Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2011/GoogleBot RFA

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

GoogleBot[edit]

Final: (10/17/5/1/1); at 0:17, 2 April 2011 as April Fools' Day is Over by Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

GoogleBot – He has been with us for so many years, and so many years to come, I know he has a frozen heart, but he is not unwillingly pretty much out like those careless users, he respect the rules procedurally. As many of you know he is well know as the web spider and even though he is a Google employee he never, ever, uses WP:POV on his editions, this is why I love him so much. He is a well respected user, and never did any mistake.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: The candidate may make an optional statement here. If this request is a self nomination, feel free to remove this line.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
Additional question from CycloneGU
3.14159265358979323846. Do you like pie?
A:
Additional question from Eduemoni
Number of question. Question
A:
Compulsory questions from ϢereSpielChequers
5 You aren't currently open source, if you are appointed an admin would you be prepared to make your code Open Source?
A:
6 You have Bot in your name and operate at bot like speeds. Are you an Artificial Intelligence and if so what do you think of our AI editor policy?
A:
Additional question from Tedder
7 As this job posting indicates, are you a role account with many individuals editing under one name? Please don't take this as a negative, as I for one welcome our new overlords.
A:

General comments[edit]

IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong Support. I think he's cute. Cind.amuse 07:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Sooooooo cute. Awwwwww bless his ickle frozen heart. *Squeezes GoogleBot's cheek affectionately*. Orphan Wiki 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support on wheels! Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 12:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support has been editing for a long time without engaging in WikiDrama! --TitanOne (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Meets my RFA criteria. Reach Out to the Truth 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I thought he was one already. Swarm X 17:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Provided when user goes down it promises to not take us down with it. CycloneGU (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment may not be suitable for younger readers.
    The above comment may not be suitable, period.
  8. Support. I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords. Useight (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per answer to Question 4. Captain panda 19:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SUPPORTBOTS RUN WIKIPEDIA Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Strongest possible oppose. Has been known to reveal deleted content even after it has been deleted for several days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Googlebot has been known to consume much more content than it contributes to. Providing bot tasks is a valuable service, but, it should have gone through BOTREQ first. tedder (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – Definitely not, needs to stop wasting servers' memory. —mc10 (t/c) 04:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose Is this an April Fools joke?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose No contribs. Minimac (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Nonexistent user. – Athaenara ✉ 07:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Athaenara, please keep your existenceist opinions to yourself. tedder (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose on wheels due to violating the CC-BY-SA, or something. lSietf (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The exceptionally biggest strongest possible mega oppose ever Candidate hasn't given me a Barnstar yet. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 09:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose with the Hammer of Fate This user is in its early teens. We have far too many juvenile administrators already! Favonian (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose What's it done for me? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:31pm • 11:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Userboxes not offensive enough.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose—Not enough content contributions. All other contribs are worthless. Not an asset to the encyclopedia. Does not deserve adminship. Come back in six months and try again. Airplaneman ✈ 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose This is what you get when people have nothing productive to do. Likeminas (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'm allergic to his useragent. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose because when/if he goes down, the entire frickin internet dies with him. He doesn't need more responsibility. Sorry GB! Nolelover It's almost football season! 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. OpposeVery bad candidate. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strongest possible oppose - Certainly doesn't need admin tools to do what it does best. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Strongest possible neutral Many plus points, but no MediaWiki talk edits shows candidate isn't well-rounded enough. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 12:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral pending answers and acceptance User has not accepted the nomination yet.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Why not? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral pending acceptance of the nomination. ~NerdyScienceDude 19:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral User has trouble relating to human emotions. Re-apply in 20 years or after passing the Turing test. The Interior (Talk) 20:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indecisive[edit]
  1. I'm going to park myself here for now as none of the other sections quite fit, but may move to a more suitable section if one emerges. Or I might prefix my !vote with strong, weak or tentative once we confirm the candidate's starsign. ϢereSpielChequers 18:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BingBot[edit]
  1. If google bot gets adminship, why can't BingBot? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bing just copies Google anyhow, do we need two robots doing the same thing? tedder (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yaaaa, two smartass computers running around doing things for us? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:April_Fools/April_Fools%27_Day_2011/GoogleBot_RFA&oldid=1196230389"