Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:29, 28 March 2022

Latest revision as of 02:17, 16 May 2022

(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 14:

**(double edit conflict)Well, it's not really spam when it's only on the most relevant pages. If he'd left the message to all the creators of feautred pictures, I think I'd care a lot more, but this is very focoused notification, informing of the proposal. Anyway, as you noted on the BRFA page, Peter, BRFA isn't a vote - only discussion, so these comments shouldn't matter. I ''think'' I went to the page based on the post on AN, and made a suggestion on the page - not a vote, a suggestion. I belive that this was probably Dragon Flight's aim when leaving the messages - to get ideas, which he has got in abundance there (and one can get ideas from oppose votes, to satisfy their reasons for opposition). <strong>[[User:Martinp23|Mart]][[User_talk:Martinp23|<span style="color:red;">inp23</span>]]</strong> 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't really consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day&diff=98543621&oldid=98542932 this] canvassing, and secondly, when we say canvassing, aren't we mainly talking about spamming messages? We have here five independently-tailored messages in five separate situations where he's encouraging people to support a bot. I think it's within his rights, as the bot's creator, to offer arguments as to why it is a good idea. It doesn't really make sense to say he's not allowed to talk about it at all, or that he must give the appearance of being neutral over whether his bot is approved or not. The one qualm I have is where he says to go !vote in support and provides a link, but that is a very minor quibble at best. --[[User:Cyde|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</fontspan>]] 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the [[WP:SPAM]] section on canvassing and I must say I see no great issue here. One distiction made was the level of disruption made by the crossposting. This doesn't seem to like an "''aggressive propaganda campaign''" to me (unless you can provide more spamdiffs to support the claim), but rather "''reasonable amount of communication about issues''". Deliberate and single-purpose spamming is bad, while mentioning a discussion on related occasions is no worse than advertising a WikiProject in a signature. [[User:Misza13|Миша]][[User talk:Misza13|<span style="color:green">'''13'''</span>]] 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Line 32:

::Sorry, I was the first vote. I just figured it couldn't hurt to support early. (It so happens that I also think that a RfA isn't even necessary, but if it goes live I'll support it.) [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think an RFA is necessary when the bot owner is already an admin. Bot owners are already responsible for everything their bots do. Giving a bot a sysop flag when the owner is already a sysop is a simple matter of deciding if the bot is a good idea &mdash; and since we all agree that this one is &mdash; it should be granted. [[WP:RFA]] is for granting sysop access to ''humans'', and if you look at all of the normal questions and procedure that go on in RFA, you'll see that they're totally unnecessary and irrelevant when dealing with a person who is already a sysop and just needs a second flagged account for bot usage. --[[User:Cyde|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</fontspan>]] 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:Cyde. I had assumed, per the precedent set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA any bot with sysop functions would need to be approved through the normal RfA channel, since Tawker was already an admin at that point and he had to go through an RfA process. I realise there is a vast difference in what TawkerbotTorA and ProtectionBot do, but shouldn't the bot still have to go through an RfA process ? --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''[[User:Heligoland|'''Heligoland ''']] | [[User talk:Heligoland|'''Talk''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|'''Contribs''']]</font> 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::Per my own previous comments on Jmaxbot, I concur with Cyde. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Line 55:

:::* There was no assumption of bad faith, and I got five edit conflicts trying to reword my statement - but anyways. My main concern is that there seems to be no basis to circumvent the RfA, and yet they want to. Now some would say this is uncontested, which is a little annoying, since it makes me wonder what I'm doing, if not contesting it. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<span style="color:#696;">Peter M Dodge</span>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<span style="color:#696;">Talk to Me</span>]] &bull; [[WP:WNP|<span style="color:#696;">Neutrality Project</span>]] )</span>

:**I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation, Peter. I think the push to skip the RfA process is because the user in question is already a Sysop. Dragons Flight already passed an RfA, so unless he has become less trustworthy since then, an RfA seems redundant and the need for it has not been established. As long as the sysop-bit element of the bot is clearly defined during the bot request phase (which it was), then the community has more than enough opportunity to comment, and they did. In addition to these practical considerations, I'd like to offer one final realistic one. There are folks employing criteria in RfA that would, by definition, make it absolutely impossible for a bot to pass. Not because the bot isn't the Right Thing for the project, but because the bot has not written a featured article, has not accumulated X-thousand edits, and so on. There are both practical and realistic limitations to using the RfA that has nothing to do with a "block of sysops" working in concert to somehow thwart the rest of the project, and I feel such a suggestion doesn't do the hard working folks on the project justice. If you feel there is any such cadre working against the interests of Wikipedia, then that should be resolved separately and not involve the protection-bot effort that Dragons Flight is undergoing at the moment. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small>]] ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::* My complains are not with the bot - I feel it is a neccesary tool in combating the problems we have had. My problem is how people are going about implementing it, since it seems to be circumventing policy. IAR is not a free pass to do as you would. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<span style="color:#696;">Peter M Dodge</span>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<span style="color:#696;">Talk to Me</span>]] &bull; [[WP:WNP|<span style="color:#696;">Neutrality Project</span>]] )</span> 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Line 69:

:::: Didn't we used to have an autoblocking bot for vandals? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A thinking point to consider. When we perform a Request for Adminiship, is the RfA for the account, or for the person behind the account? If the answer is the former, then an RfA makes sense. But if we're determining whether or not the person is suitable for adminship, then a separate RfA becomes redundant. I think precedent suggests that Wikipedia considers the person to be the more important elemtn of the equation. Dragons Flight the person has already passed the RfA, and by necessity, the robot he creates is his responsibility. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small>]] ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:As far as I understand Dragons flight is '''not''' going through the RFA, the idea of the bot is. Any user account wanting the sysop flag has to go through it. —— [[user:Eagle 101|'''Eagle''' 101]] ^{([[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]])} 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2]] may be worth reviewing here. [[User:NoSeptember/Signature13|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Line 225:

:As a less active BAG member, and a bureaucrat, I agree. Take it to RFA. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:Concur precisely with Essjay; thank you, Dragons flight, with taking it to RfA. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <fontspan colorstyle="color:brown;">note?</fontspan>]])</small> 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, the matter has gone to RfA. And now we have users declining to support on the basis that bots can't be administrators. (Where have I heard that before?) One user snarkily opposed the request because the bot had not "accept[ed] or decline[d] the nomination" (and "assume[d] that all the support voters are completely unfamiliar with the rules that govern RfA"). Had this individual not subsequently posted legitimate arguments, I would have removed the original comment (deeming it a bad-faith act of deliberate disruption). &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)