Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 118: Line 118:
::[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] I am planning an RrC for wider issues to he honest based on the various opinions expressed. I think the ideal is that we create procedures that will reduce any editors conflicts. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
::[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] I am planning an RrC for wider issues to he honest based on the various opinions expressed. I think the ideal is that we create procedures that will reduce any editors conflicts. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
:{{ec|2}} I want to be very clear. The bot policy requires BAG members to approve bots, and BAG members alone (see [[WP:BOTAPPROVAL]]). Any bot not approved by the BAG through the normal BRFA process is an unauthorized bot and subject to blocking. In the absence of a very clear consensus to change [[WP:BOTPOL]] (which is policy, so would require overwhelming consensus to change), non-BAG administrators may not close a BRFA. I hope to have a solution to this very soon (new BAG members). We should recognize that an operator pushing away every BAG member who tries to help them is ultimately the fault of the operator, though, and it's possible the BAG may not always be able to accommodate operators who create an environment in which no BAG member remains uninvolved or wishes to process their BRFA. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
:{{ec|2}} I want to be very clear. The bot policy requires BAG members to approve bots, and BAG members alone (see [[WP:BOTAPPROVAL]]). Any bot not approved by the BAG through the normal BRFA process is an unauthorized bot and subject to blocking. In the absence of a very clear consensus to change [[WP:BOTPOL]] (which is policy, so would require overwhelming consensus to change), non-BAG administrators may not close a BRFA. I hope to have a solution to this very soon (new BAG members). We should recognize that an operator pushing away every BAG member who tries to help them is ultimately the fault of the operator, though, and it's possible the BAG may not always be able to accommodate operators who create an environment in which no BAG member remains uninvolved or wishes to process their BRFA. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
::Making the prodecures crystal clear, will prevent any bad intepretations especially if we, at some hypothetical point, have BAG members who are in fact against bot editing. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 20:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:51, 7 July 2017

Requests for BAG membership

See also: Previous nominations

Requests to join the Bot Approvals Group are currently made here, although other methods have been proposed. Users wishing to join BAG, or to nominate another user to become a member, should start a new nomination page via the form below (replacing "UserName" with the nominee's) and transclude the discussion in a section below. Please note that notification to WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON is required. After a suitable length of time (usually one week unless the nomination has not received a reasonable level of support), the discussion will be closed by a bureaucrat.

BAG Nomination: BU Rob13

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

  • 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

  • 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.

Other discussion

BAG member list casing

Hi all, we are in a very silly edit war about the capitalization on this header. I REALLY DONT CARE what it is, so long as it does not break User:AnomieBOT's task; thus the prior revert done by Primefac. Anomie, can you verify that your bot will be happy with a change in case? — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it this morning when I saw the bot's complaint on its talk page before your revert, it now accepts both upper and lower case 'L' for that header. I'd have fixed it last time if it hadn't already been reverted by the time I saw it. Anomie⚔ 16:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely belongs on WP:LAME. Edit-warring to enforce the MOS in project space? That's a doozy. ~ Rob13Talk 16:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, now that it is happy I've changed it back to the baby L. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong advice given by BAG member

Just FYIRecently BU Rob13 adivced me to use {{bots}} in page that a bot clogs. {{nobots}} should be used temporarily till the issue is fixed and the bot in question had no aapproval to run oustide mainspace. Template documentation reads:

  • avoid using the template as a blunt instrument
  • Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community

Please be careful next time. See User_talk:Primefac#Bot_should_not_remove_from_these_lists (Also note thatit turns PrimBOT has no talk page). -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason in posting this here? I can only think of one, and it's not a good one, so I'm hoping I'm wrong. Anomie⚔ 12:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I share Anomie's concerns here. Also, we need diffs if you want us to give an opinion here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at all of Rob's recent contributions (last 2 days), and cannot find any mention of {{nobots}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about User talk:Primefac#Bot should not remove from these lists, I can't say I see any issue with Rob's comments and I dispute your summary of "in a page that a bot clogs". It was a suggestion to stop the bot from editing a page it shouldn't have, based on the available evidence at the time. When it became clear the issue was more widespread, Rob wrote "Restricting to article space is probably a good idea, Primefac. The initial BRFA linked to a search restricted to mainspace when estimating number of pages affected. Easy change in AWB." What exactly is it you hope to accomplish here Magioladitis? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, Anomie is the diff. It's not a big problem since it was settle. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why bring it here? Stop wasting our time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did not have to reply. It's a heads up in order to avoid biting newcomers. Recall that mistakes led people to leave Wikipedia and stop contributing to world knowledge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a mistake. You identified a single page in which the bot should not edit. You did not, at the time, provide any information leading me (or the bot operator) to believe the issue was affecting more than one page. As soon as you did, I encouraged the bot operator to fix the issue. This is part of an ongoing campaign of harassment, full stop. ~ Rob13Talk 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right forum to bot operators unpermissioned?

Resolved
 – This is not the right forum, and the OP is aware of this. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right forum to bot operators unpermissioned? If not, could you redirect me? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes Goodyear: I'm not exactly what you are asking, this is about the Bot Approvals Group - for more general bot/operator discussions please see Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. — xaosflux Talk 21:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Hobbes is concerned about the edit summary used by Magic links bot, claiming it isn't clear what it's doing. Everyone else (see here) seems to think the edit summary is fine. Hobbes is looking for someone to remove the permission granted by BAG to operate the bot because he doesn't like the edit summary. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe, I was thinking that might be the case, but xoasflux is right that BOTN is the proper location for that request. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Nihonjoe: thanks for the note, BON is the place to ask for bot authorization reviews if needed - pretty drastic for an edit summary - but that is the venue if really warranted and at an impasse with the operator. — xaosflux Talk 21:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: In this case, it seems to be more of an impasse with the concerned person as everyone else in the discussion (including me, so perhaps I'm biased) seems to think the edit summary is acceptable. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JYI, There was one more person who complained(?) about the task in different place. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Concern about Magic links bot as a courtesy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should admins also be able to close BRFAs under certain circumstances?

I wonder if admins should also be able to close BRFAs under certain circumstances. Anu thoughts? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why and under what circumstances? –xenotalk 11:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I'd guess this is related to WP:ANI#User:Magioladitis high speed editing and Yobot 54's BRFA that has not yet been approved for trialing (nor has it been denied). I don't think that the entire pool of BAG members has been exhausted - but it has been stagnant. — xaosflux Talk 12:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note (and I'm genuinely indifferent to whether 54 gets approved) Category:Pages using ISBN magic links only has 24k pages left. If it takes more than a couple of days to approve, MLB and PrimeBot will probably finish the "bulk" aspect of this task over the weekend (leaving maybe a few hundred to fix manually/semi auto). Primefac (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a thought towards the original question - if a BRFA is simple/straightforward/easy/etc, BAG would have no problems approving it. If it requires thought, discussion, back-and-forth, etc, BAG probably does need to close it, but if we hit something like 54 where there isn't any consensus, I think it would have to go to AN in order to get a consensus. Of course, this also means wikilawyering and unnecessary back-and-forth between admins who have opinions but maybe not the technical or policy knowledge required have an informed opinion. While I can appreciate the original question, I have a funny feeling it would just lead to more drama than it's worth. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
54 does have consensus. There is some hubbub over whether it should run with genfixes, but there's no policy-based reason to prevent that, so I don't see any BAG member denying it. The problem here is rather unique. A large number of BAG members are involved due to behavioral issues that have required our attention. Many remaining BAG members don't want to be drawn into the drama and issues circling around all this lately. I don't agree with random admins being recruited to handle the process because they haven't been vetted by the community as technically competent and likely don't know the bot policy as well as BAG members. Perhaps we could recruit a new editor or two to BAG? I had hoped my nomination (and call to action within the nomination) would encourage some more people to apply, but that hasn't happened yet. Cyberpower678 is uninvolved, obviously competent, and knows the bot policy. I wonder if he would be interested. Would anyone object to him handling Magioladitis' BRFAs? He closed a topic ban discussion on Magio recently but that was a purely administrative action after a clear consensus emerged. ~ Rob13Talk 13:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't I need to be a BAG member first. I would run, but I'm not sure if I would pass.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto that. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the first to give a straight up no on this. This is strictly within the realm of the BAG, and not within the mandate of admins. In exceptional circumstances I'd accept closure from a bureaucrat, but certainly not admins. The problems of Yobot 54 are rather unique, and intimately tied to operator behavior, and topic bans that have passed, and topic bans that may or may not come to pass. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was recommending Cyberpower678 run for BAG (if I can pass, you sure as hell can), not just willy-nilly handle the BRFA. Primefac You should run for BAG too, but I'd rather you not handle the BRFA in question because you run another magic links bot. No need to invite drama where none should be. ~ Rob13Talk 17:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll run, but I'm not sure if I'll pass. I certainly feel I could do the job though.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: It's up to you; I don't want you to feel pressured. But I'm fairly sure you would pass. You've taken on some of the most ambitious bot tasks I've seen and had some complaints (as is normal), but you've been successful. You know the bot policy. I can't see current BAG members opposing your nomination, especially given the unique issues of a lack of technically inclined non-involved/non-dramaphobic editors who could handle the Yobot BRFAs. ~ Rob13Talk 17:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate me. ;-) It would be "Cyberpower678 3". I guess it couldn't hurt considering my last run was 3.5 years ago. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The newest BAG member probably shouldn't nominate; I'll leave it to someone more experienced who's willing to do it (or a self-nom is always fine for BAG). ~ Rob13Talk 18:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: Headbomb as a BAG member stalls the procedure of approving a proper BRFA due to "behavioural problems". This is an example of how BAG members may interpret consensus about a given task. The same problem was spotted when policy discussion downgrded to discussion about behaviour of the person who initiated a discussion. I think since BRFAs reflect consesus, at least for alreadt approved bots, any admin can jump in and save the day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approving bots is in the mandate of WP:BAG, flagging them is in the mandate of WP:CRATS. WP:ADMINS has only one mention of bots, and it's "Only one account of a given person may have administrative tools. The only exceptions are bots with administrative access. See WP:ADMINSOCK." WP:BOTAPPROVAL makes no mentions of admins, but rather, and I quote [emphasis mine],
"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. Occasionally, the operator may wish to withdraw the task or the BAG may mark a stale request as expired. Closed requests are archived and preserved for future reference. Should the task be approved, the "bot" user group flag will be assigned by any bureaucrat and the operator may run the bot as intended."
Again, this is BAG stuff, not admin stuff. One may certainly suggest/create an RFC on the topic to give admins the authority to approve bots, but until that is done, bot approval rights are exclusive to BAG. And before your create such an RFC, I'll tell you straight up there is zero desire in the community to grant admins bot approvals rights, and that such an RFC would WP:SNOWCLOSE as a waste of time, and that many would interpret this as a backdoor attempt to regain bot approvals rights. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb I am planning an RrC for wider issues to he honest based on the various opinions expressed. I think the ideal is that we create procedures that will reduce any editors conflicts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) I want to be very clear. The bot policy requires BAG members to approve bots, and BAG members alone (see WP:BOTAPPROVAL). Any bot not approved by the BAG through the normal BRFA process is an unauthorized bot and subject to blocking. In the absence of a very clear consensus to change WP:BOTPOL (which is policy, so would require overwhelming consensus to change), non-BAG administrators may not close a BRFA. I hope to have a solution to this very soon (new BAG members). We should recognize that an operator pushing away every BAG member who tries to help them is ultimately the fault of the operator, though, and it's possible the BAG may not always be able to accommodate operators who create an environment in which no BAG member remains uninvolved or wishes to process their BRFA. ~ Rob13Talk 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making the prodecures crystal clear, will prevent any bad intepretations especially if we, at some hypothetical point, have BAG members who are in fact against bot editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group&diff=789517661&oldid=789516863

Leave a Reply