 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 7 July 2013 by Cåm. |
Based on what was going on at Forum:Automatic file fixing (Client side), we are going to need to reach an agreement on editors assigning the bot flag temporarily. I cannot remember Wikia's position on this issue, so I would be glad if someone reminded all of us below. I have been informed that Wikia is willing to change the rules regarding bot flags if we reach consensus. There are a few distinct options that I can see for assigning the bot flag:
- Allow all administrators to bot flag themselves and custodians, as well as allowing custodians to bot flag themselves*, on a temporary basis
- Allow all administrators to bot flag themselves and custodians (upon request) on a temporary basis
- Allow all administrators to bot flag themselves only, on a temporary basis
- Retain the current system, where only bureaucrats can assign the flag to approved bots
*I have no idea whether it is possible to only be allowed to flag yourself. I'm just basing this off a comment in the linked forum. I have been informed that it is possible to only be allowed to flag yourself.
Discuss, 222 talk 09:27, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Support 2 - Personally, I think option 2 would be the safest option while allowing a large number of editors to perform maintenance tasks. 222 talk 09:27, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Support 2 - Wikia has stated that in the past that they would give the administrators the ability to assign the bot flag if we ever agreed on it. It is also possible to only be allowed to assign rights to your own account. Then something in support for proposal two. User:TyA/sig 11:54, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
2 - Custodians should not be able to flag themselves - aside from the low probability of Wikia allowing that, there are no community procedures for custodian rights, just an edit count, like rollback. That said, there are a lot of ways the flag could be useful to custodians, and if there's someone else to mediate the flagging (read: a sysop) then the potential for abuse goes way down. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 12:17, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Ummm - Force everyone who wants to make heavy use of this tool to have a secondary bot account is also viable. You make it sound like we absolutely need to have these edits done on the main account with a temporary bot flag. We don't. MolMan 15:42, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Support 2 and Moldea - Admins are always on our disposal. Custodians can't rage and move all vandalism all the files now. Also, having a secondary bot account for the tool can be a good idea. User:Jr Mime/Signature 16:10, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Also, you can flag yourself only 222. User:Jr Mime/Signature 16:11, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Support 4 and Mol's suggestion. I really don't see how this is necessary in any way, and it seems like we can easily make it work through our current AWB system. Dtm142 (talk) 19:15, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Regarding 1 and 2: Is is possible to restrict whom admins can flag? That is, can they be prevented from flagging non-Custodian accounts if they're given the ability to flag Custodian accounts? If not, then Option 2 isn't really an option as stated. It becomes "Allow admins to flag anyone." Option 1 also becomes "Allow admins to flag anyone, and custodians to flag themselves." --User:Saftzie/Signature 21:45, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm guessing this is a suggestion that admins may (if this passes) assign bot flags outside the currently permitted scope? Aside from flagging custodians as bots, we could also fulfil AWB requests, infrequent though they are, and the occasional YG thread for bot approval. I don't see the issue here.
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
- Make another user group to pick admins who can give bot rights? Idk lol. User:Jr Mime/Signature 23:35, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Another usergroup is completely unnecessary. Does the community not trust admins to hand out bot flags within the limits of policy?
- Make another user group to pick admins who can give bot rights? Idk lol. User:Jr Mime/Signature 23:35, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
- I care less about giving the right to admins (as it makes literally no difference) more about how dumb it is for us to have this plan of constantly botting-unbotting custards so they can make edits. MolMan 02:24, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
- What is it you propose then? Keeping them permanently flagged? 222 talk 07:50, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Fusion them with AWB bots? User:Jr Mime/Signature 14:29, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, assuming you meant a secondary account. It's just going to be a hassle and a waste of everyone's time if we expect a custard to have himself flagged and unflagged for a file move. MolMan 15:57, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
- What is it you propose then? Keeping them permanently flagged? 222 talk 07:50, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
- I care less about giving the right to admins (as it makes literally no difference) more about how dumb it is for us to have this plan of constantly botting-unbotting custards so they can make edits. MolMan 02:24, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
Support 2 - Having had Bot rights before on another Wiki while mass editing did help the flow of other editors who surf the RC. Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 03:50, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
Support 2 - Per Thebrains222. Temujin 07:24, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support 2 - Per 222. Ryan PM 11:56, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Closed - There is consensus for option 2, for admins to temporarily flag accounts as needed for large scale, automated edits. The option to allow use of the script on secondary bot accounts was suggested but has not gathered consensus. However, the script for which this forum was created has not been implemented and thus the need for this no longer exists. With this in mind, there will be no change to the existing system of requesting bot flags.
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature