Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Archive 6

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.

Contents

Image bots

I am trying to gather a list of bots that have done, or still do, or are planned to do, image work. Both bots that exclusively work on images, and those that have an image task among their tasks, are of interest. Could people please add to the list below. If anyone wants to trawl through the archives or recent changes in image namespace as well, or the image deletion logs, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List of image bots

Annotate in as much detail as you want (eg. operator and links to the image tasks would be good, and whether it is currently operating). Please feel free to move this list to a useful subpage somewhere if one exists, or create it if it doesn't yet exist, but leave a link from here.

Last updated: 01:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some status notes, — xaosflux Talk 02:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Does a bot operator's withdrawal invalidate a request

Slightly tricky one this, as it was a controversial request and the bot request listed more than one operator. Anyway, one of the bot operators withdrew, but the bot request was not changed and it now looks like it was approved with only the two people listed at the moment. People will only see the change if they look in the page history. My concerns are here. I notified the BAG member concerned. Would other BAG members like to comment? Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why SQL's disinclination to continue operating the bot would have any effect on the bot's approval status. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 03:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
But should SQL's original presence on the request, and his subsequent withdrawal after the approval, be noted on the request? Currently there is absolutely no indication of this to the casual reader of the request. I would make the change myself, but the recent page history suggests that all edits by non-BAG members get reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If I understand correctly (and, my reversion of that tag was unintentional), the only revert I can really see a really, really good reason for, was the one where the actual assigned status was monkey'ed with. If it helps, I'll make it clearer that I withdrew from it, on whatever date it was. SQLQuery me! 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you add the following somewhere near the current list of two operators: "User:SQL was originally listed as an operator, but withdrew at 07:29, 8 April 2008, a few days after the approval was made." Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, I'll get it in shortly. SQLQuery me! 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done [1], sorry for the trouble. BTW, March was a month ago :P SQLQuery me! 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd take this occasion to propose that a new format for bot request be adopted. Something like all the requests in one place, with the updates and so on. This would also facilitate in case we progress on the bot removal (meaning bot removal requests by third parties and subsequent discussion). I'll see if I can draft something on this subject tomorrow or so. Snowolf How can I help? 03:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I propose that we move this page to Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group over the existing redirect. The attempt to keep everything on Wikipedia about bots as a subpage of Wikipedia:Bots was laudable, but since it is not complete, it's also counterproductive, resulting in an unintuitive title. Of course it's not a problem for the main page, because there's a redirect, but for subpages, it's unnecessary extra hassle to remember that the page is at a silly title. Happy‑melon 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was bold and moved it already. Any objections? Happy‑melon 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You did manage to confuse me thoroughly while you were doing it.  :-) I have no objection to the result, however. — Coren (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I managed to thoroughly confuse myself, never mind anyone else :D! I was utterly convinced I has somehow managed to create a redirect pointing to itself. Happy‑melon 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Handling a case

I have a test case to discuss. A couple weeks ago I noticed a bot malfunctioning and left a message at User_talk:SatyrBot#Serious_bot_errors. I think it's helpful to be able do a few test edits for code validation. Would others handle this differently? How should BAG handle situations like this? (I have my own views how BAG ought to function after a bot is approved, but I would like to hear other ideas too.) Gimmetrow 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that not only should the bot operator respond in a timely manner, and stop the bot if it is currently running, but that they should help correct and/or undo the incorrect edits, using the bot if necessary. Unfortunately, while stopping the bot and starting discussion is usually not a problem, getting a bot operator to actually help fix the problems is not always so easy. Often it is left to others to fix, or everyone gives up and nothing gets done. Which is not good really. The "give up" option usually arises when thousands and thousands of incorrect or otherwise problematic edits are discovered after the fact. Sometimes quite some time after the fact. I would also prioritise fixing of article problems over talk page problems, but still urge that the "bot operators must fix the errors made by their bots" part of the bot policy is actually enforced, and that BAG be given the teeth to enforce this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, in looking over the bot's contribs, there appear to be serious errors. As the botop is not responding, I would suggest either temporarily suspending it's approval, or, probably a better option, temporarily blocking it, until it's operator shows that they are aware of the issue, and are working on cleaning up after it. If there are no objections here shortly, I will block it myself, until such time as the criterion I listed are met.
Example major bug edits: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (top 5 talkspace contribs from this bot). I should note, that this bot has not edited the talkspace since 4APR2008, hopefully because it's operator knows there is an issue. Thoughts? SQLQuery me! 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, SatyrTN isn't responding right now because he is on a WikiBreak. APK yada yada 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know. I left the original message only shortly after the bot stopped running. The idea was that the bot not be blocked so SatyrTN could do test edits, but anything except test edits would lead to a block. 05:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but, at this time, the bot's state is unknown, and, it's last known state was running and malfunctioning, with no acknowledgment as of yet from it's operator. As it is flagged, it will not show up in recent changes, and, at this point, I believe that it would be safest to assume that it may restart at sometime in the near future, still broken. In that case, it could go on for some time, unnoticed. In example, it's last edit to NS1 was 4ARP2008, and, you hadn't noticed / mentioned it until 16APR2008. 12 days later. Therefore my suggestion is to block it, until at the very least we hear something from the operator. SQLQuery me! 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean 6 April. Gimmetrow 05:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, we're both wrong... 5APR208... SQLQuery me! 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the bot stopped 5 April, I left a talk message 6 April. Gimmetrow 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not totally related, but a few days ago I found some strange bot tagging here. I went to User:Reedy Bot's page and found the message "bad category tree, please just fix it yourself". For some reason, I can't even find that message anymore. Just noting it here as a fix-your-own-mess concern. Franamax (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Even if someone passes a bot bad data, the bot operator should still have the option to undo its edits. I know this is sometiems difficult, but even just reverting the "top" edits (where the bot made the last edit to the page) and listing the other pages and saying "a human needs to revert these", would be better than nothing. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure I would be shouted down with vehemence if I actually proposed it, but I personally think bots should produce detailed and accessible logs of their runs, showing date, page, sub-rule that triggered the action and action-rule executed. Also, if the bot locally stored the "before" and "after" text fragments, back-out would not be that big of an issue regardless of whether it was still the top edit, as in, if the "after" text still exists in the page and is unique, substitute the "before" text. Franamax (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Some bot operators do produce more helpful things like this than others. See the bot operated by User:BrownHairedGirl, which is at User:BHGbot. An example is User:BHGbot/Job0001. Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(multiple ec)Not speaking about this situation specifically, which I haven't reviewed yet, but as reply to Carcharoth ;-) I think that a bot operator that can't or won't fix his/her bot's errors is not suited as bot operator and therefore shouldn't be allowed to run a bot. Whether it's for lack of technical knowledge or lack of will, shouldn't matter. Snowolf How can I help? 05:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what is wrong with any of the five diffs provided above as "example major bug edits". Hesperian 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page message. There are three different types of errors. Those listed above (with 5 examples) add a nested=yes parameter to the talk page template, but they aren't put inside a shell template. In most cases there isn't a shell template on the talk page at all. Gimmetrow 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - yes, there does seem to be a problem with "nested=yes" being added, plus some random pipe characters showing up. I will fix that before running the bot again. I'm not sure when that will be, but I'll fix it before starting it up again. FWIW, the bot is programmed to automatically quit if there are unread messages, so Gimmetrow's msg on the 6th stopped it from running any further. Thanks for pointing these out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for responding. No worries about blocking it from me then :) SQLQuery me! 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing nomination archives

Now here's an interesting exercise. Here is an incomplete table of current BAG members (both active and inactive), with a link to their archived candidacies, and the number of contributors to each discussion. Can anyone point me in the direction of the archives which contain the other half of the candidacies :D? Please do add to this table if you can locate any more of the discussions. I have a suspicion that, quite apart from the big kerfuffle over the RfBAG/WT:BAG processes, some of the current BAG members (particularly those who have been there since the beginning) have never been approved by any process. To be honest, I'm not that fussed - they've clearly proven themselves worthy if no one's noticed for two and a half years; I'd just like to get all the data in hand. Happy‑melon 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BAG member Approval link !votes cast
AllyUnion Initial member  ??
Betacommand (1st) approval 5
Betacommand (2nd) approval 6
Carnildo Initial member  ??
Cobi approval 13
Coren approval 2
Daniel approval 7
E approval 7
Freakofnurture Initial member  ??
Gimmetrow approval 5
Kingboyk approval 4
Lightdarkness Not voted in --
Madman Approval 6
Martinp23 approval 7
MaxSem approval 5
Mets501 approval 6
OverlordQ approval 5
Pgk Initial member  ??
Ram-Man approval 8
Reedy approval 3
Robchurch Initial member  ??
Snowolf approval 5
Soxred93 approval 3
SQL approval 5
ST47 approval 11
Talrias Initial member  ??
Tawker
Voice of All approval 9
Werdna approval 10
Xaosflux Added by Essjay --

Well if you want mine, just scroll up the page to the Dittohead section. Q T C 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks (spent so long digging through the archives, never thought it might be right in front of me!). Happy‑melon 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of those date back prior to march 2006. The record keeping back then was fairly bad. Im not sure where or when those discussions took place. βcommand 2 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Carnildo & E are from the trail period. βcommand 2 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
E is, carnildo is not, he's been in bag forever. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a few I found, still hunting the rest down. Notably, Beta had 2 candidacies, and kingboyk seems to have disappeared. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've finished mostly, tawker seems to have added himself, can't find a vote, and I haven't yet found any justification for the original member list, it may be on the old policy archives, but I've not found it yet. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, a group was selected. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
E wasn't ever a trial member. He specifically asked to be voted in and was voted as such. I recall Misza putting up a tough series of questions ;-) It should be in the archives somewhere. Snowolf How can I help? 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Right you are. Someone screwed up an archive. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How many bot operators

Go on, give us a ballpark guess. How many bot operators are there on the english wikipedia, do you reckon? Happy‑melon 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been counting? Um. 100? :-) (Is this active operators or all those flagged as bots - hang on, that's number of bots, not number of operators). Number of bots flagged on en-wiki is 406 (see here and click next and count 6...). Now, we have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} = 1,557), but do we have an equivalent for number of bots? Hmm. Seems no: Template:NUMBEROFBOTS. BTW, if you are doing stats, could someone organise the bots or bot tasks by type of job or area? See Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Image bots for my attempt at a list for image bots. I'd love to know how complete that list is. Anyway if the number of bots per operator is somewhere between 1 and 2 (much closer to 1 than 2), then I would say we have about 350 bot operators? Is there a prize for this sweepstake? Carcharoth (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Out the window with new editors: Bad bots, careless owners

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What is it about Wikipedia that makes it so that bad bots that attack new editors are run by programmers who don't care what their bots do?

VoABot II is not approved for edits like this.[7]

Its approval says it is approved for "obnoxious banned users/trolls with revolving IPs, general AOL/shared IP vandalism and spam patrol and page move patrol are also included." Then goes on about long-term steady vandalism of pages or vandalbot attacks.

Correctly adding an "s" to two words does not smack of vandalism. Now the editor probably won't make any more edits--I wouldn't, if I got accused of vandalism for correcting poor grammar in an article, particularly if it had been my first edit ever, and I was accused by a bot!

Why is it that bots answer to no-one? And their owners personally attack users who don't like this?[8]

So, assume good faith is out the window for bots, don't bit the newbies is out the window for bots, and no personal attacks is out the window for bots.

Homeobox is a really bad Wikipedia article on a major topic in evolutionary biology and genetics. It needs good editors. When I make substantive edits on Wikipedia one of the first things I do is edit grammar, punctuation and spelling. When I did this as an anon IP, I got reverted a couple of times by bots. So I left the crap in the article. Does Wikipedia want experts or do they want bots? The bots can't write the articles, so they ought not to be charged with interfering with good faith editors who can.

--Blechnic (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And of course, and faulty action any bot won't be reviewed, because any one who accuses a bot of making an error is attacking all bots.[9] Yawn. What's with the "I am your daddy" complex on Wikipedia anyway? There's no way wikipedia could approve a less than perfect bot, so bots can do whatever they want, and if they harm good editing of Wikipedia it doesn't matter, because AFG, BITE and NPA are bull pucky policies, or what? --Blechnic (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
DUDE! Bots make mistakes! Chill out and cut the rant! Please. Thank you, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I always tweak code after mistakes are reported too. And the number of reports to edits is very low. I randomly checks diffs sometimes too to look for mistakes. The problem here is how the bot owner is approached. Voice-of-All 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't, not according to VoABot II's owner. And, in fact, you all lie on the Bot page, because you're not allowed to discuss it with the bot's owner, because they don't make mistakes. DUDE! CHILL OUT! NO NEED TO SCREAM AT ME AND ACCUSE ME OF RANTS! --Blechnic (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
However, personally attacking me is probably faster than dealing with the issue or nicer to the ego than admitting a bot made a mistake. --Blechnic (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I never said they "don't". In fact, each warning says "if this was a mistake". It is on the bot's help page to. Also, calling a comment a "rant" is not a personal attack. At most, it is mild incivility. Voice-of-All 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the edit does not say "if this was a mistake" either in the edit summary, which says:
"23:17, 2 May 2008 VoABot II (Talk | contribs) m (8,599 bytes) (BOT - Reverted edits by Gbirrane {suspicious edits} to last version by DOI bot.) (undo)"
Or in the warning on the user's page which says:
"Your recent edit to Homeobox (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. // VoABot II (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)"
However, I'm not surprised, consider your attitude towards me and the poorly programmed bot, that you don't even know what your bot is doing. --Blechnic (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad your bug report to VoA was so helpful and polite, that certainly made him so much happier about receiving it. And that your comments here have been so open-minded. If you had been an ass to him, and ignored the nature of bots as machines that can make mistakes, it might explain why he was so short to you. Oh wait, you were an ass to him. And you invoke AGF against him for his response when you didn't even begin to consider AGF towards VoABot? You, sir, are the reason that so many bot operators feel so detached and alienated by the community: they receive impolite, sometimes abusive comments about the user's hard work, and then are lynched when they respond in kind. You'd almost think that we were treating bot operators the same as their bots: as though they're machines without feeling. You certainly do know a lot about retaining good editors. Since admins don't write articles either, let's get rid of us. The rest of you can have fun dealing with users who can't be blocked, pages that can't be deleted, and trolls who answer to noone. Oh, and let's get rid of commons, since there are no articles there, userspace, WP:space, fire the board, fire brion and tim, end all development and bugfixing for wikimedia. For the articles! For a new regime of manual labor without automation to assist us! Three cheers for the dark ages of WikiMedia!!! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I didn't criticize the bot's hard work, I criticized its bad work. Try being more accurate when you blow steam at someone. The bot could try being more accurate. And the bot's owner could learn what its bot's message actually say before wrongly quoting them. --Blechnic (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. VoA didn't put any effort at all into writing an anti-vandal bot, it just popped up one day on his computer. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In which case, the bot approval link is false and should be removed. --Blechnic (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And the spawner paid no attention to if it works or not. Soxred93 (u t) 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Even more reason to do away with the whole bot approvals group and process if no one pays attention. --Blechnic (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add another link for reporting errors in the revert summary, to make it even clearer. Voice-of-All 01:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that plus what else you have done is an excellent way, imo, to approach the issue. --Blechnic (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
*Applauds ST47.* And good idea VoA. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(to VoA's useful comment, not the bandwagon jumping stomp the newbie free-for all addition by Compwhizzi -- cough cough) That would have been a nicer start to this whole thing. The sort of thing people like Wikipedia administrators and bot programmers should consider in the first case, not after making accusations and ignoring concerns. But I've been here long enough to expect less.--Blechnic (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ow, the lack of AGF! It hurts! Look, bots make mistakes, and the owners make mistakes when programming. How is that different from when a regular editor makes a mistake, when they overlook something? There really isn't a difference. Soxred93 (u t) 01:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
to VoA's useful comment, not the bandwagon jumping stomp the newbie free-for all addition by Compwhizzi -- cough cough And people wonder why I have a short fuse.... CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, no difference. So, when the bot makes a mistake, you discuss it with the bot, just like when the editor makes a mistake you discuss it with them, or you revert, or you discuss it on the article's talk page. Oh, wait, there is a difference, you discuss it with the bot's owner. And, this bot owner decided he/she didn't want to discuss mistakes.
Short fuse? You're the one who started by screaming at me "DUDE!" Although that's one step down from being called a Nazi, there was no need to focus on my behaviour ("ranting," which is a personal attack), and to scream at me, then be aghast that people accuse you of having a short fuse. Short fuse implies someone else lit it, not self-immolation. --Blechnic (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I never meant to scream at you. Can we just end this already? CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. This whole thing could have simply been done away with by the bot owner just checking the problem with the bot. I suggest to the bot approvals group and to bot owners that this course of action, looking at complaints, rather than attacking the complainers, is better for Wikipedia. Editors who wish to edit content, rather than rant, can do so. --Blechnic (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved, further discussion will just fan the flames further. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


What fans the flames is the way people carry on attacking each other, not discussion of the substantive issue. I strenuously disagree with us allowing bots that revert people's edits just because they are new. This functionality is not approved, and the functionality should be turned off until it is approved, which should be never. Hesperian 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is used for pages semiprotected from banned users (to avoid full-protection). "Evolution" pages were also being patrolled, which has since been turned off. Aaron Schulz 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the Homeobox page badly needs major editing. When you scare off good editors by accusing them of vandalism for something like making a sentence agree in number, then revert to the bad grammer, you run off potentially good editors. The bot won't be editing the Homeobox page, but neither will the editor accused of vandalism for correcting a grammar error. --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't accept that there can be any extenuating circumstances that justify blanket-reverting people just because they are new. Hesperian 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is better than semiprotection. The bot uses heuristics to apply it to less edits and to very new users based on edits/pages. Semiprotection locks the page from all new users. Full protection locks it from everyone. Aaron Schulz 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The heuristic, then, is the problem. It's already well established that Wikipedia has far too few editors editing and creating new articles on genetics and virology. Some of these areas have topics which are high edit and potentially, therefore, high vandal, targets. When I started editing with an IP I didn't start with my subspecialty, but rather with the higher level articles in my area. Perfectly good edits of mine that corrected misinformation or made grammar edits were reverted (by bots, not some by humans). I see now that you explain this bot, why this happened on the major articles, but not generally on more obscure articles.
New editors who come to explore Wikipedia, then, become the more usual targets of these bots because they don't know they can safely correct plurals and grammar and punctuation in articles with fewer vandals, but will be reverted and accused of vandalism on other articles. I think this is a bad idea. Wikipedia does not really see the bad will it creates with its blind zealotry towards vandals, that includes capturing experts and grammar patrollers.
Also, I don't see that this is specifically approved for this bot. Is it? --Blechnic (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was the main thing it was approved for. Other tasks were added and approved. This is only for cases where semiprotection is failing and full-protection is needed. The idea is to try to avoid that. As long as it sticks to only watching semi-protected pages from banned users, then it should be fine. This was not the case for some articles when all "Evolution" pages were watched, which is why it's not watching them anymore. Anyway, semiprotection and bots watching those pages is just a blunt tool, I'd rather replace it with Flagged Revisions in the future, if doable. Aaron Schulz 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be missing something. This is what the bot's approval says:
"The purpose of this approved bot is to patrol articles and revert edits from obnoxious banned users/trolls with revolving IPs. General AOL/shared IP vandalism and spam patrol and page move patrol are also included. This is useful against both for long-term steady vandalism of certain pages or vandalbot attacks on many random pages. Semi-protection cannot be used for random page vandalism and it can be needlessly limiting if long-term use is applied to pages just to stop shared IP vandals. Similarly, move-protection is useless against random page move attacks. Additionally, "throwaway" accounts can make semi-protection end up as full protection."
The edit I complained about was not an "obnoxious banned user/troll with revolving IP, AOL/shared IP vandal/spammer/page mover." If semi-protection and bot patrol had done one of those things, I could understand it. But this is not what happened. And editor, newly registered, added an appropriate "s" to the end of two words, and this was listed by the bot as suspicious. I don't see that it did any of the things it is claimed it does, but rather something entirely different, namely what Hesperian is complaining about: it reverted the user solely because it was a new user account editing a semi-protected page. No other reason in the edit that was made is a vandalism flag. --Blechnic (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That is what it does. It patrols semiprotected from banned users for certain edits by very new users that haven't meet the exclusion heuristics and reverts those edits until some other can look them over. That is what it always did. It *is* over-inclusive, like semiprotection is. But it is better than full protection. The real problem here is that all Evolution pages shouldn't have been being watched, that would have avoided that edit. That was the mistake. Only things in the "semiprotected from banned users" category should be watched. Aaron Schulz 03:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is permissable to revert editors just because they are new, is an question that cuts into deep philosophical issues such as what exactly our mission is, and whether we are still "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". You don't get to claim a mandate to do this kind of thing on the basis of such a vague approval statement. You should be getting explicit permission, and not just from the BAG, but from the community at large, and perhaps even the board; I suspect if Jimbo knew about this he would be pretty peeved, as he has always vigorously defended the principle that Wikipedia be easily editable by anyone.

I think it is not better than full protection, because full protection doesn't discriminate against anyone, and it prevents edits rather than rejecting them after the fact. To allow editing, but then subsequently reject edits from newbs, is needlessly insulting.

Hesperian 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jimbo's user page says it best:
"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other."
Hesperian 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't what I wanted to wake up to. I'll comment after I finish reading. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Let's get this strait.
  1. Bots make mistakes. So do you.
  2. It's not made to scare off good editors by accusing them of vandalism for something like making a sentence agree in number. It's a mistake with good intention. Show some good faith.
  3. Soxred93 is right. Blechnic should of shown some good faith when contacting VoA. This is absolutely not how to approach anyone.
Also a recommendation to Bot owners. If the bot is to create a new User Talk page it wouldn't hurt to welcome the fellow. :) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I see why the above discussion degenerated into a shouting match. I've raised a legitimate issue here, and your response is to dismiss it with "bots make mistakes", and then falsely accuse me of assuming bad faith. Hesperian 00:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been made to feel unwelcome here, and since the deeper issues this raises are not and never should never have been the purview of the BAG, which is the group "which supervises and approves all bot-related activity from a technical and quality-control perspective",[10] I have started a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VoABot II. Hesperian 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Community involvement of bot tasks is welcomed, and an RFC may help to determine what the community consensus for this task is at this time. I've placed some comments on that page. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Hesperian here. Semiprotection is better than blanket reversion of new users. — Werdna talk 07:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is to prevent full protection, not semiprotection. Aaron Schulz 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Full protection is better than blanket reversion of new users. — Werdna talk 08:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Since it is only a small subset of newusers, I'd rather that over protection. Also, good edits can be restored easily, whereas as with a lock article, no way of proposing them is easy. I suppose this is a virtue ethics issue for some people. I'm not sure how "fair" it should look, or how "fair" semiprotection counts as. Aaron Schulz 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"virtue ethics"; I had a feeling you were having a crack at me with this diff, because of the timing. I guess that's now confirmed. Hesperian 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the main issue I have is that reverting is far worse than disallowing by the software. FlaggedRevs solves this :) — Werdna talk 13:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Catch_22

As it involves bots,policy ,permissions , approvals, and advice given by the BAG I post a RFC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Catch_22 --Lemmey talk 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WT:BOTS

Note, a section regarding WP:BAG in the bot policy is currently under dispute, with the page being temporarily protected--please see that thread if you are interested in the topic. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for BAG membership - refactoring header names

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This isn't productive. I don't think anybody has a problem with titling future BAG request sections appropriately. That said, I'm closing this thread, please don't re open it; It will only cause problems if this discussion continues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to make the page above more readable by changing the headers to the names of the people being nominated. It appears that this is not acceptable as it makes it hard for incoming links [11][12] and it's been like this too long now, without even considering what a mess it looks at the moment or the talk page guidelines. I can't even see the logic in the argument that incoming links are more impoortant, as if that is an unrecoverable situation, but no doubt I would be blocked if I revert again. I suggest any further nominations are done as per DHMOX and actually name the nominee, although for such apparently technically minded people as BAG members I would have thought that would have been obvious long before now. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else solved the problem, I would have never thought about using <span> to do it. Agreed, further noms should probably be in the format of "name", etc. BTW, all programming languages are not the same. Just because I can program in PHP, and C, does not mean I automatically know every nuance of HTML... SQLQuery me! 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, good idea Betacommand. They should be formatted by name. BUT, don't change existing ones, like the way you were doing. I didn't even know that <span> was possible in these cases. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, please think before editing and being disruptive. span ids are used throughout wikipedia look at WP:NFCC and my talk page for a few examples. βcommand 2 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I see he couldn't resist a dig there, I almost replied earlier with a 'well done/good thinking' but something was at the back of my mind telling me it wouldn't be justified, and there it is in full usual BC glory. I'm pretty sure most would not see the refactoring of talk pages for readability as being disruptive, I've seen the span id used before, but not so often that I immediately thought of it. In fact I'm glad because reminding me of it has allowed me a way out of a current edit problem elsewhere. But I still don't see how incoming links are more important than the current state of the page, but thinking about it, this might just be another case of contrasting the way BAG members think and the way editors/users think, i.e. BAG members think it's more important to maintain links (without conceding that not being linked straight to the target when you at least have the information of what was being talked about from the link is not an irrecoverable situation for a reader), average editors and readers would instantly see the headers were wholly inadequate without even thinking of such techno-ephemera as incoming links. And also, I think BAG members should also be experienced enough as editors already to know not to even make such vague headers in the first place, or tolerate them for long enough that refactoring becomes a problem. Anyway, at least I didn't get a 'shut the fuck up' or 'you don't know what you're talking about'. I should be honoured really. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
MickMacNee, breaking a lot of incoming links when its not necessary is disruptive, and so are your personal attacks and insults. BAG consists of editors, not some group of editors that only approves bots. Hell I have more mainspace edits than you have total edits, so please dont try and feed me that line of BAG members are not editors. Once you realize that your edits cause problems why not attempt to figure out a way to get what you want done without being disruptive, It took me all of 30 seconds to add a span tag to avoid being disruptive. but please continue to be disrptive, and make personal attacks. Im sure an admin will block you for it. βcommand 2 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Findabot

Hi, I've noticed somewhere, there is a bot that can update an online status. ie, Change an image and text from "OFFLINE" to "ONLINE" on your userpage when it detects contributions? I saw it on someones userpage, but now someone is asking, and I can't find it now. Any ideas? Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See user User:StatusBot. Chose your statusbot wisely (if you have irc use mine otherwise use Soxred's - I do however have a slight coi :) --Chris 10:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what difference does it make if you use IRC? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Mine is more accurate --Chris 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I remember seeing it before, but couldn't put my finger on it. ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Betacommandbot's status

I'd like some clarification as to this bot's status following Betacommand being blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry). Its flag has been removed by The Rambling Man, following a request [13] by MBisanz (recently appointed to BAG). There is not precedent for removing the bot flag of a indefblocked user immediately, though bots are also blocked in these situations. Should the user be unblocked, the bot is unblocked also. However, BAG may of course withdraw a user's bot privileges. MBisanz tells me that he did not ask The Rambling Man as a request from BAG, he merely felt there was a need to deflag the bot based on the ANI thread. Had I been asked, I would have pointed out the lack of urgency (the bot was already blocked) and suggest waiting (a) to see whether community consensus would uphold the block and (b) for BAG to discuss whether Betacommand should continue to operate a bot. It would have been helpful if The Rambling Man had been told he was being asked outside the usual BAG/crat relationship. I would like BAG to clarify whether (should he be unblocked) Betacommand still has approval to operate his bot and whether the bot flag should be restored.

As a learning point from this, can I ask that BAG members make it clear when they ask crats to flag/deflag bots whether this is an official request from BAG or some other request based on crat discretion. We need to be able to trust that BAG aren't going to ask us to do something controversial without us realising it - especially where the crat being asked isn't one who regularly assists in this area. WjBscribe 14:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

it should be given back as there was no grounds for removal. βcommand 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The main issue was with poor (very poor in fact) running of a DEFAULTSORT script on an alternate account (numerous mistakes have been discovered so far). Whether that should affect Betacommand's fitness to run a bot account, I don't know, but there should be a proper discussion about that. The blocks (and I've just lifted the block of Betacommand's main account, leaving the others for later discussion) were based on claims of abusive sockpuppetry, which didn't really stand up to closer scrutiny. But as I said, none of that is to do with BetacommandBot, so as long as Betacommand doesn't try and run his DEFAULTSORT script on the bot, I think the flag should be restored. Technically, the block should probably be lifted as well, but as I said at AN, I think further discussion is needed over that issue. I'm more concerned that Betacommand's first action after being unblocked was to come here, when I have twice now pointed out an unanswered question on his talk page. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I was writing a reply on AN when I posted here. βcommand 15:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the message on your talk page about your DEFAULTSORT edits. That is actual content you were messing up. The two main issues are transferring the "space" sort tags to DEFAULTSORT (a known bug) and inappropriate sorting and mis-sorting. Examples found so far are: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. On that basis alone, Betacommand would never have been approved as a bot operator. It is also clear that he has failed to address concerns when they were raised. See here, though Betacommand has now apologised for that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the community should have been consulted beforehand. These speedy actions were not legitimate in the present case. Cenarium (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. The general one of how to handle this in the future and the specifics of this case. I do agree it was unnecessarily hasty to deflag the bot in this manner, but it's also not a major problem. Probably best practices in the future are to block the bot and then have a discussion like this current one about the bot's status. Since the bot was blocked, the deflagging was unnecessary before a discussion concluded. In this specific instance, and at this specific moment, given that the flag has already been removed I think we should just move forward and decide whether this bot should get a flag or not and not worry about whether it had one before or not. On the related note Beta, I really admire your talents and we need the types of skills you have, but you really should also have the ability to think out ahead of time whether the things you are doing are likely to be helpful or controversial or not and avoid the controversial and unhelpful ones. You're simply too talented to be causing all the problems you do. Based on all the good you can do it's a real problem that a case can be made that your net contributions aren't indisputably positive. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I, not a member of BAG, would think that he should be given back his role on the Approvals Group. I do not believe there was reason to remove him. He was blocked, but unblocked after some discussion. Obviously if he remained blocked he should have been removed, but that is not the case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I read this discussion wrong. Yes, I also strongly believe the bot needs to be given the flag back. After the bot was blocked, there was no reason to remove it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand should not be on the Approvals Group. The BAG is there to ensure that bots are used responsibly, for which his actions set a very poor example. He has also caused or inflamed many of the recent problems surrounding the BAG. If he were to go through a confirmation process to be on the BAG (not that we have one that works), he would never pass. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, I agree with rspeer that he shouldn't be a BAG member. At the very least, he should stand for reconfirmation. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. I am glad that BetaCommand's name is no longer sullied by accusations of sockpuppetry, but it is surely beyond dispute that he has been running an unapproved bot on his main account. For someone who knowingly violates bot policy to be a BAG member would be outrageous. Hesperian 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WJBscribe's concerns, I have created the following set of templates User:MBisanz/MESSAGES to be used when a person could be confused as to what role I am acting in. MBisanz talk 05:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand as a member of BAG

Prompted by this edit, removing BC from the list of members, and my subsequent revert, I'd like to see some discussion here of whether or not BC should be a member of BAG rather than reflex-removals of the sort I just reverted. If it transpires that other discussions elsewhere ought to have a great bearing on this, we should wait until they complete and bring the salient points here for a more focused discussion. I'd suggest that we fix ourselves on letting this discussion run at least until the protection expires on WP:BAG rather than making any more snap decisions. Thanks, Martinp23 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the best way to move forwards; the lack of activity at the WP:AN thread seems to suggest that (as usual) the community is happy to let BAG and the bot-operating community deal with its own as long as their right to complain later isn't infringed :D. The protection that's in place is an excellent pre-existing timeframe. How are we going to do this? I think the previous re-evaluation thread is a good model to follow: it can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group/Archive_3#Betacommand. My personal opinion would be that it would be best to mark Betacommand as 'suspended' rather than 'active', but I agree that 'former member' is not an appropriate descriptor at this stage. Happy‑melon 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Temporary suspension would be good. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Recuse, blocking admin. MBisanz talk 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
While I recognize this is a wiki and we like to move at a high-speed here, I agree with Martin. Time is really what is needed right now, not rashness. Waiting a few days to see how the AN / community discussion transpires will do a world of good and add a fair bit of clarification, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the above section, I think Betacommand should (now or some time soon) stand for BAG reconfirmation (and that this should be advertised at AN at the very least). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We all know what the outcome of that would be, Betacommand has made many enemies running that bot. Also I question why he was removed from the bag, what does sock puppetry have to do with being able to approve bots? --Chris 10:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with sockpuppetry: it's the DEFAULTSORT fiasco. Basically Betacommand was running an automated script on his main account, which was either running in automatic mode or he fell into a coma watching it, because it made a huge number of incorrect changes to category sortkeys on a host of mainspace articles. Either BC is not competent enough to identify which of his edits are good and which are bad (which I don't believe, but which would make him completely unqualified to use, let alone approve, bots and scripts) or he was using an unapproved automatic script in violation of the bot policy which, as a BAG member, he should have been enforcing. Coming as this does at the end of a very long chain of almost identical debacles, we have to question whether Betacommand has the judgement necessary to be a member of BAG. Happy‑melon 10:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To Chris...yeah, apart from what Happy-melon said (which I agree with) it's the idea that BAG members should have some level of community trust since they are making decisions which can greatly affect the community. "We all know what the outcome of that would be"...kinda begs the question of what impression it gives the community if BAG were to add Beta to its roster despite knowing that the community probably doesn't want him there. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing is these people will be oppoisng for all the wrong reasons. Give me one diff where Betacommand has made a bad approval. The only times he has been uncivil on BRFA is in his own requests and even then he was being baited. That said it's the bags problem and the bag must find a solution; I suggest they do one of those arbcom style things that ST47 did with BetacommandBot's warnings(look in the archives, its somewhere there) (Something like "Remove Betacommand from bag", "Leave Betacommand in bag", "Make Betacommand run a reconfirmation" --Chris 08:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong or right, there seems to be a serious opposition against his BAG membership, and we can't ignore it. Yes, although he had never approved a bot that shouldn't had been approved, he also "approved" his own bots to do different things without the community's approval. Regrettbly, I feel that BC should be removed from the group. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, if a reconfirmation is done now, some people will still be in lynch-mob mode and oppose for the so-called "disruptive sockpuppetry." I would suggest a reconfirmation some time in the near future, once the current drama blows over. Whether he should be suspended until then, I don't know. Mr.Z-man 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think a reconfirmation is what's required here: just a serious discussion (and probably ultimatley a straight vote of no-confidence from BAG) about whether BC has shown the judgement required to be a BAG member. If he is removed, then there should be nothing to stop him standing for re-appointment at any time he wishes. That said, if we prefer a simple reconfirmation at a later date, then A) we must decide when that date should be now, and B) I think it would be inappropriate to consider BC anything other than 'suspended' for the intervening period. Happy‑melon 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So how are we proceeding with this then? Happy‑melon 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Betacommand should be removed from the BAG list, as he was originally. I suppose the appropriate time to do this would be in two days, or whenever ST47 chooses to unprotect the page. I disapprove of Martinp23's reverting the page while it was protected, but re-reverting while it's still protected would just be prolonging a wheel war. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The removal too took place while the page was protected, hence I used common sense and reverted, seeing as BC drama wasn't the reason for page protection in the first place. Martinp23 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion for how we should proceed with this. There's a lot of tension in the air about Betacommand and his general behaviour, both in regards to running bots and general attitude. We do no service to ourselves by discussing this now - there's far too much anger in the air. My suggestion is that we leave this for two weeks, then, on 4 June, Betacommand much reconfirm himself on BAG using the same process by which many users have recently proceeded (i.e. on this talk page). It can be well advertised, and people can then judge whether or not the believe Betacommand should remain as a member. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer a month for things to settle down. βcommand 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If he wants a month, let him have a month. :-) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problem with doing it in a month, say, 20 June? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is pointless to set arbitrary dates. Monobi (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? Happy‑melon 11:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to the 20 June reconfirmation, then! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go make a FA or something until then :D Happy‑melon 11:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In a month, I could make 3! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wanna race? :D Happy‑melon 11:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I want to see a race. :) - Taxman Talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, since DiMo is volunteering.... A couple BAG members have failed at RfA for "lack of article writing". This may seem off the wall since BAG isn't a wikiproject, but perhaps if BAG members helped get some article to FA or at least GA, it would address that criticism, demonstrate collaborative article-building, and smooth some relations with the rest of the community. Gimmetrow 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that idea could be rephrased as "let's create an article collaboration that we exclude non-BAG members from". Hesperian 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How? What would we do? Revert the edits of non-BAG members who improve the article? Mr.Z-man 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, where in the world did that come from? Gimmetrow 23:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it another way. The BAG has a serious job to do, a job that requires a certain skill set, and so it is necessarily selective about who it accepts as a member. If you start lending the BAG name to article collaborations and other such things, it becomes a club; like a WikiProject that you have to apply to join. You'll be providing ammunition to those who argue (vehemently) that the BAG is too clichy, that anyone should be free to join it, that it should have less authority. I'm not kicking up a stink over your idea; I'm just predicting that others will. Hesperian 00:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I should have never suggested people might want to write articles. Gimmetrow 03:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That's right; it should be a given. ;-) Hesperian 04:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of something more along the lines of "which member of the bot-operating community can write the most featured articles before we get the Betacommand mess sorted out?" It would be pretty much the only good to come out of the whole issue... Happy‑melon 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Giggy would win that. ;) My last piece of featured content came back in September, something I'm not exactly happy about. east.718 at 06:05, May 23, 2008
Yes, obviously, which is why I'm trying to make it not seem like a race (when really it is!). ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Internet bot article isn't great, folks. I don't think a "zOMG BAG" collaboration is a great idea, but I'm sure a few of you could lend your knowledge to the article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)