Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Hi! I've tested a few changes, and wanted to propose that we make them permanent:

• I've removed all the transclusions and trials from the BRFA page and replaced them with usages of {{BRFA}}. There is no visual effect, however it means less typing when we move stuff around.
• I'd also like to switch the way we archive old requests: expired, withdrawn, or denied would go to the same place, only using this template, for simplicity. That would work like this:

{{BRFA|Bot Name|Request number|Expired|~~~~~}} {{BRFA|Bot Name|Request number|Withdrawn|~~~~~}} {{BRFA|Bot Name|Request number|Denied|~~~~~}}

• And I'd like to change the way we archive completed requests to use the same template using either Approved or Already Flagged. From there, if necessary, a crat would change the status to Flagged, and it would automatically show the link to the log.

There are no visible changes, instead, it makes clerking easier. Any problems with this? --ST47Talk·Desk 13:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Mucho. I assume that the bot name is still case-sensitive, so the bot doesn't croak? And that /Approved is still its own subpage, so bureaucrats can watch it? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 13:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and yes. :) --ST47Talk·Desk 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I love the new template, but the only problem is that it's too long... I ran a quick regex find/replace to switch the format of the /Approved archive, and quickly hit the pre-expand template limit. So we either have to keep {{botlinks}} around, we need to split up the archives a bit, or we need to reduce the size of {{BRFA}}. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We can subst them once they are flagged? --ST47Talk·Desk 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Clearly not. Subst:ed ParserFunctions != good. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, add <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> to the start of the parserfunctions. Problem=solved. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

... you can't do that. You'd save the template, it would be evaluated with all parameters' default values, and then there would be no more parser functions. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the includeonly bits mean it only substs it when you subst the template. It works great. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to for me. User:Madman bum and angel/Sandbox 3. Since the whole thing's includeonly, if you subst: the ParserFunctions, you get this. And if you remove the containing the subst:s, that sandbox is what you get – the parser doesn't work that way. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have updated the trial template to provide two new options, edits and days. They produce things like the following:

{{BotTrial|edits=50}}

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.

{{BotTrial|days=2}}

Approved for trial (2 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.

I noticed manycases where there were things like Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (50 edits), where people typed it in manually. Hopefully this will work better. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe make the edits/days bit unbolded, like (as you note) is the general way of doing it when done by hand? Daniel 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

{{BotTrial|fuckup_risk=low}}

Approved for trial (don't break anything... oh wait... this is a wiki)

—freak(talk) 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the "fuckup_risk" param, but I don't think anyone would use it. Also, the bolded makes a bit more sense, but i'll change it when I add some more features. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think Freakofnurture was being facetious. But I love it.  ;) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I realised. I have now also added several more, as shown below (all params can be used together):

• Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (Both together, edits and days)
• Approved for trial (userspace only). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (userspace=yes)
• Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (editrate=5)

And a few more. You can see the combinations etc on Template:BAG Admin Tools. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TheFearow was rejected when he applied for membership, I would like instead of trying to ignore the community consensus that TheFearow apply by a standard discussion instead of the trial method. ^∆ 05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If BAG can just decide to reapply the old method whenever, what's the point? Andre (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a strong opposition against TheFearow joining, [1] Please remove TheFearow from the list. ^∆ 06:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If I have done anything wrong as a member of BAG, please point it out. All my actions have been appropriate (I believe), and I have not been objected to (in this period). I see no issues with this current setup, but if a current member of BAG that has been a member before the beginning of the trial believes I should be removed, I will resign and re-apply under the old method. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that TheFearow needs to be removed from the list. He has done a fine job so far, and has helped to quicken the bot approvals rate tremendously over the past couple of days. —METS501 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you, Beta, in regards to any user that was previously rejected for a position then assuming that position and being automatically accepted due to a change in policy. However, I haven't seen any major problems; the only thing that came close was this, and per discussion on IRC, I don't think that will happen again. I think it's been pretty clear that this is a trial and that things may change dramatically, for better or for worse; things like this are just a part of it. I gave my moral support above and I think he still deserves it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Beta, I will resign if you can point out somewhere where I have messed up, and another user (anyone, doesn't have to be BAG) agrees that it was out of line. Unless that happened, I believe I have helped, so I am staying for now. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion above (Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Issue), would people recommend I offically request to join under the "old" system? I'm reasonably confident I would pass, but is this necessary/recommended? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it's awfully soon since the last request, but you have been contributing to BRFAs, so it's up to you. I'd still support, for the record. —METS501 (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I have done a lot of work for BRFA and as a member of BAG, I can't see me getting a huge amount of opposition, but i'm wondering whether I should officially run or stay as a member under the trial. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just wait and see how the trial goes? If more than one person calls for a reconfirmation, then perhaps you should do that. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i'm going to do that. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the CleanupBot BRFA, which I just denied, I have stated the following:

In future, any requests from you should include: source code, exact regex patterns and/or information on the matching algorithms. If using pywikipedia, pywikipedia module names/commands, or a package such as AWB, details on the settings should be given. Any request by you not meeting these criteria can be denied by 'any' user if the information is not presented within an hour of posting the BRFA. It wastes time if you refuse to give any details or even comment giving an idea of the timeframe until such information is available.

I wanted to post here so people notice this, and for any objections/etc to be raised. It was wasting time, and they have posted 4 denied bot requests, each time providing no information and almost always answering none of the questions. Criticisms/comments? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, something had to be done, and that's not bad. Especially since he's moved on to WP:BOTREQ. — madman bum and angel 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It was either that or warning for disruption - except I hate giving warnings or doing anything to cause a block of a good faith user. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Just so you know, Betacommand is a 'special' person insofar that he has old BRFAs that ArbCom invalidated, so he's using '/BetacommandBot Task \d' - this doesn't affect the template negatively. Additionally, both relevant to beta and other users, the standard form: If a user is an established bot operator, it's probably OK to bypass most of that as long as there is ample description: We don't need to know the language, the bot probably has a flag and an established edit rate, and such, the only important part is really {{newbot}}. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the form - it takes seconds to fill out and is a much easier way of seeing the information, especially if it's on another page and/or doesnt give info on certain things like editrate. If they say all the information (or even just a basic summary) on that page, it isn't a huge problem, but it still can be a little annoying. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TheFearow: the form is very quick and things like edit rate and language are crucial. Keep in mind, the language can change for different tasks (for example, I have different tasks coded for my bot in python, C#, and AWB. —METS501 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new rule at the top of the BRFA page, stating that requests that do not use the proper form will be removed or denied? It would make everyone use the form, and almost everyone would follow it, so it wouldn't affect too many BRFA's. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. New users basically always use the template anyway, and it will just seem like we're being a dick to the established users. Should it be mandatory, yes, but mandatory without punishment. —METS501 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I would suggest that you go back and read the MFD where a group of users suggested disbanding the BAG. I think that you will find that such a punitive process is the exact type of thing that concerned many of the delete voters. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems you misunderstood me, I meant that it is removed/denied if they do not use the template, but to state that if they recreate it using the template it can continue. By removing (my preferred option), I meant un-transcluding, or we could just not continue to trial or such without it? I didn't mean punishment, I just meant halting the process until the template is used. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but IMHO I still think it's more trouble than it's worth. —METS501 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The template is useful for documenting bots, but should not be a "requirement" to get the information needed to approve bot operations. We've approved plenty of bots without it before. From a standards approach, it should be encouraged though, but bot operators should not be bitten for not using it. The original purpose of the template was so that the recurring questions that were asked of every request would be pre-answered. I do disagree that User:Betacommand is exempt from something by virtue of being "special", but he is a knowledgable bot operator and deserves some slack based on that. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Halting a bot request, even temporarily, for such a minor issue is just punitive. As long as the request for approval has all the information we need (edit rate requested, programming language, etc.), it's fine. In this case, Betacommand's request did not have that information. — madman bum and angel 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In all the cases I have seen where they have not used the form, several peices of information have not been provided. With the form, it reminds them to fill it all out. I do agree that it should not be halted if they dont use the form but provide all the necessary information on the BRFA, however I have always seen important information missed out when the form is not used. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that nothing's really changed since the MfD, and we need to adapt this idea somehow to improve several factors: speed, community involvement, and bureaucracy. We could probably extend the approvals process to the community - or to administrators, or to other bot operators - as long as there's a check somewhere:

• Keep the pages we have as-is, with a few modifications to reflect the new procedure
• Modify the template for a new request to have, below the discussion section, an approval section, where community members, bot operators, admins, whatever, can give their support for a trial. After at least X votes and Y day(s), if the number of supporting users is Z more than the opposing users (think arbcom case acceptance) then a trial is authorized for a sane amount of time - if it's blatantly obvious, then BAG can authorize a trial before this - and after the trial is done we allow review, and then a second community/administrator/botoperator voting phase for approval to operate. Again, if it's obvious, BAG can speedily approve, or even bypass the trial. Once it's approved, it may begin operating, and it either receives a flag, or BAG decides whether a flag is merited. This proposal pretty much converts BAG into a sort of clerk, however there's also a sanity check on the bureaucracy there insofar that BAG can bypass the voting on stuff like interwiki or CFD bots. Due to this, joining is by election, anyone has suffrage, and an uninvolved BAG member may close. Bottom line: Open the process up, allow community decisions, limit the role of the BAG while still giving a 'sanity check'. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I love the idea, however I believe there are several additions needed, such as a rule forcing bot operators to post to relevant pages (wikiprojects etc) when they put in a BRFA regarding to that. It's one thing we really need. I also believe BAG should be a lot more open - any botop should be able to join if they get a decent amount of support, as then there would not be too much power (only the ability to speedy trial/approve bots, and/or revoke trials/approval where necessary). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ST: I don't like the idea of "voting" on bot approvals. That seems to me to be totally against how we work in this project. Bots need to be approved based on technical merit and usefulness, either with community consensus or - more realistically - the consensus of technical experts who take into account the input of the community. What we have now, in fact. We don't make decisions by voting if they can be made by consensus.

Matt: The only thing stopping the group being more "open" as you calling it is the community. I personally trust the community to decide who is on BAG, and if that means that certain people aren't being appointed then so be it. We could say "lower the bar" but as far as I'm concerned "consensus" should operate here as throughout the rest of our site, and consensus has no bar.

"Forcing" is a strong word, but routinely advertising bot requests in relevant venues would be desirable and tbh I'm surprised that change didn't happen already! --kingboyk 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been considering a little header template for a while, that shows some useful stats about BRFA's, such as count, newest, latest approved (seperate for fully and trial), and a notice about any BAG elections in progress. I'm going to develop one anyway, once I create the basics ill post it here. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Basic template done, what do you think of something like this for publicising BRFA's and BAG's on other pages?

I would (hopefully) place it on the following pages (once its moved to template-space, and if people like the idea):

• WP:BAG
• WP:BRFA
• The other bot-related pages
• WP:BN (if it has a "bots needing flag" indicator)
• WP:VPM
• any more that people want it on.

What do you guys think? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Any chance it can pull in data from the bag bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There would be a bot to do it, however I just put in random data in the meantime. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Second proposal

From my analysis of ST47's message above, I interpret his general concern that there are a lot of fully-qualified people who could and should be more involved with the bot approvals process in a more substantial way. However, they are discouraged by the fact that entry into this "approvals group" is too bureaucratic, which causes the other issues (lack of speed, lack of community involvement). For example, I could ask to join and help out analysing whether a bot should run and if it a) meets the bot policy and b) will enjoy the support of and improve the community. This is what I do every day when I close deletion discussions as an administrator, and block users. However, I would probably be rejected into this "approvals group" if I nominated myself, hence the concern about bureaucracy.

I appreciate why you should regulate who can approve bots - not doing so can lead to bad decisions and possible harm, especially if any new user can join, possibly even a single-purpose sockpuppet of the person requesting a bot to approve it. However, I have no doubt that anyone who displays some technical knowledge in this area (ie. to understand at least the basics of how bots affect and benefit Wikipedia), have some experience on Wikipedia, and do not lack the community's trust (note lacking it: not having proven trust, ie. RfA, but rather not having it disproved), would be a benefit to improving the approvals process. However, with the current setup, they can do nothing really, because they lack the centred 'governing power', so to speak, to actually approve bots.

I could nominate myself to join the BAG right now. What do I have going for me? I have a Toolserver account and am currently developing a number of bots for primarily Wikinews and possibly one for here as well. I am very active on Wikipedia, and enjoy the bare minimum of community trust that someone should to approve bots (in my opinion). However, I would fail in any bid to join the approvals group because I have barely participated in approvals prior. That isn't to say that I couldn't go any worse of a job than those currently in the group. And I wouldn't consider my lack of participation all my own fault - the current structure of the bot approvals process makes it very difficult to prove a persons' worth as an approvals member.

What I propose is this: allow any user which is experienced on Wikipedia and has at least some knowledge of bots on Wikipedia, whether evidenced by contributing to the approvals process before or not, can add their name to the list at WP:BAG. They can then do everything a BAG member can at the moment, and if they do it properly, fantastic, another positive effect on the approvals process. If they screw it up continually, show ineptitude, or have a drastic lack of community trust, then bring the issue up on this page and we can discuss it then. In this kind of situation, being reactive is better than proactive, because the exclusion factor amounts to a negative net effect on this process.

The question you ask: why should you believe/listen to me? What would I know? Well, I encountered a similar problem with clerking, and the best result was to adopt a policy like the above mentioned for both the process and to keep the peace. I fear that if the BAG doesn't change its' ways sooner rather than later, it will end back up at MfD, as has been noted on at least one noticeboard in the last couple of days.

When I was in your position with the clerking issue, my first reaction was to raise my hands in the air and run around screaming. I wasn't the only one. However, as the discussions developed at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive3 and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 6, the arguments put forward to adopt a more open system were fundamentally better than those against change. I see distinct parallels between the clerks and the BAG, and I urge all members of the BAG and the community to comment and discuss any possible options to altering the way approvals for bots are handled. I would prefer to see changes at this level rather than an MfD which causes resistance and heavier disruption. I'm sure we all would prefer that, for that matter.

Daniel 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what I believe BRFA should be. There should be some requirements, such as having contributed to at least 2 BRFA's and having over 200 edits, which are both reasonable and important for someone in trust, but apart from that everything seems good. I would definately support a method like that. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than putting a numerical thing on it, there should be a message saying how you must have at least some substantial experience with Wikipedia as well as understand the bot policy and how BRFA works. Other than that, a simple caution to compliment the common sense idea that "proceed slowly at the start of your time giving assistance to the approvals process", and extend an invitation to new users to possibly join an IRC channel or email/other contact methods to hone their skills in helping out approving bots. But that's just me. Daniel 11:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There should still be some sort of list so random users with no bot knowledge won't approve bots. ~ Wikihermit 14:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, getting your name on this list was the cause for concern. Daniel 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A simple approval process, simply requiring an admin or existing BAG member to say yes, no big process. That would be ideal. It means people with bot knowledge can get in, but people who know nothing about it will likely not get approved. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. If issues do come about, and a user is becoming disruptive whilst on "the list", then we hold a discussion, and consensus will determine what happens. Daniel 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to hear some input from current Group members about the merits of this proposal. Cheers, Daniel 11:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be fine. We'd need to keep the list, and there should be some oversight, at least that you must run a bot and have programming experience, but if we do that I don't see a problem. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would they need programming experience? Often we as programmers see things in one way, and the insight of non-programmers is incredibly useful. They already comment on BRFA's - having them able to do it officially as BAG and/or approve trials/etc would be a benefit. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Programmers know if an automated task is feasible or not (e.g., when it's clearly impossible for a non-human entity to account for all of the human factors it may encounter), when there's potential for an automated task to overstep its bounds (e.g., if regular expressions could be too greedy in some situations, or when there's a logic error in a conditional loop), among other things. They are the most qualified to comment on automated tasks because they are very familiar with the method of automation. I think that what you want non-programmers to do (e.g., commenting on whether a task would benefit the project or not, if there may be interference with other concurrently-running bot tasks, or if another WikiProject may need to comment first, etc.), they already can do by engaging in discussion of BRFAs as has always been promoted. But the final decision on whether a piece of code making edits at superhuman speeds should be unleashed on Wikipedia should be that of those who understand the piece of code. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we still need a list of some sorts, and you need some experience with bots on Wikipedia. Not exactly programming in eight different e-languages, but a solid grounding of bot policy and use on Wikipedia. Plus the generic urge for people to take it slow at the start, etc. Again, more comments appreciated. Daniel 06:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, why not just let any admin be a member of BAG? One would expect all admins to either know of bot policy or know how to look it up. --kingboyk 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea of the proposal... Daniel 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it a trial run then. --kingboyk 14:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

("undenting") Would bot owners just go ahead and add themselves to the list? There needs to be some sort of organization (as in organized, not group). ~ Wikihermit 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does there? I think the analogy to CHU and RFCU clerking is an excellent one, and that's what I, for one, would really like to see. Sure, you can add yourself; just keep in mind that it's an extra responsibility, usually a dull one, and it's not a position of prestige. If you seem inactive, you can be removed; if another BAG member continually has to correct you on procedural or technical details, you're not being useful. If you're disrupting the procedure or apparently not well versed in policy, you can be asked to remove yourself and come back some other time. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Pending no further word against this proposal (and the support for it), I'll reword and deprotect (leave at semi-protection) the BAG page so that this system can be adopted (I'll include cautions about starting off slowly, not approving your own bots, understanding of the bot policy etc.). If you object, please speak up within the next 48 hours so that we can discuss and modify as appropriate. Cheers, Daniel 04:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well hold on, are you proposing that anybody can add themselves to the group or are you proposing extending BAG membership to all admins? They're quite different. Already anybody can comment on bot applications; there has to be somebody with some authority to close the debates. Also, remember, this is actually a bureacrat task that is delegated to BAG; delegating it to all admins is fine, but to everybody? no. I couldn't support that. We may as well just close down bot approvals altogether; at least then there would be no "bureacracy". --kingboyk 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Extending to bot operators with programming experience and BRFA experience, who may add themselves at will to the list, however they can be removed if they don't have experience with bots or if they need to be corrected constantly. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Let's see how it goes. I'll suggest to User:Reedy Boy that he sign up (admin, bot op, AWB dev); if other folks can suggest to some suitable candidates that they sign up too it will give us a more useful test. --kingboyk 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice choice.  :) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the new working on Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group (not mine) is excellent. What does everyone else think? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, but I have a question. What happens if somebody is removed involuntarily? What recourse do they have? --kingboyk 14:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I expect it's much like CHU and RFCU clerking, after which this proposal has been modeled. You don't really have a recourse except to take a break, review bot policy, then return if you'd like. Re-adding your own name immediately would not be useful and would probably be seen as disruptive. It's expected that you'll comply with the more experienced members of the Group, and it not, dispute resolution may be in order. For the record, I've not seen such a dispute occur over clerking. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Righto. I'm happy with that; let the trial commence! --kingboyk 15:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I'm slightly concerned about what could happen with this. Certainly, parallels can be drawn to the clerking procedure, but the community has given the BAG more power than clerks have - that is, the power to approve or reject bot approvals. As it was, nothing (absolutely nothing) stopped a user from commenting on BRFAs for a period of time at their leisure, much like people can comment on AfDs at their leisure. It then came down to the BAG member to approve/reject/order a trial on a bot, using the comments made as a guide. However, there is no doubt that managing (or commenting on) BRFAs is, frankly, mind numbingly boring. Hence someone will comment for a while, and realise that if they were to get onto the BAG, they'd have to do a hell of a lot more of this - ultimately, they decide that they don't want to, and they stop.

That is where the problem lies - a lack of participation. This isn't caused by some sort of perceived bureaucracy - we have far less of that than the ArbComm does, retaining its fairly closed body of clerks (with no nomination system open to become a member) and keeping the willing contributor out. If you look at the text removed in this diff (provided to me by Daniel on IRC in a totally unrelated matter!), you will see a comment which effectively says that some parts of Wikipedia, for various reasons, can't be as open as others. These reasons including there being set procedures to follow and/or a requirement for some sort of expertise. By making BAG a relative "free for all", we remove any and all standards that we can reasonably expect the community to hold us to.

I'm all for increased participation in the BAG, but fear that this format can only cause problems with incorrectly approved bots, ultimately leading to further calls for the dissolution of the BAG (and for the record, threats of MFD can be safely ignored, as it seems, from the deletion attempts on the AMA, that groups cannot be nominated for deletion).

So, I've said that BAG has more powers than clerks. I don't think that anyone could argue on this point, or on the point that an incorrectly approved bot can do a massive deal of harm. Contrary to apparent belief, approving bots isn't as simple as looking at the approval, thinking "that looks good", and making the edits to approve. No - a member of the BAG has to check the background of the user (ie, we don't want to give a user who doesn't meet the minimum edit threshold for using AWB to be given the ability to run an AWB bot); we need to check that the proposal is clearly supported by the community via relevant Wikiprojects; we need to have an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy and of the "unwritten rules", so that we can avoid upsetting people by approving a well meaning, but unwelcome bot. Finally, we need to have the technical skills to pick apart a request. If someone comes to BRFA asking for approval for an anti-vandalism bot using AWB, the alarm bells have to start ringing. This sort of task cannot be done with AWB, so it become clear that the requesting user either hasn't done his research, or is up to no good (both are valid - we've had a couple fo requests from Molag Bal socks). Having an open group, people will use BAG as a stepping stone to adminstratorship, and then leave when they get the shiny new buttons. We don't want that.

OK - I've complained enough now! So what is a workable solution? Well, first off, there needs to be some oversight of prospective members, whether this be a vote or a simple empowerment of someone ('crats? consensus of the BAG?) to remove someone forcibly. As it is, I feel that there is nothing wrong with our current voting system, as long as it is publicised. I say this on every request I see - "please leave messages on the appropriate noticeboards", followed by a long line of alphabet soup indicating the appropriate noticeboards. I also suggest a notice at the top of WP:BRFA. A (perhaps valid) complaint about BAG is that it's cabalish. We need to give the community every opportunity to vote for someone, and that means leaving nominations open for their full course. We don't differentiate between BAG and non-BAG opinion either, which makes us significantly more open that the MedCom. People just need to remember to advertise the fact that a vote is ongoing.

Community trust does need to be proven - not, as has been suggested above, a lack of it. BAG is the, effectively, the ultimate authority on bot approval matters on Wikipedia, having had this role devolved to them by the 'crats. There should be just three absolute requisites for membership of the BAG - community trust, technical expertise and experience around BRFA. The first needs to be proven by a voting period of sorts, and the second and third need confirming by a vote. All three are really quite easy to attain - it is by no means difficult to get onto the BAG, as the current nomination is showing.

So, congratulations if you've read all of that (and if not, please do so - it took me some time to write, so please show me the courtesy :))! That's my position on BAG membership - as for the approvals themselves, I do have another opinion (that a voting section, as seen on other wikis, would be good), but that can be brought up when the discussion swings back that way. Thanks, Martinp23 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I'm going to mull over your argument for a little bit longer, as I do see many valid points in it. But let me just comment for the time being that in regards to your workable solution, it's already been established that consensus of the BAG or a bureaucrat can forcibly remove a member, either because he is disrupting the process or because he is not qualified. This sets us apart from CHU and RFCU clerks; we do have a specialized body, and we're taking that into account in this proposal. I've been under no impression that bot approval is easy, and I assumed that many of the tasks you specified above were executed by the BRFA. Perhaps, though, we should make it clear to new members what exactly they're signing on to do? Iron out that procedure a bit? Just a couple thoughts.  :) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't actually have any way to remove users. Betacommand was only removed after a load of argument on this page, and there is no procedure set up - that was all a very informal affair, and relied heavily on the ArbComm ruling. I think that it would be better, in any case, to avoid the situation in which we may need to remove a user in the first place. Comments will always come in that any sort of voting process is broken (*points to RfA*), generally after a number of (high profile?) failures. Then, there'll be a load of successful nominations and we'll think "hey - all that argument about changes was pointless!". It's never-ending cycle ;) Martinp23 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand was removed prior to the ArbCom decision. --kingboyk 12:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were commenting on the reform proposal, which does indeed provide that users may be removed. Perhaps you should see the notice at the top of WP:BAG, which ST47 posted, and represents the implementation of the proposal in a nutshell, as far as I can see. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 18:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the BAG page, "Users who are not qualified or who consistently need to be corrected may be removed at any time by consensus of existing members or any bureaucrat". Does that address your concern? Basically, either the BAG discuss a person here and if the consensus is to remove, that user is removed. If a bureaucrat removes them, that's fine, we gave them the keys because we trust them. Daniel 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some oversight prior to joining. The community has vested its faith in us to handle bot requests properly - the least we can do is make sure that competent people are doing the job. Martinp23 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal

Some discussion on IRC went into and around this:

1. The lead (or second) paragraph of WP:BAG notes what we expect of members: "To join the BAG, you should have a knowledge of bot policy, a technical knowledge of how bots work, the trust of the community and, most importantly, a few weeks experience in participating in BRFAs as a commentator.
2. It notes that requests can be made on the talk page. They will be considered for a week, and should no significant opposition be raised by the community, the user will be added to the list.
3. Those requesting membership need to link to their request at WT:BRFA and WP:BOWN.
4. It is emphasised that we need people to comment on BRFAs far more than we need members of BAG.
5. The obligations of being part of BAG are made clear

I hope that this covers all the bases. If you read my lengthy statement above, you will see the flaws in the current proposal, the main part being that BAG != clerking. Open membership looks good on paper, but if you delve more deeply, you see how exploitable it is. Molag Bal had an obsession with getting a bot flag, and under the open system, it would be too easy for an opportunistic vandal like him to get a bot flag and cause chaos. Martinp23 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal fully, per our extensive discussion on IRC. I do agree that the BAG is not a group of "clerks", and there needs to be some sort of a "waiting list"/approvals process. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. —METS501 (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is better than my proposals upon reviewing the entire discussion. Daniel→♦ 08:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support as well. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel expressed a valid concern to me on IRC just after I had gone offline very early this morning. That is - people may be driven away by frivolous opposes. I think we can all share that concern, perhaps just by looking at some of the reasons for opposition on RFAs. Hence, I'd suggest that "should no significant, relevant, opposition be raised..." be the phrase used. Hence, we can ignore the opposition based on the time, 6 months ago, when the user violated WP:CIVIL, but we can pay attention to the opposition which states that the user doesn't run any bots and has recently failed an RfA to 0/20/3. It's hard to define "relevant", but I think it can really come under WP:COMMONSENSE. Martinp23 12:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; in the end, it's at the discretion of the BAG, and the BAG knows what to look for and what doesn't matter. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Will there be any objections to me bringing in this new proposal imminently? Continuing the current trial seems to be an exercise in futility. Martinp23 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that community consensus currently does not exist to support the trial, and tend to agree with Martin in that we could be wasting our time. However, it would be good to possibly emphasise the fact that being nominated to the group is not like RfA, and certain votes which don't affect capabilities to function within the approvals process can and will be totally ignored. Daniel→♦ 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I think this is ridiculous. How long has the trial been running? Like threefive days? How is it an exercise in futility? Andre (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, some don't want to see this change go ahead under any conditions, and as such they would consider it a waste of time. Of course, under the principle of negotation, compromise and discussion that both myself, you and Martin should all value (and everyone else, also), such an attitude will not benefit to resolving any "dispute" (I use the word in lieu of a better one, and because such wording has been chiseled into my mind when dealing with mediation issues) amicably. I would prefer to see further discussion on the issue, however, especially before reverting, however we will be wasting our time if those who don't want to change "dig in", so to speak. Lets hope that this isn't the case. Daniel→♦ 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been discussing this whole situation with Andrevan privately, and it seems the following (with slight modifications) is "workable" for both of us:-

"If the nomination process is more transparent, if the community is invited to participate more strongly, if votes which are rubbish are discounted and BAG members are given no more weight in voting than others, and if b'crats were empowered to judge community consensus, it may be better. It's the same principle that applies to administrators - we trust these people to do tasks because if anyone could do it there would be massive problems."

However, I do think that maybe leaving the trial period going a little longer wouldn't be too disruptive or harmful. Daniel→♦ 06:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the combined proposal is what Ive been pushing for with BAG Noms, and BRFA's in general. when joining BAG we use common sense with what kind of comments are keepable and what should be ignored as BS. Also Its been the status to have a bcrat close. ^∆ 06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What Daniel says is "workable," but I have a big problem with abandoning the open system trial at this stage. To quote myself from a different venue, One admin can cause damage, but one BAG member really can't do anything at all. I can't even conceive of a scenario in which a member of BAG could create a problem. Molag Bal? Do you really think that all the BAG members wouldn't notice if he just joined and started approving bots? There is no way an open BAG could inadvertently produce a flagged vandalbot. Andre (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how we can treat BAG as anything other than a WikiProject or a clerking operation, with the current level of community support. To have what is essentially a position comparable to bureaucrats with the ability to "approve" bots doesn't seem to be in the community mandate. Andre (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"There is no way an open BAG could inadvertently produce a flagged vandalbot" – You're clearly more optimistic than I am, but that's probably a good thing. OK, so here're a couple questions. How can the nomination process be more transparent? It's on the talk page of the membership list and notices are posted on BOWN, BRFA, and the Village Pump. What more do we have to do to make it clear that anyone can contribute? No matter what we do, the nomination process won't be given the same weight as, say, RFAs, which is probably a good thing.

What votes are rubbish and should be struck? Votes of Anons/SPAs/vandals? Certainly. Votes of those who don't understand the position? They're good faith votes; who has the right to strike them and should?

Does anyone have any proof that BAG members' !votes are given extra weight? It seems to me that's like the assertation of the administrator and contributor alleging that bureaucrats in RFAs only look at the bot-generated vote table. Perhaps the community takes more notice of members' !votes, and it influences their own. But why not? Current members know what the job entails. Are you suggesting that the closing bureaucrat would ignore community consensus in favor of the current BAG members? I think not, but then, I'm not a bureaucrat.

You are, as of late, and you suggest that bureaucrats be empowered to judge community consensus. They always have been, but grudgingly; they do have enough to do, even I can see that, and the last time we asked a bureaucrat to close a nomination here, it brought about complaints about our process and talk about another MfD (whether that would work or not is not the issue.) Do you think this will solve the problem? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, I think you're responding more to Daniel than to me. I prefer the current "open" system. However, I do feel that the "old" system has a lot of work to go to be truly transparent and open to nominations. It shouldn't just permit anyone to join, provided they go down unlit stairs to the cellar to find a washroom that has a sign declaring "Beware the Leopard." The Wiki way is to actively encourage participation, no offer it if you're willing to jump through enough hoops. The way the system operates in the "old" way, it has no criteria and no legitimacy. Andre (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a small thing on a matter I know very well - it would be shockingly easy for Molag Bal to get a flagged bot under the current system. Readers may not be aware, but Molag has a history of using both good and bad accounts in tandem. Therefore, a young whippersnapper like Retiono Virginian (a good editor) could put himself in the group and be the "deciding vote" in giving bot approval to a bot requested by one of his socks. And no, none of us would notice - no one did when he nominated himself for adminship (and if any readers know of anyone who can spot a Molag Bal sock at 50 paces, you are invited to apply for a job at the Wikipedian league for prevention of Molag Bals (£50 joining fee applies, payable to me ;-))). Martinp23 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If Molag Bal is so good at using good and bad accounts in tandem, he could just forget the bad accounts and make a few good accounts. If they're as hard to spot as you say, what's to stop him from just joining BAG the "old" way several times over? Or, proposing a bot (which anyone can do, correct?) and having it seem like a good faith bot until it works? There's nothing about the "old" system that safeguards this. All it does is keep the BAG small and insular, so editors have trouble joining in general. That's not an acceptable solution. Andre (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Because he has absolutely no idea about how to code, which becomes obvious when he proposes an AWB anti-vandalism bot, or something equally stupid. We don't approve such bots. For membership to the BAG in the "old" system, people look for experience running a bot and/or programming ability, posing a significant hurdle to Molag Bal. In the "open" system however, he can probably slip in quite unnoticed, with no one paying too much attention and with the group in a near constant state of limbo, its body of members changing daily. Then, he'll be able to give that supporting voice for his sockpuppet's request. I'm sorry if I'm using a somewhat esoteric example (that of Molag Bal), but I'll hope that you can appreciate the point I'm making. As for how I know all this about Molag Bal - I've been dealing with him since I became an admin in November last year, and have been in some email conversation with him. Martinp23 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's just this one guy who doesn't know how to code. Learning about bots is easy -- a Molag Bal+ could just learn a bit and he'd be in even with the "old" system. I think what you propose is unrealistic. Andre (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone who is already a member of BAG would watch new users, and if they did any approvals out-of-process etc, they would be asked to follow process. It would still be obvious. And they would still have to do more good than bad, which worsens the effect of any damage. A flagged vandalbot would be bad, but it would not be too difficult to revert. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

I've had a look through WP:BAG and WP:BRFA now, having returned from my holiday. What I saw does not amuse me. Of the several editors who have joined under the open scheme, only a tiny proportion (<1/2, iirc) have any significant edits to BRFAs. I was tempted to take a pair of hedge-trimmers to the list, but then remembered about this proposal.

For those who have been active members of BAG through this trial period, I can't see why you won't be able to get on under this system, especially as you have "work experience" under your belt to point at and be proud of. For others: this shouldn't pose any significant barrier to you joining, and will in fact enrich your experience (!) by letting you know whether you'd enjoy working on BAG, and giving you a chance to get into a routine of making sustained contributions to BRFAs. A problem I've noted while looking at WP:BAG is that people have signed up thinking "I might comment, one day" - we don't want that, and giving them a week of time being "watched" prior to joining will make these people think twice.

Please raise any objections/ideas regarding this proposition - I propose bringing it in to force fairly soon (tomorrow?) if no one has major problems. Martinp23 22:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems. This seems to have encouraged some of our editors who would be good BAGgers to contribute to BRFAs, which in turn gains them easy acceptance to the BAG. — madman bum and angel 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just an advisiory, I've changed the configuration of my interwiki bot to use the account User:STBot rather than User:STBotD. Both accounts are flagged, and I've made a note on the original request and userpages. This change is due to my use of STBot on other wikis and the upcoming SUL change. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, to assist in BAG tasks, I have created a user script.

To install it, simply add the line:

importScript("User:TheFearow/baghelper.js");

to the bottom of your monobook.js file. Then, perform a hard reload. It adds the following tabs on BRFA pages:

• BAG Trial (prompts for the extra template params, and replies with a bottrial tag)
• BAG Speedy (replies with a botspeedy tag)
• BAG Approve (replies with a botapproved tag)
• BAG Denied (replies with a botdenied tag)
• BAG Archive (archives the request, prompts for result which is either Speedy, Approved, Denied, Withdrawn, Expired, etc)

Speedy, approve, and deny do not reload, as you are supposed to archive right after. On both archive and trial, the page is reloaded after completion. Progess is shown in the contentSub, right below the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", which is right below the title. Lastly, please do not just copy across the content, as I may be updating etc the script with bug patches/more features. Enjoy! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added an Expired and a Withdrawn template to it. I am considering adding one that adds the {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} and a custom message. Does anyone like the idea? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty good idea. Cbrown1023 talk 01:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked a bot as requested on WP:BOWN, this appears to be an issue that is going to get way past BAG, please see the discussion there. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that this template has an editrate parameter. According to the bot policy:

“

3. Unflagged bots (including bots in trial periods) should limit edits to no more than 2 per minute. After being approved and receiving a bot flag, this can be increased . . . Ideally, bots should be run at a rate that permits human editors to review the bot's edits if the need arises.

”

I take this to mean that even already flagged bots should still run tasks that have been approved for trial only at two edits per minute, so that the operator and the BAG can monitor its operation, and so if there are any problems spotted by a sysop, the bot can be terminated/blocked and the edits reverted. Now, I know that this edit rate restriction isn't always observed in practice. But I don't think we should encourage higher edit rates as a matter of "template" routine. Thoughts? — madman bum and angel 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're exactly right. The idea is that, during a trial, the botop manually approves and checks each edit, and is on hand to stop the bot immediately should problems arise. The 2 epm should be a restriction noted for all unflagged bots, by virtue of them not having a flag - I think the line is blurred somewhat for existing botops, but they should still be encouraged to use a low edit rate, and be reminded that they're expected to check all the edits. Martinp23 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Parameter removed. ~ Wikihermit 22:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)