Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Crashdoom
BAG Nomination: Crashdoom edit
- 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- Closed as withdrawn by candidate.
- Crashdoom (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)
I've been around Wikipedia for over 2 years now, I'm a former bot operator (Unfortunately I lacked the full knowledge to develop and maintain it at the time), I'm now confident with my coding abilities (PHP/C#/C++/Java). As well as my ability to collaborate with a team for a common goal/task. Despite the previous issues with my bot, I took leave from Wikipedia to further my knowledge, develop my understanding and extend my abilities, due to this, I feel more confident and feel I would be able to help out a lot. Thanks! + Crashdoom Talk 14:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions edit
Discussion edit
- Oppose. Sorry to be the first. You have not (as far as I can see) edited a single BRFA related page, which is what BAG is about. If you are serious about this, you should have at least commented on existing BRFAs/BOTREQ pages before RfBAGging. You've also only semi-actively edited for a little over a year. And coding experience is not really what's crucial here, it's primarily onwiki and bot page activity. The issue with BAG currently is lack of activity and reluctance to tackle messy BRFAs, not a lack of members. As opposed to, say, most adminship tasks, you do not need to be a BAG member to comment on BRFAs and check out trials. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't edited to comment to other requests, I do acknowledge this but (and for some reason omitted to mention) will be making comments post-notice here regardless of the outcome to my own request here. I understand your view on this and will work to hopefully change that through actions in the near future. As for my lack of editing, again, that will be null and void once I get back to running speed. Thanks kindly for breaking the silence on this + Crashdoom Talk 09:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I congratulate you on making the offer. As user:H3llkn0wz says, you are very welcome to become involved. Bots are very important and affect a lot of Wikipedia but surprisingly few editors participate at BAG pages. Issues can be subtle matters of spin, net-benefit, perspective and proportionality. Your input at BRFA's is welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I've looked over your contributions, and while I see you've done a lot of work with AIV you don't seem to have done anything bot-related besides your attempt at NekoBot. And you haven't done much of anything for several months. I ask myself "Why does Crashdoom want to be in BAG, anyway?"; your self-nomination doesn't really address that question.
If you really want to join BAG, start commenting on BRFAs, WP:BOTREQ, and other bot-related forums, maybe request a few more approvals yourself, and come back in a few months. Or if you decide you'd rather focus on your AIV work, that could be a good thing too. Anomie⚔ 15:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Bad Idea™ ΔT The only constant 16:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Withdrawn If no one has a problem with that, I'm actually more satisfied to have got reviews on areas to improve in order to better myself. As in my reply to H3llkn0wz, I'll help out more in general and bare the comments here in mind, as for the AIV work, I will probably resume helping out there too once I get back on my feet. For NekoBot, I'll attempt to fix it up and will probably re-submit to BAG for approval under the new code (if only to make sure that it operates fully functional before putting it up live again). Thanks kindly to those given comments! + Crashdoom Talk 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]