Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Rcsprinter123 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for Bot Approvals Group membership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

BAG Nomination: Rcsprinter123

Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Same reason as last time really, only I've made quite a few more contributions to BRFAs (list here) and waited four months. I also try and read down the list of nominations every day and put a hand in here and there, comment or ask a question. I also run this bot with two tasks, so I'm experienced with the actual bot side of it as well. My main opposes last time were about experience with the BAG process, so I've taken the opportunity to join in as much as I can. I have good knowledge of the bot policy and all the rules surrounding it, the need for trials and such, what not to approve and why. (And to save being asked by Chris, my favourite Shakespeare play is A Midsummer Night's Dream. ) Thank you. Rcsprinter (orate) 12:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Is BAG/BRFA broken? Why/why not?
When should a request be speedily approved?
BRFAs are by far one of the longest discussion/approval processes on Wikipedia (sometimes taking several months to complete), is this a problem? Do you think anything can/should be done to fix this?
If you could change anything about BRFA/BAG, what would it be and why?
Favorite programming language(s)?

I'd like to ask these again (I'll skip the book question!) to see if your perspective has changed on since the last time you place your request, just over 3 months ago. The Helpful One 12:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed duplicate link that as I actually clicked on the first link already.. The Helpful One 12:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken? No, I don't think so. The BAG numbers are getting up again and the BRFAs are getting trials and approvals and denials smoothly enough, so no. Why do you ask?
For a request that has already been approved many times, like interwiki or redirect fixing, or is non-controversial and/or urgently needed.
That can be a tiresome process, but I tend to keep out of the thick of those and just comment. It should be kept short-ish but with no strict limit. Request, questions, trial, comments, maybe extended trial, approval/denial.
Still probably Java with PHP coming a close second, but AWB's easier to use.

Hi, you mention speedily approving interwiki bots above, and you've also commented on a case in the past (PsBot) seemingly indicating that you would have considered speedy approval in that case were you a BAG member. However, there are a number of considerations to take into account with interwiki bots, and since you haven't really talked about these in the past, I was hoping you could describe your understanding of them. Specifically,

If using tools like pywikipedia, how often would you say the user needs to check that their version is up-to-date?
Assuming that a user is running an up-to-date pywikipedia bot with interwiki.py, do they need to explicitly limit the namespaces which the bot runs in? If so, explain why in detail.
Is it important that the bot operator be able to communicate well in English? If so to what extent and why?
Please feel free to expand on other common issues with interwiki bots using interwiki.py.

Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for clarification I was not saying I would have considered it in that particular case, only that they usually are. I did ask why it was already running without approval. For the questions:

I do about once every three months, maybe sooner if it is slowing or giving error messages.
Well, not necessarily. You could if you wanted to or were doing a particular article or something, but I don't see it as a restriction that needs to be imposed.
Yes, if they are operating a non-interwiki bot; because they need to be able to answer questions and make comments clearly, but babel level three or more I'd say is required for a basic interwiki bot on Pywikipedia, especially if it is running on lots of other wikis too, and enwiki is not their home wiki.
No issues with interwiki.py.

I would add that personally I don't tend to run python very often because it slows down the rest of my computer, even though it works fine. Rcsprinter (speak) 13:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now if someone was writing their own interwiki script instead of using pywikipedia's interwiki.py, what difference would it make (if any) in terms of...

~~keeping their script up-to-date,~~ (this isn't really relevant, actually Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
namespace restrictions,
their English language skills,
and again feel free to comment on any other issues applying to interwiki bots not using interwiki.py

... compared to simply using standard interwiki.py? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see what difference not using the standard script would make, although if there was a problem the bot op would have to sort it out themselves, rather than the Pywikipedia developers. Their English language skills and namespace restrictions would still all be the same to me, I can't see why it would matter. Everybody's free to use their own script but I don't have a problem with it... Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer to the "how often would you say the user needs to check that their version is up-to-date" question is contrary to WP:INTERWIKIBOT. Anomie ⚔ 00:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the anonymous user's assertions/proposals here? There is no correct answer to this. I know what my opinion is upon first consideration and what that of other BAG members would likely be, but I'm interested in an outsider's point of view. Cheers, — madman 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion would be that the IP is not quite right to suggest that BAG must force bots to be open-source, even if it is doing something important. Even if there is no succession plan, somebody else may write some code for it, or the bot op can choose to make it open source at the last minute. I think that whether the source is closed or not shouldn't be a BAG-enforced matter. Rcsprinter (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of those bots types specifically mentioned in BOTPOL, can you suggest some bots that would not be helpful to Wikipedia?
Do you think the BAG should police bots? Where should users take their bot complaints? If BAG's attention is brought to a bot complaint, what can it do? What should it do?
If an operator is using AWB on a bot account with an approved task, should BAG take action against them if AWB breaks and mis-edits (i.e. changes outside of the approved scope of the BRfA) pages? What responsibility do the AWB developers have towards the users of AWB? To the BAG? What if the task was automatic, or manual - would that affect your answer?
Do you plan on partipating on interwiki bot approvals? If so, what process would you go through in approving one?
What responsibilities do you think the BAG has to the wider community? The wider community to the BAG?
Do you think that complaints about the form of an approved task ought to be entertained after the conclusion of the BRfA process - i.e., once a task is approved, is it acceptable for a community member to complain that it should not have been approved, or that it should be varied?
Please discuss the concept of "an editior in good standing", and how it applies to BotOps; to BAGgers?
How rigidly ought COSMETICBOT be enforced?
A hypothetical piece of software, auto-cite.py exists; it's been used for many years by many different operators, some very experienced and active; there isn't a lot of articles left that need citation work. Yet another operator (not of the same experience, but not a clueless noob) applies for a bot account, intending to use auto-cite.py. Given we have so many experienced users already doing this very same task, what process would you go through with the BRfA - would you just deny it, speedy approve it, or something else?
Many editors have "ignore bots" checked on their watchlists; but don't do the same with minor edits. Is it okay for an editor to make a minor edit and not leave an edit summary? What kind of edit summary should a bot leave? Why? How is it that some editors complain about bot edits turning up on their watchlists when they've got "ignore bots" checked?
What observations can you make about your experiences as a botop?

This started off as a bullet list, but I figured everyone's life would be easier if there were numbers up front. Josh Parris 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bots not helpful to Wikipedia; general fixes and whitespace bots, malicious and vandalising bots and ones doing tasks that don't really need automation, with very few EPM and easily done manually.
Not exactly police, but if they gave the approval they must be prepared to take a little blame, although most of the questioning and berating should go to the bot operator, because of course it was them running it.
No, because even though "AWB is not an automated bot and all edits made are the responsibility of the user using it", it would still be the developers fault more. I think that all AWB tasks should be supervised because stuff can quite easily go wrong and make mass "bad" edits, and the operator can't stop it if they are not there.
I do plan on partipating on interwiki bot approvals. I would ask about which options are being used and then: if the operator is a well-known trusted one, like Anomie, speedy approve. If not, I'd give a trial of about three days just to make sure.
Responsibilities of making sure they approve bots that work, because it can't be entirely the bot operator's work, and also being civil and polite like all editors. The community to BAG? Well, respect and acceptance if a task is denied, and thanks that they regulate what the automated tools are doing instead of letting them wreak havoc all over the wiki.
If the complaining editor feels that way, then yes, but when the BRfA is closed that's final. They can however, ask for the task to be terminated and another BRfA opened to accomodate what they think should have happened. Or of course, if the changes are not that big, they could just ask the bot op instead of getting the BAG to mess about approving a minor change.
An editor in good standing doesn't have any major grudges against them and they would be pretty well trusted, allowing it to be easier to be trusted by a BAG member for their bot task.
Very rigidly, it is one of the biggest problems we have with AWB today. Just look at what happened to Rich Farmbrough/SmackBot. If possible it ought to be disabled unless it is being used with another task.
Pass, I haven't heard of this. I would keep my nose out of that particular BRfA, although if I had to do something I'd trial then approve if there were no problems.
Edit summaries should be used at all times, minor or not. With bots, it is important to have a particularly descriptive summary, saying what the task is, the policy that enforces it (if any) and where to report false positives. When a bot turns up on a watchlist that has no bots checked, maybe it wasn't flagged or something.
And finally, my experiences as a bot op have shown me much more than the technical side of it, there is the social side, getting approval, running it, setting up on Toolserver so that it will always run... It was harder than I was expecting, but I managed it.

I'm sorry to see two opposes already, I'm trying my hardest and giving my opinion on scenarios. Maybe somebody might like to read Rich Farmbrough's comment on my last nomination, I think it is quite true. Rcsprinter (yak) 12:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Sorry to be the first again, and I appreciate your enthusiasm, unfortunately I have to oppose for now, mainly due to your answers to the questions. I wish you took longer and went broader with answering them, and see what deeper issues there are. Few of the answers are simply inaccurate and few do not reflect current process. I can see more questions piling up, and I suspect it is because of this. I would also suggest, you be more formal. From your BRFAs and comments on other BRFAs I can see you are still quite quick to jump the gun on certain issues. You have made more edits to BRFAs and I see a few good comments, but I also see many that don't forward the BRFA or other than procedurally. A few well thought-out comments that ask question a botop may not have thought about would be far better than pointing out redundancies or obviousities. You say you have good knowledge of BOTPOL, but you haven't even followed it fully with this nomination. P.S. Josh managed to edit conflict me with the last question batch and I will wait for your answers and adjust my comments accordingly. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to say that the rest of the answers don't alleviate my concerns. I was hoping to see more critical judgment and better reflection of BOTPOL/current process, especially re hypothetical questions. I realize, there's lots of questions posted by now, but even so, it was an ideal way to show your understanding and dedication. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree with Hellknowz here. I've taken a look through the list of BRfA you gave at User talk:Rcsprinter123/BRFA contribs. Although many of the edits you make are genuinely helpful, I see a lack of any (as Hellknowz puts it) forwarding of those cases. Most of your edits there are not really insightful applications of bot policy, or a full involvement and understanding of the issues surrounding a specific task, that I would hope to see from a BAG candidate, but rather simply pointing out that the case might be expiring (which we can see from the BAG/Status page), or copyediting templates etc.. As I say, many of your edits are appreciated, but I'd want to see some more experience in applying the bot policy to these cases and making useful, well-thought out comments in a BAG member. Additionally, the answers to the questions missed the mark; most of my questions could have been quite easily answered simply by reading through the bot policy (e.g. the namespace and updating intervals are both explicitly addressed by WP:INTERWIKIBOT, but your answer to both of these were different from what that policy states) and for the others it would have been clear what I was getting at for somebody with more experience at BRfA (e.g. there are other common issues with interwiki.py, for example running -force and -auto). Basically, I want to see a better demonstration of your understanding of the bot policy and also more insightful comments at BRfA rather than simple procedural notes. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In respect to your answer I do plan on partipating on interwiki bot approvals. I would ask about which options are being used and then: if the operator is a well-known trusted one, like Anomie, speedy approve. If not, I'd give a trial of about three days just to make sure., I'd like to think I'm a trusted bot-operator, yet Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Thehelpfulbot 10 was not speedily approved, and for good reason. Look at the diff Kingpin provided, initially it was deemed that the -cleanup parameter was okay (I was looking at other interwiki bot BRFAs), but when Kingpin reviewed the edits he found an error with the edits which meant that -cleanup needed to NOT be used, as else this would have caused a lot of work and break things, or put incorrect links. There is never a rush for bots to go through BRFA, they should be checked and tested properly - exceptions would be if it really is not going to break or cause problems, like my double redirect task. The Helpful One 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes there is the rare exception case. I must say I hadn't come across Thehelpfulbot 10. Rcsprinter (state) 14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothing against Rcsprinter as a botop, but reviewing his feedback on various BRFAs and other bot-related aspects does not lead me to believe he understands WP:BOTPOL well-enough to be part of BAG, nor do I see evidence that his gut-feeling is honed enough to know what bot can be speedily approved / what bot should be trialed (and how much trial is needed) / what BRFAs should be either rejected / when to ask for clarification before taking a decision. This message also leads me to question his level of clue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that message is an appropriate thing to bring up in your rationale. There are those who like the April Fools' tomfoolery, and those who think it's a waste of time. His message could have been better worded and was perhaps uncalled for, but it's not really a CLUE issue and certainly not something I see as being relevant to a BAG nomination. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the only thing, I wouldn't mention it, but combined with the other little things here and there it does raise some of my red flags. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 10 April 2012 (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.