Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Hersfold

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

BAG Nomination: Hersfold

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

Per Slakr's recent self-nomination, it looks like the BAG could use a bit more help, especially from active 'crats. I run three bots, two on en.wiki (User:HersfoldBot and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot); I'm an admin and crat; I have a toolserver account; I'm experienced in coding, most particularly in Java, C, and PHP. Anything else you'd like to know, please feel free to ask. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

How many and which BRfAs have you been involved with other than your own? Searching, I can only find Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DuckBot, are there any others? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, that would be it. I've read through a good number when working on my bots, but that's the only other one I've commented on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for 'cratship saying you wanted to get involved in BRfA, you're now asking for BAG with what seems to be similar reasoning. If you're so keen to get involved, why have you not just done so? It's not like being part of BAG is a requirement, certainly many other users have managed to contribute to the BRfA process without being members, and most of our members were familiar faces before their nominations. And being a 'crat is definitely not a requirement - or even much of a bonus considering how separated (with good reason) the bot approval and flagging is - despite you saying above that we apparently especially need more 'crats in BAG. You seemed to understand this distinction at your RfB, saying "... that is the job of the BAG which is largely a separate entity from the crat corps". Yet now that you are a 'crat you suddenly seem to think that means you're exactly what BAG needs (which, as I said, I don't believe we do, there is no need for lots of 'crats in BAG, just a need for a suitable number of BAG and a suitable number of 'crats). I hope you can understand why I am suspicious: simply put, you're not behaving in the manner I would expect from some one who is genuinely interested in helping out, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand, yes. Unfortunately I'm not really sure that I can provide an adequate response to those concerns. As for why I haven't been involved in the past, if I want to be involved in something, I prefer to be involved, that is, actually contribute and do something useful. As Xeno points out below, there isn't really a whole lot that non-BAG people can do in a BRFA. We can comment on whether we like the concept or not, we can make suggestions as to what the bot should do, and that's really about it. The thing is, the bot operator should have already garnered a consensus for the bot before seeking approval, so the first bit is kinda moot unless you're somehow able to sway consensus against the bot at the eleventh hour, and the second bit can take place at any point, not just during the approval process. Although I will grant that it helps to be given suggestions while you're already working out the kinks on the existing ones. As a BAG member, I feel I could be more usefully involved in the process rather than simply commenting on things. As for the crat thing, I'm hoping that it can help to streamline the process a bit more. You quote me correctly and I stand by that - I don't have to be a BAG member to flag bots. But with a crat actively assisting in the approval process, there's less time waiting between approval and flagging, which sometimes can be a little while. If it turns out that the community would rather I not be a BAG member at this time, I will contribute as I can to bot stuff, but again, it wouldn't be what I'd prefer as I'd feel somewhat useless (despite still helping the process) - it's just how I am. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When would a speedy approval be applicable?

A bot that is essentially a clone of an existing, approved, and operational bot, where having a second active bot would a) benefit the project (say for example, dating cleanup tags) AND b) not be likely to cause interference (both bots trying to edit the same pages at the same times). Interwiki bots usually fit under this criteria, for example.

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

The biggest thing is "Do you speak these languages" - other issues such as avoiding the Template namespace, etc. are automatically handled by the framework. If the bot does anything other than interwiki linking, that needs separate approval, and if the bot is designed to operate within templates, it needs to correctly noinclude the links or place them on a documentation page (again, handled by the framework). Approval on other wikis also helps, as it a) indicates that the other wiki is good with it and b) the operator speaks that language.

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

Depending on the severity of the complaints, the operator should be contacted and informed that they need to deal with this stuff immediately or their bot will lose approval. Bot operators should always be responsive to constructive complaints; that said, complaints along the lines of "Your bot won't stop leaving me warnings on my talk page!" when the complainer a) deserved the warnings and/or b) received clear instructions on how to opt out probably shouldn't be given the same weight as a complaint along the lines of "your bot is breaking the wiki. Although a friendly note from the operator along the lines of "stop doing that" or "go here to opt out" would be good.

How would you close the review of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, if I had to make the decision entirely by myself, that I would decline the review, and ask that the bot operator open a discussion somewhere (likely VPP or RFC or similar) specifically asking the community if this is something they want. The previously approved bot, while approved, is no longer running; there is a note on the bot's user page here that the operator is "not sure of the value of this." While the RFC does indicate general support for microformats, and the TfD for start date does indicate support for that particular template, there is disagreement on how to support them or even how start date should be used. In the RfC, OrangeDog's view pointed out that there does not appear to be any clear meaning for the templates this bot is designed to use, and as a result this could result in confusion for the reader. This was the most widely accepted view at the RfC. Xeno's (second most supported) view stated that a clear set of guidelines should be drafted regarding the usage of these templates, something which the RfC failed to do. Nihiltres's view came closest, but again expresses confusion over the meaning of "start date". Thus, I do not see a consensus for the bot, but rather a consensus that there needs to be a consensus, which puts us back to square one.

All that said, I'd probably talk it over with other BAG members rather than unilaterally closing it myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

No concerns here. –xeno^talk 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Tim 1357 ^talk 19:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the main reason you ran for 'crat was to assist with bot stuff, I certainly would think that this makes sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a no-brainer support. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the offer to assist is appreciated - shoe in/snow in - Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent history with Wikimedia Commons and their bots. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - considering based on the workload you've already taken on and complete well, I've been sure for quite some time that you're a well functioning, self adaptable, well programmed bot - thusI see no problems with this. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I also share Kingpin's questions/concerns. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also share those concerns if Hersfold were an unknown quantity. While there is not much for non-BAG members to do in BRFAs, they can say "good idea"; "not a good idea"; "this is a better idea"; and the like - and it would be ideal if those offering to serve on the BAG could point to such activity. But when the user has already demonstrated themselves to be generally clueful, experienced with bots, with a good grasp of (and ability to properly interpret) policy, then I cannot come up with a compelling reason to oppose their BAG candidacy without straining AGF (e.g. "they're hat collecting and won't actually perform the work for which they're volunteering"). –xeno^talk 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? — Waterfox ^~talk~ 18:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. As Hersfold is a 'crat, I have good confidence in his clue levels. But I have to share the same opinion as on the other recent BRFA, that the user has almost no BRFA contributions. Again, nothing personal, but "we need more BAG members" and "clueful crat" are still not a fully valid argument in my eyes. We need more participation, not just more members. More trial review, more corner-case analysis, more edit impact evaluation, etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll move to support (rather, no objections) per clueful answers to questions. Thanks for answering. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, thanks for the reconsideration. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2011 (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.