Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Android Mouse Bot 4 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Discussion: + |
→Discussion: response |
||
Line 39:
::::::It's not, but on Wikipedia, it's not something to be taken lightly. I was under the impression that stewards could assign users individual permissions per [[bugzilla:9862|a Bugzilla ticket]], I was wrong; the conclusion was that ''if'' such an ipblock-exempt usergroup were to be created, that stewards could then add users to it. Perhaps if the consensus is that the bot should ''only'' have the protect permission, we should create another ticket. — [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] – [[User:Madman bum and angel/Desk|desk]]) 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It might just be easier to create a [[WP:RFA|RFA]], considering how the relevant Bugzilla tickets are going. I don't think the chances of it being approved are as slim as [[User:TheFearow|TheFearow]] seems to think, though it may be requested that you give the code to someone else, given that you're not a sysop. The question is whether editing protected pages is ''necessary'', and I don't think we've established that yet.— [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] – [[User:Madman bum and angel/Desk|desk]]) 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:Editing protected pages isn't absolutely necessary, but then again the bot isn't absolutely necessary. It is only a convience really. But I think in order for it to perform its approved task thoroughly it needs to be able to edit all talk pages. If the RFA route is taken, I think it would be best to choose an alternative operator first, that already has sysop status. --[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||