Meta:Requests for adminship/QuentinvBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Herbythyme (talk | contribs) →QuentinvBot: -1 |
→QuentinvBot: closed as successful |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata rfa" style="background-color: #f5fff5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki [[:Category:Meta-Wiki requests|request]]. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it</strong>.[[Category:Closed Meta-Wiki requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
=== [[Meta:Requests for adminship/QuentinvBot|QuentinvBot]] ===
''Ending 7 October 2011 19:22 UTC''
Line 16 ⟶ 18:
*{{support}} the adminbit, I don't recommend a botbit. Anyway, isn't it possible to reduce the protection of [[Steward requests/Permissions/Approved temporary|Permissions/Approved temporary]] to "autoconfirmed"-only? [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
*:I asked on IRC and people who answer were not confortable with that... Indeed it's really a high-risk page as stewards remove temp status based on requests written on this page... What will happend if a falsified request is inserted on this page ? That's a bit like [[Identification noticeboard]], but this one has diffs to check the history quickly. -- [[User:Quentinv57|Quentinv57]] [[User talk:Quentinv57|<small><sup>(talk)</sup></small>]] 15:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
*{{support}}
*{{Support}} for admin. No comment on bot flag. -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<span style = 'color:#4B0082'>(TALK)</span>]]</small></sup> 04:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
* {{oppose}} Sorry to be the bad guy again, but I'm absolutely not comfortable with an automatic script editing pages like the temp rights working page. Even though it's more work, it should be supervised everytime it runs (thus, semi-automatic with double-checks and confirmations of every edit on that page), lest anything bad happens there. --[[User:Thogo|თოგო]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Thogo|D]])</small></sup> 10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
*:You are more lucky that people forget to add temp requests to the temp rights page than that the bot fails. Anyway, I'm checking the temp requests page periodically, so errors should not last long. Is it sufficient ? Else we could imagine a system where the bot add automatically the diff of the closure at the end of each requests, and the steward removing rights could check the diff before to be sure that there is no error. It will take time to code, but if it reassures you I can do the effort ;) -- [[User:Quentinv57|Quentinv57]] [[User talk:Quentinv57|<small><sup>(talk)</sup></small>]] 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
*::If you check them it would be fine, but why do you need an automatic script then? You can have it semi-automatic and simply check before saving the page. --[[User:Thogo|თოგო]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Thogo|D]])</small></sup> 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
*:::I simply don't know how to code it to be semi-automatic. It means I would be forced to run the script manually for the [[Steward requests/Permissions]] page if there is at least one request detected as temp request. I'm okay to move it to semi-automatic (even if I will lose time), but I will need the sysop status to edit the page anyway... -- [[User:Quentinv57|Quentinv57]] [[User talk:Quentinv57|<small><sup>(talk)</sup></small>]] 15:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
* {{oppose}} per Thogo --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 14:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
----
With 80% support and per the bot operator's comment that they'll be watching the request page regularly, I have granted the admin bit. Bot bit not granted as there is no support for it. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 22:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
</div>
| |||