Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poccil 2
Vote here (2/4/0) ending 20:22 January 3, 2005 (UTC)
This is my second request to be an administrator. I have addressed many of the concerns in my previous request, including tolerance for British spellings. In addition, I have done much maintenance in areas using an automation script (so the edit count may be inflated).
Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 18:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Explanation on my automation script: I first created an automation script to handle the often tedious task of listing pages on votes for deletion and on cleanup, and for tagging articles. A few days later, User:Mirv notified me on my talk page and asked me to modify the script to automate the Wikipedia:deletion process. Part of this process entailed, of course, deleting articles. The communication I received with Mirv allowed me to create the "deletepage" function, which has been causing contention from you and which as its sole purpose was only to be called upon consensus on votes for deletion to delete an article. Mirv needed the automatic ability to open the deletion form to handle VFD discussions. Besides these things, I use my script to do needed transwikiing to other wikis. It is not a bot, but a script. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 06:35, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Support
- Weak support. See comment below. CryptoDerk 19:03, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I support: although the line between bot and script is a fine one, going over contributions does not reveal anything too worrying, and convinces me in favour of granting sysop access. User:Anárion/sig 07:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose. Look, he might be OK as an admin, but a few things have me concerned. The tagging of images for deletion is one, but the biggy for me is that he's run a bot on his main account. He needs to understand that bots should be run from seperate accounts... I think that one day he might be admin material but not yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)- It's a script, not a bot, though it does exhibit bot-like behavior. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 08:15, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Ah. Well, let me double-check your history and then vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's a script, not a bot, though it does exhibit bot-like behavior. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 08:15, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Mostly for running a bot on his main account. Also, seems to have made some very poor deletion choices (speedy tags and votes). His bot code seems to include functions which can be activated if the user has sysop rights to do certain activity ("function deletepage"). I consider bot-handled sysop actions extremely dangerous. -- Netoholic @ 16:32, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- The delete function is only ever used for handling VFD entries with a consensus to delete. I will never run that function except for that purpose and in strict adherence to the deletion policy. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 17:20, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Poccil still needs more time IMHO to get in tune with the way the community works here. i would reconsider this at a later date, depending on the track record. Kingturtle 05:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- dont like the idea of a bot on a sysop account. Xtra 06:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The
botscript doesn't seem to understand the deletion policy.Dr Zen 06:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)- Voters, please read the new explanatory note above. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 06:39, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- So I took a look at his talk page and noticed seven or so instances where people had griped at him just this month alone for tagging stuff for deletion. A couple of cases where something had been on copyvio forever, he tagged to delete, although they were no longer copyvios. An image in the public domain he tagged to delete, etc. His script went a bit wacky once or twice. I appreciate his work with transwiki stuff and Wikipedia:Cleanup, I know everything he does he does in good faith, I can't think of anyone who could probably use the abilities of an admin more, so I hope that he'll use his deletion powers sparingly and take a tad bit more time in reasoning things out so that the aforementioned delete issues don't occur in the future. Further investigations on his edit history and talk page may influence my vote. CryptoDerk 19:03, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Is the automation.js run from within the browser, with user interaction; or run via command line with parameters? -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- To run it, one places the functions and the arguments to be run at the bottom of the file, runs it by double-clicking the script, and removing the functions when done. The script does the necessary actions by opening a browser window. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 08:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Some help with terminology, from Wikipedia:Bots - "Bots are automatic processes interacting with Wikipedia over the World Wide Web.". Your "script" qualifies as a bot by this definition, and should follow the policies set forth from that regard. One of the guidelines is to run the bot from an account which is different from your normal one, so that the automated edits are easily identified, and reverted if there is a problem. -- Netoholic @ 07:22, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
- To run it, one places the functions and the arguments to be run at the bottom of the file, runs it by double-clicking the script, and removing the functions when done. The script does the necessary actions by opening a browser window. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 08:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)