Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2024/Requests for botship/Header
 | This page was created in the spirit of April Fool's Day 2024 and is not meant to be taken seriously. |
| if nominations haven't updated. |
Requests for botship (RfBot) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bots, who are users who make very repetitive edits. Users can either submit their own requests for botship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the bots' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for botship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfBot.
If you are new to participating in a request for botship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfBot voters before you participate.
About Bots
[edit]The additional features granted to bots are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While bot actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by others just as other edits can be, the actions of bots involve features that can affect the entire site. Bots are responsible for making repetitive and rapid edits that no other users want to.
About RfBot
[edit]The community grants bot access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Bots are held to high standards of conduct because of their massive edit counts, and because they can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
[edit]The only formal prerequisite for botship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, the community has deemed that editors without the requisite experience doing fast and repetitive edits are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining botship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfBots, or start an RfBot candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for botship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming bots might explore adoption by a more repetitive and faster user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia bot hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of bot hopefuls. The RfBot guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfBot candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an bot.
Nominations
[edit]To nominate either yourself or another user for botship, follow the instructions in the hidden comments on this page. The process is similar to requests for adminship. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfBot
[edit]Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
[edit]All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfBot. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account and only after the RfBot has been open for 48 hours.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfBots, please consider first reading "Advice for RfBot voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfBot attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfBot, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in botship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfBot process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfBot voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfBot is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
[edit]Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfBot is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfBots above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfBots that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfBots below 65% will fail). However, a request for botship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[1] In calculating an RfBot's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfBot's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[2] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfBots beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfBot may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Footnotes
[edit]- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.