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

Revision as of 08:03, 7 January 2007

Revision as of 08:22, 7 January 2007

Line 183:

:::::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.

:::::As noted by Betacommand, the BAG doesn't wish to bypass the participation of those who frequent RfA. By all means, let's post a big message there (and elsewhere) inviting everyone to participate in a formal discussion to determine consensus on this matter. But to treat this discussion as a "request for adminship" would be to pretend that Robert's bot is alive. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::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)

:::::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)

::::::Personally, on this one, I think I'd defer to Redux, Angela, or Rdsmith4 (deliberately leaving out Danny, to avoid an offic-esque look) because they are both local bureaucrats ''and'' stewards, so they have the ability to both grant the permissions here, and remove them. I'm not comfortable granting a permission temporarily that I can't guarantee someone will be willing to remove; I'm doubly unsure of granting a permission on the stipulation it can be removed at any time if necessary when I can't guarantee that will be carried out. <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)

:::Again, '''a bot cannot be an admin'''. There is no "normal process" that applies to this situation.

:::No one is objecting to the idea of conducting formal discussion regarding this matter. We're objecting to the notion of holding a nonsensical request for adminship for an inanimate entity. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)