This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination: Speedy keep (reform on talk page), 5 June 2008, see discussion. Withdrawn, 8 May 2008, see discussion. Keep (reform), 1 May 2007, see discussion.

Archives
Archive 1 August, 2006 and earlier
Archive 2 September, 2006—March, 2007
Archive 3 March, 2007—May, 2007
Archive 4 May, 2007—October, 2007
Archive 5 October, 2007—June, 2008
Archive 6 June, 2008—August, 2008

Information

This is the talk page for the Bot Approvals Group. Specific bot requests should be placed on the Requests for approval page. See the Bot policy page for more information on bot policy. This page is specifically for issues related to the approvals group. At the moment there is no formal policy for adding and removing members of the approvals group, but one will likely be formulated in the future. This is, however, the correct page to discuss member changes.

Requests for BAG membership

Requests to join the Bot Approvals Group are currently made here, although other methods have been proposed. Users wishing to join BAG, or to nominate another user to become a member, should start a section here (directly below this heading), where informal discussion and comments on the candidate's suitability may be made. After a suitable length of time (usually one week unless the nomination has not received a reasonable level of support), the discussion will be closed by a bureaucrat.

Active vs. inactive BAG members

I was looking through the active vs. inactive BAG members, and there doesn't seem to be a clear guideline as to when one becomes inactive. Here is a list of BAG members, sorted by their most recent BAG-related edit. (For the purposes of this, I define a "BAG-related edit" as an edit to a Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ subpage, that's not for a bot the member himself is trying to get approval for. There are other things BAGgers do, like comment on talk pages and whatnot, but it seems to me that approving/disapproving/commenting on another user's bot request is the heart of BAG-duty.)

It seems there's a clear line between the fifteen member who have been active in the last 2 weeks (most in the last week), and the five who haven't been active in months. Should these members be moved to inactive? (Of course this isn't meant to slight them or their past work at all; it's just meant as a recognition of which members are active, empirically speaking.) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We usually just change our own status'es. SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I can respect that, but there is a bit of a built-in inefficiency there. Those who are most likely to update their status on a BAG page are least likely to need to. And vice versa. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You expect people who suddenly stop editing for a long period of time to come back and change this particular page? ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Wasn't Betcommand's reconfirmation supposed to have taken place on 2 July? What happened to the outcome? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He was removed from the Bot Approval Group. BJ^Talk 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the reconfirmation note on the BAG members page. [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmation?

SQL has gone and removed all references to reconfirmation on this page (except for the asterisks next to the people who did it, where the footnote refers to it only as a "brief test"). This seems to eliminate from the record the fact that E, Reedy, SQL, and Werdna (am I missing anyone?) joined the BAG before BAG reform began and were never reconfirmed under any sort of process.

I know that we gave up on the idea of a new BAG approval process, but that's not the same as giving up on the idea that BAG members need to be reconfirmed under some sort of process. The "WT:BAG and spam various noticeboards" process, for example, would be one way to do so. But now the page makes it look as if reconfirmation never happened. Should it really be that way? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are also forgetting the inactive BAG members, most who joined long before the current system. BJ^Talk 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Werdna is a confirmed member of BAG, with 99% approval. Has that process been deemed illegitimate somewhere? It was halted with a moratorium, but I don't recall anyone saying those 33 people were dead wrong. Franamax (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm either more informed or more confused. The process was made available to the community and the community clearly expressed its wishes. Apparently that process has now been repudiated - but by whom? Through what consensus? As far as I'm concerned, WJBscribe, an en:wiki bureaucrat, has declared Werdna a confirmed member of BAG. I see no retraction by WJBscribe nor Werdna, and I see community consensus, accurately judged. Clearly some essential step has escaped my grasp. Could I be enlightened? Franamax (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you didn't miss anything, I did. Werdna was properly reconfirmed. SQL didn't give him a star, so I overlooked it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed one, then. I assure you it was completely in error, and, I hadn't even noticed, an honest mistake. I don't have anything at all against Werdna that I'm aware of. I'll go correct that now. SQL^{Query me!} 05:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, you left the star in, by Werdna. SQL^{Query me!} 06:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the summary I left, you could always edit it. It seemed like an accurate summary to me, and, follows the same basic format as the other way it was done. I am honestly confused why you couldn't just ask me, instead of making various insinuations here. It appeared to me to be a 'test system' much as the last one, and, I marked it as such. And, yeah, you did miss a few (that's nowhere near complete either, I lost the drive to go back any further at some point. IIRC there was a more complete list somewhere in the archives here however). I don't disagree with you about reconfirmation, FWIW. Anyhow, I made an attempt at a compromise to the page. I'm going to take a shot at cleaning the other one up a bit as well, if you don't mind too much. SQL^{Query me!} 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the RFBAG-selected members were approved by the community and confirmed by bureaucrats selected for their judgement, I'm not aware of a need to place an asterisk beside any of those names. They are confirmed members of BAG. Is there any objection, should I desire to excise the asterisk and footnote from the page? Franamax (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, do whatever you want, it's not that big of a deal to me. Frankly, I've come to realize, that whatever edits I make to that page, are the absolute wrong thing to do by some people, and, therefore will abstain from doing so from now on. Admittedly, apparently I was a bit confused about the actual status of that test (I thought it had been agreed to be a test, and, was discontinued... I can't find the thread I'm thinking of however, so, I must be remembering wrong), and, the proper way to format / present it. SQL^{Query me!} 04:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy now :) I don't think it was me who said everything you do is wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's not me asking you to abstain. There's a whole lot of voices here though, you gotta figure at least one will always find something to argue with - if you said Wikipedia is run on computers, someone would say no.

My recollection was that it was not so much a test, I believe that Coren held a utalk discussion with advertising and decided there was sufficient consensus to make it live. I can understand your and others objection to that process - but it happened and 'crats closed discussions with determinations, which I haven't seen retracted.

Of course, the key issue here is BAG as a self-selecting group, and whether, once the RFBAG process became no longer self-selecting and went to the RFA page for some time, the self-selected BAG group can now invalidate the process and put asterisks against the BAG members confirmed by the community. I'm pretty much on record as supporting the wider community process, SQL I think you are more on the opposing side.

But don't stop contributing, stay cool and keep talking. Alternatively, tomorrow is another day :) Franamax (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's been a bit of confusion over what I meant -- particularly because my list of people was not particularly accurate. The page used to list which members were reconfirmed. Now it doesn't. It's as if reconfirmation never happened. The previous BAG members who went to the effort to get reconfirmed with more community input deserve some credit for that, and the ones who haven't yet should still be encouraged to do so.

Anyway, I'm going to edit the page so that it once again indicates who has been reconfirmed and when. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? It was a system that was tried and (apparently) decided against for whatever reason. I strongly oppose this notion of "BAG member plus". If you want to make RfBAG the standard process fine but giving those people more weight is wrong. I agree with Franamax that the asterisks should be removed (as well as any other mention of RfBAG). BJ^Talk 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like with "RfBAG" you are talking about whether the nomination was transcluded on RfA. That is a dead issue and it is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that some BAG members who were put on BAG before April have reconfirmed themselves with more community input. For this issue, it does not matter where they did so, as long as the community was involved. If some people did so on WT:BAG, I've probably missed it, and it would be correct to list that as well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm really confused, most of the active BAG (actually active) were recently added under the new WT:BAG system. BJ^Talk 06:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. They just joined and there wasn't anything particularly wrong with how they did so, so why would they be expected to reconfirm now? I'll start over once more in just a moment. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting over once more. Please stop digging up the past issue of RfA transclusion versus WT:BAG. It was divisive. It was resolved poorly. It's over. But I see no indication that anyone wanted to throw out the concept of reconfirmation with it.

BAG members who were promoted before April were promoted with essentially no community input. Some people who were promoted before April later went through another nomination and got more community input. This is called "reconfirmation".

If, like me and many others, you consider nominations before April to be shaky, these five or so people have a better nomination you can look at. Why remove the record of that? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was confused because the only time I've heard "reconfirm" lately was in reference to RfBAG and this entire thread is talking about RfBAG links. This is the first time I know reconfirmation at WT:BAG was brought up. Regardless any form of reconfirmation is pointless unless we are going to remove people who don't do it. We both know those who would fail and they know it. Running for an optional reconfirmation you can't pass is just bad politics. BJ^Talk 06:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's more to this than whether you win or lose at wikipolitics. Yes, there are BAG members who would fail a reconfirmation. But think about this: the only reason anyone's on BAG in the first place is because they want to help Wikipedia, so hopefully they care on some level about what the rest of Wikipedia thinks of them being on BAG. Maybe one day they will reconfirm. Maybe they will decide to step down. Or maybe they will change the way they handle bot issues and try to get the community on their side. We don't need to make the ugly proposal of forcibly removing people from BAG, but we also don't need to pretend reconfirmation never happened just to defend people who may never be reconfirmed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly better at assuming good faith than I. If we are making a record, should the people that passed under the new system be noted? BJ^Talk 07:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems hard to do without drawing arbitrary lines. I mean, the new system (assuming you mean WT:BAG) is basically the old one except that people care about it this time. What's important to me is that the historical links to the nominations and reconfirmations are there. Here's why reconfirmation links are useful: suppose I want to see why, say, Cobi belongs on BAG. If I click his "joined" link, the answer I get is "because he added himself back when you could do that". But his reconfirmation link shows that 43 people unanimously supported him, a much more useful observation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know everybody that added themselves was reconfirmed (under the old WT:BAG system?) or removed. BJ^Talk 07:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so there are more reconfirmations out there. We should add those as well. They may have as little input as some of the non-reconfirmed people, but again, it's good to have the information out there. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(multi e/c - placing at my orig indent level - I agree all links are useful)

I'm going to take a wild stab at membership history here, based on my vague impressions:

1. Members who "always were" - they joined back in the good ol' days, when you signed up because you cared and everyone worked together
2. Mounting concerns culminate in an attempt to delete the BAG page - March 2007 or so?
3. Formal BAG self-selection - candidates self-nominate and are approved by BAG internal consensus
4. Experiment with self-addition (Nov07? Feb08?) ending in failure when a self-added member was found to be approving bad bots
5. At this point (?) reconfirmation is decided as a requirement
6. Return to BAG self-nom/self-selection
7. RFBAG "experiment" where existing members and new members gained consensus at RFA
8. Moratorium on RFBAG, initiation of wide advertising with inception and reconfirmation at WT:BAG
9. Needs to be said (pace Krimpet) that one of the first inceptions under this system was the admin who declared the moratorium on RFBAG
10. And the current status quo appears to be the wide advertising method with discussion centralized at (approx.) WT:BAG

I claim no particular grasp of the facts; I believe this is a reasonably accurate timeline; I am happy to be educated.

I will generally endorse rspeer directly above (06:46UTC) - there is no great need to eject anyone from the current group (though as in any group, inactive members may be considered to have lost their privilege).

My focus on Werdna was due to the apparent gap-out of both SQL and rspeer and not due to any wish to emphasize RFBAG selection above the current process, several other BAGers have reconfirmed under the current advertise BAG-page process, this process is equivalent. Per rspeer, the important criterion is desire and ability to contribute.

Notwithstanding, my preference will always be the RFBAG process, which I felt delivered solid results and was judged by bureaucrats - the community members selected by acclaim for their judgement and balance.

In my view, BAG should draw a date-line. At some point, BAG itself decided a reconfirmation process was desirable. When was that? Whether that reconfirmation was through RFBAG or WT:BAG is irrelevant, as long as it has happened. There seems no need for footnoting, the "discussion" link will provide the appropriate context. Franamax (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Drama. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable contribution to resolving this thread. At least you have a comment, which stands in contrast to most members of the current Bot Approvals Group. The message here seems to be "we don't do Wikipedia community, we do bots. Go away." Franamax (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a large number of people missing from the Inactive and Former section, it might be nice to dig back in the page history and construct an accurate timeline. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

BAGBot and Wikipedia:BAG/Status

Due to the request タチコマ robot (10), the status page is not being updated (formatting problems). Could someone take care of the request or even remove it off the BRFA page so the bot can continue its tasks. Thanks. — E ↗^TCB 08:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiDreamer Bot concerns

WikiDreamer Bot

• Bot owner : — WikiDreamer

Wikipedia:Bot policy reads : Bot operators using the pywikipedia framework should ensure that they use the latest version of the framework and update this daily.

That pywikipedia bug report clearly states that WikiDreamer has been running an august 2007 version of pywikipedia - not to mention that it also clearly shows that WikiDreamer is not at all mastering python installation/usage.

This is incredibly irresponsible. You all know how much mediawiki has changed since that time: I bet that you imagine how much our framework has been changing to ensure compatiblity with the newer version of mediawiki (more than 2000 revisions), not to mention the huge number of bugs that have been fixed (rough number of closed bugs since that time : 250+ ).

I am in fact astonished that the bot has even been able to run, given the huge time difference. We are all very lucky that no important bug has been affecting our wikis: we tend to trust a lot pywikipedia interwiki bots, not checking closely their edits, something really bad could have happened.

On a sidenote, I still suspect WikiDreamer to be a sockpuppet of King Willan, owner of King Willan Bot (BRFA : Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/King Willan Bot ) - even if he claims that King Willan was... his brother ! That other bot had me to run to all the wikis where it had requested a botflag in February 2008, to warn local bureaucrats about dangers...

I have not been voting against WikiDreamer' bot flag requests in July 2008, nor here nor on fr:, because WikiDreamer had by the time waited 2 months and at first proved himself very communicating and willing to learn about bot techniques: I decided, basically, to let him try his chances.

However, the risks that have been allegedly taken force me to reconsider my choice. I have asked for his bot flag to be removed on fr:, and I really think that his bot flag should be removed too on en: :(

NicDumZ ~ 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We've never done this without the case being clear cut. What's the procedure? BJ^Talk 16:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot meanwhile. Guess, its further operation requires some discussion. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest WP:RFC/BOT? MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it appears the stewards have deemed this bot dangerous to wikis, maybe a simple request can be put in at WP:BN. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at BN. Mr.Z-man 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse flag removal until the operator can verify that they are operating it responsibly (I.e. up to date!) Has anyone notified the operator of this discussion? SQL^{Query me!} 05:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not, so notified SQL^{Query me!} 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had warned him on fr: : [2] NicDumZ ~ 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of this report, and the one on fr:, WikiDreamer is now filling a case in the French Arbcom against me. Accordingly I am violent, impatient, and I violate the five pillars. This is here. I am not sure - in fact, I dont think - that this is going anywhere, but the least I can do is to warn you about what's happening overthere. I recommend waiting for this Arbcom case to evolve before taking into account my previous message, at least if no other person is able to confirm my words: in theory, if the French Arbcom rules that I am biaised, then any of my words would need to be reconsidered... NicDumZ ~ 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the bot flag. See reasons at WP:BN. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Diff here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody thinks to wait my answer or read this page and this page? --WikiDreamer (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No, bots are blocked until they are fixed. And we mostly don't read French, so your responses aren't helpful to determine what's wrong and what will you do to ensure that your boy is always up-t-date. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I will try to translate these pages into English, but this will take very time. --WikiDreamer (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is useless. My cause is already lost in advance. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=232295769&oldid=232267081 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AWikiDreamer+Bot&year=&month=-1 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot/Autorizzazioni/Richieste http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bot/Statut#WikiDreamer_Bot.C2.A0.28d.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0c.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0b.29_.28_.21_Demande_de_retrait_de_flag_.29 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Comit%C3%A9_d%27arbitrage/Arbitrage/WikiDreamer-NicDumZ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2008/Semaine_33#Proposition_de_bannissement —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDreamer (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)