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

Revision as of 05:18, 26 October 2021

Revision as of 03:20, 19 February 2022

Line 221:

(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).

In short, this needs to go to [[WP:RFA|RFA]] IMHO. — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF9933"; face="font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype; font-size:larger;"><big>xaosflux</big></font></bspan>]] ^{[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#00FF00;">Talk</fontsup>]]} 08:03, 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)

Line 248:

:::::::2. I don't see the relevance of your [[WP:NOT]] citation. &mdash;[[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|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF9933"; face="font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype; font-size:larger;"><big>xaosflux</big></font></bspan>]] ^{[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#00FF00;">Talk</fontsup>]]} 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. &mdash;[[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|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF9933"; face="font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype; font-size:larger;"><big>xaosflux</big></font></bspan>]] ^{[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#00FF00;">Talk</fontsup>]]} 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. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)