Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
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>]] • [[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
:::* 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>]] • [[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
: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]] <sup>([[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]])</sup> 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)
| |||