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

Revision as of 07:10, 7 January 2007

Revision as of 07:15, 7 January 2007

Line 180:

::::We all know that most everything on Wikipedia is driven by consensus (I almost said "everything"), and adminship certainly is. The best way we have to determine consensus is through RFA, and that's what we should use (especially since the people we trust to monitor bots, the Bot Approval Group, has said above that this should go through RFA). While there is certainly excitement all around for getting going as quickly as possible, one of the important things we have to think about (and this is always implicit with bots) is what is the least disruptive way to go about this. In this case, bypassing RFA, while it might be convenient, is going to cause a lot of hurt feelings and ill-will between users, and there really is no reason to do that. If the bot is supported, it will pass RFA with no problem, and the damage done to the community by bypassing RFA isn't necessary. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 06:21, 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)

:::::Please stop referring to this as "adminship." A bot is not a person, and Robert merely seeks a technical arrangement for his bot. Just as the bot's approval would be revoked if it were to be abused, its sysop designation would be yanked in the blink of an eye.