Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Hellknowz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: H3llkn0wz

[edit]

H3llkn0wz has been editing since May 2009. As well as doing quite a bit of article work, he has been active in bot creation. He operates a bot, H3llBot, which does lots of useful work maintaining references and citations. He has also started work on an open-source rewrite of the inactive ArticleAlertbot, which he will run as AAlertBot. As well as this, H3llkn0wz gives useful input to bot requests and other operator's requests for approval. For these reasons, it is a pleasure to nominate him to help out with bot approvals. - EdoDodo talk 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: Thank you, EdoDodo; I accept the nomination. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Questions:

  • What are your thoughts on the BRFA process? Strengths, weaknesses, improvements?
All things considered, BRFAs are solid and they work. The main problem is operators wanting blanket task approvals and approvals for tasks they cannot show clear consensus/policy for. This greatly stalls their BRFAs as BAG has to make subjective decisions they will be called upon if anything goes wrong. It should be operator duty to disclose all relevant information, not BAG duty to dig through tons of archives finding points of reference.
One thing I would improve is requiring operators to spell out function details properly. I have always considered that the length one goes to document their task is directly indicative of how solid their design, workflow, and aptitude for implementation is. After all, it is operator duty to prove that the bot will work as expected. See ClueBot NG BRFA and user page for what I consider operators with a clue. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • If you could change anything about the BAG/BRFA system, would you? Why/why not, what would you change?
I would not currently overhaul anything major. The process works well for most cases. One thing I would require is operators giving explicit details, providing links to policies/consensus discussions when requested. This can and would burden good-faith operators, but generally not as much as it burdens BAG to dig through tons of archives finding relevant material. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • Thoughts on Adminbots? Good/Bad? Is there enough transparency? What about non-admins running them?
To me an Adminbot is a bot capable of edits non-admins cannot see. There are tasks that require sysop tools; and there are users who can implement these bots. If anything, bots are only approved for specific tasks and are less likely to abuse their status. In any case it should be sysop BAGs (most are) that overlook their BRFAs and contributions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK
  • Thoughts on communication between the community and the bot community (both individual bot ops, and the bot community as a whole)? Any recent examples spring to mind? How would you deal with this in your capacity as a BAG member?
Individual bot issues are resolved privately, and that seems to work. BAG is left alone until something major breaks. For example, in recent ongoing ArbCom amendment case BAG was strongly criticised for slow responses to BRFAs and the case itself. What I would state in such cases is that BAG approves the implementation of non-controversial automated tasks. A BAG member can verify the community consensus only so far, if the operator provides vague details. The operator is held responsible for abusing this process and/or giving insufficient/incomplete disclosure. I am sympathetic to the reasons why so many BRFAs go stale because of vagueness in details. Unfortunately, the community sees this as BAGs being lazy/unresponsive/understaffed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

Don't feel pressured to answer all of them (or any of them). I'm just interested to see your thoughts. Thanks --Chris 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your questions, glad there is interest. I probably came off a bit ranty, but in my opinion BAG should be more critical. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Closed as successful -- MBisanz talk 11:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Hellknowz&oldid=1085953696"