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

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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

• 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• 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. SQL^{Query 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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]