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

Revision as of 03:20, 19 February 2022

Revision as of 18:09, 23 February 2022

Line 18:

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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">''Prodego''</fontspan>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<fontsup colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">talk</fontsup>]]} 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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 style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>]] [[User_talk:Bbatsell|<span style="color:#C46100; font-size:x-small;">¿?</span>]] 21:14, 5 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">''Prodego''</fontspan>]] ^{[[User talk:Prodego|<fontsup colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">talk</fontsup>]]} 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::It is possible if your browser and bot use the same cookie file. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> ^{(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])}</small> 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)