Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Fritzpoll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
- Closed as successful. Kingturtle (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BAG Nomination: Fritzpoll
[edit]- Fritzpoll (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Today I have the pleasure of nominating Fritzpoll for membership with BAG. Fritz is an admin who has detailed knowledge of bot coding. He also has a firm respect for the role BAG plays in looking out for the community's well being in approving bots and has been fair and honest in all my dealings with him. For these reasons I believe he would be a good reviewer of bot tasks and that he should be a member of BAG. -MBisanz talk 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate acceptance: I am delighted to accept the nomination Fritzpoll (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the candidate: How do you propose to act in a situation where a clear majority of editors approve of the task of a bot, but a small and intensely vocal group of opponents keep claiming that "there is no consensus".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The simplest answer is "not unilaterally". Clearly such a situation requires further input from other members of BAG in the first instance to garner other opinions. It would probably also be a good idea to suggest seeking further discussion in a more public forum, such as VP (proposals) to seek a wider consensus. In the event that consensus can be established then it could be marked approved, although if a significant minority are still opposed to it, this should probably be flagged in the close so that the closing bureaucrat can make the call appropriately. Hope that's answered your question - feel free to drop in some follow-ups if necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the swift reply. I would prefer not to follow up with specifics (I do have an ongoing controversy in mind) so as not to put the candidate in an embarrassing position where he might have to recuse himself in the future because he comments here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The simplest answer is "not unilaterally". Clearly such a situation requires further input from other members of BAG in the first instance to garner other opinions. It would probably also be a good idea to suggest seeking further discussion in a more public forum, such as VP (proposals) to seek a wider consensus. In the event that consensus can be established then it could be marked approved, although if a significant minority are still opposed to it, this should probably be flagged in the close so that the closing bureaucrat can make the call appropriately. Hope that's answered your question - feel free to drop in some follow-ups if necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As nom. MBisanz talk 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - See no reason not to. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -Although by supporting I expect Fritz to be willing to run his own bot for certain tasks, particularly those which are in demand for cleanup. By supporting him I would also like to see Fritz helping others code bots for approved tasks, time permitting of course! The Bald One White cat 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Chris 10:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support: Altough we have disagreements on bot created articles on settlements :) -- Tinu Cherian - 11:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At least they aren't technical issues, Tinu - and I'm pretty sure we can work through them to make our bots work together. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. :) Once the census data site is back online, we will start dividing the task -- Tinu Cherian - 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At least they aren't technical issues, Tinu - and I'm pretty sure we can work through them to make our bots work together. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems competent. Xclamation point 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In the hope that candidate's quick and detailed reply to my question above is typical of his responsiveness to editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Aitias // discussion 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I don't know a whole lot about bots (but I'm learning); however, Fritz is a name I've come to know and I think he'll be fine. Useight (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ye. His handling of the geobot situation was spot on. –xeno (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a good addition :-) SoWhy 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This editor really does know his/her bots. His/her evidently extensive programming skills (GeoBot anyone?) coupled with a good answer to the question asked, lead me to believe that Fritzpoll would be an excellent addition to the BAG. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I owe him my support after I the fun I caused him by approving Geobot. Sorry about that. Giggy (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (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.