Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis

Questions

• Question 1: If you were designing the bot approval process from the ground-up, what would you change, what would you keep, and are there any parts of the process that you don't know enough about to say one way or the other? VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 1:Van It's true that currently the bot approval process is complicated, it's very difficult to be followed, it's not clear which step has been done, etc. I think the general idea of the process is OK but we should improve the step it is done. For instance we should work on creating an (optional) wizard for completing the BRFA form, which will give instructions to willing bot owners of how to complete the form. For example in this BRFA the bot owner is not sure whether their bot is exclusion compliant or not. Instructions are also needed after test run is completed. Bot owners should give diffs of their bot's work and I know that is is a painful procedure right now. We should find a way to simplify this. In general: Wikipedia can become a no-asshole-zone and in BRFA process by extending the ideas for new sign ups to new bot approvals. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Question 2: @Magioladitis:, Besides your obvious work with AWB, do you have any personal experience with any of the other bot frameworks? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 2: xaosflux I know Python and I have programmed small scripts in Python to run on WP:Wikidata. Since recently I work with WP:WPCleaner and I cooperate with NicoV and Bgwhite so that we uniformise the regexes of both AWB and WPCleaner to match with CHECKWIKI scripts. I try to find contradictions between various automated tools and resolve them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Question 3: @Magioladitis:, With bot requests going unanswered and BRFAs taking multiple months to get trials and approvals issued, what ways do you see your BAG membership improving the current operating procedure regarding bots? Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 3: Hasteur since I have a general idea of which bot does what I hope I can assign some tasks from WP:BOTREQ directly. I 'll also certainly go through all open requests of what of these tasks should be rejected and which should be approved. I also hope that creating a more effective BRFA form could help on this direction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Question 4: @Magioladitis:, Ok since reading the previous question and realizing it didn't communicate the right question I ask: What level of process should be followed for non-contraversial/trivial requests from BOTREQ and which ones require a full on BRFA for? Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer to Question 4: Hasteur I think that if the method of approving BRFAs works as indented they should be no problems. The BAG member should decide whether to approval a bot/bot task after trial period or initiate a wider discussion. Moreover, we already have some bots that have approval to run on specific types of bot requests. No further approval will be needed for each separate task. We only have to ensure that the bot assigned for these tasks are active and check which types of tasks are unassigned. I think this covers your question? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Should the candidate accept, they should post a notice WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON as required by policy. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Snowolf I left notices in all 4 places. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Appears to be overqualified, if anything. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support An active (the main?) AutoWikiBrowser developer isn't already a BAG member? This is long overdue. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Well, this is obviously pretty much a no-brainer here. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support strongly. --LT910001 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - eminently suitable candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per all of the above. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Knowledgeable, well dedicated member. Whenever I would make any error he's the first and sometimes only one to identify. OccultZone (Talk) 11:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Very dedicated and technically adept candidate. APerson (talk!) 13:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - An easy decision. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As seen in my recent RFBA, Magioladitis is using his experience to ask great questions, which will help other bot owners. GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral: I'm torn. On the one hand, Marios is clearly very well qualified (and a nice guy to boot, are you at Wikimania Marios?). However, we must also accept that he has generated a fair amount of controversy in the past, most around the making of inconsequential edits. Thus (since it is clear that this BAGNom will pass either way), I would simply ask him to redouble his (extensive) efforts to avoid such controversy in future, and to use his experience to help others avoid making the same mistakes. Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 21:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  I share this concern as well but hope and trust that Mag will, in his role as a BAG member, adopt the community's view (rather than his own interpretation) regarding inconsequential edits. BAG is sorely understaffed and needs experienced and enthusiastic individuals like Mag to continue working effectively. –xeno^talk 12:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Closure request placed on WP:BN. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Closed as successful -- MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)