Misplaced Pages

:Requests for BAG membership/Cobi - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for BAG membership

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 21 April 2008 (→Neutral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:57, 21 April 2008 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (→Neutral)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cobi

Voice your opinion (talk page) (12/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cobi (talk · contribs) - I am Cobi and am a member of the BAG prior to the policy rewrite. Per the new policy, I have been "grandfathered" in for 6 months, but I would like to go through this process now so I don't have to do it again in 6 months. -- Cobi 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Cobi 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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.

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Good editor. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Absolutely. Darkspots (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Certainly. Captain panda 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support Duh! MBisanz 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per DHMO. Rudget 11:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I don't know why anyone would say no!. ·Add§hore· /Cont 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  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. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Obviously qualified, no concerns here. the wub "?!" 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Fully qualified for membership. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. "Per duh". -- Naerii 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Handy enough with CVN work. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 12:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Very qualified user to me, but because I know little of the bot world I feel I am unqualified to add a support or oppose in. Wizardman 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)