Meta:Requests for adminship/QuentinvBot
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
Ending 7 October 2011 19:22 UTC
- QuentinvBot (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
Hello. I will, on the advise of Trijnstel, move my archive scripts on a separate account. But, as it needs to edit the page Steward requests/Permissions/Approved temporary, it should be able to edit protected pages.
I don't know if it should have the bot status, because it won't flood the RCs but a bot with sysop rights is far more dangerous. Feel free to give your opinion on this discussion too. Thanks. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. As I told you on IRC, I would prefer if this account wouldn´t have a bot flag so everyone can see what the bot is doing. --WizardOfOz talk 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)- Support sysop flag and permission to run, but
Oppose bot flag. Low activity admin bot,so it would be better if we all can keep an eye on its activities. Also, as a matter of standard procedure for these things, what is the bot's behaviour if someone blocks it? Courcelles 20:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The bot will stop, as it can't edit anymore if blocked, all he can do is to unblock itself (and sometimes to edit its own talk page). Anyway it should only do an average of 5 edits by day, so it should not been really necessary to block (email would be better) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support the sysop, oppose the bot, per Courcelles. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support admin Oppose bot, unneeded fr33kman 20:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Where will you run the bot? Your own computer? --Erwin 21:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, no, I will run it from the Toolserver like I always did... I should not ? The issue is that my own computer is always down when the script runs, at 10 AM. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not too keen on admin bots running from semi-public computers. Please make sure only you can access the credentials. Then this RfA is fine with me. --Erwin 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, no, I will run it from the Toolserver like I always did... I should not ? The issue is that my own computer is always down when the script runs, at 10 AM. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support the adminbit, I don't recommend a botbit. Anyway, isn't it possible to reduce the protection of Permissions/Approved temporary to "autoconfirmed"-only? Trijnstel 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I asked on IRC and people who answer were not confortable with that... Indeed it's really a high-risk page as stewards remove temp status based on requests written on this page... What will happend if a falsified request is inserted on this page ? That's a bit like Identification noticeboard, but this one has diffs to check the history quickly. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support for admin. Oppose for bot. Email Vaibhav Talk 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support for admin. No comment on bot flag. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry to be the bad guy again, but I'm absolutely not comfortable with an automatic script editing pages like the temp rights working page. Even though it's more work, it should be supervised everytime it runs (thus, semi-automatic with double-checks and confirmations of every edit on that page), lest anything bad happens there. --თოგო (D) 10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are more lucky that people forget to add temp requests to the temp rights page than that the bot fails. Anyway, I'm checking the temp requests page periodically, so errors should not last long. Is it sufficient ? Else we could imagine a system where the bot add automatically the diff of the closure at the end of each requests, and the steward removing rights could check the diff before to be sure that there is no error. It will take time to code, but if it reassures you I can do the effort ;) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you check them it would be fine, but why do you need an automatic script then? You can have it semi-automatic and simply check before saving the page. --თოგო (D) 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I simply don't know how to code it to be semi-automatic. It means I would be forced to run the script manually for the Steward requests/Permissions page if there is at least one request detected as temp request. I'm okay to move it to semi-automatic (even if I will lose time), but I will need the sysop status to edit the page anyway... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you check them it would be fine, but why do you need an automatic script then? You can have it semi-automatic and simply check before saving the page. --თოგო (D) 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are more lucky that people forget to add temp requests to the temp rights page than that the bot fails. Anyway, I'm checking the temp requests page periodically, so errors should not last long. Is it sufficient ? Else we could imagine a system where the bot add automatically the diff of the closure at the end of each requests, and the steward removing rights could check the diff before to be sure that there is no error. It will take time to code, but if it reassures you I can do the effort ;) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thogo --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
With 80% support and per the bot operator's comment that they'll be watching the request page regularly, I have granted the admin bit. Bot bit not granted as there is no support for it. Jafeluv 22:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)