needs more members. — The Earwig @ 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't see why I shouldn't.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support experienced, reliable. Josh Parris 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We need one more qualified BAG member for 2010. Happy boting! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 10:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see no reason for any concern. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I know from experience BRFAs has become far too slow recently. I also know from experience that harej is a good programmer and will make an desperately needed addition to the bag team. --Chris 14:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Rlevse • Talk • 14:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Probably non-BAG members votes are spit upon, but I think BAG members need some help and Harej is responsible and communicative. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that the reason why nominees are required to notify all of the pages that are listed in the policy is to ensure non-BAG members take part in the discussion (I know because I'm the one who added the requirement to the policy). MBisanz talk 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe the BAG serves an important function to ensure that the bots operate productively and efficiently and (most importantly) within the scope of their stated objectives. Harej has demonstrated a respect for the bot approval cycle, an attention to detail, and a responsiveness to inquiries during his own bot operations that makes me believe that he would be a definite asset to the BAG. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As an experienced, respected bot-operator, Harej is very qualified for this position; I think he will make a good addition to BAG. I'd also like to thank him for User:RFC bot, which is a big help at MfD (and, I gather, at RfC). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear understanding of bot policies in addition to being rather skilled at coding himself. Responsive to questions and thoughtful in handling situations. Would be an excellent addition. Shell babelfish 06:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as a non-BAG editor. Harej is competent for the role. JamieS93 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Has ample cluefulness. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looks good to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Aitias (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Demonstrated knowledge about bots. Jafeluv (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Jake Wartenberg edit

Jake has been an editor for over two years and an admin since August. He is involved in and aware of technical areas of WP such as edit filters and account creator. He will be able to use these skills in reviewing bots and understands community consensus. Finally, he has access to the Toolserver, which is very useful as many bots are hosted from there and may need testing on how to operate from there on enwiki. Therefore, I am putting him forward for BAG membership. MBisanz talk 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance:
I accept. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • MBisanz, you may want to revise your opening sentence. NW (Talk) 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

  • Support MBisanz talk 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Works for me –Juliancolton | Talk 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - would make a fine addition. — The Earwig @ 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No objections, Jake will do well on the BAG. Good Luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no problems here Tan | 39 03:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Appears to know this field well. Best wishes. Jusdafax 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think he'd do a fine job. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on editor's observed behavior, actions, and comments, and taking the points made in the nom as evidence of sufficient technical knowledge. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sure. Tiptoety talk 05:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on support. Would be beneficial to the project for Jake to have the rights. Blurpeace 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comes supplied with clue and sense. Useful combination. billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No objections, and I trust the nominator's judgement. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support experienced, balanced, thoughtful. Josh Parris 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful Pakaran 05:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: The Earwig edit

The Earwig has been an editor since July 2008 and an admin since October 2009. In that time he has run a series of useful bots and contributed to the functioning of the bot approvals process. I believe he has the skill required to review bots and the competence to judge community consensus. Further, I believe he has shown himself to be trustworthy and available, two important talents in a BAG member. Therefore, I am nominating him for BAG membership to assist in the reviewing of bots. MBisanz talk 06:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance:
I accept this nomination. — The Earwig @ 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Votes edit

  • Support MBisanz talk 06:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Support this is overdue. Tim1357 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Great bot operator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we need more bugs Josh Parris 05:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, his comments have always been helpful, and have always achieved a positive end. There's no harm that could happen here, Earwig is a fully trusted user who is competent for the job. (X! · talk)  · @850  ·  19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to have a proper understanding of bots and BRfA. Great choice for BAG - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sensible and relates to others well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Blurpeace 08:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clueful and certainly qualified.  fetchcomms☛ 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I see only positive results from this. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful -- Pakaran 03:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Josh Parris edit

Josh Parris has been an editor since 2005. In that time he has grown to participate extensively in the bot approvals process. He also runs the useful WildBot (talk · contribs) and helps others in the creation of bots. I am confident that Josh understands the collaborative BAG process and will be able to review the various discussions for community consensus. For these reasons I am putting him forward for BAG membership today. MBisanz talk 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance:
Josh Parris 03:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Votes edit

  • Support MBisanz talk 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, good editor and bot operator, no problems. — The Earwig @ 03:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support uh-huh. Tim1357 (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good editor, seems that wildbot is being run well. No complaints. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I've never seen any issues with him. Also, doesn't own a furniture store. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Why not? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Josh is a trusted longtime editor, and I think he'd be a big help as a BAG member. He seems familiar with BRFA and several users above me have already expressed trust in his judgement there. On a side note, kudos to Josh for the helpful WildBot, which looks to become even more helpful when its current BRFA passes. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful by Pakaran at 21:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Tim1357 edit

Tim has been an editor for about six months now and runs several bot tasks. He has a good sense of working with others and responds to inquiries about his bots. Also, he helps comment at other bot requests. While early in his career here he did run an unregistered bot, he stopped when he found out the policy against it and has sought approval for all subsequent tasks. I believe that if elected Tim will continue to help BAG in reviewing and approving bots. MBisanz talk 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance:
I accept the nomination. Tim1357 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Votes edit

  • Support MBisanz talk 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Need more BAG folks. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Of course. Tim1357 has been an extremely productive contributor the the bot process in the past few months. His comments have always been helpful, and they've always achieved a positive result. I'm confident that Tim will make an excellent addition to the team. (X! · talk)  · @145  ·  02:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, why not? — The Earwig @ 06:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - yep, no problems at all. Ale_Jrbtalk 12:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No qualms with this user at all. Very keen to help where he can. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with some reservations. Should do well on the BAG. –blurpeace (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Supportive user that is helpful and knows the bot world well; has been instrumental in helping me, at the very minimum, getting concepts ready which will be necessary for future approval of a bot. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm sure he'll make a good addition to BAG. He certainly merits a pat on the back for User:DASHBot. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. All looks fine, WJBscribe (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Xeno edit

Xeno has been running bots since 2008, and runs a wide variety of tasks, nearly all of which use AWB, which xeno has a great understanding of, and uses to run his particularly useful WikiProject tagging bot with. I've seen xeno give some valuable input at various BRfAs, and he's one of our most active users at the bot owners' noticeboard, and bot requests page, where he has shown a clear knowledge of bot policy, bots' capabilities, what makes a good bot task and the approval process. Therefore, I think that xeno would find being a member of the Bot Approvals Group helpful, and would be a useful addition to our members. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance:
Thank you for your kind nomination statement, Kingpin13 - I accept. –xenotalk 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

As this is drawing to a close, I just wanted to thank everyone for their warm comments and support =). –xenotalk 17:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

  • Support, definitely. No reason not to. — The Earwig (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dlohcierekim 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Knows the related policies, has the necessary skill and is pretty clueful all around. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at BAG it's less about commitment to WP (which Xeno has in spades) more about the technical understanding and value the candidate brings to the role. This is also clearly demonstrated. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Candidate's judgment is solid. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Bots will only increase in importance here, and this user has experience to assist. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A wonderful candidate. ceranthor 22:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent candidate based upon my own experiences, and if Kingpin says he would do a good job, he will. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Based on interaction with Xeno on a couple of venues, I've little doubt he's suitable. --RA (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ideal candidate. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 01:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Efficient with tech stuff and seems to know about bots. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Xeno has good judgement and experience.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, from observing discussions at Xeno's talk page it is clear they will benefit the project in this role. --Taelus (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In my limited experience with Xeno and his bots, I've seen nothing but good things from them. Jafeluv (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support certainly.  fetchcomms☛ 20:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To complement Pedro's comment: I cannot opine on the technical skills of Xeno, but have confidence in their commitment and responsibility. Abecedare (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He looks fine, swims fine, quack fine, hence he probably is fine. Support Snowolf How can I help? 00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thought he was already :) Tim1357 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes. Sole Soul (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not that this additional vote would matter... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Xeno's help with the bot process has been invaluable. Gigs (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been impressed with Xeno's contributions. Tisane (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems to have the sufficient knowledge, experience and time needed. No issues here. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Josh Parris 14:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thought I'd already done this. He knows his stuff, and would be great with BAG. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful. MBisanz talk 19:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: EdoDodo edit

EdoDodo has been an editor since July 2009. In the time since, he has been both active and constructive in the wikipedia bot process. He currently operates 3 bots: DodoBot, MessageDeliveryBot and WelcomerBot, all of which preform valuable tasks. In addition to handling his own BRFAs well, EdoDodo has shown his competence with bots through his helpful input at WP:BOTREQ. His withdrawn BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EditCountBot, shows that he respects the importance of community consensus, and is capable of judging it. EdoDodo appears both passionate and apt to improve Wikipedia through the responsible use of bots, and it is for that reason I am nominating him for BAG membership to assist in the (now painfully sluggish) process of approving bots. Tim1357 talk 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: Thank you Tim, I accept. - EdoDodo talk 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Votes edit

  • Support As nom. Tim1357 talk 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. –xenotalk 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, why not? — The Earwig (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good with coding and the technical aspects, a good editor in general. This will be a net positive for the BAG. —fetch·comms 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sure! Airplaneman ✈ 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per above. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - --Kudpung (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to know what they're about. Rje (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Funny my support did not get here earlier. This guy is definitely a bot dude. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per DQ :) ••Pepper•• 14:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tim. Hazard-SJ Talk 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely support. ED's bots are useful to Wikipedia, I am sure this editor's input will be invaluable to the BAG. Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. User is added to BAG. MBisanz talk 04:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a withdrawn request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Withdrawn Gigs (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination:Gigs edit

I saw MBisanz say that you all needed some more BAG members. I'd like to offer my help. I have extensive experience with PHP, working with it since 1999 or so with early php4 betas. I have written a few things in Python as well, though my experience is more limited there. I have written one bot for Wikipedia, User:InactivityEmailBot, which was a bot to poke inactive administrators and encourage them to change their passwords or to consider resigning if they no longer needed the tools. I've participated in BRFA discussions sporadically as well. I feel like I have a good grasp of the bot policy, the technical ability to review code, and the ability to read consensus or lack thereof. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The user, in my experiences, has clue and command over certain key policies and guidelines. The user is occasionally impulsive in retorting; and it'll do very good to control the same. Hopefully, the user will take this comment positively. Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I see a few insightful comments, but I'd like to see more involvement around WP:BRFA and/or WP:BOTREQ. For example, there is no need to be a BAGger to review code. Anomie⚔ 00:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the question isn't so much whether I need to be in BAG, but whether BAG needs me. I do plan to try to help out some more either way, as you pointed out, there's ways I can help out here whether or not I'm officially in BAG. As for botreq, Betacommand beat everyone else to it, so I'm going to do one for him as soon as I finish up a patch for Wikinews that the foundation is really pushing me to do. Gigs (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I can see your will and motivation. However, you have little edits in BAG pages prior to November. Your bot has no Wikipedia edits and thus you have little experience in common bot issues, testing, keeping logs, etc. These are the issues most operators would face that BAG should know and address in BRFAs. This also means you have not done any communication and issue resolution with other editors regarding bot's operation; this is invaluable as bots are highly prone to bugs/problems and often require high scrutiny and cool head. I think a BAG member needs to have had more than one BRFA of their own. While I can appreciate your involvement in WP, your familiarity with general policies and guidelines, and programming experience, I would like to see more involvement in bot-related matters. The BOTREQ and BRFAs are indeed quite backlogged, as Anomie pointed out. I know "oppose" sounds a bit harsh, rather than, say, "neutral", but I rather say things honestly. I have absolutely no prejudice to future re-nominations if this is not to pass. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: H3llkn0wz edit

H3llkn0wz has been editing since May 2009. As well as doing quite a bit of article work, he has been active in bot creation. He operates a bot, H3llBot, which does lots of useful work maintaining references and citations. He has also started work on an open-source rewrite of the inactive ArticleAlertbot, which he will run as AAlertBot. As well as this, H3llkn0wz gives useful input to bot requests and other operator's requests for approval. For these reasons, it is a pleasure to nominate him to help out with bot approvals. - EdoDodo talk 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: Thank you, EdoDodo; I accept the nomination. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Questions:

  • What are your thoughts on the BRFA process? Strengths, weaknesses, improvements?
All things considered, BRFAs are solid and they work. The main problem is operators wanting blanket task approvals and approvals for tasks they cannot show clear consensus/policy for. This greatly stalls their BRFAs as BAG has to make subjective decisions they will be called upon if anything goes wrong. It should be operator duty to disclose all relevant information, not BAG duty to dig through tons of archives finding points of reference.
One thing I would improve is requiring operators to spell out function details properly. I have always considered that the length one goes to document their task is directly indicative of how solid their design, workflow, and aptitude for implementation is. After all, it is operator duty to prove that the bot will work as expected. See ClueBot NG BRFA and user page for what I consider operators with a clue. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • If you could change anything about the BAG/BRFA system, would you? Why/why not, what would you change?
I would not currently overhaul anything major. The process works well for most cases. One thing I would require is operators giving explicit details, providing links to policies/consensus discussions when requested. This can and would burden good-faith operators, but generally not as much as it burdens BAG to dig through tons of archives finding relevant material. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • Thoughts on Adminbots? Good/Bad? Is there enough transparency? What about non-admins running them?
To me an Adminbot is a bot capable of edits non-admins cannot see. There are tasks that require sysop tools; and there are users who can implement these bots. If anything, bots are only approved for specific tasks and are less likely to abuse their status. In any case it should be sysop BAGs (most are) that overlook their BRFAs and contributions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • Thoughts on communication between the community and the bot community (both individual bot ops, and the bot community as a whole)? Any recent examples spring to mind? How would you deal with this in your capacity as a BAG member?
Individual bot issues are resolved privately, and that seems to work. BAG is left alone until something major breaks. For example, in recent ongoing ArbCom amendment case BAG was strongly criticised for slow responses to BRFAs and the case itself. What I would state in such cases is that BAG approves the implementation of non-controversial automated tasks. A BAG member can verify the community consensus only so far, if the operator provides vague details. The operator is held responsible for abusing this process and/or giving insufficient/incomplete disclosure. I am sympathetic to the reasons why so many BRFAs go stale because of vagueness in details. Unfortunately, the community sees this as BAGs being lazy/unresponsive/understaffed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

Don't feel pressured to answer all of them (or any of them). I'm just interested to see your thoughts. Thanks --Chris 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your questions, glad there is interest. I probably came off a bit ranty, but in my opinion BAG should be more critical. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

  • Support as nom. - EdoDodo talk 10:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Exactly what BAG needs just now. Knowledgeable about the bot policy, approvals process, BAG's role, and programming. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ever since I started hanging around bots, I have seen H3llkn0wz provide excellent help on BRFAs and bot requests. H3llkn0wz also provided me with great help on my current project, Pallet. I am actually surprise H3llkn0wz is not a member of BAG already. -- d'oh! [talk] 11:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been meaning to suggest H3llkn0wz apply for membership for a while now, I just hadn't gotten around to it. Anomie⚔ 16:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understands bots and bot policy to me. An extra BAG member would also be helpful. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has clue. Nice answers. --Chris 03:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Visits BRFAs. Rich Farmbrough, 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Closed as successful -- MBisanz talk 11:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Headbomb edit

Headbomb has been editing is since May 2006. As well as doing quite a bit of article work, he has been active in bot creation. He has operated a bot, User:ArticleAlertbot, and soon will operate User:Bibcode Bot. He is generally helpful at WP:BRFA commenting on bots and providing helping on-wiki and on IRC to other operators. For these reasons, I nominate him for BAG. MBisanz talk 05:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance:
  • Registration is 2006, although I only got involved around March/April 2008. Got first involved with bots because of WP:PHYS and Wikiproject tagging runs with Anomie and Tinucherian, then moved on to bigger projects such as WP:AALERTS and WP:JCW, with Tedder, B. Wolterding and H3llkn0wz. Also worked with Smith609 on expanding and tweaking Citation bot and with Noomos on NoomBot.

    Latest project is Bibcode Bot, which got started by Delta and carried on by Snottywong. Never really coded until last Friday, where I undertook learning Python/Pywikipedia, and it came pretty naturally (I obviously don't know everything about it since it's not even been a week, but Snottywong would probably testify to my code being at least decent).

    Been watching WP:BOTREQ for a long time, both to give feedback and get new ideas for how to help the various WikiProjects I'm involved with, as well as large scale projects. Been lurking on the BAG channel for a while now, where I've helped with things when possible.

    Since I'm involved at pretty much every level of Wikipedia and got involed in a plethora of bot tasks over the last years, I'm pretty familiar with all the bot policies, and have a good grasp on what's controversial, what requires trial, what can be approved without trial, what would require more discussion, what has no chance in hell of ever being suitable for a bot, etc...

    So yeah, in a nutshell, since BAG is apparently overloaded, and I'm pretty much doing everything a BAG member would (minus the official stuff for BOT approval) anyway, might as well become part of the BAG proper. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Questions:

  • Out of all the approval/discussion processes (RFA, AFD, etc) on Wikipedia BRFA by far takes the longest, it not being uncommon for a request to be open for several months. Why do you think this is? Is this a problem, if so how would you fix it?
  • One of the criticisms of the BAG/BRFA approval process is that once approved there is a distinct lack of oversight of bot actions, do you agree with this/what are your thoughts?
  • Do you think bureaucrats should play a larger role in bot approvals, or should they act merely on the advice of BAG (i.e. flaggings and deflaggings)? Should BAG have their own separate userright?
  • If you could change the BRFA/BAG process would you? If yes, what would you change?
  • What is your favorite play by Shakespeare?

Don't feel like you have to answer all (or any) of them. --Chris 06:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length of BRFA:: "Why" it takes a while is probably because some of these requests are tasks which are boring/have little purpose/have unclear purpose/unclear consensus, combined with BAG members actually having lives. If you're busy, you want clear requests, which have clear outcomes so it doesn't take a lot of effort to decide what to do with the requests. If a BRFA is tricky, then you go "ugh, do I really want to deal with this?" and go do something else less annoying. The bots I cared about never took much long as far as the BRFA process is concerned, but that's probably because of a combination of clear and well-defined BRFAs, plus me annoying BAG members about the requests. I don't pretend I'll be all that much better than other BAG members to address the "months old" BRFAs, since I I have a life too, but I do plan on checking those with explicit request for BAG attention fairly regularly. Any BRFAs where I get significantly involved (such as asking for consensus, or giving a thumbs up for trial) would in general have pretty fast response times from me however.
  • Oversight: I disagree with that. BAG gives the approval for the task, and then the onus is on bot operators to keep within the spirit (or letter, when warranted) of their BRFAs. Lack of oversight would only be true if the bots were editing in a vacuum, rather than over millions of articles watched by thousands of editors. Malfunctioning bots get blocked all the time. Bots editing against consensus gets blocked all the time. If that's not oversight, I don't know what is. That editors/admins/non-BAG members do most of the oversight doesn't mean there is no oversight.

    You can more or less think of a BRFA as being a driving license. If you drive without one, you can get in trouble even if your driving skills are fine. And if you have a license, it still doesn't give you the right to run over people or drive 200 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. BAG gives out these driving licenses. If they are abused, they can be (and are) revoked, and bots are blocked accordingly.

  • Bureaucrats, I think whatever the current situation is with bureaucrats is fine. I never had to deal with them AFAIK, or know of anyone who ever had to deal with them other than remind them that some bot needs to be flag. So if there's no problem with the status quo, then there's no real need to change it.
  • BRFA/BAG process, other than the length issue previously mentioned, I think BRFA can too easily be hijacked by trolls and unreasonable people because BOT should be uncontroversial. As BRFAs usually get little opposition, one dissenting voice can often make or break a BRFAs. There's no real solution to this, other than get BAG members with a good ability to discern what is legitimate opposition and legitimate concerns to a task, and what is ideologically-driven wikilawyering / trolling / gaming the system. Luckily this doesn't happen very often, but BRFAs are vulnerable to this.
  • Shakespeare Titus Andronicus. At least as retold by Julie Taymor.
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What action would you take in the User:Lightmouse Lightbot BRFAs (i.e. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 6–14)? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would deny most of them / put them on hold unless an RFC explicitly approved the task and the logic to be used. I would suggest that these fixes be implemented into WP:AWB when possible. Lightmouse has been a problematic bot operator in the past, and these deal with MOS issues which is always a Pandora's box, so the combination of the two makes me particularly uneasy. For example, converting MPH to mph has LOADS of false positives (see MPH for a partial list). What about the use of MPH in quotes? Etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

  • You seem sensible, Support --Chris 06:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As nom. MBisanz talk 06:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if he's trustworth then yes Petrb (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support –xenotalk 12:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Impressed with the candidate's answers, and with their bot work. That said... Titus Andronicus? Really? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; knows his way around. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Well, no offense intended, but I do have some concerns about this editor's apparent tendency toward edit warring and some strongly inflexible biases. However, I have no concerns about his work with bots. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Moral) Support I'm not a BAG member, and everything I know about bots I know from Futurama, so I'm not sure I can vote here, if so, this is only a "Moral" support. I can, however, attest to Headbomb's general competence and helpfulness. Also, I'm not sure if "uninhibited glee" is the correct term, but he was certainly enthusiastic about Noombot, so I know his heart is in the right place when it comes to bots. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would do well as a BAG member. Noom talk stalk 18:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems competent, and I think the driving license metaphor is exactly right. bobrayner (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm also not a BAG member, but have had some interaction with Headbomb recently and can attest to his cluefulness. Given the current backlog at BRFA, we can use all the help we can get. Just don't let him code anything in Python... :p —SW— spout 20:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I have to question whether Headbomb has the maturity for this kind of role. I have seen at least one vicious outburst on a public IRC channel that left me wondering. I also query the reasoning behind his statement that he would "deny most" of User:Lightmouse's requests, which had in principle been approved by ArbCom in the expectation that the details would be worked out by the experts at BAG—but which met, as far as I can tell, with tirades of bad-faith comments by a few users that seemed to derail the whole thing. More explicit reasoning is required to convince me. Tony (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The project needs individuals to roll up their sleeves and do heavy lifting—bots included. Headbomb has volunteered to do so and I applaud him for that. His operating a bot with the consent of the community is fine. That is not to endorse his regular edits and I hope the community’s endorsement of his bot activities doesn’t go to his head as I find his position on article talk pages and his arguments betray a lack of sound judgement. Greg L (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No major issues, IMO. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 04:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support YESYESYES <3 (sorry - it's late and I couldn't help myself!) — The Earwig (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - we need more people to be actively involved with BAG. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Competent and knowledgeable user, I was wondering when he'd get nom'd! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:00pm • 05:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely. Kaldari (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unequivocal. I'm not a BAG member but have been around a wee while and Headbomb's intellgent input has always been appreciated and in my opinion can only aid this group in it's work. Khukri 11:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rjwilmsi 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had a discussion with this user the other day in the #wikipedia-bag connect IRC channel, very helpful and knew what he was on about. I was surprised he wasn't already voiced (i.e. a member of BAG). I'm sure he'll be a good member of the group! :) The Helpful One 11:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.


BAG Nomination: Cyberpower678 3 edit

  • Having received unopposed support after a standard discussion period a consensus for adding Cyberpower678 to the Bot Approvals Group is present, nomination is closed as successful. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) suggested I run for BAG membership. As many know, I operate InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs), and I feel I can serve as a BAG member with competence. Sorry for the dull self-nom, I'd rather let my actions speak for me than my words.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

  • A standard BAG nomination question: Have you read WP:BAGG, and recently reviewed WP:BOTPOL? The first is new, and the second one has been updated significantly this year. Do you have questions about either BAGG & BOTPOL as currently written, or areas you feel they don't cover adequately? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Both those pages are pretty much my idea of common sense, even with the updates. I have no issues with the current wording of both pages.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A really important question to bot work. Which is better, cheese or bacon? ;) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't value one over the other. You either eat both, or nothing at all. Best thing ever, Cabot's Bacon Cheddar Cheese.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyberpower678: Perhaps even more important: Is it hair or weave? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to say neither. Bacon and cheese still wins.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of WP:COSMETICBOT? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From a logical standpoint, it makes sense to have such a policy, in terms of "Why make alterations if they render the same way in the end? It's a waste of server resources." I'm neutral on it being a policy however and have no opinion on whether it should exist or not.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the concerns in the past RfBAG was that you haven't edited other BRFAs besides your own. From my quick SQL query, it looks like you haven't edited any BRFA since July 2016 (a year exactly today), and a total of 5 BRFAs in 2016, one (and a half?) of which was your own. Could you please explain why you haven't really participated in other BRFAs and how you plan to interact with them as a potential BAG member. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary reason I didn't participate in other BRFAs is because I always feel like a third wheel. Being a non-BAG participating in other BRFAs felt awkward for me, and I rather would spend time on my own bots instead. Being a BAG member I would obviously pick 2 or 3 open BRFAs and commit to them until completion. They would be on my watchlist. When one finishes I would work on the next open BRFA and add that to my watchlist. Obviously in areas I specialize in or have an interest I will abstain from them. My participation in BRFAs may not be high, but lurking around, I've picked up how the practice is done as BAG. Every BRFA requires gauging the task, the code, and the botop, as well as testing for bugs, making sure they're fixed, and using the best judgement as to whether or not the bot can be turned loose on Wikipedia. Even more scrutiny will be applied to adminbots.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • Support. Cyberpower very obviously knows the bot policy, and the concerns of his previous nominations (lack of independent code experience, some issues with conduct as a bot op) are well behind him. InternetArchiveBot is one of the most ambitious projects on enwiki period, and Cyberpower has dealt with issues related to it admirably. New BAG members are especially necessary due to recent issues with approving BRFAs of a particular bot operator where most BAG members are involved or uninterested in dealing with the botop. Cyberpower will make a fine addition to BAG. ~ Rob13Talk 23:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They seem to like general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the issue raised in the first and the second nominations are both distant and have been addressed AFAIC. I was in fact surprised that they weren't already part of BAG. Already lurks in BAG IRC channels, and always had sound bot-related feedback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Qualified and obviously a net positive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not really active enough to feel comfortable !voting either way here, but would like to make a comment. Firstly, I think Cyberpower has improved a lot over the years in the issues that I mentioned in his original BAG nom. As a bot operator his technical competence is very impressive and he's definitely made progress in the area of interactions with others (e.g. when dealing with bug reports and also overlapping bots). However, as he says in the nomination he would like his actions to speak instead of his words, but I see very little to judge by. As far as I can tell there have been no edits to any BRFA for the last year. This is slightly concerning, because we aren't exactly short on BAG members who are inactive in BRFA (including yours truly), what is really needed are some users who are active in BRFA. If Cyberpower could point to some examples of BAG-related activities he's partaken in, that would be helpful in evaluating this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Cyberpower is very knowledgeable on bot development and policy - IAbot is one of the most technically complex on the wiki and he manages it totally professionally. He would definitely be a great BAG member. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Not very active in BRFAs and bot-related matters, but I believe the nom has a good clue at this point. I echo much of what Kingpin says. I've seen the nom to be a bit quick with actions, so (assuming the nom passes) I would recommend more diligence in BRFAs. I would also recommend a close look at why COSMETICBOT has to exist. As said above, a net positive. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Knowledgeable, and a clear net positive. SQLQuery me! 16:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it comes down Cyberpower's technical knowledge and ability/willingness to handle what comes up. I believe he does fill the requirements needed. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for Bot Approvals Group membership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Closed as no consensus. Please consider applying in the future after you have gained more experience. MBisanz talk 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Wugapodes edit

Hi everyone, I'm Wugapodes and I would like to help. When I worked with engineers, our lab banned the phrase "someone do" because it means "no one do", everyone will just think someone else will do it. Instead, we emphasized initiative: if you can fix a problem, fix it. I've heard through the grapevine that BAG is looking for more users to help, and since I'm not completely incompetent, I'd like to offer to help. Good intentions aside, I think being a member of BAG will be a benefit for the project and BAG as a whole.

I'm rather familiar with the process. A few months ago I co-wrote a bot after a Bot Request that stalled out before a BRFA. Since then I've been watching this page and just reading discussions. More recently I had a successful BRFA to replace a bot the GA project uses to keep track of its backlog. Both are written in python. I'm also familiar with Lua (it's what I wrote Module:Cite LSA in) and perl (nothing published though). I have also worked with engineers and computer scientists in the past, so I am acquainted with reading and commenting on code.

I recognize I'm a little bit of an unconventional candidate, but I think that is a benefit. I would be the only active non-admin BAG member, and one of the more recently registered ones. I think this gives me an outsider perspective on bag. Indeed, when getting my bot approved, I realized there was a lot I didn't understand about the process and the whole thing felt rather intimidating (it wound up being one of the most pleasant processes I've experienced on Wikipedia). For me, the bot policy and BRFA are fresh in my mind and so I understand the experience of newer bot ops who don't know how to navigate the process as well.

Please feel welcome to ask me any questions about my abilities or knowledge. I think I'll do a good job, but I've got to prove that. Hopefully there will the consensus will agree with that. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

  • Do you have any experience with the bot approvals process prior to December 2016? Your only bot request appears to be from this month, as far as I can see, and that has me rather hesitant. ~ Rob13Talk 07:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That I can prove? Not really. I linked to User:ProjectRequestedPagesBot above which I co wrote with another editor in February, but the project stalled before we put up a BRFA. (Long story version:) Because of that I read extensively on the process though, and I have been reading the talk page here for about that long. It's more indirect but my GA stats page and the statistics used in my Signpost article used scripts to collect and output the data, which required me knowing what constituted a bot (this wasn't, it was a script) and, even if it is a bot, where it could edit without approval (my user space). If your hesitancy is related to my comprehension of policy, I believe that's something I can reassure you on (and have been trying to). If it is related to how long I've been active in the process, it hasn't been long and I can't do much to fix that. I think it can be an asset, I definitely understand how you may not. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My hesitation based on experience only goes as far as I believe it relates to your familiarity with nuances of the process. If you can convince me that you understand those nuances, I wouldn't have an objection based only on numbers. What sorts of tasks would/would not fall under WP:COSMETICBOT to? Reading through Wikipedia:MTC!, do you think that tool could ever be considered a bot, and if so, under what set of options? ~ Rob13Talk 09:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well then we have something to discuss at least. With regards to WP:COSMETICBOT, I think the quasi-question The Earwig posed below is a good example of a bot that would fall under that policy. The general understanding seems to be that "cosmetic" means any change to the markup that doesn't change the appearance of the page (in the stated example, the template doesn't display the deprecated parameter, so it would be cosmetic), but even if the parameters were displayed, I'd still say it was cosmetic since it has little to do with the content and rather what content is displayed. If it were something like fixing the coordinates that would be substantive as it's about correcting information not changing what information is displayed. With MTC! only the file transfer mode is safely outside the bot zone in that it's similar to twinkle in how it requires user oversight of each change. The others do not, and could well be considered bots in their own right, but it's probably better understood as a script since it's automating a process. Large-scale changes would need a BRFA and account even if done by a human. If it were run as a cron job or incorporated into a script that automated its running then that would definitely be a bot. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • Good intentions, but premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I agree with Dennis. You seem capable and I think you could do a good job, and not being an admin doesn't bother me (very little of our work requires the tools). Still, not having any direct experience with BRFAs other than your own makes it difficult to assess how you would handle them. Maybe you could pick a few random BRFAs like this one and explain what you would do? — Earwig talk 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too soon. Thank you for wanting to help in this area. You are welcome to comment on, ask questions, review trials, etc on all open BRFA's - we really will appreciate the input! If you stay active in that capacity for a while and reapply later you should be able to gather more support. — xaosflux Talk 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per above. Would definitely support in the future with more experience -FASTILY 22:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the reasons already stated. Thank you for volunteering. You'll be a strong candidate with more experience. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is premature, but I would invite a reapplication in the future. The lack of experience is an issue. Your answers to my questions weren't all that bad, but they also weren't so polished that I'm going to overlook the experience issues. ~ Rob13Talk 16:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for Bot Approvals Group membership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Closing notes: Following the discussion below a community consensus to continue BAG membership for Magioladitis has not emerged. This closure has no impact on prior BRFA's that Magioladitis has approved or denied, or Magioladitis' status as a bot operator. Like all editors, Magioladitis is welcome to participate in all future BRFA's by asking questions, offering opinions, etc. Magioladitis may seek BAG membership again in the future through the normal means. Magioladitis, thank you for standing for reconfirmation when asked to by the community. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAG reconfirmation: Magioladitis edit

After comments in my talk page, I hereby ask for reconfirmation as BAG member. I 've been a BAG member for 2.5 years. After I assigned as member:

So, here I am. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

Two questions:

  1. Why are you running an unapproved bot from your account to make edits like this?
  2. Why is this not grounds for yet another block?

Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The questions are unrelated to my BAG nomination. BAG checks mainly the technical part of the story. The question asked here is if have the technical skills and related knowledge to be part of BAG. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Hchc2009's comments

Thanks for agreeing to see reconfirmation Magioladitis. At the moment, I would oppose reconfirmation. The standard for Bot Approval Group members is that we trust them to "approve or deny the various bot tasks submitted by both new and old bot operators" and "to understand Wikipedia's bot policy, and to offer sound bot-related advice to bot operators, admins, and editors alike". The former activity is particularly sensitive, as the BAG do not operate as a committee, and there are no checks and balances around individual approvals: once a BAG member has approved a task it can be immediately implemented and is not subject to review by other BAG members. While I think that Magioladitis has considerable technical talent - which is clearly valued by the community - and is certainly operating in what he perceives as the best interest of Wikipedia, I have concerns in the following areas:

  • Magioladitis has difficulties in judging consensus when approving and carrying out bot activity. Recent examples include a Dexbot approval which has been criticised by multiple editors for lacking wider consensus; User:Xaosflux another member of the BAG and an admin/bureaucrat, has noted that there was insufficient evidence of discussion or community consensus (NB: the box was in fact left blank), noting that "I never would have approved that task without it". Magioladitis refuses to agree that there are any problems with his judgement, arguing that "all the tasks have consensus". I do not have confidence in their ability to distinguish between bot-related tasks that have community consensus, and those which do not.
  • The relationship between Magioladitis and User:Ladsgroup in the context of the BAG appears problematic. (NB: I would caveat my comments here by noting that some editors do not appear to be working in their first language, and I would welcome correction if I have misunderstood their messages/intent). It appears that Magioladitis has been asking Ladsgroup to submit requests for bot tasks, which Magioladitis has then been personally approving as a BAG member. In the case of Dexbot 9, for example, a task that Magioladitis recently both asked Ladsgroup to carry out and then personally approved, the result were widespread edits that went against wiki guidelines. When questioned about some of his bot editing, Ladsgroup has noted that "I was asked to do this so I thought there is a bigger plan and I can help out. I'm not aware of the details... I remember vaguely that a discussion like that happened but can't remember the details. Anyway, Marios asked me to do it." A similar tone comes through in other conversations in which Ladsgroup has noted, when challenged about the details of his edits that "I do whatever BAG members say". It would appear that the BAG approvals process is being routinely circumvented resulting in edits which lack community consensus.
  • There are long running questions over how Magioladitis's own bots are run. SarahSV has carried out a review of this, and reports that "there are dozens of threads going back to 2009 about violations of the bot policy, 22 blocks of Yobot and Magioladitis, and hundreds of hours of volunteer time spent trying to resolve it." My own due diligence checks, carried out on recent activity only, suggest that there have been widespread problems which have caused wide-spread aggravation. I have seen nothing that encourages me to believe that Magioladitis has taken this on board as a problem, leading me to question if he is well-positioned to offer sound advice to others.
  • Most recently, the recent block of Magioladitis for what the blocking admin, User:Spinningspark, described as "appalling behaviour...especially as he has been blocked for the exact same thing in the past", calls into question whether it remains appropriate for Magioladitis to remain a member of the BAG. I would recommend that a period off the Group would allow him to demonstrate behaviours which would increase the level of trust by the community and pave the way for his return to the BAG. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 Here are some replies

Spinningspark's comments

I don't know what other useful work Magio does for BAG, but he certainly should be prevented from approving other bots. If the only way of stopping him doing this is to keep him off BAG, then oppose. He seems completely incapable of discerning what amounts to consensus, and I'm not sure that he cares much about it anyway. Besides the dubious approval of Dexbot mentioned above and the problems with Yobot, he shows this with his own statements even on this page. In § General fixes and cosmetic edits in this edit Magio says "[m]ost of AWB's general fixes are based on Guidelines and Documentation" and cites the page WP:GENFIXES as evidence. However, most of the items on that list do not cite a guideline or community decision at all. Of the ones that do, the immediate issue that led to Yobot's current block, template redirects, is cited to Wikipedia:Redirect § Template redirects but the guideline does not proscribe template redirects, it merely notes that "[w]hile template shortcut/alias redirects are common, they may infrequently cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated". If the guideline had said something like "thou shalt not transclude redirects" then Magio would have a case, but it doesn't. In short, there is no audit trail back to a consensus, not by the route Magio thinks there is in any event. In this very thread, Magio defends himself over Persondata by pointing out that Persondata has now been taken over by Wikidata. It seems to have completely passed him by that who was right about the ultimate fate of Persondata is beside the point. The issue is that he did not have consensus to wipe it out at the time he requested to do so and seems still to fail to understand that. SpinningSpark 14:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I get it, you disagree with a single approval of single bot and this is the reason you oppose me. This is the only action relevant to BAG that you describe in your comments. The AWB documentation is not my job and it is unrelated to BAG anyway. Same holds for Prsondata. I requested a task via the normal procedure. I did not run anything unapproved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Template_talk:Official_website/Archive_2#Wikidata that results to Dexbot's bot task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't oppose because of a single mistake, I oppose because you have not demonstrated an understanding of the meaning of consensus, why it is important to Wikipedia, or how it relates to the bot policy. SpinningSpark 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After you read the inks I gave you still think there was no consensus for Dexbot to run for example? I think it's not nice that we try to resolve this under this discussion but anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the issue with Dexbot 9 raised by Hchc2009 above where you approved a bot request that cited no discussions to show consensus. You seem to be talking about Dexbot 6, but as it happens, that one has exactly the same problem as well. But now that you have asked my opinion on the discussion you linked, I think it is dubious at best to claim a community consensus on the back of it. It was on a template talk page, only likely to be watched by people interested in editing that template, and even there the proposal found some opposition. Now I'm not here arguing either for or against either of those tasks. The point is that the basis tasks are being done on needs to be clear both at the time of approval and for anyone subsequently reviewing who might want to challenge it. SpinningSpark 01:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV's comments

Oppose reconfirmation. WP:BAG says that BAG members are "trusted to understand Wikipedia's bot policy, and to offer sound bot-related advice to bot operators, admins, and editors alike". Magioladitis's bot has regularly operated in violation of the bot policy since 2009, particularly COSMETICBOT. He either brushes off complaints, blaming the edits on a bug that is being fixed, or he ignores them. He seems not to understand the need for consensus or that repeated complaints mean he must stop the task. Communicating with him is not easy. There are dozens of talk-page complaints about his or Yobot's edits, many showing a failure to take the point. If an editor complains about X and mentions Y in passing, Magioladitis will focus on Y and ignore X. This wastes a lot of time.

As for approving bot tasks, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6 is a concern. According to the bot operator, Magioladitis asked him to change all links to official websites in External links to the template {{official website}}. This would mean the site would be retrieved from Wikidata. It ignores the guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL, which says: "Use of the template {{official website}} is optional." The section of the BRFA that requests links to discussions was left empty. The BRFA instructions for BAG members say:

Before granting a trial, consider whether the task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages). If so, and the request does not already link to a discussion showing consensus in an appropriate forum (or silence after a reasonable waiting period), use {{BOTREQ|advertise}} to request that that be done.

Magioladitis didn't do that. A subsequent discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Official website template shows no consensus to add this template everywhere, and certain problems with it are being discussed. These apparently include that Wikidata could include a blacklisted site without editors here noticing, but when they next try to save the article, the spam-blacklist filter would be triggered. This illustrates why discussion is needed before mass edits are approved. SarahSV (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV I think it's best that you ait for the discussion in ELOFFICIAL to conclude. Till now the arguments in favour of the migration are ovehelming and Fram's reaction contained f* words. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any argument raised in the ELOF page is about the template in general and not about the conversion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, my reaction contained fuck, that makes it obviously invalid. "Till now the arguments in favour of the migration are ovehelming", even though they aren't convincing anyone. Fram (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite's comments

While I don't agree with everything being said and the neutrality of Spingingspark and SV would be like a hot war between the US and USSR, I do think Magioladitis should not be reconfirmed as a BAG. There's too much of a cloud. BAGs should be neutral. The cloud brings doubt to the neutrality. In a year or so, if things on the Yobot front remain calm, then it might be a good time to run for BAG again. Bgwhite (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Magioladitis as a BAG member, can't be trusted to care about enwiki community consensus. Fram (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ramaksoud2000's comments

Oppose because user appears to be running a WP:COSMETICBOT for template redirects under his main account right now, during this re-confirmation. I'm astonished because this is what caused Yobot's block. Strong case of WP:IDHT. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaksoud2000 You opposed before I have the time to reply the two questions you posed to me above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may certainly answer the questions, as you partially did on my talk page. I'm very sorry to say, though, that the answer you gave, and any other answer you could give, is unlikely to be sufficient. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 20:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The questions were rhetorical, right? Let's be honest. They do not even address to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are addressed specifically to you and concern edits that you made. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13's comments

Oppose due to ongoing issues. This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member. (Why are we using headers for this?) ~ Rob13Talk 06:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bot operators are expected to have exemplary diligence and communication due to the mass of edits performed, especially for cosmetic-like tasks. Meanwhile, the user is performing continuous bot-like editing on their main account even after all the issues that have been brought up. Edits like this even use the bot summary (e.g.). I don't believe an editor who is unable to follow the policy and reasonably resolve disputes should be reviewing others for the same criteria. While I don't have as strong of an opinion as others, I don't believe the issues should ever have come even close to where they are. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz just to clarify. Do you disagree with the removal of the break tag or my edit summary? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the way the edit was performed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of edits should not be done by someone upholding bot policy and leading by example as a BAG member. They definitely should not be done during ongoing disputes/issues and during a BAG reconfirmation where one would demonstrate technical diligence, ability to follow consensus and communication beyond everyday editing. As I said, the issues should never have gone as far as they have, regardless if you believe you are right. I don't have any major issues with the actual edit, checkwiki, or summary. If you could have acknowledged there is an issue with your editing, stopped and reexamined the bot tasks, then sought proper consensus to adjust them to unambiguous policy/guideline/community standards, I would have supported your stay with BAG. But your continuous edits and responses lead me to believe that if you cannot uphold these standards even during a reconfirmation, then you won't uphold it afterwards either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with much chagrin. I wrote at the beginning of this year:

"Bluntly put, we're at a crossroad here. You can commit to follow WP:COSMETICBOT / not ignore skip conditions / not using a brute force approach / do semi-automated testing of things where you personally review a substantial amount of edits before letting a fully-automated process take over / whatever other voodoo magic is necessary. Expecting < X/1000 trivial edits is not something I'm willing to put forth as a criteria of success, but their frequency has to be drastically reduced.
Or do we have to revoke your AWB access?"

From the rest of this year's WP:COSMETICBOT related drama surrounding Magioladitis, their bots, and approval of similar cosmetic (or cosmetic-like) bots, it's clear to me that this commitment was not, is not, and likely won't ever be taken seriously. The community's patience has run out. Bot ops are expected to abide with all of WP:BOTPOL, and all WP:BAG members should be intimately familiar with them since we are trusted to approve/deny/advise/comment on bots and bot-related things. With this strong a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I don't see that we have a choice but to rescind Magioladitis' BAG membership.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Per this comment "the group is just the technical side of the review". From this perspective, what did I do wrong as BAG member? - Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing you did wrong is seizing on an inaccurate comment to try to defend yourself. The issues people have with you are not in the technical area but in compliance with community standards. To quote WP:BOTPOL with emphasis added, "Once the request has demonstrated its conformance with the community standards and correct technical implementation, the BAG may approve the task. The BAG may also decline a request which fails to demonstrate community consensus to perform the task." It also states "The decision to approve or decline a request should take into account the requirements above", which includes "performs only tasks for which there is consensus". Anomie⚔ 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

BAG Nomination: BU Rob13 edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

I'm throwing my hat in for BAG. Currently, there are over 25 open bot requests for approval. Many of them have been sitting there for months waiting for eyes from BAG, which is no wonder because we have only a handful of active BAG members to overlook approvals for the entire project. If the community is willing, I'd like to help tackle that backlog.

I run BU RoBOT, which has 36 submitted BRFAs, so I'm well-acquainted with the BRFA process and understand many of the common issues that pop up when creating an automated task. I've also been involved with enforcing the bot policy as an administrator in the past, so I'm familiar with the entirety of the bot policy. My goal is to contribute in an uncontroversial manner to the bot approvals process. With this goal in mind, I'll recuse myself from acting on any BRFAs associated with CHECKWIKI, a project I've been critical of in the past, if this passes.

As a side note, I hope other experienced bot operators viewing this request will consider helping out in the approvals process as well. Ideally, we'd have another half-dozen active BAG members than we do now. ~ Rob13Talk 22:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having been open for over a week, and gaining a strong support of other editors, this BAG membership request has demonstrated consensus to close successfully. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

  • Do you understand what WP:MEATBOT is about?
    • Yes, I do. WP:MEATBOT states that editors carelessly editing at high rates and making mistakes which would be obvious if edits were properly reviewed may be treated as if they are operating an unauthorized bot. It's basically the bot equivalent of WP:MEAT/WP:DUCK; if it looks like an unauthorized bot, it is an unauthorized bot for the purposes of administrative action. ~ Rob13Talk 14:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you insist that recent Rich's block was fine and that Rich should have been blocked for even longer? -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Rich's recent actions to run a large-scale task on his main account at rates exceeding one edit per second violate standard community norms, a community ban he's under, and WP:BOTASSIST (not MEATBOT), so yes, I do think his block was fine. As for block length, that largely depends on the length of time necessary to keep the block preventative rather than punitive. I'd be fine with the block being lifted now if Rich assures administrators that he won't return to editing at bot-like speeds through the API. It's worth noting that BAG members do not handle enforcement of the bot policy other than approving tasks; administrators handle that. ~ Rob13Talk 14:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are clearly wrong. The blocker had been consistently opposing the intelligent replacement of the template in favour of their own method of susbt'ing the template, as shown by their actions. Even if your other arguments held water, they should have asked an WP:uninvolved admin to look at the situation, rather than block.
      • Also you are implying that they accidentally made a correct block - I'm not sure if that constitutes "fine" either.
      • While I am pleased that you want to help on BAG, I don't think you have shown the level of understanding of this issue, let alone others, that is required. If you are approved I hope you can overcome that.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
WP:INVOLVED states "In straightforward cases, the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Running an unauthorized bot is a bright-line action. Given the highly time-sensitive nature of the misconduct (almost 100 edits occurring per minute), the blocking administrator blocked and then immediately posted to a relevant noticeboard for review of their action. I think that clearly falls under the exemption, and the immediate submission of their action to community feedback makes it especially obvious nothing "sneaky" was going on. By my reading of the ensuing AN discussion, I see no consensus the block was bad, just that it had served its purpose by the time it was lifted (if even that, honestly). And no, I don't think a correct block was accidentally made. I think the administrator knew what a bot policy violation looked like and linked to the wrong subsection of the policy while using shortcuts. It's not surprising to find someone assuming WP:MEATBOT points to the section saying you can't operate a highly bot-like process at high speeds from your main account. That redirect should probably be examined, since it's confusing. ~ Rob13Talk 15:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can't tell the difference between a bot and a human. Nor can you read a block log. You can "blame the redirect" and propose it be changed - which is a pretty close action to "blaming the policy trying to get it changed" which I predicted was likely.
I suggest that marinating in these policies for a few months at least would be a good idea, and finding out why they are as they are, before going off trying to change them, or interpreting them to read as you think they should.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • A really important question to bot work. Which is better, cheese or bacon? ;)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The correct answer is both when on potato skins. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good enough. Picking only one, would have earned you a trout. :p—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read WP:BAGG and become familiar with most of it? Any questions/anything unclear/anything you disagree with?Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Headbomb: Yes, I have read and become familiar with it (except the link describing how to actually close out a BRFA, but that's easy to pick up later). I agree with most things there as written. I think the writing on speedy approvals sometimes isn't put into practice, mostly because BAG members often don't go back to past tasks run by the same operator to see if the new submission is actually a trivial extension. I don't want to cite some of my own BRFAs directly because it isn't my intention to call out specific BAG members, but I've had many BRFAs go through just to check consensus on doing basic tagging tasks for WikiProjects, etc. which all run literally the same code, and I still sometimes run trials for those BRFAs (some are also speedy approved). Speedy approvals should definitely be very rare, but perhaps slightly less rare than they actually are in practice at the moment. We perhaps also need more definite guidance on when a BRFA should be considered "up for grabs" when the trial-granter is busy and doesn't review the trial for a good period of time; if they're so busy that they don't note their inactivity, right now it just kind of sits there for an indeterminate amount of time. I believe I understand everything on that page. ~ Rob13Talk 17:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • Support - From what I've seen Rob has the technical ability to be a good BAG member and would be a boon to the group. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My interactions with Rob have been positive, he is active in BRFA discussions, and has good technical knowledge. SQLQuery me! 03:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on the basis of numerous very positive interactions with Rob and a complete confidence in his technical skills. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for obvious reasons. I was sure 100% sure Rob would try this. I have warned people that Rob will try to be in as many places as possible. It's interesting that Rob stats that will mainly work on... CHECKWIKI. We are not that big community. I am willing to change my stance only if Rob gives satisfying nswers to mt questions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis: User:BU Rob13 actually states that he will recuse himself from CHECKWIKI BRFAs (for the very reason of his having been 'critical of [it] in the past.') Which is, in fact, completely the opposite of what you apparently believe :) incidentally, I shouldn't have to remind you that it is much preferred that we assume good faith of our colleagues, rather than accuse them of being some kind of would-be global potentates who will, if given the chance, settle for nothing less than world domination, vis a vis 'be[ing] in as many places as possible' :D — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's quite interesting way for self-nomination for someone to believe for themselves is not trusted enough... I never met BU Rob in person but yes the actions of the last months show that there is some kind of agenda. Not for "world domination" ofcourse. :) The problem is that this agenda affects the current consensus between various people and this had clear side-effects. Ofcourse, if Rob goes and closes a BRFA on CHECKWIKI it would be a big red flag. He still has commented in almost(?) all CHECKWIKI related BRFAs and in many cases he was the first one to comment. So I think he is really aware of CHECKWIKI but never really contributed in the project itself. Only in the related BRFAs. Moreover, judging form his current comments in my ArbCom he was not aware of some semi-automated features. Still, I do not demand anyone to be perfect. I am far from being perfect. I only ask for people who would respect various points of view. Rob has proven he won't respect different points of view. He has a strong opinion. The same way I would not agree for admin a strong deletionist nor a strong inclusionist, I would not agree for BAG member a person with such strong opinion on various tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Primefac and SQL. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Enterprisey Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Primefac and SQL Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly means well, but can't tell the difference between a bot and a person. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • He has also been critical to other tasks too. Not just CHECKWIKI. Example, is the recent Dexbot case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole point of the BAG is to be critical of tasks that do not meet the bot policy. If BAG members were completely uncritical, there would be no point of the approval process. To be clear, I'm recusing from CHECKWIKI to avoid the drama I expect would appear via other parties if I did handle such BRFAs, not because I think an opinion that the bot policy should be followed makes me involved. It does not, since enforcing existing policy is an administrative role. ~ Rob13Talk 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great user and has great taste. I know he has the ability to discern good bots from bad ones.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is not something that I'm naturally drawn to (though I am a computer techie of decades-long standing), but I feel I have to offer my support for a clearly competent candidate in the face of what I see as unreasonable opposition. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, support. Honestly, I've had average-to-severe misgivings about Rob's comments and interpretation of community consensus/de facto bot policy in the Magioladitis ARBCOM kerfuffle, and I'd always suspected he'd eventual put himself up for BAG membership sooner or later. Honestly, I'd have no qualms about Rob's candidacy were it not for that ARBCOM case, given that I find him otherwise very reasonable, competent, and otherwise qualified and inline with the community's positions on bot issues. I've had to think long and hard about this candidacy, but what ultimately puts me in the support column is the pre-emptive recusal on CHECKWIKI-related tasks. I also presume, such recusals will also happen (per WP:BAGG, which Rob indicated he's fine with) in cases where past interactions with certain bot ops may compromise neutrality. So based on all that, I think Rob will make a good addition to the BAG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Headbomb: If you were wondering specifically whether I'd recuse with respect to Magioladitis' bot tasks, the answer is an emphatic (and hopefully obvious) yes. I may still comment on tasks I recuse from in my capacity as a normal community member. I would clearly state that I'm not commenting as a BAG member in that case. ~ Rob13Talk 04:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my understanding/expectations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a clueful administrator volunteering to do an important and backlogged task? Yes please. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: TheSandDoctor edit

Earliest closure has started. (refresh)

I was asked to run by SQL over the holidays, but have put it off until now, which seems a good a time as any. I really don't like talking about myself, but here it goes:

I am TheSandDoctor, an en sysop and global renamer who runs three bot accounts:

  • TweetCiteBot (originally TweetBot) is my first bot account. It fixes instances where tweets are cited using {{cite web}} instead of {{cite tweet}}. It has not run in a while, but I plan to run it again once I free up the hard drive space to unpack a database dump
  • DeprecatedFixerBot (DFB) is the bot account with the most edits - over 180,000 - and is used for resolving deprecated parameters and fixing templates in general
  • TheSandBot (TSB) is my newest bot and is most likely the account which all future tasks that do not "fit" under DFB will be filed on

Combined, these accounts have over made over 270,000 edits across 8 BRFAs, with the majority of those being filed within the past 10(ish) months. Outside of bot work I frequent various areas of the project, including WP:AN/C, and help out wherever I can. If the community wills it, I would love to also actively help with Bot Requests and would become an active member of BAG.

I am also a computer science undergraduate and feel that I have the demonstrated competency, temperament, and necessary experience to serve as a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Lastly, as I have seen it asked at at least one previous BAG nomination, I have indeed read Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Guide and am familiar with Wikipedia:Bot policy. Thank you for your time, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

Discussion edit

  • I have now notified the required noticeboards (AN, VPM, WT:BOT, and BON). If anyone would like others notified, please let me know. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy to support the nomination of this editor, who has demonstrated familiarity with bots and the policy. No reason why not to. programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC) @ProgrammingGeek: Error: Unmatched '{'. Unrecoverable syntax error. (100% scanned) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support, Competent bot operator, active, isn't insane, familiar with the bot policy. TheSandDoctor will make a great addition to the team! SQLQuery me! 18:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had thought to ask him myself. Good botop with a good demeanor and is active. Good candidate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I would have nominated them myself by the end of the month if they hadn't done so themselves, so support. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't really see what could go wrong here. — Earwig talk 07:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - High level of clue, technical competence, and bot experience, very professional as an admin, also a very levelheaded, friendly and reasonable person in general. TSD is an asset to the project and will be an asset to BAG.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  01:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - make it so.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we don't make joke opposes anymore. I would (joke) oppose on grounds of "lacks insanity".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • support obviously Hhkohh (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful. WJBscribe (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for Bot Approvals Group membership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Zackmann08 edit


I've requested a number of bots and have noticed that they are slow to get responses. Rather than sitting on the outside complaining that things aren't moving faster, I'd like to roll up my sleeves and dive in. Obviously I know this doesn't mean I can approve my own bots, but at least I will be contributing. I manage ZackBot and have a number of bots that I've written. I'm also a software developer by day so know my way around the programming side. I think I would make a good member of the team. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, questions and concerns! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

Discussion edit

  • Note - This nomination was transcluded at 19:26, December 5, 2018 ([5]), Not November 25th, 2018. SQLQuery me! 05:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Primefac edit

I've been asked a few times in the last couple of months to run for BAG, and it's an area of Wikipedia I feel I can be useful, so... here I am. I have 25 successful bot tasks with User:PrimeBOT, so I'm quite familiar with the BRFA process as well as the technical/regex-ical side of running bots. My other relevant activities on-wiki involve closing TFDs, RFCs, and other discussions, the first of which lately seems to be the subject material of a lot of bot requests (i.e. updating/fixing/changing templates).

In other words, I feel like I have the experience and temperament needed to be a productive member of the team. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • With wide support and having run for the standard duration, this nomination is closed as successful. — xaosflux Talk 04:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

Discussion edit

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Archive&oldid=902131157"