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

Final (34/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soxred93 (talk · contribs) - I've been a member of the BAG for a few months, so I've been grandfathered in. I want to avoid doing this in 6 months, though. I run 4 bots (a fifth is in a BRFA now), and I've been a bot operator since November 2007. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: Yes, I have. And I still do. I run: an orphan tagging bot, a wikiproject tagger, a template subst: bot, an interwiki bot, a sandbox cleaning bot, and a few assorted small tasks.

Optional questions from Franamax

2. 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: I believe so. BAG members should be able to change their decision on a bot, if it was a mistake. Let's say there was an error on their part, when looking at a trial, and approved when the bot was erroneous. BAG members give status, they should be able to revoke it too.

3. 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: Yes. Bot owners are expected to run the bots correctly, and if they cannot fulfill that, they do not deserve to have the flag. (unless it is a framework problem, which it is not their problem (eg interwiki.py))

4. 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'm actually neutral on this. I think that BRFA has never had a great community input, and before non-technical members are appointed to BAG, the BRFA should find some way to get community input.

Optional questions from Gnangarra

5 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort.

A: I don't exactly understanding what you mean here.

6 What do you expected from and of the community when discussing this request

A: I expect the community to refer to this as an example, while being legitimate. I expect the community to act on this as an RfA. Any input at all would be helpful.

7 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess your knowledge and whether you are an appropriate person to participate in WP:BAG.

A: BAG members should be technical, but with activities in other places. They should know about other policies, so that they have the judgement.

• Soxred93 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

1. Support You know what you're doing --Chris 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I see no problems here. Full support. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - You already have tenure and the experience. Yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support great user. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support per Wisdom89. Razorflame 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Brilliant user and bot maker / operator. I see no reason why this should not go through. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support an excellent contributor and bot-operator with the necessary skills and character for BAG. Happy‑melon 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Of course OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Of Course! The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Whatever you like. Majorly (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. -- Naerii 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sure. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Don't see any problems. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support MBisanz ^talk 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Spencer^T♦C 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Have always seen to be good with this. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support --SMS ^Talk 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support no problems here. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support While a slip in the user's memory may be concerning, Soxred's participation in bot approvals has been insightful and his continued activity would be an asset. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Of course. Acalamari 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Rudget 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Good boting skills and no doubt will be a good BAG member.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Bstone (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Sabri76 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Helpful in the bot area, fine at approving bots Cenarium (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Naturally OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not even familiar enough with policies to know that templates are not allowed in signatures[1]. Mr.Z-man 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I do know that templates are not allowed. However, it was just a slip in my memory. That issue has already been fixed. Soxred93 (u t) 05:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral I've got nothing against this editor, but searching for "sox" on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval, Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval, Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy, Wikipedia_talk:BAG, and all the pages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2 gives me no hits. At this point I'm struggling a bit to see why you want to be a member of the BAG. Could you give a couple of bot-related pages where you've edited so that we can get at least some idea of what you've done as a member of the BAG? AKAF (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Umm...I've edited WP:BRFA multiple times. You also did not appear to search the subpages of the BRFA. The arbitration case, I intentionally stayed out of, as I want to avoid the drama. I made my statement one place, and that was it. Soxred93 (u t) 23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship 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.