Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poccil 2

Poccil
Vote here (7/6/5) ending 20:22 January 3, 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing. Peter O. (Talk) 02:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is my second request to be an administrator. I have addressed many of the concerns in my previous request, including being more tolerant 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 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)

I almost feel like withdrawing my nomination, again. This time, the major contention appears to be my creation and/or usage of my automation script. To those who voted oppose or neutral, please tell me at my talk page what I need to do in order to gain your support next time. Please do not tell me I have to abandon or limit my script; it's not helpful to me. In fact, please fully review my edit history to understand that I always used my script in good faith, and will continue to do so, from handling discussions on votes for deletion, to transwikiing pages, to handling the workload at Untagged Images. Thanks to all voters. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 23:16, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Weak support. See comment below.  CryptoDerk 19:03, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) 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 now.  07:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Lst27  (  t  a  l  k  )  00:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Guanaco 23:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) A script and an opinion on spelling are not good reasons to oppose.
 * 5) I find the explanations given above and below sufficent. A script, if used correctly, cannot be used to deter adminship. Peter's done some good janitorial work. It doesn't matter how it's not, as long as it's done.--Jiang 01:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, though I'm taking a punt on this. That script seems OK, but I think it would be wise for Peter to listen to others and make another account and run it from there even though his discretion is probably OK. He seems like an OK contributor. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Would suggest that the bot be run under a different account, but failure to do so is no reason to oppose adminship.  ADH (t&m) 16:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) The bot script 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)
 * 1) Not really sure what the difference is between a script and a bot from a program standpoint. Regardless, I do not want an automated deletion script to exist on an administrator account, and will only support when I am sure this won't happen.  Andre  ( talk ) 20:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ever since I have received Netoholic's last vote have since modified the script to only place speedy deletion tags. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 20:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * But that won't be necessary when you're an admin.Dr Zen 01:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Better safe than sorry. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 01:14, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I address this on your talkpage in more detail, if anyone is interested.Dr Zen 01:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not think scripts/bots should be run from any account, and definatley not an admin account... &#9999; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  22:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 02:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain your vote (preferably at my talk page)? Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 02:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't explain my vote for a reason (because I'm harsh). But, since you asked; in decreasing importance:
 * Your old talk page, and this RfA, demonstrate an unwillingness to learn from mistakes, or even recognize them when they're made.
 * You didn't answer the default questions.
 * Requesting that comments go to your talk page obstructs the transparency of the process and reminds me of USENET posters whose first post to a group requests replies to e-mail.
 * The bot:
 * You ran a bot on your normal login.
 * You ran a bot without running it past Bots.
 * You want to run a bot that deletes articles. You wrote and distribute a bot capable of deleting articles.
 * You're unwilling to limit your bot.
 * It took you two tries to be civil on your own RfA.
 * Your sig approaches Anthony's. :)
 * But thanks for giving me a chance to use this many levels of different indentation. And, if you don't renominate in exactly three months, there's a good chance I'll support you next time (assuming good behaviour). 03:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Simply not good enough. Bush Me Up 23:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) No problem with the bot/script thing. My problem is his self-admitted "intolerance for British spellings".  British spellings are correct; American spellings are corruptions.  User:Blankfaze 09:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you read it, I once became more intolerant of the spelling issue as I am now. I now prefer to use alternative constructions to avoid spelling biases.  Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 19:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * You've stated this before, and this is incorrect as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Refer to the Manual of Style, which is the current policy. --Slowking Man 06:00, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of our policy on the matter. I disagree with it. User:Blankfaze 06:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then you're free to attempt to change it. Attempting to enforce one's own personal preference regardless of policy, however, is something to be avoided. --Slowking Man 02:54, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I have some reservations regarding the behavior and possible applications of Poccil's script. --Slowking Man 06:00, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) dont like the idea of a bot on a sysop account. Xtra 06:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) reposted Xtra 12:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. A good user. . - BSveen 19:18, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC). After reading through this discussion I decided to change my vote to neutral. Changed vote at 18:52, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Sticking with my previous vote. --  R yan! |  Talk  10:37, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Carrp 01:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 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 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)
 * Exactly. Most of the bots being run are scripts; a bot is defined by its actions, not its code. A bot or not a bot is not the question; it's whether 'tis nobler to make bot edits on a seperate account. -- 00:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Previous RFA request 08:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I started a thread for further discussion of the bot issue. Wikipedia talk:Bots -- 00:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)