Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day&diff=98543621&oldid=98542932]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Shadowbot2&diff=97321925&oldid=96583385]
There's more, but those are what were readily available. To me, advertising on another BRFA is just blatant spam. Opinions? ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
* I strongly endorse this instance of spamming, and you'd have to dig deep to find anyone more anti-spammer than me. This particular bot approval is needed urgently and vitally. It's been discussed extensively here and there is strong consensus that this needs done, like yesterday. Leave him be. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
**(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|<
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|<
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)
:I think it would be acceptable to leave a notice on the admin noticeboard, since admins have had to manually protect all these pages. The Bureaucrats' board because, after all, bot RFAs are a bit exceptional, and Bureaucrats close RfAs. The only edit slightly hard to justify (IMHO) was to Shadowbot's page, but it is a related bot... Note that one of those is not Dragons flight. [[User:Prodego|<
I quote from [[Wikipedia:Canvassing]]: "Canvassing is the systematic contacting '''of individuals in a target group ''to further one's side of a debate.'''''" He did not systematically go out and ask for people to support the bot, nor did he only contact people who he knew would support the bot. He posted about it publicly on AN and other places (since only a limited few follow the bot requests page) and in doing so asked for input from the people the bot would most help — administrators — since only administrators can take care of Main Page issues. Move along folks, nothing to see here. —[[User:Bbatsell|<b
**I think [[WP:IAR]] applies here... nothing he's doing is hurting the project and in fact as Guy said this is a very urgent need.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 26:
--<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''[[User:Heligoland|'''Heligoland ''']] | [[User talk:Heligoland|'''Talk''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|'''Contribs''']]</font> 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:Well, it's not been listed yet, so the RfA hasn't officially started, so those !votes are early. I think the RfA will only be going ahead when full approval from BRFA is granted (correct me if I'm wrong) <strong>[[User:Martinp23|Mart]][[User_talk:Martinp23|<
::It might be sensible to list the RfA now and once the result of the RfA is known, then the BRfA process can continue, it seems the BAG is getting ahead of process here and the talk of WP:IAR combined with an RfA that hasn't yet been listed leaves me a little uncertain as to whether the BAG was going to be permitted to give the bot sysop permissions in this case. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''[[User:Heligoland|'''Heligoland ''']] | [[User talk:Heligoland|'''Talk''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|'''Contribs''']]</font> 21:41, 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 — and since we all agree that this one is — 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|<
: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 40:
:I also agree that Dragons flight did nothing wrong and that an RfA should not be necessary. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">[[User:Mets501|Mets501]] ([[User talk:Mets501|talk]])</span> 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
* As a tangential thought in response to the An RfA should always be necessary when seeking sysop status for an account - it is how the community decides if it is needed, and whom it is trusted with. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
**It is obviously needed because the bot cannot function without it. And we already decided we trust this individual, unless that's changed since his RfA. What's left to talk about? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 47:
It might be vanity to quote myself, however, taken from my wikiphilosophy:
{{cquote|'''Sysop status, or other special rights such as CheckUser, Oversight, or membership in a WikiProject, does not confer immunity to policy.''' Many users that get these special rights seem to get an ego complex and think that their contributions are somehow more valuable than others, or that their opinions should be weighted more heavily. This could not be further from the spirit of Wikipedia. Every good faith contributor is a valuable and respected part of the community, considered equally with any other good faith contributor.}}
Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:Agreed in principle, but what is the relevance of that statement to this issue? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
::As an administrator I'm telling you you're all totally wrong and you're just supposed to do what I say otherwise I block you, whenever I feel like it. --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] [[User talk:Deskana|<small>(For Great Justice!)</small>]] 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:*The strong push to bypass the RFA process seems to be nothing more than a block of sysops who think their opinion is what matters and do not feel they need the approval of the community as a whole to ratify their proposal. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:::*Of the five people who just here have supported not bothering with an RfA, three are sysops and two are not. I think you may be imagining things here -- the community has had ample chance to discuss this issue and virtually nobody, administrator or not, has opposed creating this sysop bot. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:** Actually, Peter, the text of their comments were quite clear; I'm not sure why you're assuming an enormous amount of bad faith here, but it's troubling. The coder and overseer of the bot is an administrator; thusly, he has gained the trust of the community through his own RfA. The BRFA process is designed to determine whether there is a need for the bot, whether technical issues are present with it, and whether the mechanisms are in place to prevent errors should they arise (as they nearly inevitably do in man-made code). The user in charge of the bot has been granted trust, and the consensus on the BRFA is quite clearly in favor of the bot itself. That is why the editors above who support bypassing the RfA hold that position, and they made themselves abundantly clear. For the record, I think we should go through an RfA to remove even a smidge of doubt, and I'm slightly (but not significantly) unhappy with the precedent, but I refuse to assume the bad faith you assume above. Regards, —[[User:Bbatsell|<b
:::* 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|<
:**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|<
Perhaps we can clarify something here that might reduce the controversy. Precisely what "sysop" functions will this bot be performing? No one wants a bot given the ability to inadvertently block users, delete articles, etc. and if someone were to propose giving a bot the ability to do these things I can see the argument for requiring a broad consensus evinced by something like RfA or an equivalent. But do I understand correctly that the only "admin only" function this bot will perform will be to protect templates? That seems to be a fairly low-risk situation and might not implicate some of the broader concerns. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 22:53, 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)
Line 75:
Please see my question a few posts above, which may have been lost in the multiply threaded discussion. For editors, "the sysop bit" is an indivisible whole: one is either an administrator with all the buttons going with the job, or isn't. Is that true for bots? As I understand it (please confirm), this bot would only be tasks with protecting templates, couldn't it be constructed in a way that would not require access to the full "sysop bit" including the powers to block, delete, etc. that raise greater concerns? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:Also please see [[WP:SOCK#Administrative_sock_puppets|this]]. It is from WP:SOCK, which is another term for alternate account. I guess in short, I am trying to say that I think the RFA is for the account, not the person. Cheers! —— [[user:Eagle 101|'''Eagle''' 101]] <sup>([[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]])</sup> 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
* This is true for any account. You either have all sysop rights, or none. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
I agree that Robert has done absolutely nothing wrong. The community has been clamoring for such a bot, and he's stepped forward to deliver it.<br />
Line 144:
*100% support from me. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
*I'd just like to have the proviso that should it be possible for the devs to split admin functions, it can only be used by bots and not by human editors, and only after some sort of policy is agreed upon. If split admin functions can be carried out, I don't see as great a need for putting bots through the RfA process as they are absolutely limited by the functionality granted to them and developer(s) expanding any bots functionality is less of a concern. Apart from that rather lengthy add-on, I'm happy to support either my own proposal, Brad's, or any combination of the two. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''[[User:Heligoland|'''Heligoland ''']] | [[User talk:Heligoland|'''Talk''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|'''Contribs''']]</font> 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
* Why do I think of Kelly Martin when someone says something like this? No one remembers that? We '''don't''' need a redux of that. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:This may not be not feasible. In recent testing I have seen dropped Mediawiki session cookies, which I suspect are caused by trying to use my account for normal editting while a bot run is in progress. If this interpretation is correct (and I'm not entirely sure, I'm still investigating it), then it would make it impossible for this bot to run concurrently with my normal editting behavior. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 151:
::::I'm happy to accept a temporary sysop flag for it subject to community review, but if it is working at the end of 30 days and there are no complaints, I don't see much sense in stopping it, hauling it through RFA, and then restarting it again. If we are going to go this way, I would ask that whatever review is demanded occur before the end of the trial period. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:*The possibility of '''4''' exists in the code, if I recall correctly (I was not an editor then, this is from combing archives), when phase3 when operational some editors were excited that now users would be able to request only certain admin rights. Obviously this never materialized, and there is no interface to do it. But it ''could'' be done. Whether it will be is another story, I don't think it is really a priority, since there are only likely to be a few admin bots. [[User:Prodego|<
::It is possible if your browser and bot use the same cookie file. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 185:
::::::As for whether this is adminship or not, the bot is getting an admin flag, it will have access to all features an admin has, the ability will be there for it to be programmed to use all of them. I see no need to argue over semantics, so we can decide not to call it "adminship" but it doesn't change the fact that it will have full amdmin powers, and if the programmer decides to use them, they will have the ability to do so. (Might not have permission, but that doesn't stop it from working if they decide to do it.) As for desysopping it, I can't do that as I'm not a steward, so I'm not comfortable assuming someone else will be willing to do so. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 08:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::With all due respect Essjay, giving me access to a second account with a sysop flag provides me no greater or less technical ability than I have now. It just makes my life easier as a programmer and makes it easier for myself and others to monitor it. If I wanted to be evil, I could have done want Curps did and simply run it, but I disagree with Curps' approach and feel it ought to be segregated. I can understand that some people disagree with creating sysop bots in general, but the attitude that an admin shouldn't have easy access to a seperate admin account for developing and running otherwise approved bots is mysterious to me. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 09:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I never made any of the above points. I'm quite aware that you could have chosen to run the bot without permission, though there is now precedent on what happens in those cases since Marudubshinki; I'm glad you decided to put it under a separate account. I realize the benefits provided by a separate account, and never questioned them. I don't disagree with this bot, if the community supports it, and haven't said I do, though I've opposed other adminbots in the past (both because I felt they were bad ideas, and because the community did not approve of adminbots). And finally, I don't have an attitude that an admin shouldn't have easy access to a separate admin account for an approved bot; I'd be happy to see that. What I have said is that the appropriate place for you to get that access is at RFA, and I stand beside that; with the single exception of a Foundation order to sysop someone, all accounts that are assigned an admin flag get it because of a successful request for adminship, and this case should be no different. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 10:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::From my point of view, requiring an RFA, above and beyond a successful BRFA, cannot be construed as "easy access". You are free to have the opinion that "this case should be no different", but I continue to believe that the case of all adminbots is very different from the function RFA was intended to handle. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 11:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::All of the accounts to receive the "sysop" designation via RfA have been those of '''humans'''. It's called "requests for adminship" because people can be administrators. '''A bot is not a sentient being. It cannot be an administrator.''' —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::1. Again, it isn't called an "admin" flag in MediaWiki. "Admin" is a term used by this community (and others) to refer to '''people'''.
:::::::2. As Robert noted, the bot's sysop designation will ''not'' enable him to commit any nefarious acts of which he isn't already capable. If Robert so desired, he could go on a bad-faith rampage (blocking random users, deleting random pages, and continually unblocking himself), and there would be no way to stop him until a steward intervened. The community trusts Robert not to do any of that; that's why he's an administrator. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Essjay, what do you (and the other bureaucrats) think of the idea (suggested above) of ''temporary'' adminship for the bot to make it easier to run trials? The BAG have approved the trial. Could the bureaucrats grant temporary adminship for the length of the trial? (30 days I believe). I think a successful trial would alleviate a lot of concerns at RfA, and make the whole process go a lot more smoothly. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 07:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 195 ⟶ 206:
:2. Again, Robert isn't seeking "adminship" for his bot. He's seeking the "sysop" designation, and we have no formal process through which to handle such a request. That doesn't mean that we should fall back on the closest process that we happen to have (thereby anthropomorphizing a computer script). It means that we should devise a new process that makes sense. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
::Indeed. Our usual process for deciding whether programs should be allowed special user rights designations is the bot approval system. That system is good for determining whether a certain task should be performed automatically, and whether the given piece of code is capable of performing the task without unacceptable errors.▼
::RfA, on the other hand, is a system for determining whether human users should be granted adminship, which includes a user rights level but also indicates a social standing within the community. The process is designed to determine whether an individual is trustworthy and familiar with our policies. To apply those standards to a piece of code makes no sense at all. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)▼
we need to make this discussion closed there will be an RfA or there will not be bot approval. as stated before we all want this concluded. As the BAG we have stated that we need community support. Unless you want to wait a month to figure out how you want this done the best way is a RfA, and a b-crat has also stated that we need a RfA. what else will it take to get this started? this will not be a case of IAR we have clearly stated our position. Essjay as b-crat and as BAG.
Line 200 ⟶ 214:
<blockquote>
Prior to use, bots must be approved at [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval]]. State there precisely what the bot will do, observe and participate in the discussion, and await authorization from someone in the [[Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group|approvals group]]. </blockquote>
thus this issue has been settled. If there is community support for a bot with this function it will be shown there if not the community shall have spoken in a consensus. If this is not acceptable solution we can close the BRfA and kill ProtectionBot. I do not want to see that I think the Idea is a very good one, I just want a clear consensus reached quickly and have ProtectionBot up and running after the RfA since the bot trial has already concluded. Hoping the best [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] • [[User:BetacommandBot|Bot]])</sup> 07:
▲thus this issue has been settled. If there is community support for a bot with this function it will be shown there if not the community shall have spoken in a consensus. If this is not acceptable solution we can close the BRfA and kill ProtectionBot. I do not want to see that I think the Idea is a very good one, I just want a clear consensus reached quickly and have ProtectionBot up and running after the RfA since the bot trial has already concluded. Hoping the best [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] • [[User:BetacommandBot|Bot]])</sup> 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm beginning to wonder whether people are actually reading my replies. By all means, bring these matters before the community via formal discussions to determine support. Place enormous notices at RfA and every other relevant forum. '''Just don't treat said discussions as "RfAs." Computer scripts are ''not'' people. They cannot be administrators.
:Incidentally, I await an explanation of your claim that "we dont have a +sysop in metawiki all that there currently is is +admin some can call it sysop but it is not." If I'm missing something, please bring it to my attention. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
▲::Indeed. Our usual process for deciding whether programs should be allowed special user rights designations is the bot approval system. That system is good for determining whether a certain task should be performed automatically, and whether the given piece of code is capable of performing the task without unacceptable errors.
▲::RfA, on the other hand, is a system for determining whether human users should be granted adminship, which includes a user rights level but also indicates a social standing within the community. The process is designed to determine whether an individual is trustworthy and familiar with our policies. To apply those standards to a piece of code makes no sense at all. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
: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 <span style="color:brown;">note?</span>]])</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). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:How about you, Xaosflux? Did ''you'' read my replies? I don't understand why my argument that we should refer to the discussion as something other than an "RfA" has continually been construed as an argument that there should be no discussion. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
::It is simple: Wikipedia is built on community consensus. RFA is the proper forum for consensus regarding sysop functions. if you want a bot to pass, you must satisify conditions laid out by the BAG. if you do not, then it will not be approved. A condition of this bot's acceptance is passing RFA. Full stop. 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> 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::1. '''You''' believe that "RFA is the proper forum for consensus regarding sysop functions." I, conversely, see no evidence to support the contention that it's the proper forum in which to establish such consensus for anything other than a human. It's called "requests for adminship," and bots cannot be admins.
:::2. "Because we said so" is ''not'' a legitimate argument for why something is right. Jimbo himself doesn't apply such logic. Furthermore, your "full stop" remark was rather rude.
:::3. <s>I'm still waiting for you to elucidate your claim that "we dont have a +sysop in metawiki all that there currently is is +admin some can call it sysop but it is not." Again, if I'm missing something, please bring it to my attention.</s> —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: The right is called sysop. A bot cannot be an administrator. It can be a sysop. RFA is where you go to get the sysop bit. A bot op that wants the sysop bit for his or her bot should petition there. Until there is a seperate venue for bots, that is the way it should and will be. 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> 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::1. <s>If the right is called "sysop," why did you previously claim otherwise? Were you mistaken, or were you referring to something different that I'm failing to grasp?</s>
:::::2. "RfA" stands for "requests for '''adminship'''." As you've acknowledged that a bot cannot be an administrator, how does it make sense to conduct the discussion in that venue?
:::::3. Again, proclaiming that something is correct is ''not'' a valid means of establishing such a contention. Citing <s>your position with the BAG as a means of declaring</s> the BAG's declaration that something ''will'' be a certain way is '''not''' the same as proving that it ''should'' be a certain way. <s>Your</s> The BAG's opinion is worth no more than mine or anyone else's, and I find it ironic that you're <s>using your</s> citing the BAG's non-consensus-derived status as means of overriding the need for community consensus regarding the proper means of establishing yet another community consensus. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I am NOT a member of BAG, thank you. I would remind you also that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. 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> 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::1. I somehow confused you with Betacommand. My apologies. The crux of my argument, however, is unaffected; a BAG proclamation does ''not'' establish that something is the correct course of action.
:::::::2. I don't see the relevance of your [[WP:NOT]] citation. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
::I did read your replies, I simply do not feel that there is a community support to allow the bot approvals group to approve the sysop flag to accounts; should the community support that, I would not have a problem exercising it. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype; font-size:larger;">xaosflux</span>]] [[User_talk:Xaosflux|<sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</sup>]] 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Are you certain that you read my replies? I never said that we should "allow the bot approvals group to approve the sysop flag to accounts." Over and over again, I've plainly stated that I don't object to the idea of conducting a formal discussion to determine community consensus. I object to the idea of labeling said discussion an "RfA" (because bots can't be admins). I'm merely arguing that the discussion should be called something different and held on a different page (while still prominently linked from RfA and various other forums). That's all. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, I am certain, and I respect your opinion. I also agree that a bot with a sysop flag is not an "administrator" (see my statment on the RFA). I'd welcome a community discusion on changing the way that 'crats are instructed to give out sysop or other flags for technical means, but I don't think that here or RFA is the place for it. A proposal would be a good start, and listing on [[WP:VPP]] perhaps. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype; font-size:larger;">xaosflux</span>]] [[User_talk:Xaosflux|<sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</sup>]] 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::On this, you and I are in agreement. Indeed, we need to develop a new process through which to handle such requests. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
== Current status question ==
(cross-posted to the RfA page) With the RfA now pending, is ProtectionBot currently operating during the RfA period? I hope that it is, at least on an ongoing trial basis. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 20:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think conversation about this is at [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot#Suggest_continued_trial_operation_during_RfA_period|the RfA talk]] Cheers! —— [[user:Eagle 101|'''Eagle''' 101]] <sup>([[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]])</sup> 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
== Template doc pages ==
Just wanted to note that the bot doesn't need to protect template doc pages per the [[Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern]] (example: [[template:cite web/doc]]). Just a minor point. Good luck for the RfA! --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
▲*(From a [[WP:BAG|bag member]]). IMHO, We (BAG) should not be determing if sysop status should be granted to an account at this time. If the userrights system were to be updated to define certain permissions only (e.g. EditProtected, Delete) without the other permissions I may lean more towards it though, assuming the community assented that BAG should do this. It is (or should be) that noone is advocating making this script a ''real administrator'' (at least at this time) with authority to do things like close xfd's. That being said in order for this bot to function it will need to be added to the sysop group, and [[WP:RFA]] is the way to get that done. This request would need to only use sysop rights for approved bot actions, and that must be enforcable as much as possible. I'd suggest that the RFA would include a vow from the operator that this account would only preform certain actions (altough we've had many ''campaing promises'' on RFA's that didn't last) and/or vows from multiple other admins that they will continually block this account for violating the approved functions (I'd be in that camp). — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup> 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
▲**In short, this needs to go to [[WP:RFA|RFA]] IMHO. — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup> 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
| |||