Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Slakr: Difference between revisions

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

---

Promoted. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 

BAG Nomination: Slakr

• Slakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

Been around a while; an admin; run two major bots on enwiki, SineBot (talk · contribs) and ProcseeBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA); tons of coding experience (php,c/c++,perl,tcl,py,c#,sql); have clue. :P Apparently we need more active BAG members, so I thought I'd help out. --slakr^\ talk / 10:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Answer whichever you feel like:

• Favorite/preferred programing language?
• It has been suggested in the past that BAG should have their own separate userright, that allows them to flag/deflag bots. Your thoughts?
• Given the opportunity would you change anything about the current bot approval process. If yes what and why?
• Favorite movie (or book, depending on your preference), and why?

--Chris 11:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Favorite/preferred programing language?

Depends what it's for, but I love php as a general rule of thumb.

It has been suggested in the past that BAG should have their own separate userright, that allows them to flag/deflag bots. Your thoughts?

It makes sense, as BAG is community-selected in a process like RFA and RFB. That said, there are also non-admins on BAG, so technically speaking, there would be a new precedent where non-admins would be able to grant a user right (contrast with +rollbacker/+filemover/etc...). So whether the community would want such a thing, or whether they'd be more comfortable with bureaucrats handling that, would be questions that would definitely need to be deferred to the community.

Given the opportunity would you change anything about the current bot approval process. If yes what and why?

Can't say I have any major complaints. It'd be neat if we could make a magic, fully-functional sandbox that could allow bots to virtually "edit" without actually editing the encyclopedia. Of course, that'd take a huge chunk of extra work, so that'll be on the wishlist for a while. :P

Favorite movie (or book, depending on your preference), and why?

Forrest Gump. I could go on and on about how absolutely amazing that movie was from numerous technical standpoints, as well as how brilliantly wise of a story it is, but it'd fill the rest of this page. :P I can safely say, however, that it's been #1 on my "list" for at least a decade now.

--slakr^\ talk / 12:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• When would a speedy approval be applicable?
• What are the main points an interwiki.py bot operator should list in the function details or be inquired about?
• How would BAG respond to a bot operator ignoring complaints on their talk page?
• How would you close the review of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

When would a speedy approval be applicable?

I'd say interwiki bots that are using an established framework with a track record. This basically precludes new bot users/untrusted users or those who might be using experimental/unpredictable patches to scripts. Basically if I had doubts, other people would probably have doubts, so I'd default back to encouraging the normal approvals process.

What are the main points an interwiki.py bot operator should list in the function details or be inquired about?

Apart from the standard gamut on the BRFA form, they should also verify what namespaces it'd run in so as to avoid accidentally adding interwiki links in the template namespace, for example. It'd also help things along if they mention whether it's already run on other wikis as well.

How would BAG respond to a bot operator ignoring complaints on their talk page?

Depends on what the complaints are, how severe they are, how long the complaints have been open, and whether the bot's still editing. Failing all of those (e.g., bot malfunctions, rampant unexpected behavior, etc...), I'd either disable the bot gracefully if it had a function for doing so (e.g., subpage), or failing that, block the bot account with autoblock disabled and let the operator know.

How would you close the review of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6?

In any potentially-hairy situation like that, I'd have to check the current status of the relevant guideline (e.g., datelinking) before approving a bot that could contravene established consensus or lack thereof—especially if it's something that's drawn an arb case or an RFC. It wouldn't be the best idea to approve a bot that's going to anger people en masse. :) If in doubt, and if consensus isn't otherwise clear, I'd ask assistance or defer to someone else on the BAG with more experience in the politics surrounding any given case.

--slakr^\ talk / 12:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - slakr is saner than most people around here. --Chris 11:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• I've worked with you before - you know your stuff. I don't see any issues with this. SQL^{Query me!} 12:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Very clueful, sensible user who also has great technical experience. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very helpful. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Moved this to a sub-page to match other recent nominations, hope nobody minds. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'm afraid I have not interacted with slakr before, so I have little to go on. Others hold a high opinion of you and you are a sysop, so I hope you don't take my rant personally. What I see is almost no recent edits and/or comments on the bot-related pages, which is what BAG is about. Sorry, but I would expect a BAG nominee to have at least commented on a few recent BRFAs. BAG is about asking the details and corner cases that the operators didn't mention or think of and finding errors that they didn't see or anticipate. I'm afraid I cannot judge your abilities, if you have barely edited any BRFAs. With a little reluctance of making this into a too-formal RfA-style nitpicking, I'm going to say "clueful sysop" and "we lack BAG members" are partly invalid arguments. The few BRFA edits and the answers to the questions definitely show above average clue levels, but lack the scrutiny some bot approvals will require. Sorry for the rant, I hope to be proven wrong. P.S. #3 was a trick question. :) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, and if I'm understanding correctly, it seems that ideally you'd rather me be someone who's been highly active in the BRFA process recently. However, I was led to believe that was partly the problem in the first place—low levels of help to begin with. :P After all, it wasn't until a couple of days ago, when I was dealing with User:NekoBot, that I found out that help was needed, so prior to that I didn't make it a regular haunt. Feel free to grep my contribs to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/* and the notice+request boards, though, for various samples of history with the types of scrutiny I bring to the table. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 15:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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.