text:
Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 7

Request for deflagging and blocking of Anybot
In accordance with Bot policy, this is a formal request for Anybot to be deflagged and indefinitely blocked.

Anybot has now had four major runs. The first run, in February, introduced many major errors, by admission of Martin, the bot operator. The second run, in March and April, fixed some of these errors; but it didn't even come close to making these articles acceptable. From April on, Martin was being asked to address problems introduced by his bot, and did not do so. For example, on 6 March Rkitko pointed out that Anybot had wrongly described thousands of cyanobacteria as algae, and raised the matter again on 21 April, but as of today, 26 June, Rkitko hasn't received a reply and these articles have still haven't been fixed.

Anybot ran for a third time in May and June, and continued to introduce errors. It also exhibited unacceptable behaviours such as edit warring. Martin has stated that he did not run the bot at this time, and that whoever did run it was not authorised to do so; apparently anyone could run the bot by visiting a certain webpage; he did not bother to secure the page because he figured no-one knew of its existence—security through obscurity.

The extent of the problem did not become clear until the last couple of weeks, when <IP_ADDRESS>, who appears to have expertise in this area, spoke out strongly on the matter at WT:PLANTS. There was a long discussion, during which it became clear that there were so many wrong articles, with so many errors, of some many different types, that the only way they could be fixed is they were individually manually repaired by a phycologist. This would take thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of hours; it would probably be quicker to delete them and write them all from scratch. Therefore I sent all 4000 articles to AfD; consensus seems to be emerging there that they will need to be deleted.

One result of the AfD discussion was that it finally prompted Martin to respond. Having discovered that the bot had been run without his authorisation, he blocked it. He then began working on a bot that would fix the errors. Once this bot was ready, he announced his intention of running it. A number of people objected to the idea that Anybot could be trusted to fix these errors. But despite these objections, and calls for the bot to be deflagged, Martin unblocked the bot and set it going, apparently without a test run, and without notifying or seeking approval from the BAG.

This fourth run put a great many articles into a novel state, including introducing new errors, such as classifying diatoms as plants. These were all new edits, not reverts; but disturbingly, every edit was marked as minor, and given the misleading edit summary "Restore article to last good version." The bot also edited at least one article that it had never edited before, despite Martin's assurance that it had only edited articles created by Anybot and not since edited by a human. I have now reblocked the bot.

In summary, this bot has been a complete disaster from start to finish. Martin may have the best of intentions but he has presided over a monumental screwup and his bot cannot be trusted at any level. I am seeking to have Anybot deflagged and indefinitely blocked on the grounds that
 * it introduces major errors of facts on a massive scale, every time it is run;
 * it has exhibited unacceptable behaviours such as edit warring and the use of misleading edit summaries;
 * the bot owner failure to secure the bot account;
 * the bot owner failed to address and fix errors in a timely manner;
 * the bot owner has unblocked and run the bot in the face of community opposition to him doing so.

Hesperian 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 's BRFA approval page Bots/Requests_for_approval/anybot --  Tinu  Cherian  - 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anybot is currently indefinitely blocked. – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * See Articles_for_deletion/Anybot's_algae_articles. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an appropriate solution. Unless any other BAG members object, I'll mark Bots/Requests for approval/anybot as revoked in a few hours.
 * As for the deleting, whoever tags the pages for deletion (or runs an adminbot to just delete them) should have that task approved in the normal way; it's not so urgent that WP:IAR is needed, IMO. If no one beats me to it, I may write a quick script to generate the list of pages needing deletion, at which point any admin approved for mass-deletion (e.g. with AWB) could handle it. Anomie⚔ 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is done. Anomie⚔ 03:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Anomie, but if the community reaches the consensus that they should all be deleted, then they all get deleted. You don't get to end-run around the outcome of the AfD. If you read the AfD carefully, you will find reasons given why it is insufficient to "delete all articles which have only been edited by Anybot (and maintenance bots such as User:Addbot)". In short, the articles must be assumed to have been error-ridden at the time of creation, and the fact that some have been edited since does not imply that they have corrected or verified; more than likely the subsequent edits were merely cosmetic, since there are very few editors here with the expertise to contribute content or corrections on this topic. Hesperian 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't give a crap about AfD, and the unapproving of anybot is exactly what you asked for. What's your point? Anomie⚔ 04:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you just scrape a list of articles created by Anybot and not since edited by a human? That's what Martin is proposing in the linked section. And what I read from you above is "Sounds like an appropriate solution.... I may write a quick script to generate the list of pages needing deletion.... It is done." To me, that sounds like a declaration that you intend to implement Martin's solution. My point is that the AfD process decides what to do with these articles, not you. Hesperian 05:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the list isn't completed yet. Whether it actually gets used for deleting the pages or not, I don't really care; I'll just post it (actually, it'll be at least 3 lists: created by anybot and edited only by bots, created by anybot and edited by non-bots, and just edited by anybot) somewhere. I actually forgot about that when I said "It is done", I was referring to the revoking of the bot's approval. Anomie⚔ 05:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. At present the AfD is based upon the list at User:Anybot/AfD, which was originally a list of articles created by anybot, but has since been refined by the removal of some articles that have been fixed by a human. Therefore a "created by anybot" list would be redundant. But as you say, a "created by anybot and edited only by bots" list would enable the implementation of Martin's proposal, should it be agreed to. Hesperian 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the lists:
 * User:Anomie/Pages created by anybot and edited only by bots
 * User:Anomie/Pages created by anybot and edited by non-bots
 * User:Anomie/Pages edited (not created) by anybot
 * Do with them what you will. Anomie⚔ 05:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed Anybot's flag.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, it would be nice if these articles were ever examined in a way that showed fewer errors instead of more in number and kind. The list with articles that anybot touched but did not create contains a whole new mess of errors, each unique, and each will have to be checked and fixed by a human.

Also, the bot's synonymies are wrong, so probably 100% of its redirects should also be deleted if they can't be 100% checked, although user Hesperian is planning to deal with that.

I hope BAG makes certain that bot created articles in the future are coded properly to NOT overwrite existing articles.

It's hard to understand how the bot was ever allowed to continue the first time it was noticed it was doing this. Obscure algae require expertise programmers may not have, but code that allows a bot to overwrite existing, unrelated text, is a major and inexcusable error.

This group tends to ignore comments made by IPs-you don't respond to my posts. But, if you, as a group, did not ignore IPs, someone might have caught and stopped this mess long before it reached this level. The IP <IP_ADDRESS> edited over a thousand articles, correcting the most egregious errors, and all of his/her edits and hard work are slated to be deleted.

IPs contribute a lot of excellence to wikipedia. I can't stop you from ignoring my every post, and setting an example to bot operators that this is how to act (as Martin acted), but the wikipedia community has decided over and over to allow anonymous IPs to edit.

If this group does not respect the community consensus, it's no wonder that it allows the creation of messes that put wikipedia in disrepute.

A group that can make this much work for other writers of the encyclopedia should be a part of the community, not a non-responsive law alone.

That's just my opinion on the matter. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With all do respect, your comment is way off base. No one "ignored IP input", as there was none to consider in the original BRFA.  BAG members aren't some kind of super geniuses that can automatically envision every possible problem about every possible subject.  The bot was correctly approved based on the feedback that was received during the approval process (which was pretty extensive, by the way).  Trying to blame the bad articles on BAG is ridiculous and completely not helpful to solving the actual problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I have two posts on pages by this group that have been completely ignored. One just above this thread.
 * It doesn't require a super genius in programming to understand that a bot that is creating articles should not be coded to overwrite entire other articles without being specifically coded for that feature.
 * You're the final say in authorizing a bot, before it's flagged, but you don't monitor problems with the bot; there's nothing way off base about my comments. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The BAG (of which I am not a member, BTW) can only go by what it sees and no objections or evidence of problems were raised during the BRFA. It is unfortunate that the bot made a large number of errors and that the operator failed to secure to code, which allowed a vandal to abuse it.  However, both of those problems ultimately fall on the bot owner, bot BAG.  BAG can't predict the future and expecting them to do so is completely ridiculous. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * If there were consequences to bot operators who ignored writer-alerts about problems with their articles, then this problem area could be reduced. Note, someone said Martin corrected errors.  He did not; he ignored error reports for months, and his early reports of correcting errors are wrong; and, if he had examined the results, he could have seen that he sometimes made the problem worse and seldom fixed it.

 * Now, it seems once the BAG approves your bot you can do what you want: restart your bot when it's been blocked for a reason, run the bot to do unapproved tasks against the community consensus, and create new bots and operate them without consequences once you have a flagged bot. All of this is a problem with BAG: there are no consequences to bot owners operating their bots in unapproved manners, thus giving tacit approval to bot owners to do as they please.  Until BAG requires bot owners to monitor their bots, secure their codes (a simple and basic requirement), and be responsive, in a timely fashion, to bug reports, this problem will plague wikipedia and its articles, creating future messes.   --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His bot got blocked. Then, someone assumed good faith and unblocked it. And how on Earth is the BAG meant to force bot owners to monitor their bots anyway? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jarry, I think you're mistaken. It's not "someone assumed good faith and unblocked it". The bot owner himself unblocked the bot, not some randomly passerby. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Replies below are chronologically before many of the replies above. This break splits up comments and replies, which is unfortunate. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What you have said of substance has been lost in long rants about how horrible the bot is and how horrible we are, which is why I haven't replied to you yet. I don't see that <IP_ADDRESS> has commented here anywhere. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I have not posted long rants about how horrible you are. I posted a series of questions above, while trying to understand is there some way this problem can be prevented in the future. I posted another question elsewhere.  You've ignored my questions. If you can't or won't read a systematic evaluation of what is wrong with a bot in an attempt to find a way to fix the problem with programming, then this group is being irresponsible.  That's nothing to brag a link about.
 * I posted lengthy discussions about the problems with the bot because I wanted to be sure I identified all types of errors, initially, when it was thought the errors could be corrected. When I realized they couldn't I posted a sufficient number of examples of the types of errors to make it clear that there was not a set of systematic errors that could be corrected with another bot.
 * I continued to keep searching for this type of error, something that could save a large group of the articles.
 * What I've said in my rants is germane to the discussion as long as writers continue to try to save a large quantity of the articles.
 * No, that's not why you or other members of this board haven't replied to my posts here, such as my questions above: it's because you ignore the input of IPs. This is typical wikipedia from my experience, including, now, this one: trying to get something done about over 4000 really bad articles.  Bad in their entirety, bad they should have never been here articles.
 * IPs are part of the wikipedia community. My rants (thanks for the personally insulting sling about my work) were necessary to describe the massive extent of the errors created by this bot.  They were often in response to other writers who were trying to save articles.  When other writers had suggestions, rather than ignoring them I attempted to find ways of implementing them by reviewing more articles.  I posted the results of these reviews, which you call rants.  I guess I should have been thankful to be ignored by members of this group, it seems it was nicer than the personally insulting responses based on ignorance of the work I've done trying to save some of the articles by finding a large group of bot-editable ones.
 * If I'm missing a compliment I should be giving, please let me know.
 * Other IPS have posted to Martin's bot alerts board about article problems and been ignored.
 * I hate to keep having to say this, but, please, stay away from insulting me and focus on the substantive issue.
 * If my paragraph in the thread above is too long for members of this board to read, then command that folks write messages of only 1 or 2 simple sentences. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no one ignore you because you are an IP. This is a completely unfounded accusation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have focused on the substantive issues. See above. Anomie⚔ 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The major substantive issue dealing with programming is preventing a mess of this nature from ever putting Wikipedia in disrepute of this level again. That issue has not been touched by this group.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So what do you propose we do? The bot was given 2 trials, and all the reported errors from the trials were supposedly fixed. Ultimately, the responsibility for the bot rests on the operator. Your post above was probably ignored because you gave almost no context for your comments. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the question of running an unapproved bot was enough that clicking on the links for context was in order. This isn't the first time Martin ran a bot without approval.
 * There are always a million more ways to work as a group to contribute something positive than there are ways to simple flame war.
 * A short term solution to part of the problem: Someone mentioned a  tag would prevent the articles from appearing in google search results.  While the articles are still being discussed, even for only one more day, can someone who runs bots immediately tag all of the article's on this page with noindex?  This does not need to be done to articles not created by anybot, just the ones it created (its deletion edits are among the ones it edited but did not create).
 * This could serve a couple of immediate goals. The edit summary of the bot tagging could link to the AFD list (User:Anybot/AfD) in its explanation for why a no-index tag was added. Anybot's user AfD list now links to the AfD. It could also alert anyone watch-listing any of the articles about the AfD and the need to remove any of their articles from the list.
 * --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The BAG doesn't have a magical ability to prevent someone form running an unapproved bot. There is no technical limitation that the BAG enables to allow a bot to run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet there are no consequences to running an unapproved bot. A post about an unapproved bot was ignored.  It's not even interesting that someone runs an unapproved bot.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that BAG members would ignore an unapproved bot is absurd. The bot that caused these problems was an approved bot. You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between changing an aspect of a bot's code and a completely new task.  Of course someone doesn't have to seek approval every time they modify their code.  Bots are approved for a task and it is perfectly permissible to change one's code to better do the same task without seeking new approval.
 * Also, many users have been banned from Wikipedia or otherwise disciplined for running unapproved bot, so there certainly is not "no consequence" as you assert. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I asked for someone to explain this to me. If I get it wrong after asking and not being answered, so what?  I tried to learn.  I tried to understand.

 * The bot owner swears it's a new bot, not the same bot. "::::::Just to clarify, it's not being checked by the bot that 'screwed it up', but by a different bot (which operates from the same account). Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)".  It wasn't the same task, but a different task.  In addition, the code was worse, not better; it introduced novel errors.  The bot owner didn't seek approval.  There were no consequences.

 * I see what's here, not the entire history of wikipedia. What's here is a post about an unapproved bot.  What's happening is the post was ignored.  I don't see the point in continuing this, when the bot owner says one thing, and you come up with something different.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He used that wording to show he rewrote the code. The task was the same.  Also, if it was only checking (not actually writing), that doesn't require approval. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It was me who suggested that. I actually thought that I'd proposed noindexing the articles earlier this week - but looking back at my contribs, this seems not to be the case (perhaps I got edit conflicted? dunno). Unless this is prohibited by policy somewhere, this would be a Very Good Idea, IMO. 69.226. is correct in saying that these broken articles don't exactly make WP look good... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I wish you had. You may have, and maybe I missed it.  Let's get it done now if possible, though.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

On the question of what can you do? How about implement the most basic type of rules that programmers use when paid to write code? A simple start is demanding algorithms, maybe only from new programmers. Some programmers have many bots and few errors.

Any competent programmer can read another's algorithm and see they've missed the most basic things like initializing variables (probably why Martin's bot added bad lines of text and created bad taxoboxes, if the information had been gathered from a prior genus, but the next genus didn't mention spore types or its taxonomy, it just used leftover information), no protection against deleting an entire existing article. This is not genius level programming.

Then get specific approval from interested editors in their arena for all bots creating articles-don't just wait to see if anyone objects here, get positive approval. After a bot's initial run creating articles, post the list of its articles on wikiproject plants or somewhere and ask writers to check off on all of the articles.

--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the anybot edits show allowing a bot to create articles has potential to create an even bigger mess than this one. This appears to be because of a lack of basic coding requirements and fundamental safeguards from the BAG prior to and once a bot is given approval.

Some writers are now battling me verbally to fight this realization. It won't change the situation as it is: bots on wikipedia are not controlled.

As someone else pointed out, if a meat editor had created these articles they would have been permanently blocked as a vandal once they were told of the problem and failed to stop. This block, in the case of anybot, would have occurred after the test run, not after 4000 articles.

I don't think bot owners want to hear this, and I've said my piece, and taken enough insults in exchange. This is a familiar wikipedia response to an editor, particularly an IP or newly registered user, pointing out a problem with wikipedia. This is how wikipedia winds up again with egg on its face in the news: wikipedia editors don't want to hear what's wrong. That's why this mess wasn't cleaned up in February: established editors refused to listen, a phycology editor, and the bot owner, and once a bot is approved its owner is allowed to do what he wants. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you are making assertions without the slightest shred of evidence. Most certainly a human user would not have been blocked after creating a trial amount of these articles.  The bot was approved based on the trials going successfully.  Why would a human be blocked for creating 50-100 valid stub?  They wouldn't.
 * Most certainly a bot owner cannot "do whatever they want" after approval. This bot did get blocked and deflagged in case you forgot.
 * Furthermore, you are acting like the bot owner was trying to introduce factual errors, which is absurd. Human editors introduce factual errors every single day, but it seems that all you care is that one bot (out of hundreds) introduced factual errors.  I have a strong feeling you wouldn't be happy unless all bots were permanently banned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just want to comment on, the bot owner mentioned about forgetting to reset variables after each run. This is supposed to be elementary programming, but apparently the bot doesn't do that. ThaddeusB, introducing deliberate factual errors is one of the valid reasons to be blocked, see Uw-error1. We're not debating about whether 1 name is a synonym of another, or whether a genus has X number of valid species (where X is a number in debate in scientific community), we're talking about "common knowledge" errors like classifying cyanobacteria as algae. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course introducing deliberate factual errors is a reason for blocking. What makes you think the errors were deliberate though?  Apparently they were subtle enough that no one caught them in the trial run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot never created any valid articles as far as I can tell. I don't see anything that shows I'm acting like the bot owner deliberately introduced factual errors.  No one but you has even suggested that about Martin.
 * I like bots. I'm the one and only editor, besides Martin, who wants the articles recreated by a bot.  I even have a bot in mind; and I'm writing the algorithm for the higher level taxonomies.  You're making this too personally against me for this discussion to continue, Thaddeus.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, if anyone made this personal it was you. At various times, you blanketly accused a large group of editors of being incompetent, not caring about the rules, and blindly ignoring valuable insight because it came from an IP.  None of those things accurate describe BAG.  Based on the original BRFA, the bot seemed to function correctly.  Unfortunately, this perception was incorrect. However, it is quite unreasonable to think BAG could have somehow known this was going to be the case when there was no evidence to suggest the bot wouldn't work properly.
 * Ultimately, Martin deserves the blame for not properly looking after his own code. A BOT approval is not a license to assume your code is perfect and not bother to check up on it.  Attempts to say BAG did anything wrong or failed are unfounded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense tell us that algae is in plant kingdom while cyanobacteria is in bacteria kingdom. Whoever that study biology or ecology would know, and certainly Martin knows this. ThaddeusB, you shouldn't be going too harsh on the IP. If it wasn't him who raised the alarm, Wikipedia would otherwise have thousands of articles with factual errors. Everyone, including me, should be thanking him for his service for not just whisleblowing, but also trying to save articles from deletion. But given the magnitude of damage, it's impossible to save all of them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My words came across overly harsh and I apologize for that. My gripe certainly was not with anyone for finding the problems and raising an alarm - that is certainly a commendable act.  My gripe was with the IP's (apparent) desire to place the blame on the BAG.  I do not believe BAG could not have reasonably foreseen the problems that arose based on what I read in the BRFA (which had input from an above average number of editors). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My words came across overly harsh and I apologize for that. My gripe certainly was not with anyone for finding the problems and raising an alarm - that is certainly a commendable act.  My gripe was with the IP's (apparent) desire to place the blame on the BAG.  I do not believe BAG could not have reasonably foreseen the problems that arose based on what I read in the BRFA (which had input from an above average number of editors). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that BAG gets a fair number of passers-by with strange ideas, but the regulars on this page should note that Anybot has done a vast amount of damage, and has caused many people, particularly <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>, to waste an enormous amount of time. It's not BAG's job to monitor every bot, or to clean up mistakes. However, it would be decent to acknowledge that a big problem has occurred, and enquire whether something could be learned from the incident. One lesson seems clear: When a bot is approved to mass create articles, and if the subject matter is such that normal editors can't tell if the content is good or bad, BAG should apply a condition that periodic checking by the relevant subject project must occur: a pause of at least one week after every 100 new pages, and positive approval on the project page (not absence of objections), until the subject project page approves an uninterrupted run. That condition should be required regardless of current consensus on the subject project page.

Also, the statement by the bot owner that "somebody has been running the bot without my knowledge" needs serious investigation, or at least an acknowledgement that BAG members would like to investigate but are unable to do so due to lack of time or whatever. The particular bot owner is not important, it's the general claim that needs investigation.

Finally, I would like to add my voice to those who have elsewhere thanked <IP_ADDRESS>. Thanks for the enormous amount of effort you have applied to investigating and resolving this situation. I know that ThaddeusB has issued somewhat of an apology, but I urge ThaddeusB to strike out the two sentences above starting "First of all...". Under normal circumstances, the text above would be very satisfactory, but owing to the particular circumstances of this case, it is not. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Endorse Johnuniq's comment. I don't come here very often, but when I do, I consistently get a defensive, even rudely so, response, as though the BAG thinks it has a mandate to defend all bot operators against the horde of clueless non-coding lusers who don't appreciate their work. I once came here to register my dissent against the BAG's decision to approve a bot that reverted newbs on certain articles for the sole reason that they were newbs. I had, and still have, serious philosophical objection to such a bot. I carefully laid out those objections. The response was "Bots make mistakes. So do you. Show some good faith." Sadly, this is a fairly typical BAG response. In the present case, I brought to the BAG a request for information on how I could document the Anybot situation, so that the BAG would take the situation into account when considering future applications. I concede that I started off too aggressively, so I won't take you to task for the defensive response. But for a BAG member to then rush off to the main discussion thread and precipitately declare that it was "all heat and no light" was unhelpful to say the least. I really think there needs to be a change of focus here. "BAG" does not stand for "bot advocacy group". At the very least, you guys should be maintaining files on each bot you approve, soliciting feedback on performance, and proactively responding to reported problems. Hesperian 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Again with the odd, draconian limits proposed by someone in the wake of a bot making errors. Do you realize that "100 stubs per week" basically means "why bother with a bot?", as a small user script would easily suffice. It would take an entire year to create 5200 articles at that rate. And it also seems you (Johnuniq) are unfamiliar with how things often go when soliciting opinions from a project on something relatively uncontroversial (as this was until it blew up): one or two people will comment, followed by a whole lot of silence as everyone else decides "yes, they said everything necessary". I have two or three outstanding requests for WikiProject tagging by my bot where months ago I put it to the project to come up with a positive approval of more than just one or two people and the discussion went in exactly the manner I have described. As for Martin's comment that "somebody has been running the bot without my knowledge", you have apparently missed the explanation; there's nothing more to investigate, as it has already been determined to be operator error. Martin now realizes he made a very bad assumption, and we're not here to babysit people and make sure every single bot op doesn't do every single stupid thing someone could possibly do.
 * Hesperian, I am the one who apparently "rushed off" to the main discussion and "precipitately declare[d] that it was 'all heat and no light'" [sic]. Way to WP:AGF. I went to the main discussion to try to find out what exactly the problem was (since your original post just referred to that discussion for details), and found it filled with grand sweeping statements by people obviously irate about the issue and nothing to give me specifics about the extent of the problem or even whether it was a bot problem or GIGO from the source data. Fortunately, User:Rkitko was kind enough to clarify the situation. Would you have found it more "helpful" for me to have ignored your post because there was too much heated complaint for me to see anything about the actual underlying problem? If you want to propose a change in BAG's procedures, go ahead and post a clear, calm, well-reasoned proposal at WT:BAG, and be ready to volunteer to "clerk" it so others don't have to deal with excessive paperwork. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * A year to create 5000 articles is fine. The bot proposed above could have created over 1500 articles in the 4 months it took anybot to created nothing.

 * Maybe the way to go is user-operated helper scripts rather than bots for taxon article database creations. This might work better than bots for other types of article creation for the same reasons.  It couldn't be worse than the amount of editor time wasted by anybot creating its nothing.

 * I think that if a group has the authority to authorize something (the flagging of bots by bureaucrats), but makes it clear they have no responsibility for what they authorize, and personally attacks those who bring problems to their attention, it's time to revisit the first part in a wider venue. My opinion.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I did not miss Martin's kafkaesque explanation, and I know that everyone here is a busy volunteer, so it's understandable that Anomie would completely misunderstand what I said. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I tried to read this page, I honestly did. But the only thing said in the mess above is a bunch of pointing fingers. Hey guys, a protip on actually fixing things, is actually coming up with something constructive instead of ripping into each other. Furthermore, I apologize to <IP_ADDRESS> for not knowing the bot approval process. Q T C 00:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) BAG isn't a magical mythical entity that can catch subtle logic errors in all programming. As has been pointed out the bugs found during the trial process were vetted and reported to be fixed.
 * I hope BAG makes certain that bot created articles in the future are coded properly to NOT overwrite existing articles.
 * Overwriting existing text isn't a subtle logic error, it's basic bad programming. If you're not a programmer, you may not see this, but I can't do anything to address that.  The bugs were not vetted; vetted means carefully checked, not generally by the same person who wrote the code.  That the same bugs existed four months later shows they weren't vetted.
 * Yes, because similar cases have not happened to experienced developers
 * Paid developers can be fired when for low-level mistakes. Safeguards are implemented to prevent repetitions of the mistakes, in addition to the developers fixing the mistakes.  They also own their mistakes.  That mistakes happened doesn't mean there were no safeguards to try to prevent them.  BAG doesn't have safeguards in place against the basic mistakes anybot made, doesn't do anything to safeguard against future mistakes except fight people who point them out, and they say they're not responsible for mistakes to begin with.  It's an important set of distinctions.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As also has been pointed out, BAG takes into account issues raised by the community during the approval process. Again as has been pointed out, community response during the approval was minimal.
 * If this group does not respect the community consensus
 * That is probably more a function, imo, of how the BAG addresses community input: poorly. As an example, see the two other BAG threads I started that were ignored.

BAG, like all the other various people on Wikipedia, is made up of volunteers who do this in addition to the things they do elsewhere on Wikipedia. It would be a pointless waste of effort to sit here all day checking every bot edit. BAG like AIV/3RR/UAV depend on people to report the problem.
 * You're the final say in authorizing a bot, before it's flagged, but you don't monitor problems with the bot
 * No one had to check every bot edit to catch these errors. The errors were repeatedly reported to the bot owner for 4 months.  However, since the BAG does not have the capability to monitor bots once they've authorized them, authorization should belong to someone besides BAG, like the community as a whole.  This could get people monitoring them.
 * The community as a whole have not shown the interest, if they would, why would they not join BAG?
 * The BAG is a closed self-selecting group. It's not open to the community as a whole.  It's somewhat anti-wikipedia in more ways than one: being a closed group, owning authority but not responsibility. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unapproved bots are block. End of story. However like above, we cannot go around checking every single edit made on Wikipedia to see if it conforms to all the previously approved tasks, like above it depends on people reporting this.
 * run the bot to do unapproved tasks against the community consensus,
 * No, they're not blocked, because the bot owners are the ones who are allowed to unblock them. That's ridiculous.  Anybot created over 4000 articles, if you had checked one of the problems, it would have given any programmer pause to investigate the bot's code deeper.  People reported it until they were driven away by Martin's lack of response.
 * Bot owners have no magical power to unblock their bots. The only reason the unblock happened was that the bot owner was also an admin. Don't confuse the issue.
 * He was given admin powers for the purpose of being able to unblock his bot. In addition, from looking at other bot blocks, it's the bot owner who tells an admin (those owners who aren't admins) when their bots are ready to be unblocked.  Bot owners who don't have admin powers just have to wait a few more minutes than Martin does.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for Assuming Good Faith. It's hard to reply to people whose only comments are making baseless accusations against you.
 * it's because you ignore the input of IPs
 * See my unanswered thread above this one that I finally crossed out. I have another unanswered note on another the BAG page.  There was no need to make an assume, the evidence hasn't even been archived for you to have to dig for it.
 * There is less then 24 hours difference between your crossed out thread and this one. I would hardly call that ignoring the input of IPs. If it's an urgent matter, use the noticeboard.
 * Hesperian isn't a member of the BAG, and his reply above is not to my post. He did reply to that post of mine elsewhere, though.  No BAG member replied.  My first post, also ignored by the BAG, was on June 16th, and it is on the proper specific notice board, not AN, but the bot owner's noticeboard.  The 16th to the 25th is more than 24 hours.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do the same.
 * I hate to keep having to say this, but, please, stay away from insulting me and focus on the substantive issue.

If you'd like to have an honest discourse on ways to improve the process please feel free to start a new topic. Q T C 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No point you raised was accurate, see my unanswered thread above as partial evidence; you admit and further demonstrate you're ignorant of the discussion. This is evidence in the record used to form an opinion.  An assumption would only have been required in the face of no evidence.

 * Assumptions are taken without proof. If you quote "Assume Good Faith" to someone they must have formed an opinion without evidence.  I didn't have to, the evidence is here.

 * --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of this post addressing me personally, and of Anomie's, are to avoid the topic. Again, no assumption necessary, the lack of input BAG coupled with the offensive defensiveness, when threads are not entirely ignored, is the evidence.

The BAG shows no reason it should have authority to give bots the go ahead. It does not monitor the bots. It does not check the code. It takes lack of community input as consensus. It reads the input anyway it wants. It ignores concerns posted about the bot.

Bureaucrats and the wikipedia community should find another venue to address bots for the encyclopedia, a venue where questions are answered, where threads raised by IPs aren't completely ignored when they're about issues that could bring the encyclopedia into disrepute.

Anybot made a mess due to its poor programming, its owner being the one given the power to unblock it, the BAG and the bot owner not responding to concerns (like my unanswered thread above) and personally insulting editors who raise legitimate issues in an apparent attempt to sidetrack the legitimate issue. Again, an opinion formed from the evidence on BAG boards.

--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry but again the only reason I'm addressing you personally is because you're the only one here making baseless accusations of malicious intent of the BAG. You again haven't shown, with evidence, any of your points are outstanding problems of the system outside of this incident. Like I said in my previous message if you feel you want to have a rational discourse on improving policy I'd be more then welcome to collaborate, but as is I will not entertain any more of this (rather hilarious) finger pointing.  Q  T C 14:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents.. a bot shouldn't be "writing" articles anyway and I hope such a bot is never approved again. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't have a huge problem with autogeneration of articles as long as it is done right. In fact I did something similar offline with over 400 Melbourne suburbs, except rather than being a bot it was a massive VB script inside an MS Access database. I generated the articles as text files based on values in the database, and not one of them had an issue. This case, from what I can tell, is one where nearly all of the articles had an issue due to lack of care, attention to detail, or etc. I think 69.226 makes some valid points about the feedback process or lack thereof, and the saddest part is that the problem isn't even exclusive to BAG, I see it in many obscure processes which have come to be dominated by a small group of people. BAG does try to elicit wider feedback, but the way this case has been handled wouldn't exactly encourage first- or second-timers to come back and keep offering. Re: bots edit warring, I've seen The Anomebot 2 doing exactly the same thing at different articles - that may need to be looked into. Orderinchaos 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The posts are too long for one BAG member, not detailed enough for another, too impolite for a third who spends his time insulting the writer. There will always be something wrong with posts when the intention is to use that as an excuse to not engage in a discussion about how to improve bots and the bot approval process on wikipedia.

 * Anybot should never have been approved, his owner should not have been given the ability to unblock his own bot, particularly since he had already run an unauthorized bot, and bot owners should not be allowed to run unauthorized bots on wikipedia. Bots should not be programmed to edit war and to remove text in articles that is not explicitly coded for.

 * The BAG members have been alerted to bots edit warring.

 * These are fundamental programming errors, not genius level. It shows the BAG is seriously deficient in low-level programming safeguards by allowing these errors to happen. No matter how many times the BAG says they can't address an issue because the perfect question has not been posed, it cannot be denied the BAG is seriously slack in their authorization processes and should not be the ones giving the go-ahead for bots to be flagged while showing they have not instituted basic rules to require at least low-level competence in programming.

 * Allstarecho, good, you're watching this board and commenting about the issue. I disagree with you in general, but agree with you in the specific instance of how the BAG has set up their approval process for such bots.  --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to say something that would lead to discussion on improving the reliability of bots operated on wikipedia. This is part of working as a team. This group is not ready for that discussion, because it involves tough issues like, should the BAG be the group with bot-authorization powers, and it involves working with a larger team: team wikipedia. The larger wikipedia community may want to address this question some time.

Bureacrats should question whether they should flag bots on the say-so of a group that denies any responsibility for how bots are operated. That's my opinion. This group is not interested. I can't change that. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, BAG is not interested in taking responsibility for work work done by other people. As with manual edits, automated edits are the responsibility of the editor making them. I do not see how BAG can effectively police all bots running on Wikipedia. Even if the code is fine at the time of the approval, there's nothing stopping people from changing it afterward and changing the code is not the same as an unapproved bot. BAG stands for "Bot approvals group" - BAG approves bots to run, after that, the responsibility falls entirely on the operator, and I don't see why that's a problem. As for Martin unblocking his own bot after complaints, I agree that it was somewhat problematic, but blocks and unblocks, even when they apply to bots, are not, and never have been, part of BAG's purview. Mr.Z-man 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we do more to encourage open-source bots?
By "do more", I specifically mean adding this to Bots/Requests for approval/InputInit:

Source code available: One of the things BAG is supposed to do is ensure that bots are technically sound; having the source code can help us do that. Note that I'm not proposing we require source code, just that we start specifically asking for it. Unless there are objections, I'll add this in a few days. Anomie⚔ 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable, constructive proposal. I mioght tempted to leave out the "To BAG/Admins by request", because, whilst it's a reasonable response, we ought to particular encourage the former option. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OTOH, it's easy to ask "why?" if someone does pick "by request"; it could even be "To BAG/Admins by request (why?)" in the comment. But I'm ok with leaving that suggestion out too, it's not at all a big deal to me. Anomie⚔ 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. Q  T C 21:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I like that idea. – Quadell (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Yup, sounds like a good idea. Open-source = Good :). Also, let's leave the "To BAG/Admins by request" bit out, per Jarry, a simple link to the source is best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest asking "Exclusion compliant?" in the request, just as a suggestion for people. – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the fields, leaving out the "To BAG/Admins by request". Anomie⚔ 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have a bot creating redirects that are handled by case insensitivity in the search box?

See Bots/Requests for approval/BOTijo 2. This may have been approved before case-insensitivity in the search field was implemented and the task may now need to be revoked - it seems to be creating many unnecessary redirects. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily blocked the bot, I think this task should be stopped while this is looked at. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi Xeno. Please, read this (Other capitalisations, to ensure that "Go" to a mixed-capitalisation article title is case-insensitive). Regards. Emijrp (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a little experimenting, and it is still the case that an article with some words capitalized and some not will not be found by the Go button. Anomie⚔ 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? All garblings of an initial-cap title like Francis Ford Coppola are supposed to be handled correctly by Mediawiki. Like fRancis fOrd cOppola, which works for me with the Go button, though it's a red link when bracketed in running text. This is explained in the link given above by Emijrp. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a title with all words capped will work. But try something like "barack obama speech to joint session of congress, 2009" which has a mix of capped and uncapped words (as stated pretty much everywhere discussing this issue); it won't bring you to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, 2009. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be solved by a fix to the software rather than having a bot create redirects non-stop? However, since this is a new facet that I was not previously aware of, I don't object to the bot resuming operations in the meanwhile. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The search box is not the only navigation tool. Many of us just type the page name we want directly into the URL. Also, redirects are usefully for linking. One can debate the merits of this task, but basing it on the search box alone is shortsighted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Based on the new information, all I would like is an active BAG member to rubberstamp the BRFA. The closing statement didn't really give me any confidence in the community's approval for the task. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have the search box in its present form, with its present limitations. We need a way of working around them, and this bot will do it. When we have a better search function, we can reconsider whether it is still necessary. Waiting for a fix in the software can take years. DGG (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The software does not handle these automatically. It is quite often that I arrive at a nonexistent page because of miscapitalization. For example, as JLaTondre says, one can simply edit the URL bar to go to an article (or construct such a URL by software), and this does not work when there are capitalization issues. Also, redlinks are case sensitive: Bell Jar really ought to be a redirect to Bell jar or The Bell Jar. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I won't say it's anti-wiki to create these redirects automatically, but it can lead to a lot of noise. Natural creation of redirects is usually better because there's a demonstrable time when someone tried to navigate somewhere and failed. If, after eight years, nobody has bothered to create a redirect at "Bell Jar," I'm not sure I see a compelling reason to do so now with a bot. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I create these when I run into them, usually. I would prefer if there was a bot doing it so I wouldn't notice them at all. But this bot request was even more specific (read: conservative) than that; it only covers things like Urban Adult Contemporary Airplay panel where it is truly painful to guess the right capitalization. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @CBM, yes, I see now that I was working from an erroneous misunderstanding of the case-insensitivity function of the search box. Nevertheless, I'm of the same mind as MZMcBride. While I see now why these redirects are necessary due to the WP:MIXEDCAPS issue, I don't think many of them will ever be used. Especially the "barack obama speech ..., 2009" mentioned above. Doubt someone really knows the full name to type into the search box for that =) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My 2¢: considering that the BRFA was nearly two years ago and generated very little attention at the time, it wouldn't hurt to create a new one for the task in order to properly judge community consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 * See Bots/Requests for approval/BOTijo 2 (again). Emijrp (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla filed
19882 - for interested parties... –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't solve the whole problem per the discussion above. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What else is there to solve? (Bug is fixed, would you believe it was a conflict between two similar modules?...) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See my previous comment above. The bug only addresses the search box which is not the only navigation tool. It solves only 1 of at least 3 different ways. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The search box is not the only navigation tool. Many of us just type the page name we want directly into the URL. Also, redirects are usefully for linking. One can debate the merits of this task, but basing it on the search box alone is shortsighted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ( ? ) I still don't think creating a lowercase redirect for every single mixed case article is a good idea (and your additional points seem to also suggest we should create lowercase redirects for every article! What about that "auto-redirect" function that wiktionary has? I've been redirected from redlinks of words with the first letter capitalized...) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 02:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my comment does not suggest we should we should create lowercase redirects for every article so kindly do not put words in my mouth. It says exactly what is says. It says basing this decision on the search box alone is short sighted. It may be the answer is the task isn't needed (and I tend to believe that), but saying that it isn't needed because of the search box alone is a bogus rationale. They are either valuable or they are not valuable. However, they weren't valuable and now not valuable because of the search box change as that didn't fix the issue. While I personally don't see the need for these to be created automatically, I will note that community consensus has been overwhelmingly that they should be kept when nominated at WP:RFD. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If they were created, specifically, by a human hand, I would probably vote to keep them as well. We save nothing by deleting them. But I see value in stopping them being created en masse by an automatic process. And this isn't based solely on the search box alone, but the search deficiency was the raison d'etre for the bot according to its operator, so it seems like a perfectly good bug to fix and have it de-approved. There's other reason... the fact that most will never get used... they're excessive... etc. But no need to go on about that. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Chrisbot
Can this bot be withdrawn please? The way the bot is performing is not satisfactory. See here, here and here. The last one is a case of the bot ignoring a nobot instruction. What the bot is trying to achieved can be achieved faster, and with less damage, by human editors. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that nobot is presumably a typo of nobots created at some point in the past. The bots and nobots templates are just something for a bot to look for in the page, it's the text " " rather than anything about the template itself that a bot looks for; "  " could have worked just as well. Can we G6 nobot as an actively misleading redirect, or should I post it at RFD? Anomie⚔ 11:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All three of those templates end up at the same place. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you misunderstood me. For bot exclusion, it makes absolutely no difference where any template redirect points to, or what output the template might place on the page, or even whether the template exists or not. As far as a compliant bot is concerned, it just looks in the wikitext of the page for the specific text " " or "  " (or a few variations with parameters specified). So sure, someone could create a redirect from Stay off my page, you lousy bots! to nobots, but it would have absolutely no effect on any bots because it is not the specific text "  " or "  ". As I said earlier, it would have worked equally as well from a bot perspective to use "  " instead of nobots (and some bots from before bots existed do use something of that style), but then Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:nobots couldn't be used to find pages with a bot exclusion. Anomie⚔ 14:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All of which brings us back to my statement at WP:AN. If I wanted a bot interfering, I wouldn't have tagged the page in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your complaint at WP:AN is invalid for two reasons: First, you accidentally tagged it with the wrong template, which is what I have been trying to explain to you. Second, honoring of nobots is not actually required unless that was stated as part of the bot's approval. Anomie⚔ 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was told to use the nobot template to keep bots off my sandbox. Until now, it had worked as intended. Also, if a bot is ignoring nobots templates, then it should be shown on the user page of the bot, along with details of where this was approved. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you told "nobot", or "nobots" with an "s" at the end? Presumably it "worked" until now because no bot tried to edit your sandbox before. If you really think a statement of a bot's exclusion compliance should be required on every bot's userpage, WT:Bot policy is over there. Anomie⚔ 16:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: nobot is now at RFD. Anomie⚔ 16:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the bot itself, I think I see the logic of the complicated replacement process: to swap L and R, the bot first moves all the Ls to some other name, then moves the Rs to Ls, and then moves the temp name to L; to do it in one step, the bot would have to swap L and R on a page and then not visit that page again, even if someone mistakenly reverts the bot's change (even if someone broke the images first, well-meaning editors may just see the diff and revert without looking at the actual images). OTOH, it could be done in two passes instead of three by moving both L and R to temporary names (e.g. L-being-renamed-to-R and R-being-renamed-to-L) and then the temporary names back to R and L. For that matter, all the image pairs could be done at once instead of separate passes for each if sufficient temporary names are used.
 * I doubt the claim that it could be done better/faster by humans, there are hundreds of pages needing to be edited for some of these icons and mass replacement is something bots are particularly well suited for. Is the actual complaint just that the bot is/was changing images before MediaWiki's image cache clears for a newly uploaded version, or is there an actual malfunction here? Also, BTW, does the cache not respond to action=purge on the image page (it may have to be done at Commons if the image is there)? Anomie⚔ 11:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry but I was on holiday and so couldn't reply sooner. Your new method for the process seems to make sense, I'll think about it and maybe adopt it. The old method (that is no longer used) used to do the three stages in one go, then I would reupload the correct icons, and no matter how much purging was done it would always take a good number of days before the cache was updated, leading to much confusion (so it was abandoned for the new method which takes the cache into consideration). There are no more problems now, the bot skips all pages with or inuse, and there are no more cache problems; so can I restart the bot now?  Chris DHDR 10:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless Mjroots (or someone else) objects within 24 hours of the date on this post, feel free to restart. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to Chrisbot restarting, given Anomie's comments and the fact I had wrong tag on my sandbox. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, Chris, go ahead. Anomie⚔ 14:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think most bots check templatelinks (so template redirects don't really matter); trying to parse wikitext would be insane.... --MZMcBride (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AnomieBOT doesn't, and none of the suggestions at Template:Bots do. The wikitext has to be parsed in order to detect the various parameters to bots anyway, that doesn't show up in templatelinks. Anomie⚔ 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing a regex on the wikitext of a page before you commit an edit isn't that insane :P A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  15:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anomie just mentioned the reason that everyone hates bots: it forces bots to download the content of each page and parse it. Is doing a regex for the string difficult? No, not really. But if someone puts bots in User:Foo/talk header and expects it to transcend, it won't work. It's also possible that people would use a database query and exclude the pages from their initial list (NOT IN (SELECT ... FROM templatelinks ...)) in order to avoid having to retrieve the page content of every page. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As to insanity, for some bots, it would be fine because they do small runs on limited data sets. If SineBot had to download the content of each page it posted to and parse it, it would eat up substantial resources. Same with ClueBot and some others. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't SineBot have to anyway, in order to find where to put the unsigned template? Or does it determine the section from a diff somehow and load only that section? I wasn't really around when bots was created, were there better suggestions (that weren't all-or-none)? Anomie⚔ 21:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * That's exactly why my bots respect nobots but not bots: the former can be detected with an API query; the latter requires parsing wikitext. --Carnildo (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot sandbox clearing
There's a proposal at BON to make a minor change to the way ClueBot clears the template sandboxes. I don't think this requires a BRfA, since there is no opposition to the proposal and it's rather minor. Please add your opinion to the thread - Kingpin13 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal at village pump to require BRFA prior to semi-automated article creation
Please see Village pump (policy) and comment (there, not here). Thanks! –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Restarting up an old task
Would anyone mind if I started this task back up again? It's been awhile since I did it. I know the prod time frame was upped to 7 days from 5, so I'd up my wait time from 7 to 9 days. I'm probably not required to ask this, but I figured it can't hurt.--Rockfang (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is currently a BRFA up for a new bot, wanting to do this task too. Can't see any harm in having two going though. You could talk to User:MacMed. But yeah, you're good to go :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. One difference between that one and mine, is that I don't go searching for old stuff.  I just pick up the daily categories.  If that BRFA does get approved though, I'll probably just stop doing mine.--Rockfang (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlabelled diasmbigution pages
Someone had a good regex for catching unlabelled dabs to skip them, like "' ' ' *(can refer to|can be one of|is one of)". But I can'tfind it. Anyone? Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

Expedited process for interwiki bots
I think this may have been proposed before or informally discussed on IRC, but never went anywhere. There are very few bots that we can really apply "precedent" to, mainly because even if tasks are similar, most bots use custom-made code. However, interwiki bots typically all use Pywikipedia's interwiki.py. So I propose a new system for expedited approval of certain interwiki bot requests: Its unrealistic to hold operators who run bots on half a dozen projects that aren't their home project (including enwiki) to the same standards that we hold operators who only operate bots on their home project. Given the reliability of interwiki.py compared to the average bot script, its also unnecessary. As long as the operator is aware of the known issues (don't run it in the template namespace ... are there others?), there shouldn't be any problems. Mr.Z-man 15:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the bot meets the following requirements:
 * Uses interwiki.py
 * Has a bot flag on other projects for interwiki linking
 * Then it can be placed in a different section for expedited approval
 * Creating a subpage and filling out the whole preload template won't be necessary
 * Requests will be open for X amount of time (48 hours?) to see if there are any valid objections
 * After that time passes, the bot will be flagged and the request archived.
 * Seems reasonable enough. I would just make sure they're running a new-ish version of interwiki.py. (Slightly related: why the hell do so many of these bots exist and can't a better solution be found?) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Mr.Z-man's proposal as it brings us closer to being in line with the global bot policy at Meta. Also, there should be a server-based maintenance script like  to go around and update these links ebtween all 700+ wikis.  MBisanz  talk 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @MZMcBride, I recall some discussion where interwiki links would be held in a central location somewhere... Projects would add themself to the unique id when they had a page on it. Seems like a good solution if it's feasible. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I and some others have some proposals on Bugzilla to help with this. The simplest is to supress selfinterwikis so that all the interwiki lists can be the same. The more complex would allow transclusion from either an  intewiki wiki (for interwikis) or maybe across wikis (for unified user pages, some help pages from meta and certain templating functions).  apply. Rich Farmbrough, 14:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Support, but shouldn't these folks be going for global BRFA? Our local policy would allow them to operate with these restrictions in that case. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That could be another option, sure. Should we require that all eligible interwiki bots just use the global process, or just make it a strong suggestion? Mr.Z-man 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with global bot approval, so I don't know stringent the approval process is We are the largest project, so some bot-ops might elect to go point-by-point instead. I see value in having a streamlined process if we get a lot of interwiki requests for approval. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary? They tend to get BotSpeedy anyway. Anomie⚔ 21:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not lately. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated to bots, but I think you could be interested in this
I just wrote Delayed notice. Since lots of you code bots, check requests, do trial runs, etc..., this could prove useful in helping you keep track of stuff. Not sure where the best place on WP:BOTS was to post this, but this seems the highest traffic talk page (and thus has a higher outreach). Move this somewhere else if you think there's a better place for it. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can't think of any particular bot-related use for it. Anomie⚔ 01:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not for the bots themselves, but for BAG members, bot-coders & the like. For instance, if a bot is trialed for one week, and you want to remind you that the week is over. Anyway, no one will die if no one uses it. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Very handy. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

Is approval scheme working?
It was recently agreed on Wikipedia:Village pump that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task should require BRFA. One concern was that it would be impossible to follow up, has this been the case? Take for instance Sasata's recent large creation of fungi articles. Or Fergananim's very short articles on medieval Irish aboots, like Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain. According to the new regulations these should both require approval, but I can't see that this has been done? Lampman (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the content creation bot BRfA which is open atm, there haven't been many (if any) recent BRfAs for page creation. But then, this proposal hasn't been widely "advertised", and I'm willing to bet that the users mentioned above aren't even aware of it. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this was an issue brought up at the discussion: that it would be just another layer of guidelines and regulations that nobody would care about or even know about. I should perhaps bring it up at the Village Pump to figure out how it can be better advertised and implemented, otherwise it's rather pointless to have such a rule at all. Lampman (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the community has decided that mass content creation must be done by an authorized bot, it can be enforced as part of the existing "no unauthorized bots" rule. Although it would probably be better to just warn the user first for the moment. Anomie⚔ 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Most likely approve
Why is it bot policy that a bot will most likely be approved after a community discussion? Isn't it that a decision to approve a trial will be made after discussion?

"After a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input, an approvals group member will most likely approve a trial for your bot and move the request to this section."

What? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The statement is accurate from a historical standpoint, mostly becuase people rarely ask for approval of a controversial task. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * It's not a statement about the history of the policy; and the policy isn't just the type of tasks, it's the code, the feasibility, what the community desires. There are plenty of bots that are not approved, so it's inaccurate.

 * To say the task "will most likely be approved" smacks of a lack of regard for community input.

 * BAG members should approve trials only if there is support for the bot and the bot is in accordance with policy.

 * I'm going to reword it, barring input from BAG saying that, indeed, they "most likely" approve trials for bots. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Since August 1, there have been 4 bots denied, 3 requests expired, and 6 withdrawn by the operator. A good deal of the expired/withdrawn ones were approved for trial at the time of closing. In that time, there have been 33 approved bots. So "most likely" does seem accurate. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It should outline policy, not predict the results of a request. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Another speedy approval, and speedy approvals and community input in general
Can we give more than 3 minutes for interested users to examine trial runs? There seem to be many excuses for why community consensus is not needed, not given, no time for it. In this particular bot case, the task is straight-forward, responsible and responsive bot owner, dealing with deprecated code, etc., etc. But, sometimes I want to examine the trial runs after they have been run, but before the final approval, to see if they are problems that show up during the trial. A good reason for doing trials in the first place is to examine the results.

3 minutes is not enough time, and I don't see the urgency in approving this bot in 3 minutes. A couple of days for interested users to examine the trial run is not unreasonable, imo, no matter what the task.

One reason for instruction creep, by the way, is that editors seem to other editors to be overlooking common courtesies and common sense. I don't see why the instructions should say wait 2 days or wait more than 3 minutes, except that it is apparently not obvious that waiting more than 3 minutes gives time for community input.

There was no urgency in approving this bot, so allowing more than 3 minutes for the trial run to be examined by interested parties would have been a simple courtesy. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The trial is a technical check. Mr Z-Man allowed time prior to the trial for community input on the task itself. Once the trial was proven to be technically functional - which is the reason BAG members are chosen, because of technical proficiency - there was no reason for further delay. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I would also note that in this case, there was also a bot request open for several days. (Oddly enough, WP:BOTREQ tends to get significantly higher traffic than BRFA). Mr.Z-man 23:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people want things done for them, but few probably care about unrelated tasks that aren't theirs; there's also probably a discouragement factor for non-programmers, who might be uncertain if their non-technical input is wanted/needed/helpful/relevant (Answer: Yes, it is!). --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, it boils down to: after community input, a BAG member "will most likely approve a trial for your bot," (without any reference to the community input), then based entirely on technical functionality, the bot will be quickly approved after the trial. The bot owner is solely responsible for the actions of the bot.

So, BAG does nothing, but allow for a community input board then fast forward bots to be flagged by bureaucrats, or whoever flags bots... Interesting.

I will then move forward with this understanding of BAG's role on en.wiki. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do so, you will be moving forward with an incorrect understanding. BAG checks if a task seems to have sufficient consensus for how controversial it seems to be (and yes, sometimes something turns out to be controversial that didn't seem like it would be); at times, and increasingly often lately, BAG will insist that wider community consensus must be sought before the request may proceed. BAG also considers the technical aspects of the proposed task; among other things, this includes reviewing the code (when available) for errors, making suggestions on how to do things more efficiently, and pointing out situations to watch out for. If both of those seem good, a BAG member will approve a trial. It turns out that this has historically happened more often than not, hence the wording "will most likely approve a trial for your bot" that you continue to insist on misinterpreting. If the trial is completed without issues and it seems unlikely that there will be further community reaction as a result of the trial edits, BAG approves the bot. Then a bureaucrat comes along, checks the BRFA again for consensus and such, and actually grants the bot flag. Anomie⚔ 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * "Insist on misinterpreting" because the history isn't included in the policy? How should someone interpret "most likely" to be approved without knowing the history? It's the bots policy, not a predictor of the outcome of a request, and it should be written clearly and cleanly as a policy that invites both the casual and familiar editor of wikipedia to learn about how bots work on wikipedia. But if you're going to insist upon describing the history of occurrences here instead of giving a clean and clear statement of policy you're going to wind up with people misinterpreting what you mean.

 * It also doesn't seem that BAG's ability to predict community response is particularly good, since recent incidents of community consensus were wrong, and, again, there's no point in a group wherein individuals are expected to predict the community response. The community can simply give their response. That makes it easy on everyone. BAG members aren't expected to be mind readers. When they're unwilling to do a search and find out the community consensus, they can just wait a reasonable amount of time. Again, community inclusiveness would rule decision making rather than mind-reading skills or some other BAG ability to know what the community wants without asking. There's no other place on wikipedia where editors are expected to individually gauge the community consensus without input from the community.

 * Asking for sufficient time greater than 3 minutes to be able to look over a trial and input a response is not unreasonable.

 * I'm not insisting on misinterpreting, I'm simply not making the effort to read the entire history of bag to learn what a single paragraph actually means, when it's meaning is not obvious. Policies in a dynamic community should be written in a way that allows someone to gather the correct policy, not the history of the policy, from reading the page.

 * Why not be courteous to the spirit of the community of wikipedia as it actually is: people come and go, and the policy could be written out for interested editors who drop by and don't know and don't want to read the history. Then it's clear, also, to others how it is intended. That I'm misinterpreting is also not so obvious without reading the history, by the way. That's what your policy says. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Insist on misinterpreting" because it has been explained to you before, but instead of doing anything to try to "fix" it you just continue to bring up the misinterpretation. Do you have a better suggested wording to describe the typical bot approvals process?
 * The wording is not that tricky. How about "After a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input, a member of the Bot Approvals Group may approve a short trial during which the bot is monitored to ensure that it operates correctly" like it says on the policy page?
 * Sure, the community can give their response. But besides you, no one bothers. What are we supposed to do, wait around forever because the community generally doesn't care about bots until after the fact? Also, I suspect you're mistaken in your comment that "There's no other place on wikipedia where editors are expected to individually gauge the community consensus without input from the community". WP:RFR doesn't seem to have much community input, mostly someone requests and then an admin either grants or denies. People doing WP:New pages patrol don't seem to seek much community input before slapping on a CSD tag, and in many cases it doesn't seem like the admins doing the deletion do either. And we have WP:BRD to describe a good way to go about it in relation to general edits.
 * Have I anywhere asked you to "wait around forever?" Is that comment a necessary part of this discussion?
 * Permissions don't generally impact 1000s of articles at a time, do they? If they do, they should not be granted without community input. I think that in this case, most of the various permissions become part of other wikipedia editors monitoring/stalking each other.
 * I think the new pages patrollers are also out of control, but one battle at a time.
 * WP:BRD deals with individual edits.
 * Just out of curiosity, do you actually have any comments on that particular trial, or is it just the principle of the thing? Anomie⚔ 01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I made my position on this particular trial clear in the third sentence above. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 * "some other BAG ability to know what the community wants without asking" - We are asking the community, that's what the BRFA is; the community just doesn't respond. You point to a couple of requests that were processed quickly as "evidence" that we don't give the community time to respond, but I could point to plenty that are/were open for weeks with little to no input from outside the bot community. Except for major policy changes, discussions on Wikipedia typically don't last for more than a week. The LawBot BRFA, while it was approved only a few minutes after the trial, was open for 15 days. That's twice as long as we give for deletion and adminship discussions. Mr.Z-man 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Community consensus is the policy, and that requires time for community input, and that requires more than 3 minutes. There's no policy on moving forward without community consensus, so, until there is, the lack of community input doesn't matter. What matters is the failure to provide time within which the community can comment. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks is more than enough time. There's no minimum requirement for what constitutes consensus. Its based on whoever cares enough to show up for the discussion. At WP:FFD for instance, files are routinely deleted with no comments from anyone other than the nominator simply because no one cares enough to comment. BRFAs should not have to take a month just so that we can prove that no one really cares. See also Silence and consensus. If you want to try to get more community input into bot approvals, that would be great, but requiring some arbitrary waiting period after each step for a process that already takes way too long is not the solution. Mr.Z-man 04:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "each step." Is it necessary to exaggerate what I'm saying to disagree with me?
 * Trial runs are an important part of creating and debugging programs. I should not have to point this out, or counter that I'm not asking for a month after each step.
 * Three minutes is not enough time for the community to view and comment upon a trial run. It wasn't two weeks, it was 3 minutes. Trial runs are not just one of many steps in the process of writing programs, even little scripts on wikipedia.
 * This is not WP:FFD, which deals with single files, but WP:BOTS, which deals with programs that can impact hundreds and thousands of articles. WP:FFD has specific policies listed to deal with this issue, and they are not the same as WP:BOTS policy. The former has a policy, one assumes made by community consensus, like one assumes the wikipedia bots policy is made. The FFD policy says, "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised," whereas the bots policy says, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it performs only tasks for which there is consensus."
 * BOTS should use BOTS policy. And, meanwhile, FFD can go on using FFD policy. Both, until community consensus changes.
 * Who asked you to take a month? Where? Quote me on asking you to wait a month, or forever, or two weeks after a trial run. Can you stick with the topic without exaggeration, please?
 * I'm not "requiring some arbitrary waiting period after each step." So, back to the topic, please.
 * BOTS policy requires community consensus. Trial runs are a major and important part of programming, not simply one of many steps in the process. The completion of a trial run is a major step in checking the viability of a bot and may reveal problems or additional requirements for the bot. This is a part of the process where it would be appropriate for the community to be allowed enough time to comment. 3 minutes is not long enough. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)There's really only 2 steps on a normal bot approval - before the trial and after the trial - so yes, requiring a wait for consensus before trial approval and before final approval would be a required wait before each step. Or, to put it another way, is there any step to bot approval that you don't think needs time for community input?
 * So, adding a waiting period after the only other step is onerous? If there are only two steps, then waiting after each step is not that big of a deal. So, I stand corrected. You expressed add adding a waiting period after "each step," and it seemed like this was much more than just adding a waiting period after the single other step. Yes, no good argument has been offered for why there should be time for community consensus after one step and not the other, and bot policy is simple in this respect: it requires community consensus, consensus requires time for community input. If there are only two steps, consensus can be gained after each by simply allowing some time for community input. 3 minutes is not sufficient for either step.
 * 2 weeks was referring to how long the community had to comment on the request between the time it opened and the time it was approved. 2.5 if you include the WP:BOTREQ thread as well.
 * If it shouldn't take a month, how long should it take? 2 weeks is obviously not sufficient to get community input. Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot 4 has been open for more than 6 weeks, its been 3 weeks since the trial ended, and quelle surprise, no community input yet. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times the community fails to comment it isn't an argument for disallowing community input, so I'm not sure why BAG members keep bringing this up in this discussion.
 * Bot policy requires community input, time for it should be allowed. 3 minutes is not sufficient time. What is that time usually allowed for community input? Some fraction of that time for community input on the trial run would be reasonable. The RFBA has been up for the pre-trial time, interested parties can watch list it, they've already had some time to comment, they're aware of the trial run. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should disallow community input, I'm saying that we shouldn't wait unreasonable amounts of time for input. Do you have any actual suggestions on how to either increase participation, or how long to wait before we can assume no one has any complaints? Mr.Z-man 06:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've suggested an unreasonable amount of time for waiting. In fact, I've only suggested longer than 3 minutes, or some fraction of the time waiting for the before. You don't have to assume no-one has any complaints. That's not part of policy. I asked how long you usually wait for comments in the before period, as I think less time than that is necessary. How about a week? A couple of weeks on an inactive RFBA seems like a good amount of time, more than generous for community input. There are some RFBAs that require less time, edits only non-space, other reasons. But a couple of weeks seems reasonable for an RFBA before trial, and a week seems reasonable for a post trial RFBA. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy, we can just take action without putting everything up for discussion first. If the community objects then we can act on it, otherwise we can just get the work done. If something goes wrong with a bot then that is what the revert button is for. Chillum 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BAGBot replacement?
BAGbot seems to be mostly dead lately and ST47 doesn't seem to be around anymore, so BAG/Status isn't being updated and users aren't being notified when OperatorAssistanceNeeded is used (it did a couple other things, but these 2 were probably the most important). I was going to make a replacement, but can't seem to find the time to finish it (i.e. de-crappify my hastily thrown together code). If someone wants to write a replacement for it, that would be much appreciated. If someone wants my code to start with (written in Python, using my framework), I don't recall if the current version actually works or not. Mr.Z-man 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I feel I could probably write something to do this, and I'd be keen to give it a go. DotNetWikiBot is currently refusing to load page history, so it would have to wait until that is fixed. Also, the main problem would be that I don't currently have a computer which I'm comfortable with running 24hrs, so either I could send the exe to someone who does (it wouldn't use much bandwidth, as it's only running once every 30 or so minutes), or I could just run it in the British daytime. As you can see, there are a few complications, so if someone else wants to program it, that's fine with me. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at having AnomieBOT do it. Anomie⚔ 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anomie⚔ 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypotheticals.
So, suppose someone wanted to run a bot that did admin activities, but was not themselves an admin. (I can't program, so no, this isn't asking about me.) Is this allowed? If it's not been considered, should it be allowed? Also, what about someone who is an admin, runs a useful bot, and is desysoped? (Or, what in the case where a regular user who runs a bot is banned.) I'm just curious how such issues are approached, so I can better know policy. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not allowed, as it would allow someone access to the admin tools who didn't go through RFA. If an admin is desysopped, their bots would be desysopped to; if a user is banned, their bots would be banned (and deflagged) too. If a user is just blocked for a short time (e.g. a 31-hour block), I don't know whether their bots would be blocked too or if they would be left alone as long as they weren't used for block evasion. A bot's activities (or the operator's activities relating to being a bot operator, e.g. communication) can also be brought to this page for review, which could result in the bot being deapproved. Anomie⚔ 11:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would depend why they were de-sysopped. If they just gave up the mop and bucket in a personal role I don't see there's be a problem.  Moreover, their bot is not necessarily going to wheel war for them.  Baby, bathwater. Rich Farmbrough, 09:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Quick approvals without community consensus or discussion
There was a remark that this bot was approved without community consensus. ("Bots seem to get approved based on a technical evaluation rather than on whether they conform to bot policy by only making edits that have consensus, as happened here.")

The bot was approved in two days with no input from anyone else in the RFBA process, other than bot operator and single BAG member who approved the bot for editing thousands of mainspace articles after examing some trial edits made by the bot before it was approved for trial edits, also, thereby, eliminating the opportunity for community input on the trial run.

This bot only edits pages which have the parameter blank already, but the parameter does not show up in the article if not filled in (| oclc = | dewey = congress = ), and whether it should be filled in by a bot should be discussed with the wider community to gain consensus for the bot task.

I would like to see some time pass before bots that impact article space widely are approved.

Bot policy requires that a bot "performs only tasks for which there is consensus," means that bots should not be approved for main space tasks without community input. One BAG member does not constitute community input, imo.

Link to discussion calling OCLC linkspam-controversy.

This link is not about CobraBot. I include it because a quick search shows that OCLCs are something that generates a lot of discussion on en.wiki. This discussion mentions, for instance, that consensus shows "OCLCs are considered superfluous when ISBNs are present." This discussion shows that, contrary to being approved, the CobraBot task maybe should have been denied as there might not be community consensus for the task at all. Consensus is required by bot policy. None was asked for in this approval. No time for community input was allowed before community approval. A prior bot was stopped from doing this task by the community. Maybe this bot task should not have been approved against community consensus.

--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that Kingpin was working under the assumption that this was an uncontroversial task, relatively easily undone that wouldn't be irritating to the community. The question on gaining community consensus for a bot task is tricky - do we need to actively seek it out for every single task?  If it affects a specific set of articles, it's a good idea to go to the relevant Wikiprojects to ask for input first if it's going to cause a major change.  But if we went and asked for every single little cleanup bot then we'd get no input at all - the community is strangely disinterested in bot operations and would quickly tire of our requests.  So, not to dwell on the specific case as you request, the general case is that many tasks will in practice, be approved, when there is no consensus against the task rather than a positive consensus in its favour. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in this specific case the task is a controversial task. If the time on the RFBA board had been longer than 2 days, I might have been able to point this out because I've seen discussions on wikipedia about OCLC.
 * So, if the task is going to impact article space, and it's going to impact a lot of articles, and it is adding something new, this was not the time, imo, to make a quick solo decision the task was not controversial.
 * Just because a parameter is available in an article information box doesn't mean adding it via a bot is non-controversial. The organism article boxes have dozens of parameters that could be filled with a bot, if you started filling all of them, or even some of the hierarchies in all organisms, the bot would be blocked immediately by one of the biology editors with admin privileges.
 * Yes, there is a lot of community disinterest in bots. But I don't think this was a good situation for assuming that the bot would be uncontroversial and could be quickly approved, because a search by the BAG member in non-main space would have revealed discussions about the issue, the BOT is adding information to an infobox, the BOT is working in article space, and the BOT is impacting thousands of articles.
 * In addition, the bot owner was notified that his task was not controversial and should have stopped the bot at that point and revisited its operating parameters at the time, since the flag was given without any community input other than rapid approval by a single BAG member.
 * I think a default position, when dealing with editing thousands of mainspace articles, that no word against something in less than two days is tacit approval is a poor operating practice in a community that works on consensus. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to follow your initial suggestion that this was not specifically about CobraBot and not comment on it, since I have no insider knowledge about what Kingpin's reasoning was. As a BAG member myself, I'm also not going to revisit it and try to second-guess what I would have done.  The question of community consensus is a witty one in all walks of Wikipedia - what constitutes a consensus, etc.  That clause exists not to force us to race out and gather consensus, but to avoid approving things where there is doubt.  Sometimes that goes wrong, as may have happened here:  perhaps we need to be more thorough and that's certainly a comment I'll take on board.  I'm looking at the dates in this particular case, however, and not seeing how we'd have found the main discussion, which occurred after approval.  Will re-examine your links to check what I've probably missed. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say there was little to indicate that this task would be controversial: The only discussion linked above that dates to before the BRFA was Template talk:Citation/Archive 3, which didn't actually generate a lot of discussion and was located on an unrelated template's talk page. The documentation for the template in question does mention "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", but I missed it at first when checking just now because I paged straight to the documentation for the oclc parameter itself rather than reading through the introductory text. And Cybercobra did stop the bot once it became clear that the task was in fact controversial (although it does seem most of the controversy is due to just one very vocal editor on a crusade).
 * Sure, this might have been avoided by insisting on arbitrary waiting periods before bot approval and other bureaucracy. But is more bureaucracy really either necessary or desired by the community as a whole? Anomie⚔ 17:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly - a system like this will always allow some number of mistakes to occur - and all that tightening the rules too strongly will do is to make the 99.99% of never-controversial bots that BAG handle much slower to process. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 * If anything is to come of this, I think it should be that unless the task has positive consensus, the bot operator should be willing to stop it at the first sign of opposition and take part in the discussion. Too often it seems that operators refuse to stop their bot until someone really starts screaming. Franamax (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever lack of indicators beforehand there were about the controversial nature of this task, I think it should be considered that the task in general added a lot of edits to article space, added a visible parameter to articles, and this was done without community input. What's important to me, is that a bot not be approved so quickly when it is editing main space, when it is editing it in a way that human editors haven't (it's not changing a template that has been deprecated, for example, but adding something that meat editors didn't put in the articles).
 * In this instance, and in future instances, where the bot is adding something to articles that will appear in mainspace, and adding it to a lot of articles, and, most particularly when the addition is a link to an external site, the task should not be considered non-controversial as a default value. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That (like 1RR) is probably a good rule to follow in general, although it needs to be balanced against the ignorance and pointiness factors. Anomie⚔ 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR with bots is a good rule to follow with bots.

Adding thousands of links without community input is a major concern. However, in the case of mainspace edits that contribute to thousands of article additions or changes, I would like to see community input at least given a chance in the future, and anything that makes this explicit to BAG members would be a way of addressing the situation.

At this point, however, I would also like community input about rolling back the bot edits, since they were made without community input, and they link externally. This should not have been done without major community input. And, in the case of future editing mainspace with a bot adding external links, I think the default value should be to not do so if the community has not positively spoken for adding the link. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually meant 1RR is generally a good rule for human editors to follow. Most bots should be following something akin to 0RR, although there are a number of exceptions (e.g. bots implementing CFD decisions). As for CobraBot supposedly adding external links, you're making the same mistaken assumption User:Gavin.collins insisted on repeatedly making. Anomie⚔ 03:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh on the 1RR. I checked, and there was no link before the bot added the OCLC, and there is one afterwards. So, the bot added a link, it's through a template, I suppose, but it is still links. If the links aren't there, maybe you could link to a CobraBot addition that shows the before there is and after there is or before there isn't and after there isn't edit. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot added the oclc parameter to the template, what the template decides to do with it is beside the point. As mentioned elsewhere, if the community decides that external links to WorldCat are inappropriate the template would be changed with no alteration to what the bot did. Anomie⚔ 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine to put functionality in a template that may or may not be used at the time the template is created. Again, this is the case with taxoboxes, for example. There are multiple parameters that are not necessarily used. It's the community that decides, or the individual editors, to use that parameter in the template. In this case, because the community was not consulted the decision to activate all these links was made without a single mention of it in the BRFA or anywhere. Neither the bot creator, nor Kingpin mention that this bot will be creating active links where none existed before by editing this parameter. ::::So, it's another point I guess, for bot instructions, when the edit that is being made will be making links, this should be explicitly stated in the BRFA. And it's another good reason for requiring proactive community support rather than just a lack of disapproval for that particular bot. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nearly every bot contributes to thousands of articles. What is or is not trivial/non-controversial is always a judgment call, and therefore impossible to insure 100% accuracy. In this case there was no reason to believe filling in an existing template parameter would be controversial.  (And in all reality most controversial requests are unlikely to draw objections until they go live, as 99.9% of Wikipedia pays zero attention to BRFAs.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've kinda moved on to how to handle it in the future though. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the application is filed and quickly approved, bots still have more oversight than most users. They have a bot owner who (almost always) takes responsibility for errors, and while many edits may be made, they can be very easily stopped with no repercussions (through blocking or shutoff buttons). More analysis on "pre-editing" in the human wiki world would lead to claims of WP:CREEP. tedder (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that "say no to linkspam" says it all, no matter what the age. There was no consensus to actively link to this site, the bot move forward without gaining any community consensus, making en.wiki the "feeder site" to thousands of links to worldcat. The community should decide whether or not the infoboxes provide links to this particular website, not BAG, particularly since BAG's fallback is to generally approve a trial, then approve the bot for flagging based only on technical issues.

BAG itself seems to indicate there is no design for community input: a trial is "most likely" approved, without rgard to community input, then the bot is approved solely on technical issues. Linking thousands of wikipedia pages to worldcat required community consensus, not rapid approval. If this is done here it could be an easy avenue for vandalism. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm in the camp that says that the bot is not adding the link to WorldCat - the template is. If there's no consensus to link to WorldCat, then the template needs to be changed - if Cobra went through and did it all manually, it would still be overlinked.  The bot may have highlighted a controversial template setting, but it didn't create it Fritzpoll (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The bot used a functionality of the template without community input. As I said above, there are dozens of fields in wikipedia taxoboxes. If you assign a bot to fill in every one of them, the bot will simply be blocked by a responsible admin. Even if you approved a bot to fill in only a specific field on every single taxobox the bot would be blocked unless it went forward with community consensus.

 * The spirit of the policy for community consensus at wikipedia is that the community gets some say in the matter. Find all the technicalities, "the field exists, therefore it should be filled in," it doesn't amount to community consensus. BAG approved a bot to do a task without gaining community consensus.

 * It's for the community to decide whether or not that field should be filled in on every article, not for an individual BAG member. I've already linked to a discussion showing there appears to be no consensus for that field to be filled in. Bots policy doesn't say "if there's no consensus against something a bot can do it."

 * What it says is, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: performs only tasks for which there is consensus." So, let's run with bots policy. There is no link to community consensus for this task, because there was no attempt to establish community consensus for the task.

 * Other templates have blank fields. If there is consensus by the community to have a bot fill it in, fine. But there isn't. So, rollback of an unapproved bot task is a simple and straight-forward means to take care of the issue. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. There seems to be no oversight or governance policy in operation here. Bots and automated tools seem to be performing many tasks with out consideration to the wider issues involved or the consequences of bot actions. Blaming the template and washing of hands is frankly a cheap way to sidestep the issue of linkspamming. Obviously the principal of duty of care has not permeate down to BAG yet. In theory the bots should be accountable to the wider community. In practise, the legitimate issues brought to the attention of the bot operators are ignored. Its "one rule for you, one rule for me" as far as I can see. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the Relevant ANI thread Gavin is referring to. tedder (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"'I note that User:Cybercobra commented that the bot was being suspended 'pending an WP:ANI thread'[184]. If that was changed to 'pending a much wider consensus that this is an appropriate task for a bot than the one person who approved it' I would be willing to close the discussion here, because it would not need administrator action such as blocking. I think that there's a much wider issue at stake here about the fact that one editor can put up a bot for approval, and it can get passed by one other editor because it works, without any consideration as to whether there is any consensus about whether the bot's actions are acceptable. At least if we are going to allow that to happen we should have an understanding that a bot operator should suspend a bot, pending discussion, in response to a good faith request by an established editor. WP:BRD is a well-known adage, but, when a bot is doing lots of bold edits it's impossible for a human to maintain the same pace to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)'"

My concern is about one thing: the action of bots can overwhelm Wikipedia's entire inventory of policies because the scale of bot actions in a short space of time is far greater than individual editors could achieve in a lifetime. Bots are to spammers as crack is to adicts. I think BAG has a duty to tune in to the issue of duty of care or just admit its a Wikiproject that is "out of control" and is adicted to automated editing as an end it itself, without regard to its wider effect. A question was asked at the start of this thread, and to be honest, there is no more an important question being asked in all of Wikipedia: Is one opinion of one editor good enough to determine whether hundreds or thousands of bot edits are beneficial to Wikipedia or not, and if so should the benefits/disadvantages of these automated edits be dissuessd,and discussed in detail? I must admit I am really upset about this issue. In the real world, the use of bots (computer databases, automated tools etc) is of major public concern. Spam is so common, we have forgotten what is was like before bots filled our email inboxes with crap. In this Wikiproject, the same attention to duty of care is being ignored: are the bots "doing the right thing?" --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So there was an ANI CobraBot's operator knew about, dealing with this issue, that no on bothered to post, and there was a user who was very interested in the topic, and a couple of editors who felt the bot should be stopped? I'd like the bot blocked and its flag removed until community consensus is established and all of the information is considered. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Task 2 is significantly different in that there is no linking involved whatsoever and also I posted notice of the BRFA for Task 2 to Template talk:Infobox book, where Gavin and Phil were actively discussing the OCLC issue, so the argument they weren't made aware is bunk (not that I think there's any obligation to personally inform specific editors of discussions); Phil even explicitly approved of task #2. As for Task 1, anyone who disagrees with it is perfectly free to file an appeal to BAG about it (no one apparently found it necessary to do so, even though I repeatedly and explicitly informed the aggrieved parties of the option; why they didn't appeal, I have no idea). --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, if you actually read the entire thread, you'll see pretty much no admins found the bot to be at fault. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say this is not the place to be pointing fingers at anyone in particular, so lets not get sidetracked by the Cobrabot actions, and assume good faith in the first instance. To be honest, I disagree with Cybercobra, but there is a broader issue here.

Following up BRFAs

 * 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.

I've added a new section to the debate and have been reverted. Twice. Without any reverted politely including the insight as to where, besides "a new section" subsequent comments should be made.

So, if not in a new section according to the directions, where should the subsequent comments be made?

Please, could BAG be more accurate in the directions? So many comments about users don't want to participate, but when editors do participate according to directions they are rudely reverted without any help.

So, where? And put that location on the BRFA closure template. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about you actually read the instructions. Did you follow those directions? no. you where reverted because you cannot follow directions and since then there have been adjustments to the wording of the closure templates. βcommand 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Personal attacks such as "you cannot follow directions" are being discussed at Betacommand's talk page. Feel free to gang up on me on that issue there.

 * By the way, I created a new section. I simply didn't title it.

 * This is about where to locate the subsequent discussions and how BAG should alert editors in a polite fashion about the procedure, rather than simply reverting them. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * adding a comment is not creating a new section. βcommand 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding a comment below the archive is creating a new section. If it were in the old section, it would be before the bottom line that says don't modify this. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I agreed with you, which is why I adjusted the appropriate templates to point to WT:BRFA as soon as I saw your edits and the reversions on the CobraBot 2 BRFA. I did not adjust the templates to "justify" the reversions as you claimed elsewhere (but don't worry, I won't take your misinterpretation of my motives as a personal attack), just to give instructions in line with WP:BOTPOL. Anomie⚔ 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm just wikilawyering back with that comment. I'm tired of being attacked and told I'm aggressive when my concerns are ignored and I'm told repeatedly I'm the only one raising these concerns. If BAG considered user concerns the first time no one would have to resort to other measures to be listened to.

 * I'm reading the history of Betacommand and users, and Betacommand and BAG and bots, especially administrators who come to support his personal attacks on other editors, particularly editors who appear to be new editors at wikipedia. I'm also reading the history of complaints about BAG and fast approvals. I'm not pleased that I've been treated by BAG members as if I'm a lone wolf on these issues when it's clear it's not only been a long-standing issues but that problems resulted in Betacommand's community sanctions.

 * I'm not the only person who has raised this issue. It arose in the arbcom against Betacommand which resulted in sanctions against him.

 * It's time to start discussing the issue, and time for BAG to stop playing me. It's not about me, it's about the bots and community consensus and BAG. The same things it was about, in part, that led to sanctions against Betacommand. But I'll deal with him in an official request for Arbcom to enforce its decision. Let's get to the issue. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk)
 * Yes, your issues with Betacommand are wholly inappropriate for this page; good luck with your WP:AE posting. As for the history of people complaining about BAG, do keep in mind that things have changed a good deal in the past year or so and that trying to inject additional bureaucracy into BAG is a favorite tactic of anyone who disagrees with anything BAG does. Quite frankly, your approach is aggressive: you make absolutist statements, you bring up the same issue in multiple places, you seem unwilling to consider other points of view or to compromise, and you are extremely quick to derail the discussion by interpreting statements as personal attacks. It all makes talking with you wearying. (Don't worry, I won't take your statement that I and other BAG members are "playing you" as a personal attack either.) Anomie⚔ 19:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * And I've been trying to be more civil and to discuss the issue. What I get is attacked by Betacommand who personally attacked me before in the discussion about the content creation bot. Then I get an administrator supporting his attack. Then I find out he has a long-standing history of years of personally attacking editors who disagree with him about bots in exactly the same way he's going at me, in addition to finding out that it's an en.wiki tradition for administrators like Xeno to come to the support of Betacommand personally attacking editors about bot issues.

 * So, I tried, and what I get is a resurgance of attacks. You're weary? I back down, and you keep throwing my history at me, and you all support Betacommand attacking me. And, yes, no matter how many times you say it, "you cannot follow directions" is nothing but a personal attack.

 * As Betacommand himself seems to says in his latest to arbcom, "you can't let history go."

 * Since you can't let my history go, why should I? I have to learn from more experienced editors. What I'm learning is attack, obfuscate, and wikilawyer. I backed off it for a while, but now Xeno and Betacommand remind me I should not have.

 * The topic remains the lack of community consensus, BAG approving bots without it. The policy clearly requires it. Cobrabot was approved without it. Cobrabot should be stopped and its flag removed. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * You are conflating a lack of community participation at BRFA with a lack of community consensus. See Silence and consensus. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. Others are. A lack of community participation at BRFA does not mean a lack of community consesus. Nor does it mean community consensus. A point I keep trying to make. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do not support Betacommands brash style of expressing himself. But nor do I support your playing the victim or your excuses for your own behavior. As for the rest, take it to WP:AE. Anomie⚔ 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I've made any excuses for my behavior it was completely in error. It's not my problem. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Waiting time - set one, and Community consensus: get it
While reviewing Betacommands Arbcom decisions and etc., I see that the time of approval and BAG's lack of monitoring community consensus have been raised as issues before. I would like the waiting time for post-trial approval to be at least a week. I would also like bots not to be approved when there is no community consensus. As Cobrabot task 1 had no community consensus I would like it blocked and its flag removed. This changes the RFBA for Cobrabot task 2. I would like that revisited, also, in light of the speedy approval. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose all A week is too long if the task seems uncontroversial and no one bothers to comment. In some cases any delay is really unnecessary if the trial goes off without a hitch, as the trial was preceeded by months of community consensus-building. We do endevor to ensure community consensus for bots, but when a task is uncontroversial no one bothers to comment; trying to require that we wait for Godot is pointless. I think it's about time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on the CobraBot issue. "CobraBot 1" is not a separate bot, CobraBot does have other approved tasks, and CyberCobra has agreed not to run the CobraBot 1 task, so blocking or deflagging would not be appropriate. You yourself have stated elsewhere that the only problem you have with CobraBot 2 is that you personally were not aware of an ANI thread from 2 weeks before CobraBot 2 was even requested, which is most certainly not a good reason for taking the action you request. Anomie⚔ 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think you dismissed my using "no one bothered to comment" with my suggestion above, so don't turn around and use it as an argument in support of your proposal. It's either valid or not. If it's valid, then I'll take it that a week is already established. If it's not valid, it does not support your opposition.

 * I think that the approval of Cobrabot's first task shows that BAG is not able to gauge community consensus. In this case, the default value should be to do least harm. Least harm is no bot. Bot's aren't mandatory. If there's no community consensus in a bot, it simply should not be requested much less approved.

 * Community consensus requires community input. If you don't have it, the bot is not approvable according to bot policy.

 * The issue is community consensus, not your beating of a dead horse. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Haven't we talked through this already? Here's my comment from eight days ago. In other words, I oppose WP:CREEP, arbitrary time limits, and really think this should go to WP:VPP rather than simmering here forever. tedder (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your creep comment doesn't make sense to me. It simply links to an essay, and we're discussing policy here. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes sense in the context of my prior reply. An essay is helpful as a shortcut, rather than explaining something over and over again. Your objections are well-known and have been well-stated. Restating them isn't helping gain consensus, and that's why I suggest taking it to a bigger audience (WP:VPP) rather than continually stating it here. tedder (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no, when I tried to discuss it elsewhere Betacommand followed me and accused me of forum shopping. So, that's not going to work now that Betacommand has been let loose on me. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider this a blessing to take it to VPP, especially if there is consensus to do so. I really don't understand how taking it personal and beating it into the ground is more satisfactory. tedder (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your first bullet point, unless you're trying to say that "no one bothered to comment" implies "no one cares enough one way or the other" (my view) is the same as "no one bothered to comment" implies "everyone doesn't want this to happen" (your view?). Don't worry, I won't take your statement that I am incapable of gauging community consensus as a personal attack. As has been pointed out before, hindsight is 20/20. If you are able to perfectly gauge community consensus beforehand, you should run for ArbCom instead of wasting your time here. See WP:SILENCE for a reply to your third bullet. Err, I think you misunderstood my statement. I was referring to you beating a dead horse in continuing to demand CobraBot 2 be de-approved despite not one whit of agreement from anyone else. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * See Silence and consensus. Some bot tasks are so mundane as to not attract any attention.
 * See comment about about essays. But, I do agree some tasks are so mundane as to not attract attention, but BAG didn't judge that appropriately in the case of CobraBot. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because something is an essay doesn't mean it's utterly useless. Many essays are written because some common (but mistaken) argument is tiresome to respond to from scratch each time. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia essays tend to be poorly written commentaries that get thrown around when someone cannot address the issue directly. There's no point in my reading them. If the instructions are too long, it can be shown they are redundant. If they were already being followed this issue would not have arisen. Obviously the instructions are not long enough because the issue has arisen, in fact, the speedy approval arose in the most recent arbcom about Betacommand. I'm not a lone wolf. The instructions are not too long, because they don't address this community concern. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see anyone else complaining. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are making an unwarranted assumption. Some are poorly written, but some are good. Anomie⚔ 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the first half dozen that were thrown at me to sidestep issues I raised. Xeno just threw one at me that supports my stance, not his. I don't see that most editors throwing them around are reading them themselves. It's a non-issue. They're not policy. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to withdraw from this discussion. You are not arguing sincerely. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe that if you want. Anomie⚔ 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not arguing sincerely. Every time I post a sincere comment for discussion I get derailed, by Betacommand and you his ardent supporter, with ridiculous comments about "waiting for Godot," when it's well know what community consensus is, by hyperbole about waiting forever, and closing down BAG. I can't argue any of that with sincerity, as its purpose was not to raise sincere issues but to attack me personally and avoid discussing the issues at all. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the CobraBot thing, can you point me to this lack of community consensus? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I can't point you to something that doesn't exist. But here's the link so you can point me to the community consensus. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any objections. Have you reviewed the essay I linked above? Just because it is an essay does not mean that it does not have relevant material within. Linking to essays are a useful method of not repeating the same thing over and over. The task seems mundane to me, no objections were raised during the BRFA, and there were no objections to the OCLC paramater in the talk page & archives of Infobox book. Objections were raised only after the task commenced. I don't know why you feel BAG is at fault for this. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to your essay, "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident." So, you provided an essay that supports me. What do I do with that? --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time there were no objections. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that we live in linear time, objections that occur after the bot's approval cannot have been considered during the bots approval. Now that disagreement has been voiced, CobraBot 1 is no longer running. Please leave the poor dead horse alone already. Anomie⚔ 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't stopped, since it was still a flagged bot when Cobrabot2's request went up. Please leave the dead horses alone, Anomie, and stick stick stick with the topic. It's not dead horses, it's not closing down BAG, it's not waiting for an unknown (community consensus is a known). --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And with that, you have crossed my personal line of "someone who is so illogical that further discussion is pointless". Have a nice day, maybe we can have constructive interaction elsewhere in the future. Anomie⚔ 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For Cobrabot 2, Cybercobra notified multiple projects (at least 2), they had 10 days to come and comment on the BRFA, and only one user did. If we reject bot requests simply because almost no one from the community comments, the only result is that we won't have any more new bots. The community has shown numerous times that they do not care about bots (with a couple exceptions like adminbots and welcoming bots) until one of them screws up. Unless this proposal is combined with some way of increasing community input, or there's evidence that longer waiting times actually lead to significantly more input, this idea is doomed to failure. Mr.Z-man 20:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence a week is too long? Where's the evidence 3 minutes is long enough? There is none. The time was not long enough. The consensus does not exist. There was none for Cobrabot 1 to begin with. In fact, it's owner failed to link to discussions that showed a lack of consensus. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that a week is not too long? Where's the evidence that 3 minutes is not too long in some circumstances? We could play that game all day, but I have better things to do. Anomie⚔ 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, now you want to argue that 3 minutes is sufficient? We could play all sorts of games, or BAG can, instead of addressing the issues. And it's clear you're willing to. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I said a week is too long. I merely said that they had 10 days to comment (the actual BRFA lasted 14 days). If you want us to address the issues, perhaps you should start by a more usable proposal. Your current proposal is both unfair to bot operators and to the community. You're telling the operators that they can't run any new tasks unless they force the community to come to a consensus for it and you're telling the community that if they still want the benefits of bots, they have to come and get involved. Mr.Z-man 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I personally welcome any constructive measure to get the community commenting on bots, and if IP has any thoughts, great. But shutting BAG down in pursuit of consensus on the basis of "if we build it, they will come" is unlikely to gain traction as there will be next to no new bots.  The odd slip