Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Wugapodes

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

Closed as no consensus. Please consider applying in the future after you have gained more experience. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Wugapodes

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

Hi everyone, I'm Wugapodes and I would like to help. When I worked with engineers, our lab banned the phrase "someone do" because it means "no one do", everyone will just think someone else will do it. Instead, we emphasized initiative: if you can fix a problem, fix it. I've heard through the grapevine that BAG is looking for more users to help, and since I'm not completely incompetent, I'd like to offer to help. Good intentions aside, I think being a member of BAG will be a benefit for the project and BAG as a whole.

I'm rather familiar with the process. A few months ago I co-wrote a bot after a Bot Request that stalled out before a BRFA. Since then I've been watching this page and just reading discussions. More recently I had a successful BRFA to replace a bot the GA project uses to keep track of its backlog. Both are written in python. I'm also familiar with Lua (it's what I wrote Module:Cite LSA in) and perl (nothing published though). I have also worked with engineers and computer scientists in the past, so I am acquainted with reading and commenting on code.

I recognize I'm a little bit of an unconventional candidate, but I think that is a benefit. I would be the only active non-admin BAG member, and one of the more recently registered ones. I think this gives me an outsider perspective on bag. Indeed, when getting my bot approved, I realized there was a lot I didn't understand about the process and the whole thing felt rather intimidating (it wound up being one of the most pleasant processes I've experienced on Wikipedia). For me, the bot policy and BRFA are fresh in my mind and so I understand the experience of newer bot ops who don't know how to navigate the process as well.

Please feel welcome to ask me any questions about my abilities or knowledge. I think I'll do a good job, but I've got to prove that. Hopefully there will the consensus will agree with that. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Do you have any experience with the bot approvals process prior to December 2016? Your only bot request appears to be from this month, as far as I can see, and that has me rather hesitant. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That I can prove? Not really. I linked to User:ProjectRequestedPagesBot above which I co wrote with another editor in February, but the project stalled before we put up a BRFA. (Long story version:) Because of that I read extensively on the process though, and I have been reading the talk page here for about that long. It's more indirect but my GA stats page and the statistics used in my Signpost article used scripts to collect and output the data, which required me knowing what constituted a bot (this wasn't, it was a script) and, even if it is a bot, where it could edit without approval (my user space). If your hesitancy is related to my comprehension of policy, I believe that's something I can reassure you on (and have been trying to). If it is related to how long I've been active in the process, it hasn't been long and I can't do much to fix that. I think it can be an asset, I definitely understand how you may not. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My hesitation based on experience only goes as far as I believe it relates to your familiarity with nuances of the process. If you can convince me that you understand those nuances, I wouldn't have an objection based only on numbers. What sorts of tasks would/would not fall under WP:COSMETICBOT to? Reading through Wikipedia:MTC!, do you think that tool could ever be considered a bot, and if so, under what set of options? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well then we have something to discuss at least. With regards to WP:COSMETICBOT, I think the quasi-question The Earwig posed below is a good example of a bot that would fall under that policy. The general understanding seems to be that "cosmetic" means any change to the markup that doesn't change the appearance of the page (in the stated example, the template doesn't display the deprecated parameter, so it would be cosmetic), but even if the parameters were displayed, I'd still say it was cosmetic since it has little to do with the content and rather what content is displayed. If it were something like fixing the coordinates that would be substantive as it's about correcting information not changing what information is displayed. With MTC! only the file transfer mode is safely outside the bot zone in that it's similar to twinkle in how it requires user oversight of each change. The others do not, and could well be considered bots in their own right, but it's probably better understood as a script since it's automating a process. Large-scale changes would need a BRFA and account even if done by a human. If it were run as a cron job or incorporated into a script that automated its running then that would definitely be a bot. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Good intentions, but premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I agree with Dennis. You seem capable and I think you could do a good job, and not being an admin doesn't bother me (very little of our work requires the tools). Still, not having any direct experience with BRFAs other than your own makes it difficult to assess how you would handle them. Maybe you could pick a few random BRFAs like this one and explain what you would do? — Earwig ^talk 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too soon. Thank you for wanting to help in this area. You are welcome to comment on, ask questions, review trials, etc on all open BRFA's - we really will appreciate the input! If you stay active in that capacity for a while and reapply later you should be able to gather more support. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. Would definitely support in the future with more experience -FASTILY 22:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the reasons already stated. Thank you for volunteering. You'll be a strong candidate with more experience. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is premature, but I would invite a reapplication in the future. The lack of experience is an issue. Your answers to my questions weren't all that bad, but they also weren't so polished that I'm going to overlook the experience issues. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:03, 26 December 2016 (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.