Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678 3

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

• Having received unopposed support after a standard discussion period a consensus for adding Cyberpower678 to the Bot Approvals Group is present, nomination is closed as successful. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) suggested I run for BAG membership. As many know, I operate InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs), and I feel I can serve as a BAG member with competence. Sorry for the dull self-nom, I'd rather let my actions speak for me than my words.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A standard BAG nomination question: Have you read WP:BAGG, and recently reviewed WP:BOTPOL? The first is new, and the second one has been updated significantly this year. Do you have questions about either BAGG & BOTPOL as currently written, or areas you feel they don't cover adequately? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Both those pages are pretty much my idea of common sense, even with the updates. I have no issues with the current wording of both pages.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A really important question to bot work. Which is better, cheese or bacon? ;) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't value one over the other. You either eat both, or nothing at all. Best thing ever, Cabot's Bacon Cheddar Cheese.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cyberpower678: Perhaps even more important: Is it hair or weave? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to say neither. Bacon and cheese still wins.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think of WP:COSMETICBOT? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  From a logical standpoint, it makes sense to have such a policy, in terms of "Why make alterations if they render the same way in the end? It's a waste of server resources." I'm neutral on it being a policy however and have no opinion on whether it should exist or not.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the concerns in the past RfBAG was that you haven't edited other BRFAs besides your own. From my quick SQL query, it looks like you haven't edited any BRFA since July 2016 (a year exactly today), and a total of 5 BRFAs in 2016, one (and a half?) of which was your own. Could you please explain why you haven't really participated in other BRFAs and how you plan to interact with them as a potential BAG member. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary reason I didn't participate in other BRFAs is because I always feel like a third wheel. Being a non-BAG participating in other BRFAs felt awkward for me, and I rather would spend time on my own bots instead. Being a BAG member I would obviously pick 2 or 3 open BRFAs and commit to them until completion. They would be on my watchlist. When one finishes I would work on the next open BRFA and add that to my watchlist. Obviously in areas I specialize in or have an interest I will abstain from them. My participation in BRFAs may not be high, but lurking around, I've picked up how the practice is done as BAG. Every BRFA requires gauging the task, the code, and the botop, as well as testing for bugs, making sure they're fixed, and using the best judgement as to whether or not the bot can be turned loose on Wikipedia. Even more scrutiny will be applied to adminbots.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Cyberpower very obviously knows the bot policy, and the concerns of his previous nominations (lack of independent code experience, some issues with conduct as a bot op) are well behind him. InternetArchiveBot is one of the most ambitious projects on enwiki period, and Cyberpower has dealt with issues related to it admirably. New BAG members are especially necessary due to recent issues with approving BRFAs of a particular bot operator where most BAG members are involved or uninterested in dealing with the botop. Cyberpower will make a fine addition to BAG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support They seem to like general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the issue raised in the first and the second nominations are both distant and have been addressed AFAIC. I was in fact surprised that they weren't already part of BAG. Already lurks in BAG IRC channels, and always had sound bot-related feedback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Qualified and obviously a net positive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm not really active enough to feel comfortable !voting either way here, but would like to make a comment. Firstly, I think Cyberpower has improved a lot over the years in the issues that I mentioned in his original BAG nom. As a bot operator his technical competence is very impressive and he's definitely made progress in the area of interactions with others (e.g. when dealing with bug reports and also overlapping bots). However, as he says in the nomination he would like his actions to speak instead of his words, but I see very little to judge by. As far as I can tell there have been no edits to any BRFA for the last year. This is slightly concerning, because we aren't exactly short on BAG members who are inactive in BRFA (including yours truly), what is really needed are some users who are active in BRFA. If Cyberpower could point to some examples of BAG-related activities he's partaken in, that would be helpful in evaluating this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Cyberpower is very knowledgeable on bot development and policy - IAbot is one of the most technically complex on the wiki and he manages it totally professionally. He would definitely be a great BAG member. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Not very active in BRFAs and bot-related matters, but I believe the nom has a good clue at this point. I echo much of what Kingpin says. I've seen the nom to be a bit quick with actions, so (assuming the nom passes) I would recommend more diligence in BRFAs. I would also recommend a close look at why COSMETICBOT has to exist. As said above, a net positive. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Knowledgeable, and a clear net positive. SQL^{Query me!} 16:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think it comes down Cyberpower's technical knowledge and ability/willingness to handle what comes up. I believe he does fill the requirements needed. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]