Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Quadell


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

As clear as the Beijing sky isn't. Promoted. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BAG Nomination: Quadell


I've seen Quadell around on a metric ton of WP:BRFA's. This user appears to me to know our bot policies in depth, and, seems to have a clue. They always seem to have helpful advice on how to operate the bot-to-be, and, take the community's needs into consideration. It is my opinion that this user would make an excellent addition to our team. Additionally, I would like to try something new on this nomination. I will be transcluding this nomination from Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Quadell, so that people may keep better track of this nomination. SQL Query me! 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Co-nomination by bjweeks: Quadell is an experienced editor, admin, programmer and bot operator. He has a good grasp of the bot policy and is familiar with the BRFA processes, both in filing requests and commenting on others. Plus, you let me approve requests, how hard can it be? BJ Talk 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to help out Wikipedia and the bot community in any way I can. I'm happy to accept the nomination. – Quadell (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

 * 1. What qualifies me to be a BAGger? – Quadell (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been a Wikipedian and an administrator for over 4 years, I've been a bot-runner since May 2007, and I'm currently applying I was just approved for my 8th bot-task. I work as a computer programmer professionally, and I have experience with a variety of languages and platforms. I use AWB frequently, and understand the issues involved with interwiki collaboration. I work hard to be friendly, especially to newbies. I comment on RfBAs a lot, and I understand our bot policies.


 * 2. Any caveats? – Quadell (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to mention some BAG-related drama I was a part of. Back in December of 2007 I proposed my bot's 7th task, having to do with adding image-use rationales to images in (what I thought were) the most obvious cases. This turned out to be a highly controversial request, as you can see from the many strong feelings on display in the 81 kb of discussion the request generated. After over a month of discussion, it had become a cold-war-of-wills between myself and former-BAGger Betacommand. I felt that BC was being stubborn and unreasonable, and I'm sure he felt the same about me, and there were strongly-worded supporting opinions on both sides. In fact, the request was never actually approved or rejected--it still sits in a sort of limbo (although it's quite moot now). I eventually realized that irl-stress was making this all seem more important than it actually was, and I went on a Wikidramabreak which turned out to be a 3-month cessation of editing. I've only been back editing for a month now (although I've been quite active).
 * I learned from this situation not to take online drama too seriously, to take breaks when I need to, and to be willing to be humble. I can promise not to create any unnecessary drama, and if I have disagreements with any other BAGgers I will do what I can to work issues out offline. I just figured that this incident would be the most likely reason for opposition, so I wanted to get it out in the open.


 * 3. Admin bots! How do you think they should be approved/monitored? DISCLAMER: I run admin bots under my account, see here for more info --Chris 08:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well my proposal here, to allow approved admin-bots to run under their operators' admin accounts (under certain restrictions), got no traction at all, unfortunately. So barring that, I think bot-operators who are admins should request approval for an adminbot at a RfBA, making the request for admin-rights explicit, and (if approved) a bcrat should grant the bot a sysop-flag without requiring a separate pass through RfA. But obviously I'll go with whatever the community consensus is on the matter.


 * 4. When does a bot become an admin bot? --Chris 08:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When it gets a sysop flag. [[Image:Gnome-face-wink.svg|30px]] There is currently no process by which an account (bot or not) can get a sysop flag without going through RfA. But I think there should be, as my !votes at the RfC detail.
 * Sorry, my bad. What I meant to say was when does a script become an admin bot, you can use SQL's list of steps here if you like --Chris 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. It's the same as a non-admin bot: there's gray area between manually making repetitive changes with a tabbed browser, making supervised changes with AWB, and running an unsupervised bot. Sometimes there are clear lines of demarcation, and sometimes not. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if you manually inspect every change before you make it, and you make 6 or fewer edits per minute, then it's not a bot. But unsupervised (or minimally-supervised) changes are a bot's work, and really fast edits start to look bottish. I'm afraid I can't be more specific, since each circumstance really is different. – Quadell (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

 * Support. —Giggy 00:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as co-nom. BJ Talk 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my nomination statement, I support :) SQL Query me!  03:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Knows how to handle stuff. Soxπed93 (blag) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support : Experienced, Understanding and worthy. Good candidate !!! --  Tinu  Cherian  - 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Quadell's BRFA comments have been reasonable and informed.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is experienced. Acalamari 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support  Maxim (talk)  22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Tawker (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Icewedge (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --Duk 07:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Knows what s/he's doing.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @    19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. As noted by Rspeer, above, the candidate's comments are well-considered and thoughtful. No concerns here. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Sure --Chris 11:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

''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.''