Josh Parris seems a candidate for inactive (last edit July) as does Snowolf, (no edits for a while no BRFA edits for along time), ST47 (who seems to have turned into a bot then vanished by his edit history), Tim1357 seems flat out looking after Dashbot and doing mass edits. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Sounds like a good assessment. Someone should change the chart. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Looks pretty good, not so sure about Tim though, last BAG actions seem to have been just over a month ago, which isn't much in BAG terms ;). And he's still pretty active in other bot-related activities, as well as just being on-wiki. But Jake could maybe be moved to inactive as well? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that, Tim can move himself back, of cou7rse, as can any BAGGER. Rich Farmbrough, 10:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Moved to WP:BON. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

As some of you know, I am developing a bot platform and I will soon be running tests so I have created an account, PalletBot. To avoid confusion I have put in a usurpation request, to change the username from PalletBot to Pallet (have a look at the request to see my reasons). Xeno has wisely pointed out with this change the bot platform may not received approval from BAG. To avoid another usurpation request if that is the case I like to check with BAG now if this will be a problem when the platform comes up for approval? Thanks. d'oh! _talk 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It would benefit the community if the username had an indication that this is an automated editor; "Bot" being the most recognisable. As pointed out in usurpation request, Pellet can be easily mistaken for any human editor, having "Bot" in name — should not. Most other tools already follow this or equally viable naming convention. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The edits are still automated, regardless of whether it is a bot or a framework and some indication of this needs to be given in the username – even if it is clear from the edit summary. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points, I will drop the usurpation request. My original idea was to use the editor's user (or bot) account, but there is a problem, Pallet will need to know the account's password which is a big no-no. Plus somehow the creator must hand over the username and password and since Pallet is control on Wikipedia, everyone will know the password. A webpage could be setup away from Wikipedia, but the username and password will still need to be collected. Does anyone have any ideas to use the editor's user (or bot) account over PalletBot, are there any bots already doing this? d'oh! _talk 05:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that each user using the framework would be editing from the PalletBot account? I don't think that's a particularly good idea. Generally we would never allow users to share accounts (WP:ROLE) although bots are an exception to this (Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Bots_operated_by_multiple_users). However, If you're having lots of users use that account, it's going to lead to problems (trying to check the contribs, for example, and if one task messes up then all of them have to be stopped). Of course, I might be completely missing what you're saying here. However, I would suggest simply using the editor's bot account (and request a password). If you public the source code then they can check themselves that you're not doing anything suspicious with the password. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are on the money, editing with just the PalletBot account was plan b. To overcome the issues you mention, a log was going to be create for each bot to show only its contribs and I just hope an admin didn't block the account instead stop the bot via a command when there a problem. d'oh! _talk 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to more clearly define what it is that you're trying to do here. Based on WP:BON#Idea, it sounded like you were going to create a system where non-skilled users could request simple tasks be done by one bot. Now it seems like you're trying to create a bot platform, or something ... I'm not exactly sure, it doesn't sound like you're doing it right though.

• If you're creating a platform for people to make their own bots, people should just download the platform themselves and run it on their own.
• If you want to create a bot that people can request tasks be run on, people shouldn't need to know the actual password. You would just have a request page with some sort of access control/approval system to ensure that only trusted users could add tasks.

-- Mr.Z-man 06:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not a framework you don't download and use it, instead think of it more like the Toolserver. When completed, anyone can create a bot then submit it for approval when a discussion is started to create a consensus on running the bot (like a BRFA), the platform will provide some debugging info (and now ask for a password via a page off Wikipedia) in the discussion. When there is a consensus, a trusted editor (or admin) will approve it, the platform will come along, pickup the bot and run it. There is not set tasks this platform will do, in theory you should be able to recreate all current bots in the platform, since to write a bot on the platform you use a scripting language. So in theory the editor doesn't need a server, knowledge of MediaAPI or even leave Wikipedia to create and run a bot. I know the idea has changed a lot from the original idea, but I can't walk pass good ideas. d'oh! _talk 07:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand why its asking for a password. Mr.Z-man 14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Like AWB, the user's bot account will be used to do the edits to Wikipedia. the platform needs to login with the username and password of the account (via the MediaWiki APIs) to edit Wikipedia. Actually as Ganeshk pointed out[1] think of the platform as a online version of AWB. d'oh! _talk 14:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That really doesn't sound like a good idea. If its a centralized system, it should really be making the edits on its own account(s). Asking other users for their password is generally frowned upon - on the toolserver its explicitly forbidden. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlike toolserver the platform will be editing Wikipedia, of cause asking other users for their password is frowned upon, but so is allowing a lot of editors to edit from one account. Since bots need a account to run, those are the only options and the platform will only need editor's bot account login details, I think the first option is the better option. This will also allow administrators to block the bot account when the bot is doing something is not allow to, while not killing other bots running on the platform. d'oh! _talk 04:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's some sort of access control, allowing people to submit tasks to one account is preferable to having people give their login credentials IMO. The blocking issue can be minimized by distributing the work to multiple accounts and/or creating some method for an admin to stop a specific task. There are Toolserver tools that edit Wikipedia in response to user input, see Citation bot for example. And there are other single-task bots that edit in response to actions by users, like User:Cydebot and User:CommonsDelinker. Mr.Z-man 04:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But the bots you listed is one task only bots, the platform is not doing just one task each bot created on the platform is going to do a different task which is why using different accounts for each bot is important to make it clear who created and has ownership of the bot. The platform instead of asking for login details, could create a new account for each bot, but that bring up more problems. d'oh! _talk 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that as a huge difference here. You can still clearly separate who is in charge of what task by using edit summaries. As for creating a new account for each bot, isn't that essentially what you're doing by having the user create an account and giving you the password, just a little more direct? Mr.Z-man 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same idea but its no longer asking editors for their password. I no longer see using one account is possible since its goes against the bot policy, since the bots will not be doing the same or close to the same edits, for example one could be adding categories to articles, while another could be reverting vandalism. The idea has changed a lot from the WP:BON, you can see the idea developing here. The code has changed a lot from the WP:BON example, it now look like this:

#pages = articles.category('Computer jargon').limit(10);

foreach (#pages as #page) {
  delete #page.categories.search('Computer jargon');
}

The bots function can be quickly change from a few minor changes in the code, plus new functions can be easily written into the bot by the bot's creator, using regular expression or just editing the page contents directly:

#pages = articles.category("Computer jargon");

foreach (#pages as #page) {
  #page.content = ' ... ';
}

As the language and platform develops, the bots can become more and more complex bots:

object item {
  
  method doSomethingCool ( #something ) {
    
    ... do something to #something ...
    
    return self.doSomethingCoolToo(#something);
    
  }
  
  method doSomethingCoolToo ( #something ) {
    
    ... do something to #something ...
    
    return #something;
    
  }
  
}

#pages = articles.category("Jargon");

foreach (#pages as #page) {
  
  #website = website.url('http://example.com/' + #page.title);
  
  #result = object.doSomethingCool(#website.content);
  
  #page.content = #result;
  
}

-- d'oh! _talk 15:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the option of the platform creating accounts is not possible as the API hasn't been implemented, even though I thought it was. So its back to asking editor for their bot account login details. d'oh! _talk 13:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AusTerrapinBotEdits. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35 has been waiting for a reply of someone from the BAG for a few days now. The bot operator has lowered his requested trial run size to the barest minimum ;-), and there is not much else he can do now but wait for a reply or further discussion... Fram (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom has asked for BAG input. If no action is taken on this, it will put BAG in an awkward position with regard to the open BRFAs. Gigs (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Noting yet again that I am recused in this matter. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this would be an appropriate venue to ask for more input for the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rich_Farmbrough_2, since it really needs a good understanding of the practicalities of operating bots to move the discussion forward. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I read there, some assert that Rich has excessive trouble in preventing his bot from making edits contrary to community consensus, whether that be applying AWB's general fixes without making any substantive edits, not making large-scale or hard-to-reverse edits (e.g. template capitalization, category deletions) Rich himself feels are necessary but that do not have consensus or have not even been discussed with the community, avoiding the recurrence of previously-fixed issues, or making bot edits only from his bot account and not from his main account. It seems there is also concern that WP:BOTPOL#Good communication is not being followed. Rich, of course, denies all this, claims the incidents are isolated rather than part of a continuing situation, or attributes the complaints to a handful of malcontents. Has anyone compiled all the evidence in one place?

This all reminds me of the mess related to Betacommand a while back: a user doing what some consider to be indispensable work but doing it in a way that seems to cause a great deal of controversy. OTOH, there are certainly dissimilarities. The controversy here mainly affects established editors where Betacommand's involved much biting of newbies, but at the same time the task is both less necessary (although perhaps not less desired), less subjective, and is much more amenable to others doing it. I think perhaps the question to the community should be "If there are others willing to take over this task, do you support Rich Farmbrough being the one to continue to do it or would it be better taken over by one or more of those others?" and the question to the bot operators "Is someone willing to take over this task?". Regarding the maintenance tag dating in particular, the latter question has already been asked at WP:BOTREQ#Undated Articles. Anomie⚔ 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As a general principle, I don't think we should be more lax in enforcing policies just because someone has made a lot of constructive contributions. Gigs (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, but unfortunately WP:NVC is untrue in practice. Anomie⚔ 04:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the wrong place but whatever, I am sure some kind soul will fix that for me :-)

One of the standard responses in WP:OTRS is to point people to WP:RA. That is pretty much a complete waste of time. It would be really good if a botmaster could code a bot to remove all bluelinked items from the requested lists, date all new entries, and archive entries not addressed after, say three months. Most of them are garage bands or near equivalents in notability, nobody ever bothers to decline them. Guy (Help!) 01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ive actually been working on something like that myself, and could get the ball rolling on that fairly quickly if we could get the WP:RA regulars to agree. By the way the proper place to request this is the third door on your left, WP:BOTREQ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I will leave it in your capable hands, I am sure you can do the needful. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear all. It seems that this year it is my turn to run the WP:CUP update bot, a task that I have just filed a BRFA for. The competition begins on 1 January; might someone be able to assess whether a trial can be approved for the first X days of the competition within the next 48 hours? And we can take it from there? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was having a discussion User_talk:Crispy1989#The_Cluebot_knowledgebase and I was told to ask here if you guys know of a "very simple" Perl-based bot that I can experiment with in my own user space. I need no user-interface and no algorithms, etc. Just the basics of where one looks to see what edits were made, write a simple report to own user-space etc. I will then extend it. Help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Creating a bot#Perl -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look in a week or two. History2007 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MediationBot

User:MediationBot1 is down because the operator's toolserver account has been deleted, and the editor who initially wrote the bot is no longer active on Wikipedia. Is there anybody out there with time to code a replacement, even just for the core function of case-management? ST47's bot was exceptionally useful and we're really missing it over at RFM. It'd be much appreciated! AGK [•] 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I could take a look. What exactly does the bot need to do?

• Add anything in Category:Mediation Committee pending cases to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending.
• If someone puts {{Accepted case}} on it, remove it from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending, add it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tasks, change the category on the page, and post on the talk page of everyone listed under "involved users". And remove the template.
• If someone puts {{Rejected case}} on it, remove it from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending, add it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected cases, and change the category on the page, and post on the talk page of everyone listed under "involved users". And remove the template.
• Add anything in Category:Mediation Committee Nominations/Pending to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Current.

Does that about sum it up? Anomie⚔ 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's everything, yup :). Are you able to write code for the bot? Will it be especially time-consuming, or is it pretty straight-forward? AGK [•] 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(shaky) Nomination: Manishearth

I've been scripting for Wikipedia for a few years now, and, though I haven't created any bots yet, I know my way around the API. I also do a bit of developing for WP:ACC. I'm probably not suited for the BAG as I've not done any bot-related work, but, as you have a shortage, I'd like to help out.
If this nomination fails (It probably will), I'd still like to help out at BAG, doing clerk-like tasks. Please let me know what I can do. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 04:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

• If you haven't done any work on bots do you believe that you are familiar enough with the whole process of approving and do you understand all stuff connected with running them?

  Yes, I believe that I am familiar enough with the process of approving the bots. I don't think I understand all stuff connected with running them, but I understand the bot policy fairly well. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do you plan to make some bot in the future?

  Yes, I am currently building a set of tools for Wikipedia Ambassadors, which will require a messenger bot, though there's still time till I start working on it. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• What is most helpful bot you know on english wiki, is there something you would change on it?

  I don't like comparing bots, they're all useful in their own ways, but the bot I like most is MiszaBot II (archiver). I personally haven't used the auto archive (I prefer to archive stuff on my own), so I'm not too familiar with the bot. An improvement that I'd like would be a way to mark a discussion as "don't archive". Currently, you have to "bump" a discussion if you don't want the bot to archive it. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course answering is not mandatory, regards Petrb (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43 has been sitting on my desktop waiting for me to press go since the first of January. Perhaps I should do it manually? Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks H3ll/xeno. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Just to clarify, I am recusing from acting on your BRFAs and have commented there in an unofficial capacity. –xeno^talk 21:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Several days ago I posted a question on the talk page of User:Tim1357, who operates this bot, asking why it had performed some tasks that are not listed on the bot's userpage, and which I believe should not be performed. I have had no reply, but the bot continues to run. There seems to be no way to switch off the bot, as the bot's switchoff pages are all fully protected, nor any other way to get the operator's attention. Can someone here help please? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that but I've had quite the opposite problem, DASHBot isn't running some of the things it's supposed to be running. For those of us that work in images, DASHBot taking over Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request was a lifesaver. It seems that function is no longer being done by the bot. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since my bot blocked today I would like to request something. There is an effort to standardise infoboxes about persons and fix/remove invalid parameters caught by tracking categories. I have approval to do edits like this using AWB through my bot account. The main problem I encounter is that for simplification reasons I need the infoboxes to be in "Infobox..." form and even better in there original name. This allows me to use AWB's standard code without having to program extra. I figured out that it would be easier to first make a genfixes run to all pages with Infobox about persons and bypass the redirects to infoboxes and then fix the parameters as a second edit. Is it OK if I do this or I have to spend my time creating a custom module to do the edits at once? I would prefer the first solution because I am bust in real life and there is a lot of work to be done with the infoboxes. I was almost done with the first part when by bot got blocked. Please tell what I should do and I 'll proceed accordingly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your bot needs to do it in one edit, checking for redirects. Running through all the articles making a cosmetic change like that, simply to stop yourself from having to check for redirects (which should be a really straightforward check) is not really acceptable. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to do it this way. Please unblock my bot to perform other tasks and continue this task the way you suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As advised, I've raised a review request at Snotbot 6#Review request. If that's not the correct format, or location, please let me know.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm finishing coding on my bot to replace the missing-in-action AlexNewArtBot, which searches new articles and posts results either inside AlexNewArtBot (default) or at a custom location (about 50/50 utilization of these, see the list).

I'd like to invade the userspace of AlexNewArtBot and continue posting search results there. I'm using rules from there, and I'd like to post to the search result pages because they are watched and transcluded. Are there objections to this? Do I need to file a BRFA for it? tedder (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You most likely do, yes. Also, is AlexNewArtBot not running anymore? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fire up a BRFA tomorrow. And yes, AlexNewArtBot hasn't run for two months, talk page messages and emails go unanswered. tedder (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a serious problem. Tony (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you prose a solution to this? There have been far and few successful nominations. Without too much ranting, BAG is not the most grateful work around Wikipedia and any bot task consensus problems are related back to BAG member(s) who approve/deny the bots. I can see the editor reluctance to work in this area, but then again I have no real solutions either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, I've restored the auto-archived BAG nominations section and added no-archive tags. That should also help. :P --slakr^\ talk / 11:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On a meta-related note, made an "inputbox" form with a preloaded page to easily create nominations. May be this will help streamline the process. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, the major problem is not the low number of BAG-ers, but the very low level of community involvement. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've come out of retirement to help. SQL^{Query me!} 22:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this will make life easier, but I added {{BAG_Tools}} to Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval so the toolbox will show when editing all BRFA pages. SQL^{Query me!} 08:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And, it didn't work. Not sure what I did wrong. SQL^{Query me!} 08:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think you can use a sub page as the base page for an edit notice group. Anyway, this seems to do it, although it's a bit messy. Feel free to keep, remove, edit or whatever - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd, the docs made it seem like what I did would have worked. Thanks for getting this working! SQL^{Query me!} 10:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

JPG-GR has requested that I tag all templates involved in a mass TfD nomination with the {{tfd}} tag. Tagging even 10 templates manually is pretty annoying, and doing over 50 is unreasonable. So I have prepared a script to perform this task for me.

However, its first job will be to tag more than 700 templates in one go. Do I need to seek some sort of approval for such a large-scale mass edit? The bot policy seems not to mention cases such as this, so I am puzzled. Also, can I run this job from an alternative account? — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want the task to be unattended, you should fill a BRFA. You can also do it manually by script, if you prefer, but this implies human decision for each edit. In any case, to be on the safe side, better to fill it anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My plan is for it to be monitored, but run automatically. So I will file a BRFA. Thanks for your advice. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I requested at the BRfA that the bot trial for TTObot be revoked. There are no links to community discussions, and the bot owner did not post at the most obvious community board because it "is very quiet."

4 minutes is barely enough time to read the proposal, much less to approve it without community input.

The second place for community input about bots is during the BRfA. No matter how poorly involved the community is in discussions that take place there, the community still has the right to some time to become involved in the discussion.

There is no note in the approval explaining the reason for granting approval for a trial 4 minutes after the request was made, without any community discussion or allowance for discussion.

Please remove this bot approval, request community input at templates, and then allow time for community input in the BRfA. --72.201.210.130 (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is a BAG courtesy notice. Please discuss the issue at the BRfA. here --72.201.210.130 (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for BAG members to be so hostile to community input? If someone is discussing an issue with a bot operator in an RFBA and a BAG member disagrees with the community member, how about something else besides hostility and a rapid closing of the RFBA by the involved and disagreeing BAG member?

Again, really no wonder why so few community members want to discuss issues at BRFA when BAG members treat their input like scum to shut up as soon as possible.

Why? Why is there so much hostility at BRFA? And on wikipedia in general?

I am still in the process of discussing an issue with the bot operator here.

I suggested two hours, Headbomb disagreed with me, so he/she suggested otherwise and approved the BRFA to shut me and the discussion up.

Can BAG include manners as a requirement for members? Can BAG include listening to community input when it is given? No, in fact the community does not want bots or anyone tagging articles closely on the heals of contributors. Maybe BAG members could learn about the community. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Headbomb probably should have waited for an operator response there at the very least. The close was a bad call. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We appreciate community input, however at times the criticism being raised is not critical to whether the bot should be approved or not; in this case, the issue is in regards to the frequency of the bot's runs. Whether the bot is run every hour or every two hours is not a severe issue for the BAG to handle - either rate will be acceptable in terms of server load and time to review the bot's edits. If the community feels that it would be better to run on a two hour interval, then that can be determined later; it's not difficult to adjust how frequently a bot runs. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been informed I somewhat misinterpreted the discussion, that the delay is between article creation and bot's review - the point, however, still stands; it's not swooping in on new editors immediately, and that's really all BAG is concerned with here. A difference of an hour is not going to be a major concern, and not something that should prevent BAG from approving the request. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please drop a line here to say you are still active. Anyone who hasn't responded within a week (or maybe two weeks), will be moved to inactive. --Chris 02:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kinda sorta around - I'll probably get back to doing actual BAG stuff soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What the bag? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Still active. FYI, most recent edits to bot-related pages by BAGger:

• Hersfold: 2011-10-26T02:44:19Z to Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group
• Chris G: 2011-10-26T02:43:30Z to Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group
• Anomie: 2011-10-26T02:16:55Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 58
• Jarry1250: 2011-10-24T16:03:08Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9
• H3llkn0wz: 2011-10-21T07:37:06Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DPL bot
• Headbomb: 2011-10-15T05:20:15Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 55
• Xeno: 2011-10-12T13:04:29Z to Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Unsuccessful membership candidacies
• Tim1357: 2011-10-09T16:37:06Z to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard
• Slakr: 2011-10-05T04:58:14Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4
• The Earwig: 2011-09-09T01:41:35Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Puggansbot
• Kingpin13: 2011-09-01T15:14:20Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Header
• MBisanz: 2011-08-27T22:20:51Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BogBot 2
• SQL: 2011-08-14T08:13:47Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 4
• EdoDodo: 2011-08-12T19:56:12Z to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PhuzBot 2
• Mr.Z-man: 2011-05-24T02:28:04Z to Wikipedia:Bot requests

Anomie⚔ 03:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah still active. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just about. Will try and contribute more - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings-

I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. I am looking for members of the Bots Approval Group to interview regarding their experiences on Wikipedia and opinions of technical and governance issues on the site. The interview can be conducted in a manner convenient for you (via an IM client, email, Skype, telephone, or even in-person) and should take approximately 30-45 minutes.

Your participation will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors and programmers like you.

My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.

If you would like to participate or have any questions, please contact me directly via email or by leaving a message on my talk page. Thank you in advance for your interest.

Randall Livingstone

UOJComm (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am still looking for users from the bot community to interview regarding their experiences on the site. If you are interested, please leave a message on my talk page or email me. Thank you to those who have already participated! Randall UOJComm (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This group may wish to be aware of this proposed remedy in an active ArbCom case. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, we currently have three inactive members who have not edited at all in at least 12 months. User:Fritzpoll has retired and not edited in almost two years, User:Lightdarkness has been virtually inactive for 4 years and the last edit dates back from November 2010 (he has made one logged action in nov 2011 to keep the sysop bit tho) and finally User:Richard0612 has not edited in close to three years. I suggest that there is no point in listing them as inactive, and that we should, as was done in the past, move members who have not edited Wikipedia in any capacity for such lenghty periods of time to the Former Member section. Helps keeping it clean and I see no disadvantage in doing so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much point besides keeping the list "up to date". Then again I don't see any big downsides either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So then what is the difference between "inactive" and "former" BAGgers? Anomie⚔ 16:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are no longer BAGger even if you come back. So it's like de-sysoping, only de-bagging. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel the cutoff ought to be two years. I think deBAGging isn't a big deal, and won't prejudice reBAGging. BAG members are expected to know community expectations and norms, and a two year break is enough to desynchronize that understanding. Josh Parris 05:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Should our practices change any?

There were some prior indicators that permitting this editor to become a bot-op might have negative consequences. Should we have looked for them, asked for them to be disclosed, AGF'd, or something else? If they were disclosed, would the approval process have been any different? Josh Parris 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think we ought to add a short line in BOTPOL that bot operators are expected to disclose any previous issues they may have faced in the past in this area and that BAG shouldn't judge too harshly against it (i.e. immediate deny), but should seek assurance that no new issues would arise. It would be unreasonable to expect BAG to be able to unearth all the relevant discussions, but a quick search couldn't hurt I suppose. Without pointing fingers, we have had similar cases before. I tend to AGF, so I prefer we give them some WP:ROPE. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good idea, but we should also acknowledge that some of the burden falls on us to search WP:AN[I] archives or do whatever else may be necessary to confirm the bot operator is an editor in good standing per the bot policy. I'll admit that I've been tremendously lax in doing this myself, so this is a good wake-up call. I don't think that an editor with previous incidents would necessarily disclose them (especially when convinced they were the result of a conspiracy). — madman 15:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • How about we add some common search criteria to the BRFA form, including ANI searches? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&ns4=1&search=OPNAMEHERE+%22administrators%27+noticeboard%22&limit=500&offset=0 ? Josh Parris 10:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd put it [2] so it's "intitle:" or it gets hits on other places. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I recall it used to be common practice to announce BRfAs at WP:VPP; what if we make it common practice that new ops announce their intentions at WP:VPP, and make it clear that part of the approval process consists of approving the op? I hope it's clearly implied that subsequent BRfAs would assume ongoing community support for the op in that role. Josh Parris 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a great idea. BRFAs get pretty bureaucratic as it is. We have many trusted users applying and we get many never-seen-before users for interwiki bots and such. There would be few straight-forward cases, most would just linger away without comments. I don't think this part of BRFA is broken, or rather needs fixing. I just think BAG needs to do a few more searches (like above) and post some links and ask a few questions even if they don't change anything most of the time. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What are the criteria for becoming a bot op again?

Some BAGgers have said that future requests are invited; given a decision to remove bot-op authorization, what is needed to regain it? Josh Parris 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are deciding on procedures of how to handle requests from any bot operator going forward its probably a good idea. You needn't waste time deliberating on what to do about me. My experiment in running a bot is in the past and I have no desire to do it anymore than the community wants me too. --Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is purely for reflection and future policy/BRFA clarification and not about this one case. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we need a new process for re-bot-opping. I don't think adding some kind of restrictions is needed and would just be BITEy. I think botops, BAG, and involved editors can come to reasonable terms when it comes to it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed; I don't see a need for procedure at all. As I see it, a BRFA that's been revoked can be re-opened by the operator and/or the BAG, much like a BRFA that's expired or withdrawn, and we can discuss it again, including what's changed since last time. — madman 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • IMO, reopening it would make a total mess of the history. Instead, I'd suggest a new BRFA referencing the old. Anomie⚔ 20:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't wondering about procedures; they'll sort themselves out. But to be clear between ourselves and others, if approval is withdrawn for reason X, once reason X is demonstrably no longer the case, applications are welcome again? Or is there a minimum time frame for BAGgers? Is it simply a matter of impressing a single BAGger that they ought to approve a BRfA, or hoping none of them deny one? Or should a consensus be formed at the time of reapplication? A community consensus, or a BAG consensus? Josh Parris 10:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming reason X is based on operator issues (and not changes in policies/guidelines/consensus), then I guess I would expect the operator to demonstrate how reason X is no longer applicable. I assume a certain time frame without issues has to pass.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that anyone here really cares about my opinion at this point but this whole thing was blown way out of proportion and was primarily brought about by an overreaction to a minor and easily fixed problem by editors with article ownership issues. I was fixing any real problems as they were brought to my attention as fast as I could and had I been allowed to actually fix the problem they would have been fixed and done long ago. Secondly, there was only one of the approved BRFA's with a problem so the revokation of all of them was a petty knee jerk reaction here as well and completely unnecessary, last the BRFA was open for almost 2 months. All editors had an opportunity to review it, voice there concerns and have their voices heard. With all that said, at this point I have completely lost my appetite for having a bot or even general editing at this point so there is no need to restore anything but there is also not a need to "change the process" and make it even harder and more time consuming to get a bot account. --Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Without going into the details of the brouhaha that led to this (I'm completely unfamiliar with it, didn't bother looking it up either, and don't care much to know what it's about), I have to say that it falls on whoever approves the bot to make sure the bot op is qualified to handle the bot. I'm not sure on where I stand about having an ANI search link in the bot nominations, because this seems to me like it will just bring up old and settled disputes unrelated to bots in 99% of the cases, and I'm worried about the effects it'll have on the drive-by crowd with a bone to pick against certain bot ops (or bot tasks). Iff a majority of the BAG wants an ANI search link, I'll follow along, but I'm really unconvinced of any actual need for it. Operationally, we pretty much only need this check for new bot ops (and reviewing user contributions and edit patterns seem a lot more insightful than mindless search of ANI threads), as the experienced ones either follow policy well enough, or create epic shitstorms we'd have heard of anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well like I said above, it was a minor issue blown way out of proportion mostly by editors who either don't like me or WikiProject United States. As for a modification to the process I agree with Headbomb. As a side note, IMNSHO, it would be like telling them that the can never have been blocked, never have been submitted to ANI and are an administrator. In a community like Wikipedia, requiring any of the three to have a bot would be just plain stupid. --Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to come across as an ass, but I would suggest that you disengage from this topic (bots and AWB in general) for a while Kumioko. It's obvious that you're still very bitter about the block and the removal of your bot's flag, and that makes your comments loaded with unpleasant backgrounds. You can have good insight on things, but right now the bitterness is showing more than the insight. Why not take some time to work on a pet project (Writing a GA? Do some categorization work? Give a shot at citation cleanup?). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well to be honest your right. The whole incident showed me what a joke ANI is and how if your not an admin don't bother submitting an editor problem there. On the suggestions, frankly I don't really feel like editing much these days. I make the occasional comment to a discussion here and there and even did a couple vandalism reversions. It was made quite clear though that the community did not care how many edits I did, how much I tried to accomplish or how many improvements I made. They do not like WikiProject United States and were more concerned about protecting a couple editors with article ownership issues so the days of doing 10 - 30, 000 improvements a month to the 'pedia are done for me. But ok, I will stop commenting here. I thought I could leave a couple useful comments to help but if no one's giving them any credit because of the recent BS then that's fine. Its just one more place I need not waste my time. For what its worth I submitted those tasks that got approved because they were fairly easy, low hanging fruit with multiple precadents. I had about 40 more tasks including a task for Persondata that was going on about 1400 lines and one for adding infoboxes to articles that was at about 9600ish lines. I was going to submit them both as well as several others approximately this week but the incident got in the way. No need to respond, I will not reply as requested and I will be removing this page from my watchlist. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have an opinion on how a BRFA should be marked as "revoked"?

1. By wrapping the existing closing box (but removing the categories), like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Andrea105Bot.
2. By removing the old closing box and replacing it with the "revoked" box, like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kumi-Taskbot.
3. Either way, doesn't matter.

Personally, I prefer #1. It just seems clearer to me what exactly happened with the request. Anomie⚔ 20:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• #1. I was gonna bring up the latter ones but I guess I'm much much lazier than you :) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oopsies. I can see the merits of both; I figured {{BotApproved}} would still be in the record and hadn't seen an example of another revoked request. I won't be offended if anyone changes mine. :p — madman 21:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for what its worth I still think this was a needless knee jerk reaction to a minor problem. There was only one BRFA that was a problem so there was non need to revoke all of them. Additionally, I have removed my name and my bot from the list of AWB users, the bot is stopped and I have no intention of turning it back on so there was really no need to revoke them all. --Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually your using your bot account to get around a block is a reason to revoke all of them. That was a blatant abuse of a bot account. Prior to you doing that yes I would agree that just the one would/should have been revoked. But unfortunately you then went and did something really stupid. -DJSasso (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although that is not what the revocation was billed as I can accept that. It was unfortunate I had to do it in the first place and I only did it as a one time edit regarding a discussion I should have been allowed to participate in and I stated as such when I made the comment. I personally feel that I followed the spirit of the block by not editing any articles and I still think the block was absurd and a not so clever means to keep me away from the discussions. If I can't defend myself in discussion then I lose the argument by default. All that aside it doesn't really matter. I was doing this to maintain or add articles to WikiProject United States. I project I very much believed in. Unfortunately, There was an overwhelming community response in favor of letting WPUS die and informing me that my edits and work here isn't needed or wanted (Not pouting just stating what was repeatedly told and inferred in discussions). So with that in mind I have changed my life priorities, I'll be editing less and spending more time with my family and if WPUS and all or some of the supported projects go inactive or defunct then it must have happened for the betterment of the pedia. I think its only a matter of time before the community finds out the truth about the other editors I tried to tell them about. Just like Racepacket and the others in the past (all are blocked or banned for their activities). The warning signs are already there but its a shame how fast the community can turn on a good editor just trying improve the pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to give the impression that I'm kicking a man while he's down. I understand that Kumioko has been frustrated in his attempts to determine WikiProject United States's scope, by the bot approval process, by his efforts to code his tasks correctly, and by other contributors' reactions to his automated editing. However, in the discussion that has surrounded his latest task, I've become aware of a couple factors that I don't think were considered when his tasks were approved:

• Kumioko and AWB access – Almost a year ago today, Kumioko's AWB access was revoked for continually trying to "standardize" other projects' WikiProject banners: changing short template names to long template names and removing "deprecated, unwanted" parameters. Discussion was ongoing at the WikiProject Council's talk page and objections had been raised; this is a task that has elicited controversy and failed to reach consensus in the past and Kumioko attempted to present a fait accompli.
• Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags – Concerns were raised back in June regarding exactly what's being discussed now: the overly wide scope of WikiProject United States, and Kumioko tagging articles incorrectly as being within the WikiProject's scope.

In each of these discussions, Kumioko has expressed his frustration in a less than civil manner, has characterized the objections to his tasks as one or two contributors complaining about a few mistakes out of thousands of edits, and has expressed his displeasure at having to stop his bot and engage in discussion. He's justified his tasks by saying they make it easier to code other automated tasks (with which I don't think most experienced programmers would have a problem) and that they speed up the rendering of articles and talk pages (which shows a lack of understanding of how MediaWiki parses and renders pages). He has now been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring over articles that he tagged and, most distressingly to me of all of the above, he used his bot account to evade his block and continue discussion [3] [4].

I hate to be the bad guy here, but I believe Kumioko's violated the trust of the community that's a prerequisite to operating a bot; he's also violated AWB rules of use, the bot policy, and principles established by the Arbitration Committee. I propose that existing approvals for his bot be revoked and that it be removed from the bot group by a bureaucrat. — madman 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As the BAG member who approved this task, I was unaware of his prior AWB revocation. While that does not per se void my approval, as it was a prior act that I failed to gain knowledge of, his actions subsequent to my approval raise grave questions as to his suitability as a bot operator. Wearing solely my BAG hat, I would sadly concur with madman. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot operators are expected and trusted to have good judgment and appropriate responses, especially patience, when dealing with issues. In this case concerns were raised more than once, including before the BRFAs were submitted, and Kumioko essentially neglected to disclose that. Understandable since BAG would probably deny the requests, but certainly not on par with community expectations. In addition, edit warring and block evasion instead of building consensus is unacceptable for a botop. I've dealt with Kumioko before a bit and everything was dandy, so I'm speaking purely as BAG here. I have to concur with madman at this time with no prejudice to revisiting BRFAs in due time. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I do not necessarily agree with how the situation was handled in general, the response from Kumioko towards others was clearly poor. One of the major concerns for me is his complete disregard for bot policy, in using his bot to evade a block. Additionally, his lack of proper communication with others - instead resorting to edit warring - is troubling. Although I will reiterate that I do not agree with how this was handled, and the blame can't be entirely placed on Kumioko. However, he does have a responsibility as a bot operator to go above and beyond in making sure other users have their concerns listened to and addressed (even if they themselves do not express their concerns in the most congenial way).

I can't really put it better than has been done above, so I'll simply finish with saying that I agree with madman; there are serious issues about Kumioko's actions as a bot operator, and his current approvals should be revoked. As H3llkn0wz says, there should be nothing to prevent him from making future requests, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that opinion is pretty consistent; empathy and disappointment. A 'crat is needed. Josh Parris 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked an uninvolved bureaucrat to confirm and implement the consensus of this discussion. — madman 15:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the flag. bibliomaniac15 05:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care at this point about the bot revokation but it should be noted that this is all a knee jerk reaction to en overreaction of a couple editors with article ownership issues and WikiProject United States/Kumioko hateitis. The bot wasn't faulty, the list I gave the bot had a couple bad articles in it, about 161 of roughly 11, 000. Thats about 1.4% It should also be noted that if you bother to look at what my block was for, it was an extremely stupid disagreement with an editor who has shown a strong dislike for AWB in the past (CBM) and tends to overreact to any use of the tool. With that said, after all the work I tried to do to improve this place the community has shown quite clearly to me over the last few days how much my work is appreciated so its better that a useful bot with useful tasks be blocked than to have it make an easily fixable mistake. --Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh no I don't mindn at all. Feel free to move it wherever its most appropriate or delete it. Either way its fine with me. --Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that if you review the 2 discussions linked to above that I was told by CBM that it would be better to do as a bot task task if done. So bringing it up here, as an after effect of my bot being taken down, is completely unnecessary. --Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

After this discussion this is the best news I've seen around WP in quite awhile. Glad people wised up. Brad (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this kind of editor and ettiqutte is clearly preferred over the tasks I was doing. Maybe it really is better I stop editing since this is the kind of Trollish behavior that seems to be tolerated these days rather than editors like me who are actually trying to make the place better. I left a comment on Brads talk page. Normally I would have been a lot nicer but these days that's not required apparently. Just for clarification, and not that anyone cares, but this is the type of stupid comments I have been dealing with from editors that don't like me or WPUS stepping on their lawn for the past couple years. I am not a Jedi so after a while I find it hard to keep my emotions in check after months or years of constant hounding by the same editors violating policies and no action to prevent it by the community. But then when I bring it to the attention of the community, I am the a-hole and get blocked. Its apparent that bots that do stuff like archiving talk pages or counting articles that belong to a Project seems to be acceptable but if a bot is actually making improvements to articles, not so much and its not usually long before one or 2 complaints about minor and easily fixable tasks get blown out of proportion and get you blocked and you bot shut down. --Kumioko (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, this is incredibly dumb. I reviewed a set of 4 contested edits some time back, each of them was correct. Removing the bot flag is completely over the top. It is one thing to expect bot owners to be responsive, civil etc, it is quite another to hold them to an inhuman (or should I just say supra-Wikipedian) standard. Perhaps before BAG makes these kinds of decisions they should take a better look at realistic standards for behaviour. I am left shaking my head yet again. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

I don't think asking people to not use their bots to evade blocks is by any means an inhuman standard. I think that kind of behaviour was more of an issue for BAG (certainly, it was for myself) than the question of whether or not his bot's edits were "correct". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not an issue for BAG. It's an issue for the community-at-large and/or admins. (And there are much bigger questions lying underneath that.) BAG should, without being blinkered, restrict itself to approving bots and bot tasks. Even on a technical level the flag has no relation to block-evasion. Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

The BAG is also responsible for approving Bot Operators; it's not clearly stated that we can take sanctions against ops for violations of WP:BOTACC, but it is stated that BAG acts as representatives of the broader community. I feel that we didn't overstep our authority, and I also feel that removal of the flag from the Bot account was reasonable. Josh Parris 15:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We did restrict ourselves to bot task approval. If you'll review the discussion above, we re-examined the existing approvals per Wikipedia:Bot policy and found that given facts not taken into account when the approvals were considered and current evidence that the prerequisites for operation of a bot were not met, those approvals should be revoked. I too believe that nothing we did was outside our purview. — madman 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I would also note that I don't believe we're responsible for approving bot operators (Josh may have just phrased that poorly), nor may we take sanctions against bot operators, but we are required to consider whether the bot operator is adhering to the bot policy and will continue to do so when approving/re-examining tasks. — madman 15:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, poor phrasing. "...prospective bot operators should be editors in good standing..." is what we (should) check for, per policy. Josh Parris 18:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I figured you meant. We do indeed have to consider that in addition to what I mentioned. In this case, I think that there's no question that Kumioko's an editor in good standing; it's only the repeated issues with automated editing and violations of the bot policy that led us to re-review the approvals. — madman 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What we should do with the bot's tasks? Should these tasks carried on by another bot/editor or just discontinue? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The bot doesn't seem to have been approved for anything too exciting. There are plenty of bots that are approved to do WikiProject tagging, and if WikiProject US wants a replacement for the message delivery bot there are enough of those around for the asking too. Anomie⚔ 20:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since WikiProject Texas banners replacement has consensus per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Texas#Suggestion_for_WikiProject_United_States_to_support_WikiProject_Texas I suggest that we ask someone to finish the incomplete merge (not me!). I don't like tasks leave incomplete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to raise a couple of points for discussion regarding bot trials.

Attention to detail and low tolerance for errors are highly desired attributes for owners of flagged bots. BotPol says that it's not BAG's role to QA bots in trial; is there some way to point out that to ops, and to add a note that if BAG - or anyone else in the BRFA process - finds something the op didn't disclose it makes us grumpy? Should our first question after TrialComplete be "What errors occurred?" followed by "How have you prevented them in the next trial?"

Also, I think the size of the initial trials I've seen approved is too large. I assume a small trial will show glaring errors, and prefer to follow with a larger one to find weird ones. 100 edits is too many to closely review, 50 is a lot of work - especially if many of them are flawed. Are other BAG members trusting the ops to locate every mistake? Should we?

Should we even be trialing "manual" BRFAs? Josh Parris 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've no problem with approving bots for trials with 100+ edits (and I do review every of those edits, except when trialing for extended time periods, in which case I just review a significant number of them instead, and ask the bot op if he ran into problems). Whether to do a small trial, followed by a large trial is something I feel every BAGger ought to be able to decide on a bot-by-bot basis. As for manual BRFA, again, I feel that's case-by-case basis. In some cases (experienced bot op, uncontroversial task, dealing with really basic stuff that is extremely unlikely to create problems because of cornercases or template issues), I'd have no problem approving without trial. In other cases, I consider trials to be proof-of-concepts/viability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it really needs to be pointed out; IMO it should be obvious to anyone who is going to be a good bot op. And really, any good bot op should be immediately volunteering that information during the trial or at the time they post {{BotTrialComplete}}. But on the other hand, BAG should certainly not be relying on the bot op to report any errors but should be reviewing all the edits made during the trial. As for the size of the trial, or whether there should first be a small then a large trial, that is up to the BAGger who is approving the trial and who should be reviewing the edits; I usually pick something between 30 and 50 edits, and I have a few scripts that will output the diffs for a series of edits or for edits with summaries matching a regex for me to make reviewing easier. As for manual BRFAs, they still need a trial to ensure that whatever script is being used functions correctly and the operator seems to know how to use it. Anomie⚔ 03:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this refers to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RscprinterBot 3 and 100 edit trial. I purposely made it a larger one, because it was a "manual" task, thus requires a human to be present and humans do get tired after 100 edits as opposed to bots. So I wanted to see if the op can handle this load and still produce flawless results (given a few hits in ANI). Call it a WP:ROPE if you will. The task is for whooping 600k pages and I will review them and make sure everything is dandy before I go anywhere near {{BotApproved}}. To answer the more generic question: yes, there are cases where 100 and more edits should be trialled. And, yes, ops should review the edits. This is why we clarified BOTPOL recently with "Bots should be supervised during trial periods so that any problems may be addressed quickly. The bot operator is responsible for reviewing the edits and repairing any mistakes caused by the bot." I have been grumpy on BRFA before when ops failed to check for errors and worse yet failed to correct them even after pointed out. I, for one, don't usually trust botops to locate errors so I do check edits. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what prompted me, but it had been buzzing around in the back of my head for a while. Some of the BAGgers are very busy bees and I've been concerned that the approving BAGger might not be able to devote the time necessary to do their due diligence. The answers above relieve me; the size and duration of trials aren't force-of-habit; they're the balanced judgements you'd expect from someone in a deliberative role, and the trials are all closely monitored. Josh Parris 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; I'll check every diff on a smaller trial (there are a few user scripts that make that pretty easy), and on extended trials, I'll generally check a small subset and any edit that's not the last edit on the page (i.e., a human editor may have changed what the bot did or reverted for a good reason). — madman 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Trialling is good, and multiple trials are better. The point of trials is multiple though, and it is really a good idea if someone other than (or as well as) the bot-op looks at the results. Here's some of the benefits of trials:

• Systemic errors can be spotted and fixed in code. (The "headline" reason for trials.)
  • Getting the eyes of other bots, botters, editors and readers on the edits helps spot errors.
• If something goes wrong, the smaller scale means the pages can be fixed
• Multiple escalating trials mean that even relatively rare errors can be caught before they scale. (Say a 1 in 500 error, over 1000 or 2000 edits rather than 50,000 or 100,000.)
• Wet-ware problems get raised earlier.
  • Operator difficulties with scripts.
  • New constituencies becoming aware of the process.
• Doubters can be silenced or proved correct - "it's not possible to do X automatically" or "Z can't write bot good code" - either the trial works or not.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

Due to medical reasons I'm going to be out of action for a week or two starting Monday. Please feel free to step in wherever needed. Josh Parris 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well take care. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope you feel better soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

herp derp — madman 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm helping organize the Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June 2012 in Berlin, Germany. We're going to be discussing and working on the hosted Wikimedia Labs development environment and bots infrastructure, Toolserver, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, MediaWiki's web API, the new Lua templating system, and various upcoming MediaWiki features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

That's one of the upcoming Wikimedia developers' events and I hope some of you can make it.

Registration will probably open next week, and travel subsidies will be available.

- Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here on English Wikipedia or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrator review/MBisanz 2 to help me become a better editor and BAGer. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there some kind of "speed limit" for interwiki bots? I'm trying to remove some wrong interwiki links here, but the bots keep replacing them before I'm able to remove them from all language editions of the article. —Ruud 22:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you just got lucky on that one. We have so many running, that changes are propagated fairly quickly. From contributions, it seems the bot in question isn't really editing that fast. Trying to fix wrong interwikis can be a pain though, with so many bots trying to "help". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 06:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, wtf? An yes, I did remove the interwiki from the Dutch and Swedish articles as well. —Ruud 10:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely you can just {{nobots}} the pages until you've fixed all of them? --Chris 10:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed them within about a minute. The bot put them back over an hour later, so I doubt that would solve the issue. —Ruud 10:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But still, the bots should probably wait half an hour after the last change to the interwikis before trying to update them again. Even a tech-savvy editor like me probably wouldn't (shouldn't) think about {{nobots}} and will get somewhat frustrated. —Ruud 10:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the iws from de: and fr:, which is why the bot keeps readding them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I should have thought of that... On the other hand, what are you supposed to do if the article has over 20 interwiki links? —Ruud 10:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Get depressed. :) That's a problem with someone adding a wrong interwiki and then interwiki bots propagating it. Usually ends up with "not my bot's fault, human made error." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In some circumstances it would be be a good idea just to exclude some wrong interwiki links by commenting out like

<!-- [[nl:David de Haen]] -->
<!-- [[sv:David de Haen]] -->

On is:-wiki there is a throtteling for interiki bot not to edit more than once a month on the same page. Maybe we could implement something in that way.  @xqt 10:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It has to go into pywikipedia interwiki.py then, because otherwise we'd have to track down dozens of bot ops, most of who cannot program. How did is: do it? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's part of the interwiki.py, I've introduced it in pyrev:8290.  @xqt 11:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This ANI thread might be of interest to BAG members. Specifically, it includes a discussion on whether a particular task that is being carried out with AWB requires a BRFA. -Scottywong| gab _ 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it sad that no one cares about WP:BOTPOL whenever it's a vested contributor violating it. Anomie⚔ 01:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone-

I wanted to let you know that my dissertation, "Network of Knowledge: Wikipedia as a Sociotechnical System of Intelligence" is now available on my website with a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. Over a year ago I began this project with the WMF Research Committee and the University of Oregon IRB's approval. Nearly 50 bot operators, WP contributors, and WMF administrators were kind enough to participate in the study, offering their time, opinions, and expertise on issues around bots and bot creation. Feel free to download the document or peruse it online, and I look forward to your comments either on the site or via email.

The manuscript is a bit long (~320 pages) and includes some standard dissertation sections (literature review, methods chapter, etc.). Interviewee contributions are featured most in Chapters 5 and 6 (if you want to skip to the good stuff).

I am at a new institution now and will be going through a new IRB approval process to continue this research, but I do indeed want to continue chatting with the bot and semi-automated tool community. Please let me know if you're interested in connecting this fall, and thank you so much to those who have already participated!

Randall Livingstone UOJComm (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm always happy to see academics publishing under Creative Commons licenses! And congratulations on your degree! Cheers, — madman 03:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "SVN" column is outdated, now that MediaWiki development takes place in Git and Gerrit. Should we rename the column to something like "MW Dev"? And should the column indicate anyone with a Gerrit account, or just people who can actually merge to mediawiki/core (AFAICT, that's this list plus Wikimedia Ops people)?

Or should we just remove the column entirely? Anomie⚔ 16:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should remove it entirely. Once toolserver/wmflabs is settled, that might be a useful listing. MBisanz ^talk 16:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the "SVN" column ever have anything to do with the toolserver or wmflabs? Or are you saying "Remove 'SVN', and maybe add an entirely new column for toolserver/wmflabs once that's settled"? Anomie⚔ 19:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it did not. I say we should remove SVN and then add a new column when the new system is set. So many people use toolserver as the home for their bots, that it makes sense to track the connection. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

SVN meant commit access to the mediawiki subversion repository. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why we have the 'crat and admin columns? Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Crat column makes sense in that it's useful to know who can (un)flag bots. Admin column is not as useful, but I suppose if you needed to find a BAGer to block a bot (although in most cases WP:AN would be much faster). Perhaps if you needed a BAGer to unblock a bot. Also, occasionally bots need to be granted the 'confirm' userright for their trial. --Chris 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin is useful also to grant IPBE when needed. Bots already get IPBE from the bot flag, but it might be needed for the trial. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a process for granting bot flags, ideally it should be a non-BAG bureaucrat that grants it. The admin column makes a little sense, though really any admin should be able tot perform these functions. Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

The last person to join BAG did so in 2011, meaning we haven't had a new BAGer for the entirety of 2012. As current members' schedules change, it's becoming harder and harder to promptly respond to BRFAs. If everyone could keep their eyes out for potential new members, it would be most appreciated. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in joining. My mentor, User:Worm That Turned has even suggested it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still in a paleozoic state regarding bots, but I'd like to be of assistance where my skills can be of any help. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to pick up my slack in the coming months. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

^ Same. I'd probably do well if I worked on bots more while burnt out on copyright issues. — madman 02:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well of course I'd be happy to join. Seeing as I have so much time on my hands these days. Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

While your kind offer is most welcome, I'm not entirely sure that that'd be helpful, seeing as ArbCom and yourself disagree on your views of the Bot policy and related matters, I believe (tho granted I haven't been following matters very closely, so I apologize if my understanding is flawed). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the committee disagree with me about. But I have no reason to think it is bot policy. Certainly some of them think I need "rehabilitating" - and I have been advised to do this by "helping others with my knowledge of bots and technical matters" or "editing articles on turtles". I'm sure if the committee had intended that I should not be on BAG they would have had no compunction about adding that to their list of sanctions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

• Do I even have a chance of getting into the group?—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Make a Request for BAG membership and try your luck :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Some fun data: (thanks to MZMcBride for helping me with the query)

mysql> /* SLOW_OK */
    -> SELECT
    ->   rev_user_text,
    ->   COUNT(*)
    -> FROM revision
    -> JOIN page
    -> ON rev_page = page_id
    -> WHERE page_namespace = 4
    -> AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    -> AND rev_timestamp LIKE '2012%'
    -> GROUP BY rev_user_text
    -> ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC;
+---------------------------------+----------+
| rev_user_text                   | COUNT(*) |
+---------------------------------+----------+
| AnomieBOT                       |      475 |
| Hellknowz                       |      351 |
| Madman                          |      315 |
| MBisanz                         |      216 |
| Josh Parris                     |      216 |
| Rcsprinter123                   |      159 |
| Legoktm                         |      146 |
| Rich Farmbrough                 |      119 |
| Anomie                          |      114 |
| Headbomb                        |      106 |
| Chris G                         |      105 |
| Joe Decker                      |      101 |
| Hazard-SJ                       |       95 |
| Snowmanradio                    |       93 |
| Cyberpower678                   |       89 |
| GoingBatty                      |       78 |
| Kumioko (renamed)               |       76 |
| The Earwig                      |       63 |
| Magioladitis                    |       62 |
| Ceradon                         |       56 |
| Jarry1250                       |       53 |
| Blevintron                      |       52 |
| Kwamikagami                     |       51 |
| Bgwhite                         |       48 |
| Mabdul                          |       48 |
| Ankit Maity                     |       45 |
| Ryan Vesey                      |       42 |
| Slakr                           |       42 |
| Kingpin13                       |       42 |
| 28bytes                         |       39 |
| Wolfgang42                      |       37 |
| CBM                             |       37 |
| OrenBochman                     |       34 |
| Dcoetzee                        |       34 |
| Riley Huntley                   |       32 |
| Snowolf                         |       30 |
| Vacation9                       |       30 |
| Jtmorgan                        |       29 |
| TParis                          |       29 |
| درفش کاویانی         |       28 |
| とある白い猫              |       26 |
| Eagles247                       |       25 |
| Thine Antique Pen               |       24 |
| Thehelpfulone                   |       23 |
| Amalthea                        |       23 |
| Dschwen                         |       22 |
| MGA73                           |       22 |
| Makecat                         |       22 |
| Hmains                          |       21 |
| Addshore                        |       21 |
| Mahdiz                          |       21 |
| SD5                             |       21 |
| Hyperdeath                      |       18 |
| Wbm1058                         |       18 |
| Jamo2008                        |       18 |
| Nettrom                         |       17 |
| جواد                        |       16 |
| Stefan2                         |       16 |
| ClueBot III                     |       16 |
| Penyulap                        |       15 |
| Shubinator                      |       15 |
| Nathan2055                      |       15 |
| Vibhijain                       |       15 |
| Jmorgan (WMF)                   |       15 |
| Mmovchin                        |       15 |
| Sven Manguard                   |       14 |
| Dipankan001                     |       14 |
| Scottywong                      |       14 |
| Σ                              |       13 |
| Ganeshk                         |       13 |
| Hersfold                        |       13 |
| Hedwig in Washington            |       13 |
| Meno25                          |       13 |
| Kumioko                         |       12 |
| Petrb                           |       12 |
| Allens                          |       12 |
| Avicennasis                     |       12 |
| Tom Morris                      |       12 |
| Hersfold non-admin              |       12 |
| Hair                            |       11 |
| Noommos                         |       11 |
| JordanKyser22                   |       10 |
| DePiep                          |       10 |
| Ethen12                         |       10 |
| Crashdoom                       |       10 |
| Jesse V.                        |       10 |
| Pigsonthewing                   |        9 |
| Dpmuk                           |        9 |
| Fox Wilson                      |        9 |
| MZMcBride                       |        9 |
| Maximilianklein                 |        8 |
| Robert Skyhawk                  |        8 |
| Stuart P. Bentley               |        8 |
| Rjanag                          |        8 |
| Feedintm                        |        8 |
| Justincheng12345                |        8 |
| Timotheus Canens                |        8 |
| Stillwaterising                 |        8 |
| MaxSem                          |        8 |
| EncMstr                         |        8 |
| Femto Bot                       |        8 |
| H.b.sh                          |        8 |
| Fastily                         |        8 |
| Traveler100                     |        7 |
| Multichill                      |        7 |
| 66.127.55.46                    |        7 |
| Carnildo                        |        7 |
| Danhash                         |        7 |
| Bulwersator                     |        7 |
| Xqt                             |        7 |
| Ocaasi                          |        7 |
| Samoon                          |        7 |
| Razimantv                       |        6 |
| TreyGeek                        |        6 |
| Spinningspark                   |        6 |
| YFdyh000                        |        6 |
| پسر یاس                   |        6 |
| Enzaiklopedia                   |        6 |
| Steenth                         |        6 |
| Sitongpeng                      |        6 |
| 68.107.140.60                   |        6 |
| Dede2008                        |        6 |
| Tow                             |        6 |
| Colonies Chris                  |        5 |
| JaGa                            |        5 |
| AhMedRMaaty                     |        5 |
| A proofreader                   |        5 |
| Heatherawalls                   |        5 |
| Severo                          |        5 |
| Secretlondon                    |        5 |
| Sfan00 IMG                      |        5 |
| Maryana (WMF)                   |        5 |
| Rjwilmsi                        |        5 |
| Tim Schulz                      |        5 |
| Bility                          |        5 |
| Addihockey10                    |        5 |
| Avocato                         |        5 |
| Mcarling                        |        5 |
| 101.119.18.208                  |        5 |
| Tony1                           |        4 |
| Fram                            |        4 |
| Mrt3366                         |        4 |
| Piandcompany                    |        4 |
| Arb                             |        4 |
| John F. Lewis                   |        4 |
| VolodymyrB                      |        4 |
| संतोष दहिवळ |        4 |
| Aviyal                          |        4 |
| Dispenser                       |        4 |
| David1217                       |        4 |
| PleaseStand                     |        4 |
| Invertzoo                       |        4 |
| Chrisrus                        |        4 |
| Fæ                             |        4 |
| Steven (WMF)                    |        4 |
| WhatamIdoing                    |        4 |
| EauOo                           |        4 |
| Jenks24                         |        4 |
| Fajr18                          |        4 |
| Yoenit                          |        4 |
| OsamaK                          |        4 |
| Boghog                          |        3 |
| KTC                             |        3 |
| PedR                            |        3 |
| Fylbecatulous                   |        3 |
| Hurricanefan24                  |        3 |
| Kizar                           |        3 |
| Vinniyo                         |        3 |
| Alpha Quadrant                  |        3 |
| AnkitAWB                        |        3 |
| Metriki                         |        3 |
| DrTrigon                        |        3 |
| Jc3s5h                          |        3 |
| Renessaince                     |        3 |
| Hypejar                         |        3 |
| Julia W                         |        3 |
| Theopolisme                     |        3 |
| 68.107.131.23                   |        3 |
| Grashoofd                       |        3 |
| Stepheng3                       |        3 |
| Materialscientist               |        3 |
| Kevin12xd                       |        3 |
| 71.163.243.232                  |        3 |
| Cdwn                            |        2 |
| AliReza                         |        2 |
| Richardguk                      |        2 |
| DrKiernan                       |        2 |
| The Earwig (alternate)          |        2 |
| Gimmetoo                        |        2 |
| Ralgis                          |        2 |
| Ucucha                          |        2 |
| Djsasso                         |        2 |
| Ryan Ajie                       |        2 |
| ChrisStyles                     |        2 |
| VIAFbot                         |        2 |
| AussieLegend                    |        2 |
| Braincricket                    |        2 |
| Saehrimnir                      |        2 |
| This is also Sven Manguard      |        2 |
| Warddr                          |        2 |
| Nyttend                         |        2 |
| 124.149.84.97                   |        2 |
| Firilacroco                     |        2 |
| Calliopejen1                    |        2 |
| Rillke                          |        2 |
| Timrollpickering                |        2 |
| Plastikspork                    |        2 |
| Beetstra                        |        2 |
| Kaldari                         |        2 |
| 93.182.168.155                  |        2 |
| VoxelBot                        |        2 |
| Od Mishehu                      |        2 |
| WJBscribe                       |        2 |
| Davykamanzi                     |        2 |
| Maxim                           |        2 |
| Sun Creator                     |        2 |
| Grandiose                       |        2 |
| Colourful Bling                 |        1 |
| CommonsDelinker                 |        1 |
| 69.255.179.102                  |        1 |
| Noiratsi                        |        1 |
| Sval972bot                      |        1 |
| WikHead                         |        1 |
| Markhurd                        |        1 |
| Routsatyahcu                    |        1 |
| Warofdreams                     |        1 |
| TedPavlic                       |        1 |
| Xqbot                           |        1 |
| 75.86.137.22                    |        1 |
| Bwilkins                        |        1 |
| Tim1357                         |        1 |
| Krellis                         |        1 |
| Masem                           |        1 |
| Intbot                          |        1 |
| Moonriddengirl                  |        1 |
| 83.60.39.124                    |        1 |
| Worm That Turned                |        1 |
| Future Perfect at Sunrise       |        1 |
| AGK                             |        1 |
| LeadSongDog                     |        1 |
| PrimeHunter                     |        1 |
| Cntras                          |        1 |
| WilliamThweatt                  |        1 |
| Jason Quinn                     |        1 |
| Pichpich                        |        1 |
| Ezhuttukari                     |        1 |
| SporkBot                        |        1 |
| GiantSnowman                    |        1 |
| Ebe123                          |        1 |
| Butwhatdoiknow                  |        1 |
| Nard the Bard                   |        1 |
| Sbouterse (WMF)                 |        1 |
| PsBot                           |        1 |
| Billinghurst                    |        1 |
| 172.218.192.19                  |        1 |
| MetrikiBot                      |        1 |
| Frietjes                        |        1 |
| Tsor                            |        1 |
| Osarius                         |        1 |
| Mr Stephen                      |        1 |
| MahdiBot                        |        1 |
| BattyBot                        |        1 |
| ThundaBot                       |        1 |
| Avraham                         |        1 |
| Almost-instinct                 |        1 |
| Dalahäst                       |        1 |
| Bencherlite                     |        1 |
| Ramesh Ramaiah                  |        1 |
| Δ                              |        1 |
| 211.235.45.13                   |        1 |
| Kolega2357                      |        1 |
| Bibliomaniac15                  |        1 |
| SarahStierch                    |        1 |
| Lionelt                         |        1 |
| JamesR                          |        1 |
| Shmomuffin                      |        1 |
| 131.230.81.166                  |        1 |
| John Vandenberg                 |        1 |
| 84.189.74.14                    |        1 |
| Nouniquenames                   |        1 |
| TBrandley                       |        1 |
| Jayron32                        |        1 |
| Toa Nidhiki05                   |        1 |
| John of Reading                 |        1 |
| 67.117.145.9                    |        1 |
| Mabeenot                        |        1 |
| Mainulmizan bot                 |        1 |
| Geoff Rounding                  |        1 |
| Svick                           |        1 |
| Gigs                            |        1 |
| Rschen7754                      |        1 |
| Light-jet pilot                 |        1 |
| Dicklyon                        |        1 |
| Simeondahl                      |        1 |
| Hmainsbot1                      |        1 |
+---------------------------------+----------+

Legoktm (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Darn you, AnomieBOT! *raises fist* —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I was the 15th most active editor. Didn't know that I was that active.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see: this bot problem. If one of you folks could have a look and fix this problem, it would be appreciated. — Ched :  ?  20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I already replied to you there ages ago. Mind looking at it? -.- Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone look at the discussion on User_talk:Bishonen and give their expert opinion if the edits from the 91.x.x.x Deutsche Telecom range look they might be bot-like or script-assisted? They are mostly formatting changes, some of which involve finding and removing non-visible elements like HTML comments, which is hard for me to imagine how they could be done manually with that kind of proficiency... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For example, how did Special:Contributions/91.10.0.199 find five articles in under two minutes, all having the same "formatting comments"? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask. I've been working on a bot that creates some maintenance lists for WikiProject Physics. The bot is only ever editing pages in its own user space, so I understand from WP:BOTAPPROVAL that it doesn't need formal approval. However, one of the tasks might be of interest also for many other wikiprojects, so I'd like to ask for advice before letting the bot create a lot of pages. I think it should not get a bot flag since it's desirable that its edits show up on watchlists of interested users. The question is if it should still get formal approval or if an informal tumbs-up is sufficient (or if you think it's a bad idea to run it at all...). — HHHIPPO 13:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's going to be creating a lot of pages or making a lot of edits to its userspace, then it should get approval. Although by "a lot" I'm thinking of some of these edit count bots that were editing hundreds of pages per day, or these "am I online" bots that guessed people's online status every few minutes. Note that just having the bot flag doesn't mean the edits have to be marked as bot; you'd also have to specify "bot=1" on the API action=edit. Anomie⚔ 15:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, good to know about the flag. At the moment the bot is editing 31 pages and I run it manually about once a week. I think I'll do some more testing and once it either exceeds 100 pages or I feel ready to let it run unattended, I'll file a BRFA. In any case I'll not allow the bot to create pages without supervision. — HHHIPPO 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, bot approvals are really handled by this group and bureaucrats simply apply a rubber stamping because only crats have the technical ability to add the bot flag. Is this the best way to do things, or does it make more sense to simply make a new userright for bot approval group members so bureaucrats don't have to apply the rubber stamp?

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucrat tools. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  17:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Crats dont rubber stamp things, its a check and balance. Werieth (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who used the term "rubber stamp", which was an oversimplification - bureaucrats are expected to exercise good judgment in granting bot flags; a check and balance as you say. As far as the AutomaticStrikeout's query, I do not think it is necessary to split out the bot flagging to a separate user right. As I understand it, this has been restricted to bureaucrats because of the potential problems you could cause with the bot flag. As far as I know, there have been no backlog issues in respect of bot flagging. –xeno^talk 19:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe this was proposed and !voted down at some point in the past few years. I forget where the discussion might have taken place, but if you can find it then reading through that might help. Anomie⚔ 01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but if it's not a good idea, I won't take it any further. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Could some respond at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 24, please? Is there a general backlog? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

BAG is currently hibernating...I think. :/—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dropped a reminder on all the "active" BAG members talk pages. Let's see if it makes a difference. Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked a question at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Link to blocked editor, and I think the bot operator may be on a wikibreak, so I'm posting here in case anyone else can answer my question there. I'm somewhat eager to get an answer because, depending on the answer, there may be a problem with block evasion. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it block evasion since the bot is the one performing the action. There's a link on my bot script that anyone can activate. Why I don't see this as a problem is because the blocked can't control the edits the bot is about to make. However, it should be recommended to disallow activations from blocked users. Hope I made sense.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply! Do I understand correctly that this means that the person took the action to activate the bot shortly before the bot made the edit, even though the person could not control what the bot actually did? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Legoktm (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't used the tool in a while, but looking at [5], it doesn't seem to ever validate your username. I suppose this lets blocked editors edit by proxy, but I don't think there is any potential room for abuse here. You could probably make the argument that by using Beta's auto-edit tools, he is editing by proxy technically. Legoktm (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm going to raise a question about the policy side of this issue at WP:AN#Bot use by blocked users. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion so far at AN, please let me ask whether it is technically possible to do any of the following:

1. Set a bot to reject requests from blocked accounts
2. Set a bot to determine and enter the name of the requesting account automatically
3. Set the blocking software, used by administrators to make blocks, to extend to blocking submissions to bot activation pages

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes (if there is some authentication), no, no (well, not without major modifications to the software). Besides TUSC, there currently is no form of external authentication that can be used, OAUTH still isn't considered stable enough for everyone yet (Anomie can correct me if I'm wrong). So yes the tool maintainer could require everyone to use TUSC authentication and then verify the user isn't blocked, but I doubt for such a simple and non-abusable tool like this any maintainer would want to. Legoktm (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do test OAuth, but at the moment it's only enabled on mediawiki.org, test.wikipedia.org, test2.wikipedia.org, and test.wikidata.org. At the moment I believe the core functionality is done, but some changes have been requested by the UI team. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• To answer your questions:

  1. If the bot knows what user is accessing yes.
  2. No. The only way it knew is if the user was required to enter the username and password, or feed it a watchlist token, which per policy is not allowed.
  3. No. Bots are independent of Wikipedia.

  —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll pass along your reply to AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Next steps

The discussion at AN is now concluded. I would like to explore further what it would take to make it so that bots would be able to reject requests from blocked users. Although a variety of opinions have been expressed by various editors, I think that it has become apparent that it is desirable to start working on this – not urgently, but as an improvement that eventually ought to be made. If I understand correctly, it would be good to start testing OAUTH, and subsequently to start finding ways to work it into the bot request process. Do I understand correctly? Is this realistic? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now the best thing to do is wait. oAuth is not a mature product, until it is coding for it is futile as things will change and bot code will be broken. Most people including most bot ops think adding oAuth layer for a simple bot like this where the requesting user has zero control of the final output is pointless. Werieth (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, yes. Productive use of time? Probably not. If a bot op had free time to work on something like this, their time would probably much better spent working on the endless backlog of requests at WP:BOTR. Legoktm (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm fine with taking our time with this. As I said, this is not urgent. However, I don't want that to become a coded way of saying that we are really never going to do it. The last part of what Werieth said implies that a consensus exists that the feature is not needed if the requester cannot control what the bot does. There may be a consensus amongst bot ops; I don't know. But that does not equal a consensus in the broader community. At the policy level, I think it's pretty clear that even a bot edit by a blocked editor is still an edit by a blocked editor. At some point, we may need an RfC to determine what the community thinks is in the project's best interests, which is not automatically the same thing as what is convenient for bot developers. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because the community wants it to happen, doesn't mean the bot ops are going to implement it. I'm not saying that I find something like this a complete waste of time, but rather it will take a lot of time to implement and it's hard to enforce. Anybody can start the OCC task on Cyberbot II's run page, even blocked and banned users. Are they block evading because of that? Not really. The bot will do the same thing everytime that link is clicked.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, please understand that I'm not demanding that anybody stop what they're doing now and go to work on it. We are all volunteers, clearly. That's fine. But, "Are they block evading because of that?" Yes, they are. Policy is not set by what bot editors feel like doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. Regardless of who activated the bot it would do the exact same edit. In this case this is a storm in a tea cup. You could create a policy that stated that left handed editors could only edit if they wore a pink hat. It has nothing to do with the content of the edit, and more about posturing. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not cause drama. Werieth (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And if the bot owner decides not to implement your feature? You can either ignore the supposed "policy violation" which we're doing right now, or you can block it. I don't think anyone is going to enact the second solution because of common sense. (After EC: Also what Werieth said.) Legoktm (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm here to build an encyclopedia too. Dial it down, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive my lack of expertise, but on re-reading above, I see that there is also something called TUSC. Do I understand correctly that it, unlike OAUTH, is far enough along that it could be used in principle, other than that it would be a lot of work for which there is low enthusiasm? What are the advantages and disadvantages of TUSC relative to OAUTH in this context? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

TUSC is hosted on the toolserver, and that is being decommissioned next year. TUSC has its own issues, waiting for oAuth would be better of the three. Having a bot make an edit is the same thing as having the blocked user request that another user make an edit. Whomever makes the edit is responsible for the content. Werieth (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. (That's an interesting concept: a bot as a sockpuppet.) Anyway, the conclusion that I am drawing is that a technical fix is unrealistic in the near future – as for the distant future, it's desirable in principle, but who knows what will actually happen. As an alternative, I've started a discussion at WT:BLOCK about ways that we might educate blocked users to avoid using bots by accident, as happened in the incident that led me to raise the question initially. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless the blocked user is actually supplying content in some manner, I don't see the issue here. This looks to be a waste of time. TUSC is used for instances where the user actually has control over what edits the bot makes (for instance, to tell a bot to import a user-specified Flickr image to Commons) but that's not the case with the citation 'bot. Your proposal would appear to be a solution looking for a problem at this point. K7L (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My comment just above yours indicated that I was moving on from this discussion, but I guess that didn't prevent you from replying to me anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is seriously one of the most pointless "incidents" i've ever seen. Tryptofish, you are seriously wasting everyone's time. The only thing these bots can do is improve articles. That is all they do. It doesn't matter who directs them toward an article, they will just improve it. I am seriously tempted to just start requesting a bunch of edits from it with a bunch of banned editors' names just to be ornery. Silverseren^C 06:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to comment here, then don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite SilverSeren's tone, I feel like they might be touching on a valid point: I can't think of a case where the identity of the user who clicks the "run" button makes a difference to the output of a bot. Can you give an example where a blocked user could damage Wikipedia by causing an approved bot to run? In the case of Citation Bot, the bot automatically visits pages anyway, so the worst that a user can do is to make the bot visit is slightly sooner than it otherwise would have done. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved on, but since you ask. As long as the bot makes constructive edits, as all bots presumably do, then the answer is no, but that's missing my point. What happens if someone, acting maliciously as a false flag, runs the bot entering another user's name, where the named user is under a topic ban at that page? No harm to the page, but a potential for needless drama as the named editor tries in vain to defend themselves from accusations of violating their ban. And, quite simply, we don't say that blocked editors are only blocked from making bad edits. They are blocked from making all edits, period. But, to repeat, I've moved on, because it's clear to me that no one is going to do anything about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I can say that if User:HasteurBot/KickoffNom were "activated" by a blocked user it would cause some annoyance to the admins and be disruptive. That's why the activation is locked behing a FullProtect. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've rejiggled the BAG-member activity list

• More than two BRfA edits in the last couple of months => active
• More than two BRfA edits in the last year => semi-active

-- Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user, 
    -> (
    ->   select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where 
    ->   rev_page in (
    ->     select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
    ->     and rev_timestamp>'20131001000000'
    ->     and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   and
    ->     rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) as sub
    -> where user_id=rev_user
    -> group by user_name
    -> having brfas>1
    -> order by user_name
    -> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name   | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie      |    11 |
| Hellknowz   |    24 |
| Josh Parris |    35 |
+-------------+-------+
3 rows in set (0.11 sec)

-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
select user_name, count(rev_page) as brfas from user, 
    -> (
    ->   select distinct rev_user, rev_page from revision where 
    ->   rev_page in (
    ->     select page_id from page where page_namespace=4
    ->     and rev_timestamp>'20130101000000'
    ->     and page_title like 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   and
    ->     rev_user in (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) as sub
    -> where user_id=rev_user
    -> group by user_name
    -> having brfas>1
    -> order by user_name
    -> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name   | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Addshore    |    86 |
| Anomie      |    31 |
| Chris G     |    30 |
| Hellknowz   |    77 |
| Jarry1250   |     8 |
| Josh Parris |    36 |
| Kingpin13   |    11 |
| MBisanz     |    88 |
| Madman      |     6 |
| MaxSem      |     2 |
| Maxim       |    14 |
| Quadell     |     2 |
| Snowolf     |     2 |
| The Earwig  |    12 |
+-------------+-------+
14 rows in set (0.10 sec)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Parris (talk • contribs)

I'll consider you curating the list as involved and thus ineligible for prizes. :) By the way, those stats don't represent just the BAG activity, but also their own BRFA activity. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Even more explanation as to why there's been no activity on my BRfA for a week. I ought to fix the query so the users aren't hard-coded either. Josh Parris 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to check where the BAG stand on this issue. If a user has an approved AWB bot, do they have to run a new BRFA for every task, or if it is a small run (eg. <200 pages), can they just run that without approval? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 08:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 they need approval for each task. It does not matter whether it is an AWB bot or any other type of bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That being said, some approvals can be broader then others (no blanket "AWB for misc uses") so if they are related categories it may be requested that way. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We have 3 "active" BAG members and a collection of semi-active BAG members. Based on the fact that we have bot tasks falling off of WP:BOTREQ and WP:BRFA requests withering on the vine, I have to ask if we need to add annother BAG member or two to ensure that requests are being actioned in a reasonable timeframe. This may include putting forth my own candidacy for BAG. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering that I'm still willing to help, but I haven't done much BRFA work because of RL and my continued work on my bots and my new tool, so I won't likely receive sufficient support.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ran Josh Parris' sql from above again for more up to date information.

-- Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user, 
    -> (
    ->   SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE 
    ->   rev_page IN (
    ->     SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
    ->     AND rev_timestamp>'20140401000000'
    ->     AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   AND
    ->     rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) AS sub
    -> WHERE user_id=rev_user
    -> GROUP BY user_name
    -> HAVING brfas>1
    -> ORDER BY user_name
    -> ;
+-----------+-------+
| user_name | brfas |
+-----------+-------+
| Hellknowz |     2 |
| MBisanz   |    13 |
| MaxSem    |     2 |
| Slakr     |     9 |
| Tawker    |     2 |
+-----------+-------+
5 rows in set (0.07 sec)

-- Semi-Active + Active BAG members
SELECT user_name, COUNT(rev_page) AS brfas FROM user, 
    -> (
    ->   SELECT DISTINCT rev_user, rev_page FROM revision WHERE 
    ->   rev_page IN (
    ->     SELECT page_id FROM page WHERE page_namespace=4
    ->     AND rev_timestamp>'20140101000000'
    ->     AND page_title LIKE 'Bots/Requests_for_approval/%'
    ->   )
    ->   AND
    ->     rev_user IN (335180,642191,301903,321557,36005,2091313,2720564,12013,1430004,10056771,
    ->     1368726,1461430,9790634,3075976,206571,2411536,2899122,201578,7777104,92123,4024233,
    ->     590476,3516226,880249,646348,58193,57108,449918,3637572,1272505,849713,
    ->     134937,212671,7418060,10226661,1951636,349283,502540,1795359)
    -> ) AS sub
    -> WHERE user_id=rev_user
    -> GROUP BY user_name
    -> HAVING brfas>1
    -> ORDER BY user_name
    -> ;
+-------------+-------+
| user_name   | brfas |
+-------------+-------+
| Anomie      |     6 |
| Hellknowz   |    22 |
| Josh Parris |     7 |
| MBisanz     |    15 |
| MaxSem      |     2 |
| Mr.Z-man    |     2 |
| Slakr       |     9 |
| Tawker      |     2 |
+-------------+-------+
8 rows in set (0.06 sec)

Can I suggest we trial a peer review system, whereby any bot operator in good standing can trial and approve another's bot request (i.e. a seconder), provided:

1. The request is at least seven days old
2. The request is uncontested and unlikely to be controversial

• Any BAG member may overrule these decisions

930913 {{ping}} 15:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No please :( Legoktm (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to pick up some slack soon, this is hardly a new phenomenon and I'd rather have bot requests waiting than bad bots approved. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

While the situation is problematic, we've already tried a trial system in the past and it did not work out well. Bots have a lot of potential to cause damage and upset editors. I suggest that we instead once again point out that a) everybody is welcome to comment on pages, and that is very helpful b) people should candidate themselves for the BAG :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think backlog has seriously reduced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

See User:Williamrochira: Revision history and User talk:2.96.110.80. Confirmation of my interpretation of policy and – if the IP requests it – further expert advice would be welcomed. Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot policy allows editing in the operator's userspace without requiring approval. Would be nice if they used an account though. Legoktm (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for that – I didn't read down far enough, did I? However that statement must be subject to the overriding requirement that everything done here must be to help build the encyclopedia, which isn't obvious from the edits (though we can AGF for now); and continuing to produce edits at the rate they have done today (93 edits in a bit over 2 hours) might run the risk of being considered disruptive. Isn't there a test wiki that they can use for extensive initial testing like this?  —SMALLJIM  14:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP is responsive, I replied on its talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard because I'm not sure if people read both pages).

Greetings bot developers and administrators! I'm the author of a software library called WikiBrain that democratizes access to Wikipedia-based algorithms from the fields of natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and GIScience. We would like to make these features available to bot developers and Wikipedia researchers through a web API, and have written an individual engagement grant that would support this work.

We need your help in designing the API! Do you have a bot that wants a bigger brain? Head over to the use cases feedback page, review the features WikiBrain offers, and add a sentence or two to tell us what you'd like included in the API. I'd also love pointers to other places to get in touch with bot developers. Thanks! Shilad (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am not really passionate about running bots, but I need to solve the T-cedilla problem (replace T cedilla (Ţ) with T comma (Ț) instead) and it would be too much work for asking others to do it. T cedilla (Ţ) was wrongly atributed to Romanian language and in fact no language is using T cedilla (Ţ). It must be eradicated everywhere in Wikipedia articles, by the way (except just a few articles like cedilla).

All the categories that contain a T-cedilla in their title must be renamed (replacing T-cedilla with T-comma) and the articles must be moved into the new category. For example, the articles inside Category:H.C.M. Constanţa handball players must be moved into Category:H.C.M. Constanța handball players. There are about 139 such categories, for some of them the work is already done - I listed them here: User:Ark25/Robot#T Cedilla - Categories. I started to do the work manually with my bot candidate: Special:Contributions/ArkBot. I am already using ArkBot at Romanian Wikipedia ro:Special:Contributions/ArkBot and I am fairly used with AWB - tens of thousands of edits (more than 20.000 for sure.). Although I would be very happy if someone else would take care of removing the T cedilla infestation, by the way :). —  Ark25  (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct place for this request. I see you've already posted at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 62#Renaming articles containing T cedilla, which is the correct place. Anomie⚔ 12:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It stopped on December 8, don't know why, I need to check my Tool labs account, but I can't access it, I think I need a new key to do that.Lbertolotti (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I solved the problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 January 2015

Just formally noting that I've proposed am arbitration motion that mentions the BAG. Don't think it really has much effect on y'all really, though. Courcelles 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, all in a day's work stuff. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Bot policy)

Which bot checks external links to make sure they are still good (and not dead)? Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No bot, but Cyberbot II is awaiting its trial to test it out.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will you ping me once the trials have been completed? Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Just follow the Cyberbot II 5 trial. Feel free to comment there.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Request_for_comment:_Bot_flags_and_bureaucrats for a proposal to adjust the way that the bot flag is assigned. →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A user came to complaining that the BRFA process is slow at the moment. Need another user to help out?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 01:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi fellow BAG's, active members have likely been called to this discussion. Please review Special:PermaLink/726543278#Statement_by_Xaosflux - am seeking consensus for formally removing prior approval for these old tasks (not currently running due to arbcom sanctions). Should the general sanction be lifted I suggest they be represented if desired to give opportunity for community discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems likely to be a good idea. I note some of those have since been taken over by other bots, and it probably wouldn't hurt to give the ones that haven't a fresh look to see whether they're still wanted and if they need any adjustment to the details of the task.

Besides Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot that you already noted, there's also Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot and Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot Anomie⚔ 01:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this all seems sane. — Earwig ^talk 06:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what I had already in mind. No old task should be resumed. Most of them are outdated, completed or now done by other bots in a more optimal way. Any bot run should go through the normal bot approval process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It would have been courteous to ping me about this discussion. I came across it reviewing Xaosflux's contributions for their RfB.

More - it would have been sensible to sound me out about the proposal, to obviate the need for discussion, as I quite willing to re-apply for the tasks.

I take it that FemtoBot 7 would not need re-application, as suggested by Xaosflux in the amendment request.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

Hello Rich Farmbrough - I did link to this in my statement response at the arbitration request-apologies if it wasn't clear to you; I also support continuing approval for FemtoBot Task#7. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. And thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

• Note: The arbcom motion has concluded is closing Special:Permalink/728924349#Rich_Farmbrough:_Motion_.28sanctions_rescinded.29; excepting Femptobot #7 - it appears we are in agreement to revoke prior authorizations - any dissenters? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  I can't imagine anyone would care but for safety's sake motions don't actually take effect until a clerk actions a motion (which is done 24 hours after the deciding vote. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  To be fair, the discussion basically says that this is not an arbcom issue and we should deal with it. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've indeffed InternetArchiveBot as it is apparently malfunctioning. Not entirely sure of the protocol as it's the first block I've ever done on a bot. Owner notified, any admin may unblock withour further reference to myself. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I suggest you start a thread on this at WP:BOWN and invite the operators to it. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I've already notified the bot operator as a courtesy. Do I still need to start the thread? Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No you don't. As long as the problems are being dealt with, there's no need to escalate.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's dealt with that's fine - I was suggesting WP:BOWN would be a better venue then WT:BAG or WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't have a formal "activity" requirement for BAG membership, however User:EdoDodo appears to have left Wikipedia, with no edits in 5 years - baring any objections I think we can take that as a retirement notice from BAG. Any objections? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Marked as former. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I recently blocked Yobot for making cosmetic-only edits. The discussion is at User talk:Yobot#Expanding templates. It then transpired that many of these edits do not actually have consensus in the first place, in some cases actually being vigorously opposed. The problem seems to be that there is no quality control on the contents of AWB general fixes. I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes. SpinningSpark 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: can you point to an approved BRFA that was for genfixes only as an example? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I can't. That wasn't my point. My point is that some general fixes do not have consensus to do at all, either by themselves or as part of a more substantive edit, and nobody is controlling this. SpinningSpark 16:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Yobot made cosmetic-only edits as a result of a bug. If you check you'll see that these changes are not the rule but the exception. At the same day Dexbot was blocked for similar reasons. The main reason was that the fixing bad ref names was readjusted and extended in an area not fixed by AWB and even worse in an area where adding quotes is optional and not mandatory. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: your concern is not the cosmetic changes but the fact that bypassing redirects should not be done at all, right? I think at some point you made it your concerns more explicit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: you know that Yobot has been making cosmetic-only edits for years. There are regular complaints about it on your and Yobot's talk pages. What is needed is a commitment from you that it will stop. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we please take the issue of Yobot's block back to Yobot's talk page. The issue I'm raising here is not Yobot's cosmetic edits, but rather that there is no control over the contents of general fixes. If you really want to get BAG involved in Yobot's block then please start a new thread under this one. SpinningSpark 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking with a BAG hat: we don't approve genfix only bots, if the community doesn't want bots ever doing genfixes (even when also doing another more specific task) we will need to inform bot operators to adjust their scripts. This would need a broader discussion for consensus on that topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as malfunctioning bots: if a bot is off task and won't stop: block it - once the operator has identified the cause and agreed to repair it the block should not be needed. Most bot tasks (exp the kinds that involve genfixes) aren't of high importance to the project and if they need to be suspended for a discussion, the encyclopedia should be fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My bot, BG19bot does use genfixes in order to correct Checkwiki errors. It does have approval to fix Checkwiki errors. Spinningspark and SlimVirgin's comments would make me believe they want to shut down my bot and other user's AWB bots. Others that have commented at Yobot's talk page that would imply shutting down my bot. One bad fix is one too many for CBM for example. Genfixes are used to fix broken brackets in templates, wikilinks and external links. Another thing would be fixing ill-formed tags (ie </br>) in which the WMF asked me to fix. These tags will no longer work when the new parser for Mediawiki is changed from Tidy. Fixing URLs would be another category, such as adding http: to urls (ie www.google.com) or removing multiple http (ie httpshttps://www.google.com). It fixes bad ISBN syntax (ISBN: 1234567890) and DEFAULTSORT problems. It fixes some accessibility issues. AWB does not fix all Checkwiki errors. You will see that my block log is clean except for one bad block that was quickly overturned. Looking at my talk page, you won't see all the huge drama that is at Yobots. BG19bot 9 approval, fix for accessibility, does mention that genfixes will be used and 10 people did comment in the discussion. Other discussions are: BU RoBOT, OmniBot 5, BattyBot, Yobot, BattyBot, Fluxbot and there are more. There are also requests by BAG operators to turn off genfixes as it wasn't needed to fix the issue. Genfixes isn't a free for all as SpinningSpark alledges. Bgwhite (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I certainly think that we should distinguish between fixes that are fixing something broken like missing brackets, and fixes that are style issues (by that, I don't mean just the MOS things, but also format things that are only seen in the edit window). Fixing broken syntax is entirely uncontroversial. Style issues are not always so. In fact those are the things people often fight most bitterly over. Bots should not be making style changes that are controversial. As an example, the initial issue with Yobot concerned bypassing the redirect {{main}} → {{main article}}. Now I don't want to start an argument over whether or not that is a good idea to do and there are other examples. The point is that it is controversial, does not have consensus, and is being executed by bots. There are complaints about template redirects going back at least to 2010. This RFC in 2011 (conducted on the AWB talk page) failed to get consensus for bypassing redirects. So why in 2016 are they still being implemented by bots? The very first complaint should have instantly got it taken out of AWB. To my mind it should work something like the WP:PROD process. If a style change is being implemented without a guideline or community consensus to support that change, then the first objection should kill it, immediately, and without argument. Get a consensus before putting it back. Even if there is a guideline supporting it, it is still not necessarily something bots should be doing. Every guideline has a header saying "occasional exceptions may apply". If an editor offers a credible reason for exceptions, and the task is not mandatory for policy or other reasons, then a way to accommodate those exceptions should be found. Or else, again, get a consensus to force it. SpinningSpark 01:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Template redirects are not in the scope of this talk page. That is AWB related. So you still want to block my and all the other bots I mentioned. All the above use genfixes for some of their approved runs. By the time a list of articles with a certain problem is generated from a dump file, database request or a Checkwiki run, some of those articles will already be fixed or vandalism reverted. When those bots arrive at those fixed articles, genfixes will still be applied, thus creating a cosmetic edit, possibly doing a template redirect. It will do something you do not approve of and have stated the bot should be blocked. I do feel you will block my bot as soon as you notice something you do not aprove of.

Your second statement My point is that some general fixes do not have consensus to do at all, either by themselves or as part of a more substantive edit, and nobody is controlling this. Is this still your point? I've been taken to ANI, threatened to be blocked and asked to be blocked for something AWB's genfixes did that was not "consensus". This includes removing blank lines between items in a list for accessibility. This includes moving TOC so screen readers can access the article. This includes making a cosmetic edit minutes after the issue was fixed, and they thought one cosmetic edit is one too many and bot should be blocked. This also includes fixing brackets, headlines and defaultsort. What you call uncontroversial is controversal to others and visa versa. The very first complaint should have instantly got it taken out of AWB.... Then AWB would have no fixes. The TOC fixes were given approval on BAG and the accessibility page. It is in MOS. I was still taken to ANI multiple times because there was no general consensus or editors of that page should decide TOC placement. Removing the blank lines was given approval on BAG and accessibility pages, plus posted to proposal pump. It is also in MOS. Again, people wanted it to stop and there were requests for me to be blocked because there was no general consensus or it was "trivial edit". No AWB genfixes has "consensus". You are holding Yobot hostage and demanding all AWBs stop until your AWB's pet peeve is fixed. My bot's bad block came from an admin who thought the bot shouldn't be "fixing" their articles, even though the "fix" is in MOS and the issue can cause problems. They blocked me out of the blue and wanted it to stay blocked until their pet peeve was removed. It was quickly overturned and there was a "fun" discussion on should the bot be doing that at all.

Back to your original question. I think that BAG should be exercising this control to ensure that general fixes has this consensus. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then you should stop giving permission to bots to do general fixes. Bender the Bot, Josvebot and JJMC89 bot are examples where genfixes was asked to be turned off or bot was denied. Add the bot approvals from above that stated genfixes would be used. The answer is yes, BAGs do exercise control. Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That is control over which bots do genfixes. It is not control over the content of genfixes. There needs to be some formal structure controlling what gets into genfixes in the first place. SpinningSpark 10:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Just to be clear, Fluxbot task 6 does not use genfixes at all. It only uses a specific find/replace table to target the malformed tags it is approved for. I don't really like genfixes for my bot in general, and never run them. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The real issue here is a small number of AWB bots for which the maintainers do not put in effort to prevent cosmetic-only edits. There are other AWB bots whose maintainers manage to avoid that problem, so the issue is not AWB itself. The solution of simply having AWB bots (in fact, all bots) only perform the specific changes which they are approved to make, and not apply other "general fixes", would certainly solve this issue. And it would be in line with the idea of bot approval. In general, if there is clear consensus for a certain style to be implemented everywhere, a bot could be approved to make that change, so there is no need for bots to make extra unapproved "fixes" while carrying out approved tasks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be a solution as far as bots are concerned. It would still leave an issue with AWB of potentially stuff sneaking in without consensus, but it would then no longer be an issue for BAG and would have to be dealt with elsewhere. The current position though, is that BAG has approved a number of bots to make genfixes provided they are not cosmetic only. Are you proposing that those approvals should be withdrawn? SpinningSpark 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a problem with this: Two saves when there could have been just one. If a bot makes its main change and doesn't do general fixes, then another AWB user (or even manual editor) makes prescribed general fixes, that's two saves. Saves are expensive. So, if the bot makes its main change and makes general fixes at the same time, that's better for database performance. With the issue of how general fixes become general fixes kept as a separate argument, I don't see a problem with "killing two birds with one stone". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But "the issue of how general fixes become general fixes" is exactly the issue that I have brought to this board. I don't have a problem with bots doing genfixes in principle, but it does need to be controlled like all bot activity. SpinningSpark 19:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still outside of the point I was making in response to CBM. AWB users (not just bots) apply general fixes today, and given they are following the rule to not make cosmetic-only changes, they are acting in good faith and generally doing useful work. So, if a bot can't do what the many AWB users are doing, then you likely end up with more save's. I prefer the better performance of fewer save's. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There are many things editors can do with AWB that shouldn't be done by bots. SpinningSpark 20:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to keep missing my point, I can't stop you, but given a bot is making a particular edit on purpose, there should be no particular harm with adding general fixes to that, and there's the plus of better database performance overall. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Another example would be the changes that Dexbot is currently making, such as this edit. This is adding a template that changes the appearance of an external link from Official website to Official website. There's no problem with the former version, and in fact it is explicitly permitted by our guidelines (WP:ELOFFICIAL): the use of templates in this area is strictly optional. The change isn't a "fix" at all: it is cosmetic and appears to be the personal preference of an editor. As far as I can tell from the records, the decision to try and change every such link on the wiki to use a template appears to have been taken here, back in August, by a single member of the BAG. No RfC that I can find, no wider discussion, including on the relevant guidelines page. I don't think this sort of wiki-wide change should be carried out without establishing consensus first. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux, sorry to ping you about something else, but I don't know who else to ask. Looking at Dexbot's edits, which are converting links to official sites to templates (example), WP:ELOFFICIAL says: "Use of the template {{official website}} is optional." So (1) the edits violate COSMETICBOT and (2) they have no consensus. Why would BAG approve the task? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Please keep in mind, BAG members do not make most decisions "by committee", Dexbot task 6 was approved by @Magioladitis: - so I'd start by asking him. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Which neatly brings us back to my proposal about a million bytes further up the page that bots running a task that does not have policy to back it up or a consensus they can point to should immediately stop on the first objection. Editors shouldn't have to jump through these hoops to get a task they don't like stopped. Now anticipating your reply that BAG usually demands that before approving a bot, if that's the case then you should seriously consider throwing out Magioladitis from BAG. He clearly cannot be trusted to make the distinction. He cannot even keep his own bot under control. SpinningSpark 00:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark BAG membership does not have a thorough policy, but ejection should not be unilaterally decided by any other member, nor by only sitting members. BAG membership is gained via a community discussion and absent any other policy I would suggest the same would be needed for forced removal (not excluding any ArbCom decrees). A "recall" or "no confidence" discussion below would be where I suggest this is held. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram has now cleared out nearly all the template redirects from AWB, I think mostly in frustration at this problem. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation. As AWB genfixes are being carried out by a large number of editors as well as bots, I propose that BAG treat AWB itself as a bot and require approval for additions to genfixes, and retrospectively require approval to be sought for existing genfixes. If this isn't done we will only end up with genfixes filled up with controversial stuff again in the future. SpinningSpark 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of AWB's general fixes are based on Guidelines and Documentation. I try to keep a record of all of them in WP:GENFIXES and WP:AWB/H. Today one of the last longstanding problem, the newlines between the headers has been removed from "general fixes". After redirects discussion, I think there is still one issue to be resolved with one way or another and we are done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to be part of BAG! :D As one of my first orders of business, I wanted to propose renaming the "Bot Approvals Group" to simply "Bot Approvers"... As flattering as it may be to be part of it, I personally think "Bot Approvals Group" sounds like some elitist cult, and the "BAG" acronym sounds quite silly when used as a descriptor. E.g. Magioladitis is a wonderful bag [member], Slakr is one of the best bags, or Xaosflux is one of the oldest and baggiest bags (pings intentional, plz don't mind the humour). One might confuse "bot approver" as being a real user group, but I think that's OK. The current name just sounds weird when the obvious and more straightforward "bot approver" can be used, as most people have no idea what BAG stands for. I know The Earwig mentioned he wasn't too fond of the name, are we alone on this? Perhaps it's too big of a deal to carry out a rename (all the pages, templates, etc.), for something so simple? I noticed the nifty WP:BA redirect is linked all of 17 times, so we could hijack it — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am rather fond of the current name and acronym. Perhaps it's just me but I interpret "group" as a collaborative effort, the members of the group collectively approve bots, rather than in an elitist way where it's some secret cabal of approvers. Plus I think BAG is a rather fun name. A utilitarian name for a utilitarian group, one that undermines the idea that it is a lofty group. It's humbling. Compare "I need a bot approver" with "I need a BAG person". That being said, you offer a lot of good reasons for why a name change might be beneficial. Much better reasons than that I like it. So I'd prefer the name stay as is, but am not against the change proposed. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  In some old discussions there was concern that BAG was getting cabal-y at one point, but that seems to have died down. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not too strongly attached to the name - but there are a lot of things to rename, not sure if it is worth the hassle. No objections to usurping BA and starting to integrate it in. I really think our biggest need is just to get more of us to be active in reviewing the requests/trials/approvals. We've got a newsletter I started earlier this year, prob will send out again in January if there is anything you want to add start editing Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/News. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was my biggest concern – that it's a lot of work to formally carry out the rename. Just so we know, if there there is consensus for the change, I'm willing to do most of the leg work. I'm doing my best to help at BRFA, and intend on being regularly active there. There are a few up right now with lengthy discussion, so I'm not going to try to get involved with those at this point. Beyond that, if you want to take a much needed break from any new BRFAs that come in, feel free to do so :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  For the most part, I don't "claim" any that I touch - if I approve a trial (which I do fairly liberally - and we may want to think about allowing small self-trials, perhaps with a hold period...) feel free to take over at any point. Unless I go absent, I would like to see AnomieBOT III 3 though to the end in a few days though. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I personally like BAG. It's easier and less awkward to say bag and not ba. :p—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• I guess we should have seen this coming... To me "group" seems synonymous to "committee", and it just means that BAG works more as a team rather than individually. And I like that. Legoktm (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  Well when you paint the picture like that then the name sounds quite fitting! I like that attitude too :) but I don't think BAG members work together anymore than admins or checkusers do, for example. Either way clearly we are all happier sticking with BAG, and doing all the renaming work certainly wouldn't have been fun. None of this has any importance, I was merely under the false impression "Bot Approvals Group" wasn't all that popular, and opposition to a rename would have been minimal — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I too don't see the point of a rename, and I quite like the current name and acronym as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• I think BAG is well established in our community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't really care. It might sorta actually be better because it sounds silly; I'm just waiting for an opportunity to use "WP:CANVASS WP:BAG." Plus, being a "bagger" doesn't sound glamorous (and it isn't), so it's one less thing for unqualified hat collectors to attempt to collect if it sounds silly. But again, I don't really care. --slakr^\ talk / 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark, would you mind looking at the discussion at User talk:Ladsgroup#Cosmetic edits, and decide whether Dexbot should be blocked? I asked him to stop, but he has resumed.

Ladsgroup is a Wikidata developer and works for Wikimedia Deutschland. Magioladitis asked him to convert all official websites links to templates for Wikidata purposes, like this. Wikidata-enabling edits are a contentious issue on the English Wikipedia. In addition, the guideline says that using templates is optional. So (a) this task has no consensus, (b) it ignores the relevant guideline; and (c) the bot operator arguably has a conflict of interest—not an issue if he has consensus; without it, it's an additional problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: respectfully, this page is about the operations of BAG, not about specific incidents. Reviews for blocks are better handled at AN/I where a much larger audience is available, or alternately at WP:BOWN. (stats: This page only has 209 watchers, BOWN has 532, ANI has ~1300.) — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, the last comment from Ladsgroup says the bot has been stopped. This seems to be true as far as I can tell so no adminstrative action is currently required in any case. SpinningSpark 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Xaosflux, will do, and thanks to both. Ladsgroup has indeed agreed to stop. The reason I posted it here is that it's an example of Magioladitis approving a task that didn't comply with the relevant guideline, so it seemed pertinent. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Following on from earlier conversations, I've been trying to get User:Ladsgroup to explain when the BAG approved the task behind the cosmetic edit here. So far, the conversation User talk:Ladsgroup#Latest Dexbot changes... hasn't got very far; if I understand Ladsgroup correctly, he accepts that the change is cosmetic and that the task wasn't approved by the BAG and shouldn't have been undertaken by his bot, but would be grateful if User:Xaosflux or another member of the BAG could confirm - Ladsgroup isn't very clear about this sort of thing normally. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This issue raised by Hchc2009 is not really a bot edit. Consensus for it is here. The edits in question are request by me one at a time. This is more like a gadget. Regardless Ladsgroup has build a better tool for me to use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)