User:K6ka/Requests for bureaucratship/ClueBot NG

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

ClueBot NG

Final (17/16/12); ended 23:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC) per WP:SNOW -Cyberpower678| verbalize _ 23:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

ClueBot NG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – ClueBot NG is an amazing member of the community. He never needs to eat, sleep, or defecate, and he's always hard at work reverting vandalism. Although he is not an admin, I think that we can make an exception in this case and jump straight to making him a cat. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you very much! ClueBot NG (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: Yes. The criteria for promotion is for really good, productive, and trustworthy editors. I am very good at determining who is a productive editor and who isn't by not reverting edits made by them.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: I would go off to continue fighting vandalism and reporting vandals and tell all my haters that I'm at least doing something productive with my RAM.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: Because I have never once made a personal attack nor have I ever flipped out or gotten mad at anybody. I'm very friendly to editors.

---

Additional question from Hhkohh

X.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Brass has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: 01000111

Thank you.

A: 01000101 01111000 01100011 01100101 01110000 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01100101 01101110 01100011 01101111 01110101 01101110 01110100 01100101 01110010 01100101 01100100 00101100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01111001 01110000 01100101 00100000 00100111 01000101 01111000 01100011 01100101 01110000 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100111 00101110

Additional question from Jni

00010. 01010 11111 00111 11100 01010 00110 01100 11110 11100 11000 10000 00101 00111 00101 01010 11111 11101 01101?

A: 01000101 01111000 01100011 01100101 01110000 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01100101 01101110 01100011 01101111 01110101 01101110 01110100 01100101 01110010 01100101 01100100 00101100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01111001 01110000 01100101 00100000 00100111 01000101 01111000 01100011 01100101 01110000 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100111 00101110

Additional question from Epicgenius

21. To prove that you are not a real person, please fill in the blank: Two plus two is four, minus 1 that's 3 quick maffs, everyday man's on the block, ________?

A: 01000101 01111000 01100011 01100101 01110000 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01100101 01101110 01100011 01101111 01110101 01101110 01110100 01100101 01110010 01100101 01100100 00101100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01111001 01110000 01100101 00100000 00100111 01000101 01111000 01100011 01100101 01110000 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100111 00101110

Additional question from Thegooduser

To prove that you are actually ClueBotNG, is this vandalism?

YA MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

• Solve

What is zero divided by 1 1+1?

Discussion

• Links for ClueBot NG: ClueBot NG (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ClueBot NG can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Strong Support

1. Strong Support Per noms. Lourdes 03:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible support – not a jerk (unless you're a vandal), and has plenty of clue. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Strong Support: It was a pleasure to meet Cluebot NG a couple of years ago. It is one of the most generous and kind-hearted bots on the platform. I am definetly, with one hundred percent certainty, supporting it and I hope you all do the same. There is no better person that I would want to be a beraucrat other than his majesty, Clue Bot NG. Pretty please vote for him. Yours truly, Toreightyone (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Bots handing out rights can't possibly go wrong. — KB3035583^talk 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   It's generated by a random number algorithm. Every X editor gets TE, Y gets RB etc. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   yeah. '' g ko

Support

1. Support as nom. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible support ever per NOBIGDEAL. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 01:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per YESBIGDEAL. —K6ka (alt) editing as k6ka 🍁 01:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per YES and NO big deal. It is totally not a big deal. DFB is forcing me to !vote at these things against my will. Help! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Supporting my dear bot friend ClueBot NG! K6kaBOT (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Vermont (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Supported by the zombie cabal. Yes. InvalidOStalk 03:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
8. Support for being a clueful bot.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 05:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
9. Support We need more crats with emotional intelligence. Samsara 06:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
10. Support - you had me at "never needs to defecate". GiantSnowman 07:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
11. Support After much consideration, I have decided to support. The best bot ever. Give it the mop and screwdriver, let it block vandals by itself! Jianhui67 ^T★C 10:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
12. Support, we definitely need more cat-crats. GAB^gab 11:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
13. Support - I mean, why not? He is definitely experienced. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
14. Reluctant support - I tried to oppose but I used too many exclamation marks and it reverted me. Certes (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
15. Support - Great guy and that crazy hair. How can anyone not support. SlightSmile 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
16. Support This user appears to really have a clue as to what's going on around here. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
17. Support The more unsleeping constantly working 'crats that blindly follow their programming to the letter the better I say, get a clue! -Jeanjung212 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose very good editor, but WP:NOTCRATYET - you should be an admin first. I suggest creating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ClueBot NG - it'll be snow closed in favor within a few hours, and then you can come back here. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Ah, but you see, I did create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ClueBot NG and passed a year ago! I definitely can run for crat now. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   TheSandDoctor committed a blatant supervote there by closing an RfA with only 53% support as successful while not being a crat. That doesn't make this RfB any more valid. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Aye, I wasn't even an admin at the time! All the more reason to support per our bot overlords. Username violating cluful bots are okay in my book! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Good --DeprecatedFixerBot 01:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose no demonstrated need for the tools; the bureaucrat role does not have any anti-vandal function. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose – Definitely not. Nil content creation, violates the username policy as pretending to be a bot with clue. Single-purpose account as the only thing he does is reverting vandalism. No AfD !votes either. Will report crat chats as vandalism, I predict. J947^{'s public account} _{April Fools!} 01:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Aye, but aren't they all anyways? Who is to say that Cluebot wouldn't be correct? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose, not enough edits, what else is he even good for?! QueerFilmNerd^talk 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose - too many automated edits, and no participation at XfD. Aspening (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Meh This is RfB, not RfA. I support our bots as the brave vandal fighters they are and I have respect for this editor, but I'm not sure they're sufficiently clueful. We've had some contentious admin noms and CluBot never registered an opinion I could respect. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose Vermont (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose For being a clueless bot.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 05:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Oppose The worst bot ever. Jianhui67 ^T★C 06:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

9. Strongest possible oppose. No FAs, GAs or DYKs. Users who only revert vandalism and don't write content should not be made admins, let alone crats. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Support. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose Competition is unwelcome. DatBot (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose [1] Zingarese talk · contribs 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
13. Someone said I could !vote again. Samsara 15:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose This is obviously an April Fool's joke error. Noah^Talk 15:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

    No, it isn't. Samsara 15:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

15. Oppose Not enough content creation. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
16. 'Weak Oppose it's too busy fighting vandalism --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Weak Oppose

1. Weak oppose: fails my RfB criteria. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak neutral. Linguist111^{my talk page} 01:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Neutral best if I watch what goes down here. James-the-Charizard (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Neutral Vermont (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Neutral Just a placeholder.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral I might be convinced if ClueBot can definitively show WP:CLUE. --Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral for me being clueless about who is this bot?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 05:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Strong neutral, per User:nom. BLAIXX 14:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Placeholder, will examine the candidate later (meaning never).--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 15:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
9. Biased, can't help it. Leviv ich 15:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
10. Placeholder neutral. Will vote tomorrow. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
11. Neutral safe If I support too many bots too often it may give the game away…^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
12. Chaotic Neutral - Because bots shouldn't take sides. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nuetarll

1. "Nutearl 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Nut Earl Per MoneyEmoji, If I'm "Captain of the Eeks", I fully support the "Earl of Nuts". Oh, and yeah I think ClueBot is pretty cool too, wish we could thank bots... Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Beep boop

1. Beep boop WALL-E (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Beeeeeeep R2-D2 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Beep boop DeprecatedFixerBot (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Beep boop beep TheSandBot (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Beep boop boop boop beep TweetCiteBot (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• If you ignore the fact that the nominator triple-voted and the one user who is mind-controlled by his own admission, then only one support !vote remains. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, any RfB nom for an editor that hasn't passed RfA leaves doubts in my mind. Most hat collectors don't come directly to RfB, and that's a red flag for me. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

1. General comments Vermont (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The above bureaucratship 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.