Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/MusikAnimal
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.
- After following the standard review period and gaining the endorsements of other editors, MusikAnimal has been added to the Bot Approvals Group. — xaosflux Talk 05:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BAG Nomination: MusikAnimal[edit]
- MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)
Hello! I'd like to help with the bot approval process. I don't really need anymore "hats", but I have observed Xaosflux and others be overwhelmed for too long, so here I am. I have been an admin since April 2014 and am entrusted with CheckUser tools. In my early years I focused on content work and counter-vandalism, but over time I've transitioned into primarily a technical contributor. I hope to extend this once more to helping the BRFA backlog.
As for technical expertise, I operate User:MusikBot, who has 14 tasks handcrafted in Ruby. I have authored and maintain numerous scripts and tools, and am one of the more active edit filter managers. Professionally I work with Community Tech as a software engineer.
I am very familiar with the bot policy, recognizing a clear consensus is essential, along with giving respect to server resources, and abiding by our every day policies and guidelines. I've learned my fair share of lessons and have ran into many technical issues with MusikBot since it first arrived, so I feel as though I've gained an intuitive sense of best practices. I don't anticipate doing any sort of code review (which I think is atypical for a bot approver), but I hope my experience will allow me to foresee potential issues with an aspiring bot, and offer insight into how to best handle them. With this in mind, I believe I can instruct well-rounded trials, covering the various scenarios the bot may encounter, in an effort to ensure stability.
I have contributed to numerous BRFAs, offering friendly insight and suggestions. From this and my own BRFAs I think I have a good understanding of the way things operate here, but I will still start slow and take on the more open and shut requests, working my way to the more complex ones that require ongoing devoted attention. At the very least, I intend to offer enough aid to move things along quicker. Thank you for your consideration!
— MusikAnimal talk 00:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Questions[edit]
- What music would you listen to while reviewing bot requests? Legoktm (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally enjoy alternative rock or folk, but for reviewing bots I believe polka is most appropriate, specifically the Polish variety. Also, despite common belief otherwise, MusikBot does play music, and on demand with toollabs:musikanimal/sound search :) — MusikAnimal talk 17:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood, and how would you program a woodchuck that could chuck wood to chuck wood. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like it would have to involve recursion — MusikAnimal talk 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]
- The standard comment period for BAG requests is 1 week, with closure by a bureaucrat
- Your bot work is sketchy at best. You have a bot called MusikBot (talk · contribs), yet it plays no music. I can't support a bot operator with such misleading bot names. JK, support. ;-)—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 02:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I Support your help at BRFA. Thanks for offering. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - In my lurking, I have seen nothing less than exemplary from MusiKAnimal, and we need more people with this particular hat.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - We have corresponded on many occasions and you have proven to be both helpful and knowledgeable! I think you will make a great addition. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support My recent interaction with MusikAnimal at the ECP RFC has left nothing but a good impression of their work. Blackmane (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely. -FASTILY 04:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per WJBScribe's comment at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_32#New_adminbot_needs_flagging. MA has shown to be irresponsibe and careless with his bot handling,, even when the bot he was handling was an adminbot. 103.6.159.80 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I will write here to clear the air (this is the first oppose for anything I've applied for): For one I was transparent by linking to this in my self-nom, but if you read the discussion it should speak for itself, namely that there was support for what I was doing and I was given the go ahead from the bot approver. Nonetheless I was not happy with the way it turned out, and I did learn from it. It was also over a year ago :) — MusikAnimal talk 17:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What? How didn't I know this before? Anyways, Strong Support on the basis of his help for me and technical knowledge. Goddamnit MA, why didn't you tell me? Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've known MusikAnimal for a while now and he's consistently shown himself to have a good character and work ethic. More bot approvers are always useful, and I think he has a good grasp of the skills required. Full disclosure: I was also a party in the ill-advised adminbot above. We made a mistake (though I'd also point out the bot was never tasked with anything especially dangerous or sensitive like many adminbots are) and Musik showed an understanding of the issue and has learned from it. So I don't have any concerns there. — Earwig talk 02:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've never run into any problems with MusikBot. Whenever a situation arises, like with the ECP RfC, MusikAnimal always seems ready to rise to the occasion with a solution. Altamel (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. MusikAnimal's obviously ok in positions of trust, and has learned how to bot. I'm generally in favour of both music and animals, and against backlogs. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support clearly trustworthy and competent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not very familiar with the bot side of Wikipedia, but I would like to submit that my every interaction with MusikAnimal has been positive. If he has ever made mistakes in the past, he is of the kind to learn from them and ensure that they never happen again. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. They are already a trusted user with advanced rights. They clearly have the relevant technical knowledge. I have a positive impression from seeing them around. The only "negative" I see mentioned is the New_adminbot_needs_flagging thing, and that's a nothing. Alsee (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. wbm1058 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No concerns. MA is one of our best technical editors. ~ Rob13Talk 17:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, sounds good to me. –xenotalk 17:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There are few active BAG members and it looks quite demanding to keep up with the pace of the stream of applications, so your help will be very useful I think. − Pintoch (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- easy Support KylieTastic (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We need more BAG members, and MusikAnimal has the necessary experience and expertise. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MusikAnimal has the necessary expertise to do well. No complaints from me. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]