Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hi, I am user:Walter. I ask this in the function as steward. When user comes on Meta to ask for bot-status for EN Wikipedia it is not always clear for me of he has approval or not.

2 cases/examples;

Case 1

• meta:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:CmdrObot
  • w:en:User:CmdrObot

There is a listing about this bot on the correct page. But there was no responds from the community.

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#User:CmdrObot

User Fetofs responded that the bot is not approved. That it only can be rejected. And also point to the text on the top of that page. That seems strange to me because a request that has received no responds is not rejected. And not rejected is approved by default. But I possibly do not understand it. That is why I ask clarification about the process here.

Case 2

• meta:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:Rschen7754bot
  • User:Rschen7754bot

There is discussion about its bot-status on Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive_13#Rschen7754bot

According user Rschen7754 this is a community approval for bot-status. For me that is not so clear.

I like to get some advice so I do not need to ask users to take steps that are not needed but also that I only give bot-status with community approval. Walter 15:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't made myself clear. This second case is pretty clear - that was the place to request bot-status, and by the old rule, as that bot was not rejected, it was approved by default. My hunch is that this rule is also valid for the first bot, due to the lack of votes in that bot and previous bots, but I'd wait a while for confirmation.

For future concerns, I suggest you take every bot in that area as approved by default. Fetofs ^Hello! 21:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you responds. I find it very disappointing that the EN Wikipedia is so unclear about it bot policy. Other Wikis do that much better. I will consider nominations without responds as granted by default. --Walter 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It has always stated in the "rules" that the bot must wait a week to gather "rough consensus" before running, but in general they have assumed as unless opposed, then granted. Also, this page is rather new, before the discussion where directly on the bot talk page, so often the requests where lost in the page and forgotten, there was almost no procedure for approving and/or dissaproving a bot, I hope this can be better now. _→AzaToth 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The approvals procedure is about to be overhauled, hopefully it will be clearer then. Anyway, do you think this talk page should redirect to WT:BOTS, to keep all discussions central?--Commander Keane 01:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to leave this page here for organization, etc. However, if there are only a few people watching it and WT:BOTS is not cluttered, a redirect would not be harmful. BTW, we should redirect it to Wikipedia talk:Bots, not WT:BOTS. Fetofs ^Hello! 13:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Requests for approval"? – Gurch 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree :) Fetofs ^Hello! 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Freakofnurture changed it. Thanks! – Gurch 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Flagging about a proposal for notifying bureaucrats of the need to assign/remove bot flags as accounts are approved. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would just like to repeat, for those who may have missed it the first time around, that pointing users to individual bureaucrats for flags is a very bad idea. 20 different bureaucrat's talk pages are not a centralized location, and having users ask for their own bot flags leaves all the work to the bureaucrats, when it could easily be done by the approvals group. There are two pages, Wikipedia:Requested bot flags and Wikipedia:Bots/Approval log, available for notifying bureaucrats of the need, and permission, to flag a bot. It would be greatly appreciated if "Okay, go ask a bureaucrat" were replaced with a 2 second edit to one of those pages. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Or replacing "Go ask a bureaucrat" with "Go write your name so-and-so page." That would work too. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It would, as long as they link to a decision by an approvals group member. Unfortunately, and I speak from great experience in these sorts of things, most people can't be bothered to follow instructions and you either end up having to say "I refuse to do this until you get it right" or go search for it yourself. If the approvals group member does it, all that has to be done is check the history and see that it is legit. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have recently gotten the approval to run and have received a bot flag for my bot user:BetacommandBot. during this process I noticed that the procedure for getting the preamble for running a bot can a extreamly difficult and time consuming process. I would like to make a suggestion. Split the page Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals into five pages.

• Bots that are being discussed
• Bots that have a aproved trial run
• Bots that are approved and waitng a flag
• Bot that are approved and wish to get approval for another task
• Bot disscusion archives
• and disscusions that have stalled and are over60 days old without any edits

which is something simialar that is uses for WP:CFD/ WP:RFA and the use of subpages for each bot Betacommand 07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Looks like Essjay did it. Alphachimp ^talk 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WHoever re-organised the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals page. Rich Farmbrough 20:49 18 July 2006 (GMT).

That would be me. Essjay (Talk) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay Essjay! :) -- Where 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any feelings on moving individual request to subpages ala rfa and mfd? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I sugested that before Essjay cleaned the page up. Essjay doesnt think its a good idea there is aparently a lot of housekeeping involved along with constent monitoring to make sure that the format is kept correct Betacommand 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new format, and suggest this to compliment it, not replace it. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The flexibility of such a format would be great. We could transclude any relevant discussions to other pages. Overall, I think it would simplify the bot page and significantly increase the exposure of this process. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And, by format, I mean technique. The new format is great. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Betacommand 14:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just copy-and-paste moved the historybot request to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Historybot. I think the new format is a lot better, but I only did it to one (it's kind of a big change). If anybody disagrees with it, they can feel free to revert it, but I haven't seen any complaints here (yet). alphaChimp ^laudare 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more benefits of this new approach:

• B/AG members can simply move 1 line of text to approve a proposed bot.
• Archival is incredibly simple and easy.
• In its current format, it's extremely difficult to link to a bot approval. With archivals, the page changes constantly. The new format eliminates this difficulty.

I've posted a comment on Essjay's talk page asking that he take a look. I also placed a comment next to my transclusion soliciting opinions on this page. I really think this is a good idea, and, if the community approves, I would be willing to go ahead with this change on the whole WP:BRFA page. alphaChimp ^laudare 15:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My objection is this: It takes a lot of work to keep a subpage system working.

• You have to do cleanup for the 25%-50% of people who pay no attention to instructions and will post it directly on the page anyway.
• You will also have to keep up with subpages that are created but never listed on the main page, which accounts for about half of all subpages that actually end up made, in my experience.
• You have to keep an index of archived pages, as if you don't people don't know where to look for archives.

I have a good deal of experience with these systems, having set up the system used by RfM and RfCU:

• RfCU has a group of about a half-dozen clerks who keep up with these problems,
• RfM has a chairman (me) who tracks it and five different bots (they all operate under one account, but are five separate bots) to keep up with the system.

Unless there are a bunch of people who are going to commit an hour or so a day to keeping up this system, I say leave the requests where they are and avoid the problems that come with subpages; most bot discussions are about two paragraphs long, and there is really no need for subpages. Essjay (Talk) 07:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Those estimates (1-2 hours per day) seem a bit excessive. This page seems to have about the same volume that MFD gets, and it's not that much overhead. Additionaly, one could assume that bot operators are more veresed in following proceedures that people requesting checkuser or filling mfd's... (— xaosflux ^Talk 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

If you're willing to keep it up, go for it. Hope it works well for you. Essjay (Talk) 06:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement :) really though, I'm not up for doing this unless the other regulars here are up for it to. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out. I'm not sure if you want to preserve histories for individual subpages (which only an admin could do). alphaChimp ^laudare 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out. Betacommand 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do whatever I can to help out with this as well. It seems like a much better idea than the current method, and it also seems to have become the norm with other similar pages such as RfA, AfD, RfCU, etc. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me, from my unpleasant experience with Betacommand and his bot that those with this rather mystical 'approval' power actually don't apply any test of "relevance and appropriateness". They merely check whether it is technically feasible and fail to see if the bot's owner has informed anyone else, a project page, a process page, the pumps, the noticeboards: in short, anywhere but their own back yard. Please, would you apply some sense to the approvals and make sure that those likely to be affected by tens, or in some cases hundreds of these pseudo-trials have actually had a chance to say something about them. This page is a backwater that few people visit, and nodding stuff through here without due diligence is really not good enough. -Splash - tk 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We also don't apply that test to normal editors, which bots are extensions of, however without having too much process creep, perhaps we should have some more specific test limits. I started putting arbitray edit counts on some of my approvals, as without them thosands of edits can be made in a one week trial. Can anyone think of a reason a trial should have more than say 250 edits? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If a trial is doing something that is clearly non-controversial, with a given, established piece of software (e.g. AWB), it's silly to expect the bot owner to do 250 edits and just wait. The same goes for limited-scope bot runs. If someone only wants to run their bot for 350 edits, it's simply retarded to hamstring them into going through a lengthy, drawn out approvals process.

I've got examples concerning myself. I have a proposal that's been sitting on the BRFA page, inactive, since August 1. It's a simple find/replace job, but it has yet to be approved or commented on. I've been actively monitoring the Wikipedia:Bot requests page, and I've actually found a lot of requests that I've been able to meet (they're usually just find/replace). In the end, however, I usually just wind up fixing the errors manually, because I know that BRFA is entirely unpredictable and drawn out. The last week of that proposal sitting there has been a waste of my time. If a request is limited scope, there's no good reason to force a bot owner to hold back.

Although I respect your opinion Splash, it seems like a lot of other users disagreed with your actions, particularly going through and reverting all of the bot's edits (especially since the bot could have done that all itself). I don't feel that the approvals process here ignores the "relevance and appropriateness" of a bot proposal. The beautiful thing about this page is that anyone is welcome to comment on a pending bot request. If you do have problems with the process, by all means, participate in it. Express your concerns about whether an edit is appropriate. If you don't think it's publicized enough...publicize it.

I agree that the current process is frustrating. Quite frankly, it's eliminated my ability to do the jobs I want to do with my bot. Limiting runs to 250 isn't going to do anything more than hurt the 'pedia. Think hard before you make such a change. alphaChimp ^laudare 02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any edit-based limit suggestions, or should they be allowed up to the (2edit/min) 20000+/week that the time allows for? This page may not be approriate for someone wanting to make 300 edits only, they could run these through AWB manuall assit failry rapidly. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairly rapidly? I'd rather not spend an hour clicking the save button mindlessly when I could just post a proposal here. It just seems entirely illogical. Perhaps there should be a different vehicle for approving such tasks.

Obviously 20000 isn't reasonable, but nor is 250. I think the number of edits for an approval should be tempered by the individual proposal. In the instructions for writing a proposal, we say that you're supposed to state the frequency at which you will run the bot. Why not just hold a user to that? A simple find replace isn't going to kill anybody, but, obviously, something like a new counter-vandalism bot would merit a significantly increased amount of testing. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alphachimp, I have a bot approved to do work on request of others, due to my past monitoring of Wikipedia:Bot requests. If you are planning to save 250 pages you can do it in about 2 hours, provided that you know exactly what is your bot doing. It isn't worth it waiting for the approval on these cases. Really. fetofs ^Hello! 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Three people suggested that they thought the bot a good idea, including its owner. I don't think any of them said anything about what I did to stop the bot messing up, apart from its owner who complained that my blocking it prevented him discussing it (obviously failing the "cause and effect" test). On the other hand, at least 4 or 5 people, not only this page (important point there) have said they don't think that the bot's edits were good. It is not a wide-enough view of things by far to suggest that people presciently know to comment on a bot they haven't been told about, don't know about, don't know it's coming, never heard of before, didn't think the huge pile of edits were about to be made....and just so this page can churn out any bot someone can knock up a few lines of perl for. This page pays no attention of any useful kind of relevance and appropriateness, or Betacommandbot would never have been approved; it's obvious on applying some categories-experienced thought that it can't be done without

such a massive list of exceptions as to be pointless. And yet it has twice been approved with little more than a "yeah, whatever". There is little utility in commenting on "an edit" when trial runs of hundreds or thousands are being approved and when people say "if you don't like the bot, then do wring your hands over it, but don't expect us to apply a test of relevance or appropriateness when you ask for one". I should need have no desire to inspect each bot myself: those handing out approvals should make that part of their job, or they are failing in their task. -Splash - tk 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that creating a hard, inflexible limit on how many edits a bot may make during a trial is a very bad idea, especially since problems with bots often don't present themselves until they've made far more than 250 edits. I would, however, not be totally opposed to, as has been suggested, having the members of the bot approvals group mandate on a case-by-case basis how many edits each bot may make during its trial runs. In any case, though, I do not believe the real issue is how many edits bots in their trial runs are making, but rather that no one is closely watching these bots. Perhaps the answer is simply to draw attention to these newly approved bots, through what means I do not know--perhaps we could seek volunteers to closely monitor the edits made by bots in their trial runs and readily block any one that even appears to be editing strangely. I think that if we could gain more eyes closely reviewing bots in their trial runs then perhaps some of these mishaps could be avoided in the futire. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, would it perhaps help to, on the day the bot begins its trial run, post a message about this on WP:AN or some other widely public forum? Since much of the problem seems to stem from the fact that this page is monitored very little except by members of the approvals group and those heavily involved with bots on a regular basis, so anything we can do to get more public input and observation of new bots would seem to be advantageous. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We could make a little page with a list of currently testing bots and transclude it in places like WP:AN. It'd bring more exposure to this page and let users know that the bot is currently trialing. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The solution, seeing as everyone has missed it, is to require that, before a trial is approved the would-be bot-owner post a link to a discussion on a relevant page showing that the bot is going to meet with agreement before it starts. Then, this page does what it does and checks the underlying technical issues. Clearly, if another bot wants to do a task identical (or nearly identical, use your judgement) to one previously ok'd by a relevant page, then the hoop need not be jumped through again in general.

Xoasflux says that we do not apply these tests to human editors, but that is an incomplete view. We don't apply a "RfHumanEditing" page to them either, for the very reason that when a bot does something silly it can take a lot of human effort to fix it. Asking the bot owner to demonstrate that their idea is though good by the people it accepts is not only very straightforward, but really should always have been done. -Splash - tk 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if AWB bots ought simply to have a simpler process to go through to get approval. We all know that AWB works and works marvellously, so that's not an issue. The only issues are 1) what settings/regular expressions are you using (XML settings files can even be posted if need be) 2) is the task of benefit to Wikipedia? --kingboyk 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the approval to start a trial period is based on the presumption that the bot works, technically, as described. The idea of posting the exact parameters for AWB is good, however. (Liberatore, 2006). 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone approve Task 4 of my bot? It's been sitting on the page for a week. I still don't have any complaints. Thanks. alphaChimp ^laudare 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto (Liberatore, 2006). 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied on yours Liberatore, and worked several bots. I've removed the backlog marker, and made fake section subheaders indicating on the TOC what bots are stalled due to non-response of their operators. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Xaosflux. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto: my bot (Eubot) has been on this page for almost two weeks, with no comments for over a week. Can someone approve it please? Eugène van der Pijll 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MetsBot has been in a trial period for over 11 days, can it be approved? —Mets501 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to approve your bot, but I'm not on the approval group. I've requested to join, but I suppose we'll just have to wait until one of them is available. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that some bot requests got no response from the approvals group for weeks, it certainly makes sense to extend the group (Liberatore, 2006). 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll just Be Bold and appoint myself, since the criterion for being on the approvals group seems to be "experienced editors" — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the version prior to this edit, the right place to ask was WT:BOT. But I suppose the members of the approvals group are also watching this page. (Liberatore, 2006). 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It does sound like - according to this thread and the following one - some fresh blood is needed in the approvals group. Seems like we also have some suitable candidates around here. I suppose my arm might be twisted to help too. What say you existing members? Should interested people just start working or do they need to get appointed? (NB I don't have any desire to do this at the moment - too busy - so I'd help if needed but won't if not). --kingboyk 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As an active member of Wikipedia, experienced bot operator ( BetacommandBot with 19920 edits) I have noticed that there tends to be a lag on this process because most of the approval group is not that active here. As I have noticed some simple task just stall out and there is no decision by the group or even questions. The tasks seem to be ignored. This is probably because the Approval group members are active in other places. As I am an active member and proposed the original reorganization to the current format see this. I would like to propose a solution I would like to be on the approval group. If there is any concern about a conflict of interest because I may have some request for my bot on this page I will not Approve/disapprove or otherwise use my approval group status with my bot I will let other members handle those as to avoid a conflict of interest. Betacommand 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Xaosflux just updated some of the bot status, so that's a start, but I agree with your point. There are a few people who have volunteered for this, so all that is needed is consensus to add! I don't think there is such a thing as conflict of interest, except when approving or disapproving your own bot, which should be minimized. Bot owners are often the one ones who care enough about this page, so you'd have a hard time finding helpers who are not bot owners who care. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 14:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't really have a policy for how this "group" is controlled, although the bot policy does require this group. We've had some good reqork on this page recently, perhaps a method for adding to this gorup would be helpful as well. The other cleanup I'm trying to work on (once i get a few hours uninterrupted) is to have a standard new bot approvals request form, with all the standard questions, perhaps with a autoform field. Keep an eye out for it hopefully this weekend! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is needed, as Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ram-Man may depend on this issue. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, give a shout here if you want any help. --kingboyk 16:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How is "consensus among the current active members of the approval group" as a policy? (Liberatore, 2006). 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Could you re-explain? Are you asking "does the policy work well?" — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was proposing as an experianced bot operator that i would like to be on the approval group since i watch these pages and have helped in the new orginzation. -- Unsigned by Betacommand

PS the current group tends to take a lot of time to get to a new bot, task, or respnd at times. Betacommand 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ram-Man: if your question was for me: my interpretation of Titoxd's post is that it means "a policy for admitting new people in the group is needed". The only two ways I can see for this is by cooptation (decision is taken by the people already in the group) or by election (anyone can "vote" as to whether one candidate can enter the group). Given the fact that approving a bot requires a degree of expertise, the first choice seems the best to me. I could of course be mistaken. And Titoxd was possibly saying something completely different :-( (Liberatore, 2006). 20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I did mean "we need a policy", whether it is by appointment (a la MedCom) or by election (a la ArbCom) or a completely different method altogether. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I think I speak for others when I say that new members of this group should allow us to balance the approval process with more voices. Ideally, no bot would be approved with at *least* two members voiceing their opinion. Persons have different specialties and may be uniquely aware of problems with a bot request. More is better. I think it goes without saying that since there has been no established election process that the standard for removal of a member elected in this fashion should be relatively low, if need arises. If anyone elected here, including myself, violates this trust, they should be removed and discussions initiated immediately. Until we have hundreds of members, we can afford to be a bit more informal than, say, RfA. -- RM 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I personally don't see the problem in 'electing' everyone here unless any serious issues are brought up, but that's just my opinion. — FireFox ^(talk) _{18:50, 02 September 2006}

General Comment On the entire election procedure, I don't suppose most of the community would be able to participate in this. In order to be a member of the Approvals Group, a user needs to be trustworthy, of course, but a key aspect is having the technical skill necessary to judge the...well..technical aspects of a proposed bot. I'm able to support Voice of All because I'm fully aware of his technical knowledge, thanks to interaction and observation, over time. But as for other users, although I can judge whether or not they are trustworthy, it is difficult for me to determine if their level of knowledge would be sufficient for them to join the approvals group. It's simple, Approvals Group member = trustworthyness + technical knowledge. If I'm able to judge only half of this equation, then I can't, in full conscience, support or oppose anyone. I imagine that anyone who doesn't possess some deeper technical knowledge in the programming of bots would have difficulty judging the second half of this equation. That being the case, it would maybe be more efficient if we just had the current active members of the Approvals Group appoint a few new members, without the need for an election in which only a limited number of people can participate appropriately. That's my impression, at least. Redux 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather informal poll, and the lack of *most* of the approval group being active here is sufficient reason to "Be Bold" and add more members, at least in the interim. If approval group members want to comment here (either now or later when they return), they should clearly be given significant weight in the matter. As for who can vote? Bots affect the whole community, so the whole community should have a say in the matter. I appreciate your self restraint, but we could use all the comments we can get, so just vote with "Comment" or "Neutral" instead. It is more about building consensus than voting anyway. I'm not sure there is any rule that says you have to be a bot writer or run a bot to be a member of the approvals group either. -- RM 19:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine by me too, although I'd hope that nobody would list themselves here if they don't have the requisite technical knowledge. For my part, I'll add a brief technical resume. --kingboyk 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I've changed my mind on this. Technical knowledge is important, but it is FAR more important to understand general wikipedia policy. When a bot idea is proposed, it is usually fairly trivial to know if it will cause any technical problems. Plenty of us that can determine that. However, it is far less trivial to know whether a bot task violates some written or unwritten wikipedia policy. For example, one of the current bot requests deals with placing WikiProject boilerplates on talk pages. At one point in history this was a very contentious issue. The rambot was once turned down because of trying to do that. However, consensus on that issue appears to have changed. As a result, it's important to have a wide range of skills in the approvals group so that these types of issues can be detected early, rather than later in the process. -- RM 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think consensus has changed on that issue largely because of WP1 assessments. I've tagged over 100,000 talk pages for WPBio and other large Projects and I've only had one serious objection. That speaks volumes to me as I can remember debate over the very existence of these banners some months ago. --kingboyk 19:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with RM, the key to aproving bots is knowledge of wikipedia policies, the rules for bots is not very clear and it not followed very strictly and really is very unconsistant in many cases, and they are really as I see it a legacy that RM started when everyone was 'afraid' of bots and wanted to make it hard for him and other to run bots, now we have bots that revert vandalism, we have AWB, but still the same arcane rules for bots. Stefan 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In order for this election to run and conclude to contention, maybe it would be interesting to set a "deadline" for it, at the end of which a Bureaucrat could assess the result and "officially" add the new names to the Approvals Group page. This would make the definition more transparent and neutral, so no one has to say "ok, I'm approved, adding my own name now". As a Bureaucrat who is active in setting flags, I do volunteer to do that if wanted -- however, since I've already pledged my support to one of the candidates, I would understand if the community would prefer to have someone else do it. We could ask Taxman or Nichalp to do it. Just to be clear: this is by no measure a proposal for a new official task for Bureaucrats, just an ad hoc role to help this run as smoothly as possible. Redux 19:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a bureaucrat, feel free to close this "election" when it appears to be finished. We'd like to add the new members "as soon as possible", but allow enough time to get enough comments. Setting a date seems inflexible, and it should be pretty obvious when the votes stop trickling in. If you need an impartial third-party, feel free, but I won't complain if you do it yourself. We are all riddled with conflicts of interest here, afterall, a bot owner will always have a conflict of interest when making and applying bot policy and in bot approvals. It's to be expected. Once we have appointed interim members, we can work on forming a more official process. -- RM 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, its the job of bureaucrats to determine consensus on local issues, and since there is no clearly defined way now, I'd support the idea of a bureaucrat who did not comment here closing the poll. I'd say a good 7 days from now should be enough.Voice-of-All 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a general deadline. -- RM 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. Just one thing: two candidates have commented on this directly, and each has said something different, so I'd like to know if the participating community would prefer that I, Redux, recuse myself from "closing" this. I have no problem with it, since I have supported one of the candidates. I believe that I am the only Bureaucrat monitoring actively the bot-related forums (they are all on my watchlist) now that Essjay is away temporarily, but I suppose we can pester ask Taxman or Nichalp to do it. In RfA, participating directly in the discussions, to any extent, would mean a recusation, but since this is not exactly an established procedure for this forum, and the outcome is not likely to be contentious, I would like to get a clear position from the community on this. If my being on top of this will help, great; but if recusing myself is what would be best for all, then that's ok too. Whatever is best for the community. Redux 03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: if it's 20 supports to 2 opposes then you can "close" the discussion, if it's close, we should ask another bureaucrat. —Mets501 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be an assessment on a candidate-by-candidate basis. I don't see this being closed like that. IMHO, the same Bureaucrat would close the entire thing, determining the results for all candidates and which ones will join the Approvals Group. Redux 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then if *any* results are overly close, just ask another bureaucrat to handle closing the whole election. Whatever the choice, I probably don't care one way or another, so I'll let people who actually has a strong opinion on this discuss this one further, if desired. -- RM 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an easier way - recruit RM and VOA now. Seriuously, is anybody going to oppose either of them? I'm sure the approval of current members would be quite sufficient.; Leave me and the chimp up for consideration as extra or standby members. That way you get two new, capable members instantly, and they can get to work clearing the backlog. --kingboyk 12:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree we don't need to make this overly complicated. I can't see if being a question of the current group recruiting since I don't see that as the correct way of approaching it. --pgk 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Well, it's only a week so it will have to wait. Thanks for the reply and for considering my suggestion. --kingboyk 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, I, Redux, acting as closing Bureaucrat ad hoc, have assessed the following final outcome for the candidates: (in alphabetical order)

• Alphachimp:

  Participants: 7

  Support: 5

  Oppose: 2

  Consensus in favor: 71.5%

• Betacommand

  Participants: 5

  Support: 5

  Oppose: 0

  Consensus in favor: 100%

• Kingboyk

  Participants: 4

  Support: 4

  Oppose: 0

  Consensus in favor: 100%

• Ram-Man

  Participants: 8

  Support: 8

  Oppose: 0

  Consensus in favor: 100%

• Voice of All

  Participants: 9

  Support: 9

  Oppose: 0

  Consensus in favor: 100%

Final result

I have determined that the following users have achieved sufficient support to join the Approvals Group:

• Betacommand
• Kingboyk
• Ram-Man
• Voice of All

All of these users have received 100% support and are hereby "promoted" (if we can use this term). I will add their names to the Approvals Group page momentarily. Authority to approve bots (and their flagging) is effective as of this post.

Note 1: Concerning my closing of this election, as discussed above, I closed it because the results for the only candidate about whom I commented were uncontroverted (100% support). The majority of the opinions given above were in the sense that I should recuse myself only if there were a controversy in need of settling at closing time. Since that wasn't the case, I've closed the election.

Note 2: Regarding Alphachimp: I realize that participation in this election was particularly restricted, as well as that the two oppositions raised were weak. However, in light of the fact that all of the other candidates approved had 100% support going in, I viewed it as inconsistent to "promote" (for lack of a better term that I can think of at this time) a user with a support consensus that was well beneath that. But please remember that this is not RfA. Alphachimp, or someone on his behalf, could resubmit his name for reconsideration at any time, even immediately, if they feel that this result might not have been satisfactory -- but this means a new consideration of his name by the community, not a review of this result, which is final.

I hope this has been satisfactory. Regards, Redux 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything is as it should be, IMO. As for Alphachimp, I suspect that we will be forming a more official election scheme in the near future, and as such it shouldn't be hard to reevaluate membership at this point. I can't speculate on exactly how long that might take, but it could be sooner rather than later if required. -- RM 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Redux. Fellow group members, as I said before I'm a bit busy at the moment with programming and testing. I have the page on my watchlist and would like to make sure I'm fully up to speed with what happens here before diving in. So, you'll be seeing me some time fairly soon but not just yet. Cheers. --kingboyk 08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:BOT and WP:BRFA is that bots are only flagged and approved for specific functions.

For instance, if I requested approval to create a bot to substitute templates, I would request approval for substituting templates. I would complete a trial run. If that run was without errors, complaints, or blocks, I would make note of that on WP:BRFA, someone from the approvals group would approve it, and a crat would set a flag.

Let's say I then decided to use my bot to unicode articles. It's not a controversial action, and I'm not specifically hurting anyone.

Would such an action (unapproved, albeit reasonable), be: a violation of WP:BOT or a reason for an admin to block my bot?

Personally, I think it would, but I'd like some feedback from B/AG members and other admins/crats. alphaChimp ^laudare 17:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone complains as to what you're doing, then it is blockable. There's ways to unicodify an article and render it completely useless, so it is not exacly non-controversial. A side edit from time to time may not hurt, but it's always good to just ask here, just in case. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was once blocked when I was running a bot for an unapproved task. It was controversial to be sure, and while the block upset me at first, it was fully justified. There is a huge bias here in favor of persons. If *anyone* has an issue with a bot (within reason), it can be blocked. And I agree with this policy. Nobody's bot is that important. I'd have to agree that the occasional small "side edit" or "side task" is acceptable. Afterall, we all "Ignore All Rules" and "Be Bold" from time to time. Of course if you don't ensure that your bot follows the appropriate rules while running "unapproved", then you run the risk of being blocked or even worse permanently losing your ability to use a bot. The latter case probably wouldn't happen, but you never know. It is possible. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with all that. Specifically with regards to blocking, blocking a bot is very different from blocking a human, and if it's misbehaving it's no big deal blocking it and then talking to the operator to get things sorted out (who lest we forget is a human with human feelings). --kingboyk 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is that there are a number of issues. Let's just split bot tasks into a couple realms. First, you have approved bots and unapproved bots. The process for creating a bot the first time should be difficult, because the risk of a bad bot is great. However, the task for adding a new task to a bot should not be as difficult, since there should be sufficient proof that the bot owner is responsible, and whenever possible we give editors the benefit of the doubt, especially if using well-established bot software. Secondly, we have the issue of scale. A bot may be doing 50 edits or 40,000+ edits (like a typical rambot run). It makes no sense to spend a week or two approving a request that could have been annoyingly accomplished manually during that time. So without an serious conclusion here, it would seem that new bots and those with longer edit requirements should bear the greatest amount of scrutiny. Right now the policy doesn't differentiate to that degree. Afterall, it is already painfully simple to block bots on a whim and small tasks are unlikely to be that damaging. Besides, it isn't hard to make the owner of the bot repair the damage caused, and if they don't repair the damage it is simple to revoke bot priveledges. Thirdly, it is important to respect the bot owners, which is often not considered. An edit is an edit no matter who makes it, bot or human. Bad (and good) edits affect everyone equally no matter the source. This is the reason that unapproved bots are allowed from time to time. We don't require approval from normal users for the same tasks, why should we from bots? I think this third issue is the reason for so much grey area and informality in both requests and approvals. And of course the other two issues affect the acceptance of an unapproved task. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the issue of scale is there. If someone is doing 40 edits, there's a big difference from 40,000 (or even 400 edits). As for your third point, the difference between me and a bot is that I am not (humanly) able to edit the encyclopedia on such a speed and large scale. A 40,000 edit run is tantamount to a policy change, and should be treated as such, and afforded the same due process. If a bot owner chooses not to listen (or even attempt to solicit) the will of the community, his bot should be blocked indefinitely and de-flagged. I'd also consider sanctions against the user. I don't think the controversialness of the bot function should have any effect.

Getting back to the original question: Does anybody see a problem (I know I don't) in blocking an approved bot that is doing an unapproved function? I personally would like every bot owner to request every thing they do. alphaChimp ^laudare 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's again a circular question: it depends on what the bot is doing, and how much of {{whatever}} it is doing. If I log in as a bot and forget to log out, see vandalism and revert it manually while logged in as the bot, I sure hope I don't get blocked because I'm an anti-vandalism bot or something similar. But if I start running a copy of Tawkerbot2 without telling anyone, I sure hope I get blocked. It really is a matter of discretion. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is always a matter of common sense, for example, if a bot is doing something similar to a previous task, but has not explicitly been given permission, and no one is complaining then blocking is clearly just going to waste everyone's time. However, even if a bot explicitly has permssion, but is causing trouble, then it should be blocked. However, one thing that should always be remembered is that blocking a bot will almost certainly auto block the owner as well, as they will share an IP, so asking them to stop first is always a good idea. Also, AWB always stops when it gets a message, so if a user is known to be using AWB, then a block should never be needed, unless the user is refusing to stop of course. Martin 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just worked to clear some of the backlog, but did not clean up after myself much (did close the pages and sign, noted WP:BN, but have not dealt with any of the archives, or the approvals log. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you could get to dealing with mine? Its been up there for well over a month I believe, and all the objections were solved ages ago (simply by having the bot not do the things that people thought were objectionable...) and the coding/debugging is also complete. Thanks! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As one of the most active WP:BAGers, though not active enough, I gotta say, I don't like the approvals log page at all, it's clunky. I do like the per page disucssions for bots, a la MFD. Perhaps The MFD archive style would be OK here, but with the per month page seperated into APPROVED, NOT APPROVED? Any thaughts? I am sitll going to make a bot request form, just need to get some uninterupted time to do it! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the wording a bit. I think its fine for approved bots to remain listed hear for a few days, except with the "closed debate" tags. Then it can later be removed from the main page. Bots in a trial period can be removed from the main page and listed under the trial section.Voice-of-All 03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my extreme ignorance on this one, but not being on the approvals group until today I had never considered the process of archiving discussions. Where do we archive the discussions to? -- RM 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The current archive is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4. —Mets501 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

im sorry that is not the proper method list them under Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved & Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/rejected Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, perhaps someone should update the article to list the correct procedure then since both archival methods seem to be listed. Oh nevermind. It says "New Format", which is clear enough for me. I just never read that section on archiving. I looked at the TOC for something about archiving, and couldn't find it. Guess I'm just lazy or something. That or really busy. -- RM 04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No I just changed it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As subpages discussions seem to be in vouge here now I've made the listing process help enforce them through the use of an input box. This is now shown in the top of the page under operator instructinos. My initial testing looked good, but any feedback and/or tweaking would be appreciated! — xaosflux ^Talk 06:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)