Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/Cobi

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

Cobi

Final (43/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --

t|c|b) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?

A. I currently operate the well-known ClueBot, as well as ClueBot II, ClueBot III, and ClueBot IV.

Optional questions from Franamax

2. Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict operations of previously-approved bots in light of misuse or mistakes? Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict or direct changes to the operation of previously-approved bots as a response to disquiet expressed by the community over the bot's operation?

A. Yes, the BAG should have the ability to restrict or revoke a bot's approval. The BAG should also be able to change the conditions of the approval.

3. Do you think the onus is on bot operators to clean up erroneous edits made by their bot? Would you revoke bot approval if the bot operator shows unwillingness to address mistaken edits made by their bot?

A. Yes, the operator is responsible for the edits made by their bot(s), and responsible for cleaning up the mess that their bot(s) may make. If the bot is being disruptive and the operator is not willing to fix the bot, the bot's approval should be revoked, and possibly blocked if the bot isn't stopped.

4. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?

A. I would much rather prefer that the community at large get involved with BRFAs, but I wouldn't mind having a group of non-technical members. I do not think that this group should consist of users who mention SkyNet or I, Robot at BRFA as a reason to not approve the bot though.

Optional questions from Gnangarra

5 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort.

A I am assuming you meant "sought" and not "sort". There are no tools being sought. While it would be nice to have the ability to give and revoke the bot flag, that is currently not the way the servers are set up. As for the authority being sought, the authority which comes with BAG membership — The authority to trial, approve, revoke, and alter bot requests. The BAG, subject to consensus, controls all bot operations on the English Wikipedia.

6 What do you expected from and of the community when discussing this request

A I expect the community to be rational, civil, and to provide constructive criticism if there is something I need to improve on.

7 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess your knowledge and whether you are an appropriate person to participate in

WP:BAG

.

A The community can use my past record at

BAG. As for my actual coding skills, someone can always take a look at my bots' source code posted here

.

• talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi
  )

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Good editor.
   « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Support Absolutely. Darkspots (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Certainly. Captain panda 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Duh! MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. H₂O) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Per DHMO. Rudget 11:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I don't know why anyone would say no!. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Of course. You run the ClueBots, and have a great knowledge, from what I can see, of bots. I see no reason to not support here.
   (talk) (anon talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Obviously qualified, no concerns here. the wub "?!" 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Fully qualified for membership. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. "Per duh". -- Naerii 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Handy enough with CVN work. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. If I feel you to be trustworthy enough to possibly be an administrator someday, why would I not trust you with something you've already proven yourself to be trustworthy in? Valtoras (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No problems here. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Perfect for the job. User has a great understanding of what is being done here, not to mention he has previous experience. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support; operating an anti-vandalism bot is the most complicated and on-the-frontline task imaginable, and Cobi performs it with grace and skill. His understanding of policy has been demonstrated clearly. — Coren ^(talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. — Werdna talk 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - The operational experience is patently obvious. Yup. I see no reason not to support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You see no reason to support? --Chris 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20. Double edit conflict support! --Chris 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. I have vehemently opposed Cobi's RFAs, but there's no way I could oppose this. Even though I hate ClueBot for stealing my edits. Useight (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support.
    talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support Cluebot... :) Razorflame 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support, extremely competent bot operator with a sound track record at BAG already. Happy‑melon 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support without a doubt. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - ClueBots are extremely useful - especially now with the major vandalism!
    (Review) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. Support. Res ipsa loquitur, and loudly :) Xymmax (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. I know little about bots, but I have participated in Cobi's past RfAs and I believe him to be experienced and trustworthy. Walton^One 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support the king of ClueBot! TheProf - T / C 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. If only your RfAs were like this :) Majorly (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support, for great justice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. No problems in my opinion.
    talk) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Excellent choice. Spencer^T♦C 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Zginder 2008-04-26T03:12Z (UTC)
39. Support Common sense
    talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. Support - great job so far. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support --SMS ^Talk 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support excellent bot writer. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Except for the fact of your bots being written in php, I support 110%. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 10:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]