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

Coren[edit]

Final (23/9/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren (talk · contribs) - As the original proponent of this new method of selecting BAG members, I propose this review of my membership to the wider community.

I've been a significant contributor to Wikipedia for over a year (with irregular edits going back to 2003), mostly on the technical and administrative side of things where I can be of most help. I believe I have gained and maintained the community's trust by operating CorenSearchBot for many months, and with my work on Copyright violations. I am familiar with bot operation and policy (indeed, I am one of the contributors to the recent rewrite), and while I no longer have as much time to dedicate to the BAG as I would like, I can still give a hand whenever it's needed. — Coren (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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 have been operating CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without problems on Wikipedia since August 2007.

Optional Question from Mr.Z-man

2. You support bringing in more of the community to the bot approval process, yet you led a major change to the bot policy after that was discussed for only 24 hours and now seem to be trying to steamroller over all the opposition building on WT:BOT after more people heard of it by implementing it now. How do you rectify these positions? Mr.Z-man 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. I presume you mean reconcile those positions. Even attempting to get more than a dozen editors involved in the process fails; being bold, and seeing if the result work is the objective, here. In other words, I don't see a conflict in those positions; I support community input and act to gather it.

Question from SQL

3. What/When was the last bot you approved, or trial approved? Would you characterize yourself as active in the approvals process?
A. Not nearly as much as I'd have hoped; real life has limited my opportunity for wiki work lately, and most of that time has been devoted to arbcom clerking. I've nonetheless kept abreast of what was going on, in particular the growing concerns of the community towards the process as a whole, and felt that some work there would pay a lot in the long run.

Optional questions from Franamax

4. 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; this is in fact part of the reason I feel the mandate of the BAG needs to be clarified. A great deal of the policy changes we've put forward are designed exactly for that purpose: giving a method by which the community-at-large can express grievances and a means for the BAG to act when warranted.
5. 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. Part of the bot policy is that, ultimately, the operator is responsible for all edits made by their bots. It's certainly expected that operators will fix damage caused by errors, and approval of bots is contingent of taking that responsibility.
6. 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 don't think there should be a requirement for such a contingent, but having such members would be quite welcome. Understanding of policy is the only really needed qualification.

Optional questions from Gnangarra

7 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort for the editor.
A The authority to approve or decline requests to run automated processes, to hear grievances about them, and by proxy that of granting or removing the "bot" flag from accounts (bureaucrats flag accounts according to BAG request, that decision having been delegated long ago). There is ongoing discussion that members of the BAG might get the right to directly set the bot flag, but that's for the longer term.
8 What is expected from and of the community when discussing this request
A It's primarily a "yeah, we trust" stamp of approval. See the next question.
9 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess the knowledge of the editor and whether they are appropriate people to participate in WP:BAG.
A There has, actually, been discussion that 2:1 support should be sufficient in the case of BAG membership since the BAG acts as a group so that individuals do not have as much direct authority than in the case of an admin, say, or a 'crat. Indeed, the tentative policy states so explicitly, though that may not stay. I would expect the community to evaluate technical ability when they can (although the current BAG members are the most likely to chime in there), trust that the candidates have good judgment and that they understand policy. It's basically a light RfA with a focus on a particular aspect of policy.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Don't see why not. Rudget 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. yup. Trust the candidate. No qualms from me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I see no reason to oppose currently. FunPika 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Full Support Very trustful. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support the process and the candidate. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. This is a discussion on Coren's abilities, not on this process. If you want to comment on the process, then go over there, don't unreasonably oppose a user's legitimate request. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The request may indeed be legitimate, but the process is not. It's the equivalent of asking a 'crat to sysop you without going through a RfA. Monobi (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I get your point; wouldn't it be the exact opposite? I've been a BAG member through the usual process already; this is not a shortcut, it's the high road scenic route.  :-) — Coren (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - Coren is a competent programmer with a firm grasp on the bot policy and the working of bots and the BAG. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Understands the bot policies and will do fine. Malinaccier (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Knows plenty about bots. Captain panda 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Yep. MBisanz talk 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support candidate and process (seriously, haven't we been asking for accountability in BAG membership? And now we get it and complain about it? Oh noes!) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I am not sure about the process (although I don't have any better ideas), but I fully support Coren's membership of the BAG, given his technical expertise and previous good work. the wub "?!" 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, an exceedingly competent programmer with a sound record at BAG already. Happy‑melon 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Cobi. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — Werdna talk 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. zomg whatever. Majorly (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yep Trustworthy. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ral315 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support No concerns at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. doubleplusgood, Zginder 2008-04-26T14:14Z (UTC) 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --SMS Talk 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Based on the comment below, this is apparently also a referendum on the system itself, which I believe is unnecessary process and was implemented with virtually no community involvement. Mr.Z-man 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know very little about how BAG ended up here at RfA, and so please forgive what I am about to say if I missed a key fact, but this oppose and all that follow it seem a little pointy to me. I know you oppose Coren's bringing of the discussion here, but don't you think it is unfair to oppose him for BAG, when, I presume, you do not know his qualifications for it? To say he made this a referendum on the entire system seems a misconstruction of his words, he merely wanted to see if participation would come here. I don't think he meant participation for the sake of opposing the system, that would seem to make this trial fruitless as it does not allow it to answer the original question for why it was here. SorryGuy  Talk  23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this apparent attempt to push a disputed policy against growing opposition, it also calls Coren's judgment and willingness to listen to the community into question for me. Later comments on another talk page and on IRC clarified the comments here to mean something like "If people participate at all, it is a success and we should use the system" yet there is no disclaimer here telling people not to participate if they don't support the process and it ignores the opposition growing on WT:BOTS and now also the adminship poll. Mr.Z-man 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a qualification to this; I'm not pushing against growing opposition, I'm pushing against the growing inerttia now endemic to Wikipedia. — Coren (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. there is no pre thought out policy/ procedures and they do not have consensus. βcommand 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose unneeded bureaucratic process. (Coren himself is a competent programmer). Monobi (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Monobi. Nakon 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Per Mr.Z-man, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Mr. Z-man. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Z-man. Process itself is not yet ratified, therefore all nominations are out-of-order. Xoloz (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nomination solely to push forward a favored version of a now-disputed policy (Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen is an interesting history lesson on avoiding such things). This is not commenting on Coren's skills, as from what little I've seen he's very well-spoken and a competent programmer. east.718 at 03:13, April 21, 2008
    Oppose since you want the process to be changed into rfa I can do a stupid rfa oppose. I oppose any one who doesn't open the source to their bot (it would be nice if you could open the source to your editing framework, as far as I can tell yours is the only perl framework that uses the api). Also per the above --Chris 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, you mean like this? Caveat: the code isn't very pretty and the new API didn't support edits at the time this was written— updating it is on my to-do list. — Coren (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to update the userpage. I've retracted my oppose but I'm not supporting ether. I dislike this processes, however it does seem to be working better than my idea :( --Chris 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Edits a policy page protected due to a dispute? A very dangerous sign. --Irpen 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the timestamps of the protection and his subsequent edit: it's very likely it was protected while he was already editing it, so he received no warning that it had been protected. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And, that is indeed exactly what happened. — Coren (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup: I've been asked at my talk about this vote and gave an answer there as well. I don't have a problem with being asked for an explanation and I was not annoyed by it in any way. --Irpen 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
This process is currently disputed and does not have consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is part of the reason of running it; to see if this will manage to accomplish the objective of increasing community participation in BAG selection— something which does have consensus. — Coren (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Simply put, I don't want to be a contributing member of what will likely devolve into a dramafest. Valtoras (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Based on how I know him he seems qualified, but because I know little of the bot world I feel I am unqualified to add a support or oppose in. Wizardman 13:56, 21 April 2008 (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.
Category