Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/MsynABot

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as successful --Lymantria (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MsynABot[edit]

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 19 October 2020 07:31 (UTC)

I would like to run an admin-bot to implement the outcome of the RfC “semi-protection to prevent vandalism on most used Items”. Based on it and the current Wikidata:Page protection policy, items that are being used on 500 or more Wikimedia pages should be indefinitely semi-protected, and this protection should be lifted once the usage number falls below this threshold. As of October 2020, around ~26.000 pages require an indefinite semi-protection under that scheme, but only ~3000 of them are currently protected. There is a weekly increase of around 200 items which fulfill the criteria for this sort of protection. I thus think that both the initial implementation of missing semi-protections as well as a weekly update should be done by an admin-bot. Details about the bot functionality can be found at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/MsynABot (still open).

Technical note: while this request for adminship ideally results in admin rights for the bot account, I consider it valid for the described bot task only. In case I ever get into the situation to run another admin-bot task with User:MsynABot, I will ask for permission on both WD:RFP/BOT and WD:RFP/A again even if the bot account already has admin rights. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  1.  Support! --Epìdosis 16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support implementing the RfC is great. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support We need to implement the RfC. --Jklamo (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support since MisterSynergy is trustworthy in general. Mahir256 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Mbch331 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support. Hasley 19:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support -- Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 20:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support. Might be an additional help for admins. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support. Very impressed by current implementation, at least good enough for bot testing and initial deployment. I've made comments for further changes on Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/MsynABot. Deryck Chan (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support --Alaa :)..! 11:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support --abián 15:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 12:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support --Yaakoub45 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Granting sysop when the bot will only protect items is maybe an overkill but our policies and configuration currently allow no other possibility. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support. Bencemac (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support to implement the RfC. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support, sure. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support no concerns with this RFA's motive. ミラP 22:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • ...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/MsynABot&oldid=1957357079"