Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Addshore

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

BAG Nomination: Addshore[edit]

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

I have years of experience in the Bot world of wikipedia mainly through User:Addbot and the multiple BRFAs included. Naturally because of this I know how BRFAs run and have knowledge of the Bot Policy. I have always considered applying for BAG in the past but never deemed it necessary as there have always been many active members to jump on any issues needing but after talking on IRC with a few people and noticing the discussion at the bottom of this page I feel it is time I step forward and nominate myself. As well as experience in the 'on-wiki' side of bots I also have a knowledge of the toolserver (even if it is likely to vanish in the coming years) and labs to help bot operators. Also on the code side I have experience with PHP and Python in regards to bots, also C# and VB in regards to editing on wiki and further knowledge of Java, Perl, Mysql C++ and other things that may be deemed useful. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Question 1 Copied from below ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you provide evidence of specific competence in reviewing a bot?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Naturally I self review throughout all of the bot tasks for Addbot which can be see here but first some of the other requests:

Recently throughout Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/VoxelBot I was in contact with the operators suggesting small tweaks, also discussion regarding the edit frequency of the bot and method that the bot used to collect the statistics it was using.
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/MPUploadBot_2 which had no issues.
Some technical comments regarding a bots code at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Thehelpfulbot_5
Commenting on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SoxBot_VI_2 prompting for a trial (maybe this is when I should have nominated myself for BAG).
Also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cyberbot_II_1 which is still currently open with a few comments.

And now for a few of my own tasks:

Naturally my first task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot should be included. My first attempt at a bot, the code was solid as was the idea in ways although the consensus at the time was not there and I expect it still is not.
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_9 seemed to go seamlessly and still runs today.
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_16 not so seamlessly. The discussion was massive and was held in multiple locations but every issue was dealt with and also the use of the Orphan tag was changed, the bot also still runs today.
And finally my most recent request Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_29 which is small and simple.

I have also had dealings with bots in other ways, most recently (and I think the only one I can specifically remember) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CrimsonBot_is_malfunctioning. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Hellknowz

When would a speedy approval be applicable? Speedy deny?
- Speedy approval could be used when a bot is a clone of another bot, i.e. using the same code and all. If the bots code has already been proven to do the job and the bot operator is also competent and trusted a speedy approval my be perfect.
- Speed decline may be applicable if a bot does a task including those listed Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots, or a clone of a task that has already been denied (unless circumstances have changed), although it is always good to have a bit of discussion. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would BAG respond to a bot operator ignoring user complaints on their talk page?
- I think an initial effort to communicate with the bot operator would be a good idea (as long as the bot isn't breaking anything), if this fails then get a block placed on the bot as whatever changes it is making are probably controversial and should be discussed before editing continue. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think something needs to be done with BRFAs that take a long time, up to several months, to be closed?
- No, I have had my experience with BRFAs that have taken a long time and it is usually for good reasons, that is if discussion is actually happening. If a BRFA has been idle for a long period of time it may be worth prompting user interaction, closing e.t.c depending on the circumstances. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Chris

What is the "best" programming languge and why?
- Now that is a hard one. I love C# and if I am ever making anything for windows then Bingo! Most of my work on wiki is PHP based but naturally this is a silly language and annoys me every time I use it :). I would probably have to go with Java, can be used anywhere and developed with ease (currently thinking of migrating all of my bots to Java)
If you could change one thing about the bot/BRFA process, what would it be?
- I had an idea about 5 minutes before writing this post actually. It is always hard to keep track of what a bot it doing, yes people have the BRFAs (some bots have very old and weirdly formatted ones), some have flags, others have relevant discussion on other pages or infomation on their user page. Wouldn't it be lovely to either:
  - For every bot to have certain information readily available (could be in the form of a Userpage or a subpage of the BAG space, Maybe Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/bots/Addbot.
Favorite movie and why?
- - Something funny Zombieland, Something touching Les_Misérables_(2012_film), but right now it has to be the film that I didnt even realise had been released Ice_Age_4:_Continental_Drift

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Are non-baggers allowed to support and oppose?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Legoktm (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Addshore would make a great BAG-er. Legoktm (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Legoktm.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support NE Ent 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've had multiple positive experiences with Addshore throughout the years, whether it be through conversation about bots or otherwise. Addshore will be a good addition to the team. MJ94 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you provide evidence of specific competence in reviewing a bot?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above in the questions section ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also think Addshore would make a great BAG member. --Webclient101^talk 01:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated him for adminship and continue to have no reservations all these years later. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Sorry to be the one (again). I don't doubt the user's competence, skills, or experience running bots. I don't doubt the sysop experience, editor interactions, and general clue levels. But I don't consider that alone to be enough for a support !vote without further comments. BRFAs and bot matters is the one venue where you scrutinize all the details, with all the previous bot incidents in hindsight. There is little prior participation in (not own) BRFAs, which is one of the only ways one can really demonstrate diligence in specifically BAG-related matters on specific tasks one may not even be familiar with. This is why BAG is a separate role, because it requires separate attention. And the answers to my specific questions did not fully alleviate my (somewhat subjective, I should add) concerns regarding BOTPOL interpretation and common practice. Some BRFAs are procedural, some require extreme scrutiny, and it is the latter ones we really need BAGgers for. I could easily be convinced otherwise, but I would like to see some further bot-related work on candidate's part. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No reservations, been a good botop and has enough clue to do the job. (X! · talk) · @907 · 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Addshore will be good for this group in my opinion.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Addshore has plenty of experience both with his sysop experience. They also have experience with Python (Huggle) and with running bots (Addbot). I see no reason for him not to be a BAG member. Vaca tion 9 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Huggle written in visual basic?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes VB.Net (was version2) and Version 3 is now moving to C# ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support You might want to typo check your answer to my first question. --Chris 06:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing that out! I hope you appreciate my witty edit summary here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Addshore has introduced multiple bugs into my bot framework in three commits (here, and here). Members of BAG should be able to spot problems like the ones introduced in r115. MER-C 10:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. No one can be expected to write code flawlessly.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I will say, I did not realise that your framework catered for multiple languages, naturally this means my changes to getCategoryMembers() as they stood broke every language except for english (as this is the only language I catered for and for which I tested the function and it worked as expected), this could easily be fixed by simply accounting for the other languages.

As for the Page class this was an untested work in progress, as it was a brand new and incomplete class that no-one was using I saw no reason not to commit the start to the SVN.

Finally storing passwords in in 'plain text', with my PHP bots yes my password is stored in plain text in a secure location.

I will no longer update the svn but will only edit my own local copy. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page: I didn't need to test it to determine it was broken. Re: languages: I have an uncommitted fix for that. MER-C 05:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But the error rate in those three commits is too high for my liking. Attention to detail and familiarity with problems like the semicolon issue are big pluses. MER-C 05:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to respond by saying "MIcrosoft Windows Vista"—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully admit to the Page class being broken, the login change (even if you disagreed with it) worked with no problems. So this error rate you are speaking off is all in getCategoryMembers() which again when I tested for a EN category worked as expected giving me every member of the category and of its categories. As said above the language is the only 'error' which means it only functions on one wiki rather than the hundreds to class could be used for, but naturally this could be accounted for. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:01, 23 January 2013 (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.