Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Wikichu

Wikichu

This request is for the sysophood of User:Wikichu (talk • contribs), the bot account of User:Poke (talk • contribs)
Created by poke | talk 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

Status

Succeeded. 09:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I never thought I actually would do this, but I decided to give it a try. Yes, this probably sounds weird: Requesting adminship for a bot account, but due to recent actions with my bot - some of you may have noticed the enormous edits, moves and deletions regarding the archiving of guild pages to historical guilds - I think this is a good idea to have all those things happen in the background without having people to do that work alone.

So why am I not using my own account for those actions; Well the answer is easy: Because actions done by a bot account don't show up in the logs on RecentChanges, and we all know how annoying a deletion spree is.

However, having sysop rights on the bot account does not mean, that all deletions will be done over that in future - absolutely not. I will only use it for those actions that are related to those repetitive bot tasks - so don't worry, you'll see some deletion sprees in the future as well :)

Well that's all I want to say so far; if you have further questions, feel free to make use of the talk page. And please tell me, by using the vote below, what you think about this. Thank you.

poke | talk

Support

1. Support. We trust Poke to delete stuff (and not misuse the tools), and we trust Wikichu (i.e. Poke) to handle hidden edits. Merge the two together, and I don't think we have a problem with giving Wikichu a sysop flag. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Wikichu has proved himself to be a capable, competent user. He has helped the wiki tremendously by doing massive amounts of rote work, all without ever uttering a single word of complaint. The only potential downside is that Wikichu tends to be rather parsimonious with his words, which may be a problem when dealing with user conflicts. Lord Belar 23:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I see no problem with giving admin-controlled bots, admin powers. Obviously the bot won't do anything without Poke's control, and I trust Poke as an admin already, so it seems like a no-brainer. Besides, I've given a bot admin powers before (on GuildWiki), and there have been no problems to date, nor do I expect any. It seems like a dangerous idea at first, but I believe that is because of misunderstandings about bots in general. There isn't going to be some "Rise of the Machines" uprising or "rogue bots going wild". If the bot's controller is careful and thorough in their coding - as Poke is - then it's perfectly safe. Don't YOU trust Poke? Vili 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. I don't see a problem with this, especially if there's going to be more need for the sysop rights beyond this single spree. Poke obviously handles his own rights just fine, so I see no reason not to extend them to his bot account as well.--Pyron Sy 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. I'm eager for the day in which all the wiki sysops will be replaced by bots. Seriously, though, I was just thinking how the 100+ entries on the deletion log taking almost all the Recent changes page were annoying. This solves that problem without any significant downside. Erasculio 23:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. While I wouldn't want to see all the sysops getting their own sysopbots (including me... For that matter, -especially- not me), Poke's always shown he's had a good handle on Wikichu, and the way he's doing this, putting up an RfA for the bot, gives me further confidence as it's definitely the right way to go about it rather than trying to sneak something into the bot policy or quietly persuade a bcrat. I trust Poke to not to misuse a sysopbot, I trust him not to accidentally do anything disastrous, and I trust him to keep a sufficient eye on it to undo any accidents that do happen. - Tanetris 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support No problem with this bot account getting higher privileges. Dominator Matrix 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Because there are some tasks (mass G4, by example) that just don't need to go into RC. The risk of something failing exists, but hardly anyone will notice in RC anyways when the page is spammed by a repetitive task.--Fighterdoken 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. I have no problems with this. -- Wandering Traveler 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. All of the above. Was writing a long story but then decided it didn't really add anything of value. I trust poke. — Why 02:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. What they said. --Antioch 03:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. Wikichu being a sysop will make archiving guild pages much easier. -- Indochine talk 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Giving a bot sysop powers that are used infrequently would be the same, but less work, than giving and taking sysop powers as needed. --JonTheMon 21:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. If the deletions are related to a task that was requested of the bot (such as the massive archiving of 1391 guild pages) I think having Wikichu available to do it is a good idea. I wouldn't necessarily want to see all the deletions automated (orphan images, etc) but I trust poke to understand when using the bot is appropriate, and when it isn't. -- Wyn 05:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. <3 wikichu --Cursed Angel 22:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. As long as he doesn't break anything, fine by me ^^ -- Karasu (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't feel like a bot with administrative powers is a good idea on any wiki ever. Misery 23:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Calor. Sysopping a bot account for convenience isn't a good idea. - Auron 06:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Well, I'm not really sure what we're voting on here. We make users sysops, not accounts, I'd thought. As such, Wikichu is just a tool for Poke, who's already a sysop. Then, I don't think bots should be used for anything more than G4 deletions. Everything else needs some overview. Backsword 15:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4. ^ Mini Me 16:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. - I am not sure... on one hand I trust poke to make sure that nothing goes wrong, but on the other hand I wonder if the bot might malfunction and delete the whole wiki (exageration, but you get my point). I like aberrants idea of temp. sysophood when it is needed... --Shadowphoenix 12:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral While I of course trust Poke, I also think temporary sysophood could be a solution. As long as sysop status doesn't come automatically with bot status, I don't care either way. - anja 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral I agree with Anja, Although I'm leaning more to Support. ~PheNaxKian Talk 12:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Sysops are required to act using their discretion, something which Wikichu, unfortuantely, lacks, due to his biological make-up, or lack thereof. But after reading the talk page, and the fact that I know and trust Poke, I'm forced to realize he would need to be on something to make Wikichu malfunction and cause any sort of harm to the wiki. So I'm torn, and forced to remain neutral. calor (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I do trust Poke and I don't think there is a big probability of the bot malfunctioning, but I don't feel that RC spam by a non-bot account every now and then is a big problem either, so I am indifferent on the bot running on pokes account or the wikichu account. --Xeeron 13:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. After quite a bit of thought I'm going to vote neutral in more or less the same way as Xeeron. --Kakarot 22:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral But I do like the thought of a temporary sysophood. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral/Conditions - See talk page momentarily. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Changing my vote as per reasons outlined on talk. -- ab.er.rant 14:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)