Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Request for clarification : when is a bot approved here?

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

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

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

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)

Page name

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)

Flagging and bureaucrats

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)

On flagging requests to Bureaucrats

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)

Proposition

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)

Well done

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)

subpages

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)


Deficiency of consideration

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)

Bot Approval Requested

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)

Trial Period

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)

Approvals group

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EBots_Requests_for_approval_Archive_1_be3f.html"