Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Hersfold: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:19, 10 August 2011

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]

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. Tim1357 ^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]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *'''Support''' Why not? -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<span style = 'color:#4B0082'>(TALK)</span>]]</small></sup> 16:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 *At this point, I also share Kingpin's questions/concerns. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 17:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
+**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")''. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)