Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Gigs

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a withdrawn request for BAG membership.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

Withdrawn Gigs (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination:Gigs

I saw MBisanz say that you all needed some more BAG members. I'd like to offer my help. I have extensive experience with PHP, working with it since 1999 or so with early php4 betas. I have written a few things in Python as well, though my experience is more limited there. I have written one bot for Wikipedia, User:InactivityEmailBot, which was a bot to poke inactive administrators and encourage them to change their passwords or to consider resigning if they no longer needed the tools. I've participated in BRFA discussions sporadically as well. I feel like I have a good grasp of the bot policy, the technical ability to review code, and the ability to read consensus or lack thereof. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The user, in my experiences, has clue and command over certain key policies and guidelines. The user is occasionally impulsive in retorting; and it'll do very good to control the same. Hopefully, the user will take this comment positively. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 02:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I see a few insightful comments, but I'd like to see more involvement around WP:BRFA and/or WP:BOTREQ. For example, there is no need to be a BAGger to review code. Anomie⚔ 00:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the question isn't so much whether I need to be in BAG, but whether BAG needs me. I do plan to try to help out some more either way, as you pointed out, there's ways I can help out here whether or not I'm officially in BAG. As for botreq, Betacommand beat everyone else to it, so I'm going to do one for him as soon as I finish up a patch for Wikinews that the foundation is really pushing me to do. Gigs (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can see your will and motivation. However, you have little edits in BAG pages prior to November. Your bot has no Wikipedia edits and thus you have little experience in common bot issues, testing, keeping logs, etc. These are the issues most operators would face that BAG should know and address in BRFAs. This also means you have not done any communication and issue resolution with other editors regarding bot's operation; this is invaluable as bots are highly prone to bugs/problems and often require high scrutiny and cool head. I think a BAG member needs to have had more than one BRFA of their own. While I can appreciate your involvement in WP, your familiarity with general policies and guidelines, and programming experience, I would like to see more involvement in bot-related matters. The BOTREQ and BRFAs are indeed quite backlogged, as Anomie pointed out. I know "oppose" sounds a bit harsh, rather than, say, "neutral", but I rather say things honestly. I have absolutely no prejudice to future re-nominations if this is not to pass. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:12, 12 November 2010 (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.